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 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:Rainbow Family
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 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:Films set in companies
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Video games related to Islam
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.
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be a category, define "related to". The actual world religion of
Islam, how does a video game relate to it? A video game featuring a Muslim character? Or does it have to mention the religion specifically? Real-time strategy games in which the player can control a historical figure does not mean having a relation to Islam.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK21:16, 21 June 2017 (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:Harem video games
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.
Comment Why is it parented to
Category:Harem anime and manga? The
Harem (genre) is a distinctive Japanese genre, where a male or female protagonist has 3 or more love interests, and is involved in a polygamous relationship. (Whether the love interests are of the same or opposite sex to the protagonist, or they include both sexes, varies by series.) Since when does the genre cover videogames?
Dimadick (
talk)
21:59, 23 June 2017 (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:Robot video games
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 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:Drone video games
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 contents are Half-life, Matrix, Terminator, Call of Duty, Destiny and Warframe, but I only noticed one article mentioning drones (
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare), and that was under Marketing, so this content does not appear to be defining. –
FayenaticLondon06:03, 7 July 2017 (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:DJs from Northern Ireland
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 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:Doctor Who Live
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 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:Subjects of iconic photographs
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.
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NONDEFINING and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. First, the subjectivity: just what is the definition of an "iconic" photo? The article
iconography gives no hit of robust criteria. Second, the non-definingness. Despite a half-hearted warning on the category page that "the people listed in this category are generally those who are most notable for their appearance in the photograph at issue", the warning also notes that "this is not exclusively the case". The result of the fuzzy inclusion criteria is that the category contains plenty of articles on people who are clearly not defined by their photos, but who have been the subject of some great photos because of their notability: e.g.
Salvador Allende,
Lee Harvey Oswald,
Lyndon B. Johnson,
Winston Churchill. Sure, those pages could be removed from the category, but the lack of any simple and robust criteria will just lead to the category filling up with more stuff. For every person such as
Ira Hayes who clearly is defined by a photo, there are dozens more subjective cases. This cannot be fixed.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (rename) and fix. There are clearly people such as
Afghan Girl,
Phan Thi Kim Phuc,
Omayra Sánchez,
Florence Owens Thompson, and the six Iwo Jima flag raisers (
Michael Strank,
Harlon Block,
Franklin Sousley,
Rene Gagnon,
Ira Hayes, and
Harold Schultz) whose notability objectively can be identified as arising entirely from the fact that they were the subjects of a photograph which can objectively be described as iconic based on widespread dissemination and critical recognition. Absent such a category, we have no way of tying these people together by their primary identifying characteristic. If necessary, we can establish clearer criteria for inclusion in the category, and tweak the category name to reflect this.
bd2412T 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@
BD2412, as I noted in the nom, some people are indeed so defined. But the problem is that there are many less clearcut cases, and no objective means of drawing a clear line: any line is either
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or
WP:ARBITRARYCAT. More verbose inclusion criteria don't work in practice, because most categs are added using
WP:HOTCAT which doesn't display any caveats on the categ page. The only way this categ could work is with a title which tightens the scope without relying on explanatory text on the page. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?
bd2412T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)reply
What if the descriptor was not "iconic"? We must have some objective standard to determine that these people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in the first place.
bd2412T 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
In light of the above comments, I propose renaming this to
Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. This eliminates the question of whether a given photograph is "iconic" and focuses on the notability of the subject. It is, of course, highly implausible that a person would be notable for being the subject of a photograph if the photograph itself was not notable.
bd2412T 01:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Listify, a table with subject, photographer and circumstances would be a useful addition to the history of photography, but the subjects have too little in common for a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
That could also work.
bd2412T 19:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Rename per BD2412. I'm the editor who added
Lyndon B. Johnson and
Evelyn McHale to this category. I would not have added Johnson if the category were more narrowly defined, but McHale is a perfect example of a person whose notability rests on a single photograph.
DragonflyDC (
talk)
03:56, 5 July 2017 (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:Works by Christiaan Huygens
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 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:Financial company logos
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 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:Human–animal linguistic communication
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.
Nominator's rationale: Why should we constrain it to linguistic communication? It would be better to use the broader category. Alternatively a superordinate category could be created but I don't think there's enough pages to warrant that.
Fixuture (
talk)
18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Disperse content among the two parent categories, then delete, this category is mixing up three relatively unrelated topics: talking animals, animal language and human-animal communication. There is too little content to split, so merging is a better idea.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Support rename. I looked at the parent categories, and I think the original proposal to rename would work better, although some pages should probably be moved between these categories. I agree with the nom that the category should cover all human-animal communication, not limited to linguistic communication, and also that it's sufficiently distinct from the parent categories that an upmerge is not desirable. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
15:57, 21 June 2017 (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.
Biographical categories
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.
Rename and purge -- These seem to be a mixture of "things associated with ..." and "things named after ...". The latter, at least, is a "shared name" category, which is not allowed. The right place for that is a dab-page. For the explorers, we might have the basis of a category, but it should probably be called
Category:Expeditions of Roald Amundsen, etc, which would take it out of OCEPON. In some cases substantially everything is "named after": those need to be deleted.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, there is no contents for Barentsz or Tasman. All of their explorations are included in the main article. The categories largely contain geographic places they have been, but the respective Dutch explorer is not defining for these places.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:29, 25 June 2017 (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.
