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: It's high time that we strongly consider renaming the entire‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Transgender and transsexual people tree to just ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Transgender people, due to evolving perceptions of the most appropriate terminologies for trans people -- but listing all of the relevant categories at once is a bigger job than I'm prepared to undertake on my own without assistance. These three categories, however, picked the wrong word to leave out: regardless of where we land on the question of leaving the tree at "transgender and transsexual" or renaming it to just "transgender", there's no valid or acceptable reason for these three subcategories to retain the less appropriate term while ditching the proper one.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Reluctant oppose. I was going to support this, without prejudice to a wider renaming of
Category:Transgender and transsexual people and all its subcats. (I suggest that any such wider change would be best preceded by an RFC. The evolution of terminology in this field is complex and often contested, so in the interests of stability and drama-reduction it would be best to ensure as a broad a consensus as possible for any such change.)
There is potentially an argument that the generally outmoded term "transsexual" has ongoing validity in the particular case of porn, but that argument seem to me to be weak because the boundaries of the term "transsexual" have always been vague.
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.
Ophir Award winners
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: Incorrect naming format for "winners of film award" categories (weirdly, the category for Best Actress winners is already named in the correct format instead of this one, so no action is required there.) Note that while the first three categories are straightforward, I'm not entirely sure what the correct names for the other categories would be (e.g. is the award named "Best Screenwriter", or "Best Screenplay"?), so would welcome input from somebody with more knowledge about Israeli film than I have — but the existing names are still incorrectly formatted no matter what.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Films most certainly are defined by having won their country's top film award: the Oscars, the BAFTAS, the Canadian Screen Awards and many other film awards have such categories, so there's no legitimate reason to deem the Ophirs as less defining of their Best Picture winners than other countries' top film awards are.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:OSE. Most of the films articles don't mention the award in the lede sentence and many don't mention it in the lede at all. Other things (such as genre, location and language) are much more defining (as well as being less easy to fit in lists). DexDor(talk)17:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
We have a rule that film articles aren't allowed to throw "award-winning" into the lede sentence. That's a stylistic rule, not a "non-defining" issue — but the lack of that information in the lede sentence cannot mitigate against its status as a defining characteristic if there's a rule against mentioning it in the lede sentence for reasons other than its definingness. And if there are any that are missing a mention of the film's award-winning status in the appropriate place and context, then that should be added. I'm not attached to the keepability of the people categories, which seem remarkably underpopulated for an award that's been around for almost 30 years (and I can't fill them up myself, either, as other than Best Picture itself we're lacking any content about the winners of any other category), but I'm willing to fight to the death for keeping at least the Best Picture category, because no film can ever have any characteristic more defining than winning Best Picture at its national film awards.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:FILMLEDE says "Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence ... and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section.". I don't think that prohibits referring to a specific award in the lede sentence (although it's a little ambiguous) and it certainly doesn't prohibit mentioning it in the lede at all.
In "no film can ever have any characteristic more defining than winning Best Picture at its national film award" you appear to be saying that winning its national film award is more defining than its nationality. Do you really think that?
Do you think any film that wins the Academy Award for Best Picture ever again gets any coverage after that which doesn't mention its status as a winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture?
Bearcat (
talk)
23:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Even if winning an award was/is one of a films most defining characteristics that doesn't mean it's a good characteristic for categorization as the category structure has to include all film articles (including those yet to receive an award). DexDor(talk)19:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
A quote from OCAWARD: "when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic". I'll grant that the people categories are more questionable (although they do exist for the Oscars and the BAFTAs and the Canadian Screen Awards and on and so forth), but winning Best Picture at its country's top-level film awards (Oscars, BAFTAs, Canadian Screen Awards, etc.) most certainly is the single most defining characteristic a film can ever possess at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
No film which wins Best Picture at its top-level national film award ever again gets so much as one other piece of coverage after that which fails to mention that distinction. That's the very definition of a defining characteristic, so yes, it is more than "my opinion" — it's a straight fact that's written in stone.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename Not really fine to delete now unless wider category is nominated for deletion. The rationale for renaming seems valid in terms of better format.
