Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 21



Category:Lists of islands by group

 * 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 as empty. (As stated, don't empty a category and then nominate it for deletion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lists of islands by group


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete because the qualifier "by group" is too vague, and the category is not needed. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The category is empty. What was in it before? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- My guess is that it was for lists of islands in archipeligos, for example a list of the islands of Hawaii, the Philippines, or the Scilly islands. I suspect that the contnets (if any) have been moved to a better naemd category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There were only 3 articles in it, one was the list of Aleutian Islands, one for islands of Gdansk, and one I don't remember. I think it would need a better & more clear name if it were for archipelagos. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At least the three articles should be kept together in a Lists category (if not in a separate category, then in a Lists category with a broader scope). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They already are in either Category:Lists of islands, or a more specific list category. My point is that "by group" is not clear or specific, as it could mean "archipelago" or some other kind of group, but it is not a definitive word to use. I could not find any other list category in the geography-themed categories that used the term "by group", thus, it should be deleted. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree to this rationale, just wanted to make sure that we do not lose any relevant data. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Funandtrvl, please in future make a nomination and wait for consensus, rather than emptying a category yourself. What you did here is considered "out of process". For the record, the other former member of this category was the Faroes. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Lists of parks by U.S. state

 * 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. MER-C 12:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of parks by U.S. state to Category:Lists of state parks of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match to Category:State parks of the United States and simplify and clarify name. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. These are all state parks. kennethaw88 • talk 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Film trilogies

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Film trilogies to Category:Film series
 * Nominator's rationale: At least in most cases, I doubt there's anything specifically notable about them being trilogies rather than (wince) quadrilogies, beyond that the studios opted to (or not to) make additional films. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support being a trilogy is not by itself a particularly defining trait Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Four words: Smokey and the Bandit.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Film series allow for any number of films without having to update the category each time a new one is made. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Film series and trilogies are essentially different entities. In many cases, series are open ended, continuing, as we have seen too many times, even after supposed conclusions. Many are even planned to continue as long as possible (like the Tora-san series, or many of the series in Japanese film history). Trilogies, however, are closed ended, planned to end in three parts. The modes of production, distribution, and narration are quite different. Michitaro (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Michitaro. It's defining to several trilogies, Three Colors, Matrix, Back to the Future to name just three (hehe).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment While there may be cases where the films existing as a trilogy is a defining trait as noted by Lugnuts and Michitaro, it doesn't appear to me that this category makes any attempt to make such a distinction at this time. I would weakly support making it more clear that this category is only for cases where the fact that the films are a trilogy is in and of itself somehow important, but I would more strongly support presenting this sort of information as a list article where sources could be provided establishing that the fact of the films being a trilogy is significant in some manner beyond the studio opting not to pump out more product. DonIago (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: for the record, lists already exist for film trilogies and series of other numbers, see Lists of film series. There are no categories for series of other numbers. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Lots of series are planned to end in a certain number of parts. There's nothing special about 2, 3, 4, etc. Besides, any trilogy could have a fourth film added in the future. kennethaw88 • talk 04:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support while some trilogies may have been planned to end in three parts, others just end after three because of budget or creative issues. Is the Toy Story franchise a trilogy? It has 3 parts, but somehow I don't buy that it would become an inherently different type of series if it went to 4.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Clergy in Europe

 * 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:Religious leaders in Europe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting clergy in europe


