[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16
August 18 >

August 17

[edit]

Category:Lake View Cemetery (Seattle)

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not aid navigation User:Namiba 23:51, 17 August 2024 (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:Children of Christian VII of Denmark

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the same arguments for the previously deleted categories of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Category:Children of Thutmose II, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Category:Children of Louis XIII of France, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Category:Children of George VI, which is Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, as the subject of the article didn't have any more children, so there's no opportunity for growth.98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2024 (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:Discotek Media

[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. Doesn't seem to be consensus that this is defining. It's possible that this information could be rendered as a set category rather than a topic category, although much of it is already in list form in Discotek_Media#Lists. bibliomaniac15 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING. US company distributing Japanese content for American market, no hand in the production for these entries. --woodensuperman 10:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to apply this to other categories such as Geneon USA and Sentai Filmworks if we go though with this. NeoGeoPocketRobo (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2024 (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.

Virgin Mary in art

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Mary, mother of Jesus category tree. The use of "Virgin Mary" has been discussed countless times (for example here) and there's a reason why the main article is called Mary, mother of Jesus, so rather than rehash that for every other article and category named after her, it feels best to follow the lead of the main article. The defining aspect of the artworks are that they are of Mary, mother of Jesus, regardless of the artists' beliefs on the doctrine of Mary's virginity. Her being a virgin is not defining for every artwork. Mclay1 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It's always nice to see editors with no experience in editing visual art subjects taking an interest, but this issue has also been discussed before at least once. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Depictions_of_the_Virgin_Mary. Really, you are supposed to research that, & link previous discussions here. No, it isn't "best to follow the lead of the main article". Almost every one of the specific artworks (not those of group or narrative subjects) includes VM (or Madonna etc) in the title; THAT is what we should follow, as we do for other categories specifically about art. You may or not be aware of this, but you will be hard put to find a museum describing one of their works as of "Mary, mother of Jesus", or even just "Mary". In fact the main article for this category is Madonna (art). It is well-established here that categories about art may have names that follow art history and museum practice rather than the titles of the most relevant general article on the religious topic. I very much doubt that "Her being a virgin is not defining for every artwork" is true - do you have any examples? The longer arguments by several editors in the older discussion are worth reading. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the nominator tried to sneak these though as uncontroversial speedies - the only charitable explanation being a complete ignorance of the subject, & failure to do proper research, which would have shown that these renames had previously been rejected by the community. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your tone or assumptions. The previous discussion you linked is from 12 years ago. Things can be discussed again. Many of the arguments in that discussion are also really bad, and there are clearly many comments from people with a strong bias. Consensus can change, so it's not worth acknowledging the arguments of a poor discussion from so long ago. If there any points worth making, make them again. If we should be following the lead of art history and museum practice, and the main article is Madonna (art), then why not rename Category:Virgin Mary in art to Category:Madonna (art) and Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary to Category:Paintings of the Madonna, etc.? Mclay1 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Are you saying you were aware of the previous discussion? Yet you still tried to speedy these? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2024 (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 Assumption of the Virgin

