Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28
June 30 >

June 29[edit]

Category:United Kingdom art museum and gallery stubs[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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with sister categories like Category:British historian stubs; also with others in Category:European museum stubs. All use nationality, not the name of the state. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:34, 29 June 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:United Kingdom museum stubs[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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with sister categories like Category:British historian stubs; also with others in Category:European museum stubs. All use nationality, not the name of the state. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:33, 29 June 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:18th century in Mozambique[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:18th century in Mozambique

Category:President of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference[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) 01:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named categories for the presidency of organizations. If kept, "president" would need to be pluralized to "presidents" in the case of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference and changed to chairmen (not "man") in the case of the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa, whose article ascribes its leaders (including the one person filed here) with chairmancy rather than presidency -- but every organization that exists does not automatically get one of these as a matter of course the moment one or two former leaders of it happen to have Wikipedia articles, so it's not clear that either of these categories are needed. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 29 June 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:Acid Jazz singles[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. This was created to hold singles released on a record label named Acid Jazz Records, but since acid jazz is also the name of a genre of music it's liable to be misunderstood if not named with the utmost clarity. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the renaming. It makes good sense.
Karl Twist (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Gjs238 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the renaming to Category:Acid Jazz Records singles.
Karl Twist (talk) 06:40, 6 July 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:Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh[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) 01:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person, without the spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponym herself, the only other thing filed here is her husband -- but he's a member of the royal family by birth and she's only a member of the royal family by marriage, so he has an eponymous category because there's a lot of other stuff to file in it besides just their BLPs. And her status derives from being married to him rather than vice versa, so in the sense that's relevant to an encyclopedia he's much more of a defining characteristic of her article than she is of his — he's the reason she has an article at all, while his mother, not Sophie, is the reason he has one.
So this would be fine if there were at least four or five other things to file here besides just Edward and Sophie, but she doesn't automatically get one of these just because he has one, if their BLPs are the only things in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 29 June 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:Hebrew Bible themes 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: rename. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Johnbod pointed out (in this recent CFD and this one) that the topics painted in these cases are subjects, and the use of the word themes should be restricted to abstract topics such as love, death or war. The target for the Paintings category follows Category:Paintings based on the Bible, etc. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 29 June 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 illustrating the Song of Songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following others within Category:Paintings based on literature. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 29 June 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:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 2 P. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just delete. Whether someone was a "vassal" or not can be quite arbitrary, and neither of the parent cats really applies: these princes of Armenia were not "people from the Umayyad Caliphate" or part of its government. At most, they were part of its foreign relations. As the catdesc indicates, these were not 'caliphal-appointed governors', and therefore not part of the internal governance. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vassal rulers are easily distinguished by the fact that they bore princely rather than gubernatorial titles and were usually hereditary and at least somewhat autonomous. They are also clearly designated as such by modern scholarship. Armenia was very much part of the Umayyad Caliphate, just as much as the Khanate of Khiva was of the Russian Empire or the various Indian princes were of the British Raj. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, princes aren't necessarily vassals and it is not very clear from these articles that the subjects were in fact vassals. The articles are already in appropriate Armenian and monarchs categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely, princes are not necessarily vassals; which means that they need to be distinguished when they are not, in fact, sovereign rulers, but rule at the mercy of an imperial power. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 20 June 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 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cplakidas: rule of the Umayyad Caliphate in Armenia was not firmly established in this period and Ashot II Bagratuni is mostly notable for fighting against the Umayyad Caliphate. I really don't think you can call them vassals. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that having Ashot II in the category is probably not correct. But 'firm rule' is not a prerequisite of vassalage, indeed it is precisely because states can't or don't want to bother to establish firm rule that they establish vassal relationships (if we don't focus only on the European feudal vassal-liege relationship). The title of prince of princes could only be claimed by the backing of an imperial power, whether Byzantium or the Umayyads, from whose hands these Armenian rulers received their title, by definition becoming vassals of the imperial power. Some Armenian princes were able to exercise more or less autonomy, or shift from one patron to the other, exploiting temporary changes in the balance of power. That does not change the fact that they had a subordinate political relationship to an empire. Indeed this is no different to the exactly identical relationship they had with the Abbasid Caliphate, only that by that time Arab suzerainty was far more solidified than under the Umayyads. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitewashing in film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.
I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that is not the policy you have cited and the example you have cited is irrelevant as I said, these instances of whitewashing are discussed using reliable sources.
This is more like your personal preference and expectations which is not supported by policies. A Cat need to be a characteristic of the subject as described in reliable sources see WP:CATDEF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, are you suggesting a category that would include only documentaries on the topic of whitewashing? Dimadick (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 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 05:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:41, 30 June 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:12th-century Almohad caliphs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs

