Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 16



Category:Calixa-Lavallée Award

 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting calixa-lavallée award


 * Nominator's rationale: A subcategory for its winners was recently deleted at CFD on WP:OCAWARD grounds -- so this is now just a single-entry WP:OCEPON issue, with no other contents left but the eponym itself. The eponym was left in the parent category alongside this, so no upmerging is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as pointless: no scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2019 (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.

Serbia

 * 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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename  Category:Animal welfare organisations based in Serbia to Category:Animal welfare organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Arts organisations based in Serbia to Category:Arts organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Child-related organisations in Serbia to Category:Child-related organizations in Serbia
 * Category:International organisations based in Serbia to Category:International organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Lists of organisations based in Serbia to Category:Lists of organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Medical and health organisations based in Serbia to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Music organisations based in Serbia to Category:Music organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Non-profit organisations based in Serbia to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Religious organisations based in Serbia to Category:Religious organizations based in Serbia
 * Category:Sports organisations of Serbia to Category:Sports organizations of Serbia
 * Category:Student organisations in Serbia to Category:Student organizations in Serbia
 * Category:Women's organisations based in Serbia to Category:Women's organizations based in Serbia
 * Rationale - there is no pressing reason to depart from the standard of the majority in Category:Organizations based in Serbia and Category:Organizations based in Serbia by subject. There are 25 in the Serbia tree which use 'organization' - see User:Oculi/serbia. Oculi (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Fits better with the wider Organization trees.Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2019 (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:20th century in Santa Barbara, California

 * 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 Category:20th century in Santa Barbara, California to Category:20th century in California and Category:History of Santa Barbara, California, otherwise delete. MER-C 08:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:20th century in Santa Barbara, California to Category:20th century in California
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Santa Barbara, California
 * Nominator's rationale: This only contains one member, Royal Lichtenstein Quarter-Ring Sidewalk Circus, which only mentions that the troupe's training base moved to Santa Barbara in 1980; this does not appear to have been WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Someone has added 1998 World Polo Championship, from Category:Sports in Santa Barbara, California. The parent category Category:Santa Barbara, California didn't contain any more that would make this category worthwhile. However, I looked through Category:History of Santa Barbara County, California and found Painted Cave Fire, Mesa Oil Field, Santa Barbara Dodgers and 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake (the latter was by no means confined to the city, but did major damage there). These probably make the category worthwhile for navigation now. I'd still move the original member up to the target, though. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dual merge also to Category:History of Santa Barbara, California. Note that the latter target is nearly empty now, which makes a separate 20th-century subcat quite redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it'll probably be helpful for closing the discussion when you react once more. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree with the dual merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Duel merge per Marcocapelle. That makes the most sense, as this present category is too skimpy to justify its existence. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2019 (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:Writers who blog

 * 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 08:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Writers who blog
 * Nominator's rationale: Blogging seems like a borderline non-defining characteristic. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposer's apology: In attempting to write an explanation of why I think the category should be kept, I seem to have erased part of this discussion or its template. I am sorry for the error and may try again later. Mitzi.humphrey 19:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Support, the tree of Category:Bloggers is diffused by blogging topic, which makes perfect sense. Diffusion by occupation, as seems to be the case here, is a mere matter of a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since blogging is a writing format, everybody who blogs is always automatically a "writer who blogs". I do grok that the intention here was "people who already earn their paycheques as writers of books to begin with, and oh BTW also have blogs too" — but for one thing, the category name fails to actually communicate that distinction at all, and for another, we don't otherwise subcategorize bloggers by their prior non-blog occupation, we subcategorize bloggers by the subject that they blog about. So for both of these reasons this fails to be a usefully defining characteristic of bloggers for the purposes of subcategorizing them. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as being non-defining, and per Bearcat.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * are you still planning to write an explanation of why the category should be kept? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought this was necessary to identify people who might be writers (or had other occupations) but also had well-known blogs. Since "well-known" is a subjective trait, it could not be used in the category name.Mitzi.humphrey 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think that occupation is unrelated to blogging. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't subcategorize bloggers by their prior occupation: we subcategorize bloggers by the subject that they blog about. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (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 scores by composer

