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: There are a number of problems with these categories. (1) They are named "African ..." etc rather than "... of Africa" which is inconsistent with similar categories (
relevant CFD) and slightly misleading. (2) With the current category structure they cause incorrect categorization (e.g.
Cape cormorant is in
Category:Migratory birds (Northern Hemisphere)). (3) Articles appear to have been categorized regardless of the content of the article e.g.
here where the article doesn't mention migration. (4) In previous discussions (
example) difficulties with categorizing birds by their migration status have been identified.
Note: I'm proposing a straight delete (rather than upmerge) per the points made by other editors in
this CFD for a similar set of categories (mostly created by the same editor). DexDor(talk)19:49, 18 July 2018 (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:Fictional volleyball players
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 primary argument for keeping was a sensible distaste for an upmerge, but as noted by another contributor, no such upmerge is necessary. Marcocapelle also notes that one of the two articles probably shouldn't be in the fictional sportspeople category tree at all. ~
Rob13Talk15:17, 14 August 2018 (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.
Foo in films --> Films about foo
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.
Delete merely having a mass murder, a prom, telekinesis, or a rape in a film isn't defining for the film and may not be what the film is "about" by any stretch. Films "about" something suffers from the inherent problem of how much "about" the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that amount. Seriously, how many of the films in
Category:Proms in films are about proms rather than some scene, perhaps memorable, happens at a prom where the prom is merely the setting for something else arguably about which the film is. Like saying the film Casablanca is about a bar.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support and check articles. Agree to a certain extent with Carlossuarez that the categories may currently contain films merely having mass murder or telekineses etc but not primarily about it. Those articles need to be purged. However I would understand about as being primarily about and a deletion goes too far.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not trying to be overly picky, but if primarily about were used as a recognized meaning of "about" in these sorts of categories, they should never be in more than one "about" category, and what reliable sources are there to tell us what is the primary topic. I recall having a conversation here about this with @
BrownHairedGirl: where we bandied about what was the primary topic of the film Titanic: a ship, a disaster, a love story, or as she put it, perhaps best, "hubris".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree that a film can't have more than one primary topic, especially if one feels (and I'm not saying you do) that a film can have more than one primary genre.
DonIago (
talk)
02:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose I saw this proposal at "Rape in film". A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". The rape may be incidental to the plot. Same thing for the other categories.
Debresser (
talk)
20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Please notice that this was discussed at
Category talk:Rape in film, and the unilateral redirect by User:MagicatthemovieS mentioned above ("as the latter already exists but redirects to the former") circumvented that discussion, so the discussion was never really concluded.
Debresser (
talk)
20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That may have been the case at the time, but the most recent discussion, linked to in my rationale, leans in the direction that just because something occurs in a film doesn't mean it merits being in a "foo in film" category, and that consequently making the category names more clearly indicate that they are intended to be used for primary topics, not just incidentals, was a reasonable approach. Otherwise we could have "food in film" with thousands of entries; I don't think that's what we really want.
DonIago (
talk)
02:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". That is the perfect argument for supporting the nomination per
WP:NONDEF.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support We just did one of these a week or so ago. "X in films" is trivial, non-defining intersection, which apply apply based on pure original research ("I saw a pool table in the background in that one scene, so add Category:Pool (cue sports) in film"). A film focusing in detail on a subject is something that will be covered in RS. An alternative is also already in use and is good for many topics: see, e.g.,
Category:Cue sports films (subcat:
Category:Snooker films),
Category:Cue sports literature,
Category:Cue sports video games (subcats:
Category:Pool video games,
Category:Snooker video games),
Category:Cue sports on television (subcat:
Category:Snooker on television), etc. This implies about, not "includes a brief shot of". The last in that series is better than "Televisions series about" or "Television shows about", since it's inclusive of both series and episodes. However, this style is better for broad topics, and often just depends on the construction – "Mass-murder films" doesn't really work well, "Proms films" is ungrammatical, and "Prom films" is confusing). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:04, 19 July 2018 (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:Films scored by John Barry (composer)
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:International Shrines of the Roman Catholic Church
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:Roman Catholic shrines
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.