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 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:Rainbow Family
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 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:Films set in companies
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Video games related to Islam
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.
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be a category, define "related to". The actual world religion of
Islam, how does a video game relate to it? A video game featuring a Muslim character? Or does it have to mention the religion specifically? Real-time strategy games in which the player can control a historical figure does not mean having a relation to Islam.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK21:16, 21 June 2017 (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:Harem video games
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.
Comment Why is it parented to
Category:Harem anime and manga? The
Harem (genre) is a distinctive Japanese genre, where a male or female protagonist has 3 or more love interests, and is involved in a polygamous relationship. (Whether the love interests are of the same or opposite sex to the protagonist, or they include both sexes, varies by series.) Since when does the genre cover videogames?
Dimadick (
talk)
21:59, 23 June 2017 (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:Robot video games
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 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:Drone video games
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 contents are Half-life, Matrix, Terminator, Call of Duty, Destiny and Warframe, but I only noticed one article mentioning drones (
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare), and that was under Marketing, so this content does not appear to be defining. –
FayenaticLondon06:03, 7 July 2017 (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:DJs from Northern Ireland
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 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:Doctor Who Live
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 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:Subjects of iconic photographs
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.
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NONDEFINING and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. First, the subjectivity: just what is the definition of an "iconic" photo? The article
iconography gives no hit of robust criteria. Second, the non-definingness. Despite a half-hearted warning on the category page that "the people listed in this category are generally those who are most notable for their appearance in the photograph at issue", the warning also notes that "this is not exclusively the case". The result of the fuzzy inclusion criteria is that the category contains plenty of articles on people who are clearly not defined by their photos, but who have been the subject of some great photos because of their notability: e.g.
Salvador Allende,
Lee Harvey Oswald,
Lyndon B. Johnson,
Winston Churchill. Sure, those pages could be removed from the category, but the lack of any simple and robust criteria will just lead to the category filling up with more stuff. For every person such as
Ira Hayes who clearly is defined by a photo, there are dozens more subjective cases. This cannot be fixed.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (rename) and fix. There are clearly people such as
Afghan Girl,
Phan Thi Kim Phuc,
Omayra Sánchez,
Florence Owens Thompson, and the six Iwo Jima flag raisers (
Michael Strank,
Harlon Block,
Franklin Sousley,
Rene Gagnon,
Ira Hayes, and
Harold Schultz) whose notability objectively can be identified as arising entirely from the fact that they were the subjects of a photograph which can objectively be described as iconic based on widespread dissemination and critical recognition. Absent such a category, we have no way of tying these people together by their primary identifying characteristic. If necessary, we can establish clearer criteria for inclusion in the category, and tweak the category name to reflect this.
bd2412T 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@
BD2412, as I noted in the nom, some people are indeed so defined. But the problem is that there are many less clearcut cases, and no objective means of drawing a clear line: any line is either
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or
WP:ARBITRARYCAT. More verbose inclusion criteria don't work in practice, because most categs are added using
WP:HOTCAT which doesn't display any caveats on the categ page. The only way this categ could work is with a title which tightens the scope without relying on explanatory text on the page. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?
bd2412T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)reply
What if the descriptor was not "iconic"? We must have some objective standard to determine that these people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in the first place.
bd2412T 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
In light of the above comments, I propose renaming this to
Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. This eliminates the question of whether a given photograph is "iconic" and focuses on the notability of the subject. It is, of course, highly implausible that a person would be notable for being the subject of a photograph if the photograph itself was not notable.
bd2412T 01:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Listify, a table with subject, photographer and circumstances would be a useful addition to the history of photography, but the subjects have too little in common for a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
That could also work.
bd2412T 19:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Rename per BD2412. I'm the editor who added
Lyndon B. Johnson and
Evelyn McHale to this category. I would not have added Johnson if the category were more narrowly defined, but McHale is a perfect example of a person whose notability rests on a single photograph.
DragonflyDC (
talk)
03:56, 5 July 2017 (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:Works by Christiaan Huygens
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 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:Financial company logos
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 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:Human–animal linguistic communication
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.
Nominator's rationale: Why should we constrain it to linguistic communication? It would be better to use the broader category. Alternatively a superordinate category could be created but I don't think there's enough pages to warrant that.
Fixuture (
talk)
18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Disperse content among the two parent categories, then delete, this category is mixing up three relatively unrelated topics: talking animals, animal language and human-animal communication. There is too little content to split, so merging is a better idea.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Support rename. I looked at the parent categories, and I think the original proposal to rename would work better, although some pages should probably be moved between these categories. I agree with the nom that the category should cover all human-animal communication, not limited to linguistic communication, and also that it's sufficiently distinct from the parent categories that an upmerge is not desirable. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
15:57, 21 June 2017 (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.
Biographical categories
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.
Rename and purge -- These seem to be a mixture of "things associated with ..." and "things named after ...". The latter, at least, is a "shared name" category, which is not allowed. The right place for that is a dab-page. For the explorers, we might have the basis of a category, but it should probably be called
Category:Expeditions of Roald Amundsen, etc, which would take it out of OCEPON. In some cases substantially everything is "named after": those need to be deleted.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, there is no contents for Barentsz or Tasman. All of their explorations are included in the main article. The categories largely contain geographic places they have been, but the respective Dutch explorer is not defining for these places.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:29, 25 June 2017 (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.