 * Nominator's rationale: Clergy are already grouped by denomination and country, I don't think that a continental division is very helpful to readers. There are also red link categories for other continents like Category:Clergy in Australia and Category:Clergy in North America that only contain Christian clergy so they are redundant. I don't think creating those categories would be appropriate as the category tree is not well-developed and I'd like to remove those red links. Liz  Read! Talk! 12:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The RC category needs to be moved down to Category:Christian clergy in Europe. I am surprised that that one is not more fully populated.  The objective for having a category such as this might be to parent religious leaders from other faiths, but the real asnswer to my query may be that this clergy tree is an aberrant twig that needs to be merged to the religious leaders tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Query What is the relevance of "RC category needs to be moved down to Category:Christian clergy in Europe" to this niomination? Move it if you want; it dooes not effect this nomination. Please explain why you believe this category to be "an aberrant twig". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The occupation "clergy" occurs in many faiths, not just Christian faiths. See the scope definition of Category:Clergy which states: "People of all religions who are ordained, licensed or in another way "set apart" for the work of clergy within a religious organization (church, temple, mosque, etc.)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that this category is only being used for Christian clergy, it is not interfaith. This is one whole red link nonexistant category tree.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not the point. The fact that it might currently be populated only with Christian clergy is irrelevant. The point is that it has the scope to cater for all clergy, Christian or otherwise. All it need is for somebody to populate it with rabbis and LDS leaders. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we populate it, instead of deleting? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Category:Islamic clergy hierarchy was already merged/renamed (and the top level redirected) to Category:Islamic religious leaders, see links to this and other precedents at Category talk:Religious leaders. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a "continental division" not "helpful to readers"? They're OK for every other "by continent" category but not for clergy? Why? The redlink issue is now cured - I've created the categories and populated them. The category tree is now well developed and shows considerable potential for growth. I think that that about covers all of the nominator's rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No Instead we should merge to appropriate elements of Category:Religious leaders, which is where most clergy categories are. That is a well developed tree.  I suspect that the present category either got missed in wider rename or has inadvertently been created by someone who did not know that the clergy are in that tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We do have a well-developed clergy tree within the well-developed religious leaders tree, are you suggesting we should upmerge the entire clergy tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply I hope not. What to do with theologians? They may be religious leaders but not necessarily ordained clergy. The two are not synonymous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for info, Category:Theologians is in Category:Religious workers, hence it is an uncle/aunt category of Category:Clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Category:Argentine theologians has Category:Argentine religious leaders as a parent. Laurel Lodged (talk)
 * Theologians are not necessarily clergy (term used for various ordained roles in certain denominations, including deacons who are not leaders) or religious leaders (appointed leaders of congregations or larger groupings); they should be in Religious workers, as Marcocapelle says. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Religious leaders in Europe, and speedily apply this to the whole structure of Category:Clergy by continent which Laurel Lodged has built since this nomination was made. "Religious leaders" is the more comprehensive description, and has been approved for Muslim and Hindu leaders as well as various Christians; see Category talk:Religious leaders for a list of precedents. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been a lot of discussions about this topic before and all the way I haven't been too certain about what would be the most optimal solution. On the one hand, clergy is a very defining term in the real world while the term religious leaders is merely a Wikipedia invention. On the other hand (especially in the US and in East Asia) there are numerous self-appointed religious leaders whom generally wouldn't considered to be clergy. So we need religious leaders categories if only to categorize these people.
 * I've come to think that categories of religious leaders would be appropriate at the top level for religions while a category of clergy would be appropriate at a lower level for churches and likewise formal religious institutions. So that means that e.g. Roman Catholic clergy can and should be a child category of Christian religious leaders.
 * But as we are discussing geography here (Europe), this is neither a religion nor a church, so a separate clergy category is not really necessary but also doesn't harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marcocapelle - a wiki neologism cannot be preferred over a commonly understood term. And as Marcocapelle also rightly observes - it does no harm. To return to a previous point, who's to say that a theologian, besides being a religious worker, isn't also a religious leader? What is Hans Kung if not an inspirational leader? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter is a good point. In the category tree the term religious leader is used exclusively as a leader of a religious community, so basically as clergy + self-appointed religious leaders, but this use (and any use, for that matter) of a term that is hardly used in the real world is obviously pretty arbitrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear then that "Clergy" is needed as it has the advantage of being common, verifiable and clearly defined (ordained or its equivalent). In this sense, it will be limited to the mainstream religions with such structures (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism). The only need for an overarching category called "Religious leaders" then, is to mop up the odds and sods - the self-appointed religious leaders as Marcocapelle with more charity labels them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Rename to Category:Religious leaders in Europe but would support its creation as an overarching parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Redditors
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. MER-C 11:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting redditors


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. Trivial, non-defining, and arbitrary (do you need to be a frequent user to be a "redditor", and how do we verify this?) What's next? Category:Facebookers, Category:Google users? Nymf (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: as per nominator's rationale. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 09:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Individuals in this category who are associated with this company are also filed under Category:Reddit. The small number of individuals with articles who are defined by their participation on reddit doesn't warrant having this category. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and move its entries into Category:Reddit. --Fixuture (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as a trivial aspect <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NONDEFINING. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but Purge Except for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jim Benton, this is in the introduction of each biography and appears not only defining but is the reason they are notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:SEPARATE guidelines make me reluctant to upmerge a biography/people category. An upmerge (which is really what some--but certainly not all--of the delete votes advocate) would still be preferable to an outright deletion from my perspective.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We've got, but that seems to be easier to support as a defining characteristic.  YouTube users are frequently identified as such in the media, and their notability seems tied to that service.  I'm not convinced the same thing occurs with Reddit, but I'm willing to listen to evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RECENTISM along with some of the above rationales. Who's to say this will even be a recognizable or prevalent thing to categorize by in the future. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Action stars
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. MER-C 11:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting action stars


 * Nominator's rationale: Perfect example of a WP:PERFCAT. Nymf (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete First, the correct term would not be "stars" but actors and Wikipedia does not categorize actors by the type of drama or comedy they appear in (WP:PERFCAT per nominator). Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PERFCAT, and also a non-defining characteristic for actors. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I saw this show up somewhere, and I figured it wouldn't be long before someone nominated it.  Yeah, it seems like a bad idea.  I can understand what the creator was thinking, but I agree with the others that this is in violation of our guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify a list can also explain why each is considered an action star -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Superstition in India
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: purge per User:Kenfyre and merge. Note that merging Category:Reportedly haunted locations in India as proposed by User:Human3015 will require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Superstition in India to Category:Superstitions of India
 * Nominator's rationale: The subject category be merged with Category:Superstitions of India as all the categories under Category:Superstitions by country or region are of the format Category:Superstitions of FOOPLACE. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: I support the merge proposal. However, some of current entries under Category:Superstition in India like Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Act and Category:Indian rationalist groups‎ do not conform to the definition of Category:Superstitions of India. The merge should be done after addressing this. - Ken fyre (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support also merge Category:Reportedly haunted locations in India with this. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment but I share Kenfyre's concern about category contents that are about the subject of superstition in general and not specific superstitions. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the new language implies that "India" has these superstitions (or grammatically, it is superstitions held by probably non-Indians about India), rather than those who hold these superstitions are (primarily, exclusively?) in India. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's part of a strange category tree, Category:Superstitions by country or region. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge for Now The clear naming convention of the Category:Superstitions by country or region tree is "of" and these categories are redundant. (I share some fellow editors misgivings about this whole tree though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.