@
Marcocapelle: With all due respect, in the current context Roman Catholic is not synonymous with the global Catholic Church. I agree that, outside the Catholic world, in many contexts, people will use both terms interchangeably, whereas in Catholic context, especially in Eastern Catholic circles, the Roman Catholic precision explicitely refers to Roman-rite, Western, Latin Catholicism. Non-Catholics are in general not even aware of the existence of Eastern Catholic Churches and it is natural that the difference does mean much to them. Eastern Catholicism and Roman-rite Catholicism are topics distinct enough (despite being linked inside the global Catholic Church) not to be merged in a disorderly way. I am not convinced that the "Latin Church" term is more notable than "Roman Catholic" for the same meaning, and
Category:Latin Church is currently extremely poor. However, if it ever develops in a coherent hierarchy, why not then. My opposition is to mix everything Roman Catholic (in the meaning of Roman-rite Latin Catholicism) with the level above, leaving Eastern Catholic topics stranded. I am however all in favour of renaming topics relative to Catholicism at large, or the global Catholic Church, from "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic", but it is not the case here.
Of course Roman Catholic Church is mentioned much more often than Latin Church, because Roman Catholic Church is mostly used aa a synonym of Catholic Church. The real question is: how often is Roman Catholic Church used with the intention to refer to the Latin Church only, in contrast to the Eastern Catholicism?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)reply
(Edit conflict) Comment There is a sibling "Eastern Catholic shrines". Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome. That category should also be merged, or better distributed into the by country subcats. Alternatively keep per
Place Clichy.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:53, 20 July 2018 (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:Roman Catholic missions sui iuris
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 consistency with parent category and entries included in the category. "Missions sui iuris" would perhaps be even more according to the category's entries, but a little precision wouldn't hurt.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
08:38, 18 July 2018 (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.
Fatimid
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.
Support per nom. "Fatimid foo" implies a nationality or something akin to it; "... Fatimid people" is specially misleading. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:08, 19 July 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be
Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Use
Category:United Nations associations. We do actually need a category for official UN organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) if we don't already have one, but it shouldn't be commingled with national UN associations. However, it should not be "Associations" with a capital "A" per
MOS:CAPS. In plural form like that, it's a
common not proper noun (if you attended both Harvard and Oxford, you went to two universities not "two Universities"). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:11, 19 July 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale: There are a number of problems with these categories. (1) They are named "African ..." etc rather than "... of Africa" which is inconsistent with similar categories (
relevant CFD) and slightly misleading. (2) With the current category structure they cause incorrect categorization (e.g.
Cape cormorant is in
Category:Migratory birds (Northern Hemisphere)). (3) Articles appear to have been categorized regardless of the content of the article e.g.
here where the article doesn't mention migration. (4) In previous discussions (
example) difficulties with categorizing birds by their migration status have been identified.
Note: I'm proposing a straight delete (rather than upmerge) per the points made by other editors in
this CFD for a similar set of categories (mostly created by the same editor). DexDor(talk)19:49, 18 July 2018 (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:Fictional volleyball players
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 primary argument for keeping was a sensible distaste for an upmerge, but as noted by another contributor, no such upmerge is necessary. Marcocapelle also notes that one of the two articles probably shouldn't be in the fictional sportspeople category tree at all. ~
Rob13Talk15:17, 14 August 2018 (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.
Foo in films --> Films about foo
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.
Delete merely having a mass murder, a prom, telekinesis, or a rape in a film isn't defining for the film and may not be what the film is "about" by any stretch. Films "about" something suffers from the inherent problem of how much "about" the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that amount. Seriously, how many of the films in
Category:Proms in films are about proms rather than some scene, perhaps memorable, happens at a prom where the prom is merely the setting for something else arguably about which the film is. Like saying the film Casablanca is about a bar.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support and check articles. Agree to a certain extent with Carlossuarez that the categories may currently contain films merely having mass murder or telekineses etc but not primarily about it. Those articles need to be purged. However I would understand about as being primarily about and a deletion goes too far.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not trying to be overly picky, but if primarily about were used as a recognized meaning of "about" in these sorts of categories, they should never be in more than one "about" category, and what reliable sources are there to tell us what is the primary topic. I recall having a conversation here about this with @
BrownHairedGirl: where we bandied about what was the primary topic of the film Titanic: a ship, a disaster, a love story, or as she put it, perhaps best, "hubris".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree that a film can't have more than one primary topic, especially if one feels (and I'm not saying you do) that a film can have more than one primary genre.