Category:Fox Sports 1 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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 05:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These personalities are known for appearing on Fox Sports properties more generally, not necessarily Fox Sports 1. Let'srun (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about others but I only tried to include people who appear on FS1 shows in the category. Expanding this to include all Fox Sports people is fine but you'd need to go through all the Fox Sports content that isn't on FS1 (such as NFL on Fox, WWE SmackDown, Soccer on Fox Sports, etc.) Soulbust (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said that to say that maybe both categories can exist? As Fox Sports has quite a lot of properties, and the FS1 list wouldn't be small either if it only included individuals who are FS1 personnel - for example Nick Wright or Colin Cowherd. It appears Erin Andrews is in the FS1 category currently, though she would be in the Fox Sports category only, along with anyone else from NFL on Fox (and of course Fox Sports' other shows). Meanwhile, someone like Joel Klatt could fit in both. Soulbust (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 29 June 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:Symplectic topology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In mathematics, "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often (though not universally) understood to be two terms meaning the same thing, usually depending on the author's preference and feelings about how "geometric" the subject is. For examples of this usage, see this SE answer and the fact that Symplectic topology is a redirect to Symplectic geometry. The category Category:Symplectic topology seems to be a duplicate of Category:Symplectic geometry. The latter page claims that there is a difference, as "Topological aspects are often categorized as Category:Symplectic topology". However, I don't think this is how most people use the word. Indeed, looking at the pages, it is hard to believe there is much, if any, adherence to this (very subjective) rule! For example, it seems hard to believe that Symplectic basis and Darboux's theorem are "geometric" but Gromov–Witten invariant and Symplectomorphism are "topological". And most things in both categories seem like they could just as well go into either one! The relevant policies are WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I propose merging these categories under the more common term "symplectic geometry" and having the category page for "symplectic topology" be a redirect. This is my first time using CfD, so please forgive any mistakes I make. I am not sure if I am supposed to add the subst:Cfm template to the category that is being merged to as well as the category being merged from. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The topological aspects are so important in this field that the main articles are the same. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If symplectomorphism would be better in Category:Symplectic geometry, which seems a reasonable remark, re-categorise it. Unless Category:Symplectic topology ends up empty, which I think shouldn't happen here, the case for a merge is weak. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have any intuition about whether symplectomorphism is "topological" or "geometric". I think it's arbitrary which one it goes into. One might think a page like Floer homology is "topological", because it is homology, but one might think that Floer homology captures geometric data. Whether this is true depends on whether you think symplectic manifolds and symplectomorphism are "geometric". In the end, I just think there's enough ambiguity there to make all of nearly all of these classifications subjective or overlapping. Can you tell us more of your reasoning? Are there a lot of pages that you think obviously belong under only one of the two categories? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Tito Omburo comment below, I think you haven't made the case for a merge. There clearly is a difference, and your intuition isn't the point at issue. The usage by people in the field is. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge because of the huge overlap described above. I doubt that we have enough editors interested in these topics to maintain the categories well. The work required detracts from the core work of the encyclopedia, which is adding content with citation. ("Weak" because this is always a problem when we try to categorize math topics. It's why I don't engage much with Wikipedia categories.) Mgnbar (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once I asked Ana Cannas de Silva what the difference was between symplectic topology and symplectic geometry, and she told me that it's really a misnomer, since symplectic geometry is often very topological (spaces under symplectomorphism), while symplectic topology is often very geometrical (Floer homology, Gromov-Witten invariants). Now we shouldn't try to right great wrongs, and I think once one understands this difference, the distinction becomes pretty clear. Tito Omburo (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LEAST: as the distinction appears to be unclear for specialists (I am not), it is certainly confusing for non-specialists for wich the category system is intended. Another possibility would be to make sympletic topology a subcategory of symplectic geometry, since, usually, topology may be considered as geometry without metric. In any case, the work of sorting the articles between the two categories would be a waste of time for competent editors; this is much more important of spending editor time to improve the articles. D.Lazard (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose, many articles in the category do prominently mention symplectic topology. I realize that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, therefore it's a weak keep, but if the articles are wrong in this respect then that should be solved in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's no parent category, and for the most part merchants aren't defined by whether they sold flour or not. Mason (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Australia millers commonly purchase the grain, mill it, and sell the flour, adding value. So they're millers by trade, not merchants. Doug butler (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:58, 29 June 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:Australian commercial artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. Notably there is not a parent category of commercial artists as far as I can find. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial artists create their art for mass duplication: advertising, souvenirs etc. Not like portraitists etc. Doug butler (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it is almost impossible to differentiate notable artists by "commercial" as so many made a living out of it. If not merged, better rename it to something related to the kind of art. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge most - a very mixed bunch here, in most cases they began their career as a "commercial artist", before becoming notable in another type of art. This is common (Andy Warhol for example, & he has no similar category), & probably not defining. Example: " Hilda Wiseman (1894–1982) was a notable New Zealand bookplate designer, artist and calligrapher.....Wiseman began her artistic career as a commercial artist at the Chandler and Company advertising firm....." Some should be merged to eg Oz photographers, cartoonists etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: useless differentiation. Isn't the aim for most artists to be commercially successful? TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 4 July 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:Crime action films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following:

Does this do the job @Marcocapelle:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.
Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.
As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:
https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action[1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-58182-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notifying WP:ORN for feedback...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poor rationale provided by keep votes and poor definition of category.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no particular pressing need to separate this subgenre, as opposed to simply putting pages in both the "crime" and "action" film categories. It is rather common for crime to happen in action films, simply as a matter of course, making the definition of this subgenre vague at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose as nomination has not adequately accounted for potential issues arising from mass deletion. I looked at Category:Canadian crime action films, the obvious intersection between this batch and my own personal area of expertise, and randomly spotchecked the film Buying Time — but it's in no other "Country genre films" categories at all, which means simply deleting said category without upmerging its contents somewhere would yank that film completely out of the Category:Canadian films by genre tree altogether. And again, that's just the very first film I spotchecked, which means that there are guaranteed to be dozens of other films that will be stranded right out of necessary category trees if these categories are simply deleted without careful surgical replacement and/or transplantation.
    I'm not at all wedded to the need for "crime action" as a genre-intersection category specifically, but just mass-deleting the whole tree at once is a recipe for a total stinkin' trainwreck — so getting rid of it would have to be done as mergers, not as simple deletions, to ensure that films aren't being pulled out of necessary parent trees in the process. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I wouldn't usually relist 3 times, but Bearcat's comment deserves some consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sandžak[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 6#Category:Sandžak


Category:Jewish Canadian philanthropists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between nationality, ethnicity/religion, and occupation. Mason (talk) 07:45, 29 June 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:Pioneers of Israel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:Pioneers of Israel

Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners[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) 01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Its not an award that can be won, its an achievement which is earned. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to each of your points:
  • For the three players you identified, the fact that they won a triple crown is noted in the lead of all of their articles. It's also mentioned in the New York Times obituaries for Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams. (Sandy Koufax, obviously, does not yet have an obituary.) I think those are pretty good signs that it's a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
  • Categories and lists are not in conflict with one another, and it's great to have both.
  • I agree that this isn't an award, which makes WP:OCAWARD irrelevant to this discussion. I don't know why you mentioned it in the first place.
Hope that clears things up. - Eureka Lott 22:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still say its not their defining characteristic. As for the list, I think its better only because of the recent inclusion of NgL statistics. I am aware of the "Categories and list are not in conflict rule" but, in this case, the circumstances have changed slightly.
Either way, thank you for giving your reasons. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: this is one of the most notable achievements that any player can achieve, which is why it's one of the first things that will be mentioned in the summary of any triple crown winner's career. Most sources that list notable baseball records or achievements will have one or more lists of triple crown winners. I cannot think of a single logical reason for deleting these categories. P Aculeius (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius; a) its not something you can win and b) the recent change to the statistics makes this no longer accurate. Its WP:OCAWARD and also WP:NARROWCAT.
Also adding @Muboshgu, @Yankees10, and @Wehwalt, from WP:Baseball for their opinion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly can "win" it, in the sense that most of its "winners" are so described in baseball literature. It's not an award, but that doesn't mean you can't win it, any more than you can't win a game, or a race, or a battle... Your reliance on accuracy is misplaced because A) nobody has been officially "unseated" as a winner by the inclusion of more players, so nobody in the category is there erroneously; B) the addition of record from the Negro Leagues simply means that more players can be added to the category. That is not grounds for deletion. Neither of the policies you have cited applies here; this is a frivolous nomination. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now they have been added to the category, so it is now accurate. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for not being "won", I'll refer you to Total Baseball, 2nd Edition, pp. 486–491, explicitly calling the players "winners" of the triple crown; Neft & Cohen, The Sports Encyclopedia: Baseball, 1992 edition, p. 649, "Triple Crown Winners"; The Sporting News Official Major League Fact Book, 1999 Edition, p. 475: "Triple Crown Winners"; 20th Century Baseball Chronicle (1992), p. 110: "Rogers Hornsby, who batted .403 and won a second Triple Crown", p. 152: "Philadelphia's Jimmie Foxx won the Triple Crown"; p. 158: "Philadelphia's Chuck Klein won the Triple Crown"; p. 164: "Lou Gehrig carried most of the weight, winning the Triple Crown", etc., and that's just what I had at hand to refer to. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 29 June 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:National Roads in South Africa[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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In South Africa, a National Road is a road that is the responsibility of SANRAL while a National Route is a road that has the letter N in its designation, as stated in the National routes (South Africa) article. Looking at what the main article for the category is, I propose a change (simply change Roads to routes). GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 29 June 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_June_29&oldid=1234506969"