[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 with a reminder to be civil. We are all trying to improve Wikipedia, after all. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Assumption of Mary and Assumption of Mary. Even though most of the paintings in the category are called Assumption of the Virgin, this is a category for any paintings of the Assumption of Mary, regardless of title. Also, the use of "Virgin Mary" has been discussed countless times (for example here) and there's a reason why the main article is called Mary, mother of Jesus, so rather than rehash that for every other article and category named after her, it feels best to follow the lead of the main article and use a more neutral name. Mclay1 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the last one. Absolutely disgracefully, the nom just today renamed the actual main article for the category from Assumption of the Virgin Mary in art without discussion, removing "the Virgin". Unfortunately an admin is needed to revert this out of process move - can someone do it. Most of the nom argument is repeated from the one just above, but regarding a new bit it is rather ridiculous in this context to claim the new title is more "neutral" since the category contents are by definition Catholic paintings. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving an article isn't "disgraceful". That's ridiculous. You need to tone down how you're reacting. It's irrelevant whether the paintings are by Catholics or not. Category names are meant to be descriptive and objective. The descriptive and objective name, as determined by the relevant article, is Assumption of Mary. Any discussion about that name should be held at the article talk name. This is a category for paintings of the Assumption of Mary, not "paintings called Assumption of the Virgin". The titles of the paintings are irrelevant. Mclay1 (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a clear abuse of process to move (without any discussion) the main article for the category at the same time as proposing a rename of the category! Behave like that (combined with your speedy proposals in the previous section) and you can expect to be called out. The main article here is clearly Assumption of the Virgin Mary in art, not Assumption of Mary, Mary, mother of Jesus or Christianity. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nominator even states that "most of the paintings in the category are called Assumption of the Virgin." So it's inaccurate to call them something else and to misrepresent the theological framework for understanding them. This is quite different from an article on the historical Mary or religious figure named Mary. I may or may not believe in virgin birth, but the beliefs of viewers don't change what a painting depicts, which is a verifiable theme in art history. Neutrality in such cases is the intellectual detachment to recognize impartially what a thing was created to be. - unsigned by Cynewolfe
    The paintings depict the Assumption of Mary, which is the name of the theme chosen by the main article. Hence, that is the neutral and impartial name to use. Mclay1 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, apologies for not signing; my preview was showing up as autosigned. You are still making the fundamental error of mistaking the representation for the thing itself. The article covers the Assumption of Mary from a theological perspective, encompassing debate. However, the works of art are titled Assumption of the Virgin, as you have observed. The category is for works of art grouped by that title or that depict this art historical theme, works that are studied for the ways in which they depict the Assumption of the Virgin from various perspectives of belief as negotiated between artist and audience. They represent the artist's interpretation, which may be to affirm the status of virginity, or perhaps even deny it, or to challenge viewers to respond to the painting within the artistic conventions of the Assumption of the Virgin as both belief system and subject for painting. To describe what something represents within its own sociological, aesthetic, and theological context is informative, encyclopedic, fact-based, and neutral. The titles of the works are what they are. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the two editors above. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Category names § Works of art categories by subject: "Category names of a subject should match the name for that subject within articles and citations (including spelling and capitalisation), rather than the name of the Wikipedia article on the topic." Ham II (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2024 (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:Non-registered political parties in Finland

[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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the category's undeletion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such legal concept as "non-registered party" in Finland. Anyone or anything can call itself a "non-registered party"; the term is pure wikipuffery. Jah77 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2024 (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:Asbury Park Press people

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries one of which is the newspaper itself. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2024 (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:Nicknames of Donald Trump

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All 7 pages in this category are redirects. 2 redirect to List_of_nicknames_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Donald_Trump and the other 5 redirect to Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York. Of the latter, 2 are defamatory, ShitzInPantz and von ShitzInPantz; however, both were retained as Redirect pages after Speedy RfD and then Prod RfD decisions, so there is no need for them here. FeralOink (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, GobsPint, I am not "disappointed in the existence" of either of those names. As I stated above, I read the discussions about why both were retained as Redirect pages after Speedy RfD and then Prod RfD decisions. Please see my rationale, as Nominator. You participated in those RfDs and I concur with the decision to retain the redirect pages. I also noticed that you created one or both articles prior to them being turned into redirects. Please don't tell me to "start another AFD" due to your conjecture about my "disappointment". In light of my explanation of the history, now provided twice, your comment is not constructive.--FeralOink (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2024 (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:Vehicle simulation MOGs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 25#Category:Vehicle simulation MOGs

Category:Wikipedia files of no use beyond Wikipedia

[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 to Category:Wikipedia files of no use beyond the English Wikipedia. I can rename it manually immediately. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better reflect what this category is for: Files useful on other language Wikipedias should still be moved to Commons (and thus do not belong in this category, which indicates that the file should not be moved to Commons). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I agree with the renaming proposed by HouseBlaster because the criteria given for inclusion in the category is "Files in this category should not be moved to Wikimedia Commons because they are only of specific use within the English Wikipedia." (That is a different reason than the one given by proposer.) NOTE: Templates {{esoteric file}} and {{userspace file}} add files to this category so they must be dealt with too, if the category is renamed.--FeralOink (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_17&oldid=1244881991"