Sdmarathe (
talk)
02:56, 20 September 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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy close. This category has been nominated for deletion no less than
8 times in 10 years, most recently
a no-consensus outcome in June 2018. Three months is normally sufficient for a renomination after a no consenus outcome, but a perennial iissue like this is best left for a year. Mild
WP:Trout to the nominator @
ItsAlwaysLupus, who shoukd have done some
WP:BEFORE and explained why they thought a new discussion was needed now and what they thought the previous discusisons had misssed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy close: This has been discussed eight times before, the most recent one in June. I'm nthe nominator ot sure the nominator knows this (which would mean that
WP:BEFORE has not been followed). In any case, no new argument has been put forward, and this seems to soon for another discussion - even though the last result was no consensus. See
Category talk:Footballers' wives and girlfriends.
StAnselm (
talk)
19:13, 16 September 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:Milla Jovovich
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:Angelina Jolie
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:Johnny Depp
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:Wikipedia categories named after Roman Catholic families
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.
Keep. The Wikipedia one is a tracking category used for maintenance purposes, and as such it is hidden from the category list. It provides a flat list of all such categories, whereas
Category:Roman Catholic families is hierarchical. All the info in my previous para was available to the nominator, who should have done a little checking before nominating. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:53, 22 September 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:Prayers in the 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.
Nominator's rationale: This was originally called
Category:Roman Catholic prayers, and it was requested to be
speedily moved to
Category:Catholic prayers. This was objected to, and with just one commenter and the nominator it was moved to its present title. But it should not have been a speedy nomination in the first place, even though the original proposal is the best option. It was argued that the main article is
Prayer in the Catholic Church, but that is about prayer in general, whereas this is a category of specific prayers. Also, the prayers are not "in the Catholic Church" (whatever that means) but said by Catholics - hence, using "Catholic" as an adjective is the best option here.
StAnselm (
talk)
09:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Well. I was the one creating
Category:Latin Church in 2016, which didn't even exist prior to that. This year,
Place Clichy came around, arguing that "Category:Roman Catholic X" has always connoted things pertaining to
Category:Latin Church. And it seems a few others are now complying with that interpretation. Yet, I would like to make the
Marcocapelle remark here: even if we theoretically could subcategorise everything into a
Category:Latin Church tree, it doesn't mean that we have to, and oftentimes doesn't it even border
WP:OR; that is lacking sources to back that assertion up, simply? For subjects that can very well present an overview of
Category:Catholic Church things irrespective of particular churches sui iuris, I would argue that we should be even more cautious not to subcategorise then (implicatedly by article title). I don't see why we should overdo it. Wouldn't this be one such occation?
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
10:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
True, in general, but I am inclined to make an exception for matters concerning liturgy, because that is where you find the one key difference between western and eastern Catholics.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
comment On one level I support the rename, but it's unclear to me what the scope of this is. If it's prayers used in the RC Church, then it's too small and would overlap with other church's categories; if it's prayers of RC origin, well, I think that's better but this would need to be made clear.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid that's kind of an archaic assertion on Wikipedia these days. The main conflict now seems to be when "Latin Church" categorisation is actually relevant and when it's not, whereas some propose the adjective "Latin Church" is "Roman Catholic".
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
09:07, 24 September 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.
Treaties
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT, most of these categories only have one or two articles in it, and the treaties in the years of 1200-1500 have largely been categorized by decade anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support provided that someone checks that each article retains a year category. The case I checked did: it also had 1423 in England and 1423 in France.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:38, 23 September 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:People associated with conflicts of interest
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 -- In my view only the insider trading category really belongs. The conspiracy theory item is miscategorised. Furthermore we normally expect 5 items for a category and this only has 3.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:41, 23 September 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:Found footage (appropriation)
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:Televisión de la Frontera
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 by year: Domestic women's association football leagues
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: These categories by year exist only for four years but with most articles (8) in 2016, with 2013, 2014 & 2015 having only two or three articles each. 2017 (
Category:2017 domestic women's association football leagues) is a soft redirect.
Further comment: Will start with the Chinese women’s superleague articles, then the two Scottish league articles.The categories could be made soft redirects.
Hugo999 (
talk)
22:40, 21 September 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.