DonIago (
talk)
02:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose I saw this proposal at "Rape in film". A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". The rape may be incidental to the plot. Same thing for the other categories.
Debresser (
talk)
20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Please notice that this was discussed at
Category talk:Rape in film, and the unilateral redirect by User:MagicatthemovieS mentioned above ("as the latter already exists but redirects to the former") circumvented that discussion, so the discussion was never really concluded.
Debresser (
talk)
20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That may have been the case at the time, but the most recent discussion, linked to in my rationale, leans in the direction that just because something occurs in a film doesn't mean it merits being in a "foo in film" category, and that consequently making the category names more clearly indicate that they are intended to be used for primary topics, not just incidentals, was a reasonable approach. Otherwise we could have "food in film" with thousands of entries; I don't think that's what we really want.
DonIago (
talk)
02:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". That is the perfect argument for supporting the nomination per
WP:NONDEF.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support We just did one of these a week or so ago. "X in films" is trivial, non-defining intersection, which apply apply based on pure original research ("I saw a pool table in the background in that one scene, so add Category:Pool (cue sports) in film"). A film focusing in detail on a subject is something that will be covered in RS. An alternative is also already in use and is good for many topics: see, e.g.,
Category:Cue sports films (subcat:
Category:Snooker films),
Category:Cue sports literature,
Category:Cue sports video games (subcats:
Category:Pool video games,
Category:Snooker video games),
Category:Cue sports on television (subcat:
Category:Snooker on television), etc. This implies about, not "includes a brief shot of". The last in that series is better than "Televisions series about" or "Television shows about", since it's inclusive of both series and episodes. However, this style is better for broad topics, and often just depends on the construction – "Mass-murder films" doesn't really work well, "Proms films" is ungrammatical, and "Prom films" is confusing). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:04, 19 July 2018 (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:Films scored by John Barry (composer)
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:International Shrines of the Roman Catholic Church
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:Roman Catholic shrines
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.
@
Marcocapelle: With all due respect, in the current context Roman Catholic is not synonymous with the global Catholic Church. I agree that, outside the Catholic world, in many contexts, people will use both terms interchangeably, whereas in Catholic context, especially in Eastern Catholic circles, the Roman Catholic precision explicitely refers to Roman-rite, Western, Latin Catholicism. Non-Catholics are in general not even aware of the existence of Eastern Catholic Churches and it is natural that the difference does mean much to them. Eastern Catholicism and Roman-rite Catholicism are topics distinct enough (despite being linked inside the global Catholic Church) not to be merged in a disorderly way. I am not convinced that the "Latin Church" term is more notable than "Roman Catholic" for the same meaning, and
Category:Latin Church is currently extremely poor. However, if it ever develops in a coherent hierarchy, why not then. My opposition is to mix everything Roman Catholic (in the meaning of Roman-rite Latin Catholicism) with the level above, leaving Eastern Catholic topics stranded. I am however all in favour of renaming topics relative to Catholicism at large, or the global Catholic Church, from "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic", but it is not the case here.
Of course Roman Catholic Church is mentioned much more often than Latin Church, because Roman Catholic Church is mostly used aa a synonym of Catholic Church. The real question is: how often is Roman Catholic Church used with the intention to refer to the Latin Church only, in contrast to the Eastern Catholicism?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)reply
(Edit conflict) Comment There is a sibling "Eastern Catholic shrines". Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome. That category should also be merged, or better distributed into the by country subcats. Alternatively keep per
Place Clichy.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:53, 20 July 2018 (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:Roman Catholic missions sui iuris
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 consistency with parent category and entries included in the category. "Missions sui iuris" would perhaps be even more according to the category's entries, but a little precision wouldn't hurt.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
08:38, 18 July 2018 (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.
Fatimid
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.
Support per nom. "Fatimid foo" implies a nationality or something akin to it; "... Fatimid people" is specially misleading. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:08, 19 July 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be
Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Use
Category:United Nations associations. We do actually need a category for official UN organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) if we don't already have one, but it shouldn't be commingled with national UN associations. However, it should not be "Associations" with a capital "A" per
MOS:CAPS. In plural form like that, it's a
common not proper noun (if you attended both Harvard and Oxford, you went to two universities not "two Universities"). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:11, 19 July 2018 (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.