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 08:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Film scores by composer to Category:Films by composer
 * Nominator's rationale: Since Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 4 concluded that the films are the actual entry in the category and not the film score, this parent category should be changed as well to reflect this and be consistent with other top level categories in Category:Films. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Support per nom. And also Category:Film scores by composer nationality to Category:Films by composer nationality? Tijd-jp (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Category:Films by composer is just an odd category title, wrongly suggesting that whole films have been made by composers. Agree with the principle of the nomination though, the films are the actual entry in the category, so we need to find an alternative category name. Perhaps Category:Films with scores by composer or Category:Films scored by composer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Note that sometimes the "film score" is released as a separate product, and can include pieces or portions of pieces that did not make it into the film itself. bd2412  T 17:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fact that the articles in the category are officially about films themselves, and that film scores rarely if ever actually have their own standalone articles as separate topics from the films that they're contained in, is not a pressing concern here. The proposed title creates the deceptive impression that the composers are the filmmakers, which they aren't — the composers are only responsible for a portion of the finished product, namely the score, not for the whole kit and caboodle. In truth, I question whether films are defined by the identities of their score composers for the purposes of warranting any such categories at all, but deleting the entire tree would be ultra vires the scope of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The latter is a good point though I agree we need a fresh discussion for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bearcat's argument. Misleading title. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2019 (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:Screenplays by writer

 * 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 Films with screenplays by X. MER-C 09:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Screenplays by writer to Category:Films by writer


 * Nominator's rationale: Much like the discussion regarding film scores here, the articles categorised in this tree are not about screenplays but about films. Therefore, they should start with the word "Films".  This should be in the form "Films written by..." or "Films with screenplays by..." for the individuals and either "Films by [...] writers" or "Films with screenplays by [...] writers for the nationalities. -- wooden  superman  15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have requested a bot to tag every subcategory in the tree. -- wooden superman  15:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. (New !vote below) Many films are based on books or plays, so "Category:Films by writer" is ambiguous: it could refer either to the writer of the original work, or to the writer of the screenplay.
 * I suggest that Woodensuperman should withdraw this misconceived CFD nomination, and open a discussion at WT:FILM about possible options ... and only once one or more options have been clarified consider opening a mass nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had included "Films with screenplays by..." as a possibility in the nom. Could you support that option? I don't think there's a need to withdraw the nom, as all alternatives could be discussed here. -- wooden superman  16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Films with screenplays by..." sounds not too bad to me, but I am not a film buff. It would be much better to have that preliminary discussion with the editors who know the topic area best before tagging ~1,000 categories with one option. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose. Films are generally considered "by" the director, not the screenwriter. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "by" means "categorised by" rather than "artistically created by". We have e.g. Category :Films by year and there's no need to clarify that one. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that the problem is at the next level which has not yet been tagged & listed, e.g. Category:Screenplays by J. J. Abrams. Sure, that must not be renamed "Films by J. J. Abrams", as it needs to be distinguished from Category:Films directed by J. J. Abrams. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We need to make sure the categories are very clear to avoid confusion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At no point did I suggest that this should be "Films by..." for individuals in the nom. I suggested This should be in the form "Films written by..." or "Films with screenplays by..." for the individuals.  You must have misread it.  -- wooden  superman  09:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you missed the part where you "Propose renaming Category:Screenplays by writer to Category:Films by writer", right at the very top of the discussion. Very first line. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not for the individuals I didn't. "Films by writer" for the umbrella category is correct, as "by" means "categorised by" in this sense.  See also .  -- wooden  superman  07:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read the linked discussion to "Film scores by composer" which helped me understand the issue here. Indeed the article being placed in the category is the film, not the screenplay file, so the current scheme is incorrect here. As for the issue of writer vs book writer that a film was based on. In the US industry, writing credits are governed by the WGA, so a "written by", "screenplay by" or "story by" credit cannot be ambiguous with "based on a book writer" (no idea how other countries handle his). That has its own category tree at Category:Films based on works by writer. Looking at Category:Films, Category:Films by writer seems a correct option. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename to "Films with screenplays by..." since films are the object of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there is no problem. A screenplay is generally indivisible from the film, and covered under the same article; we seldom if ever have separate articles about screenplays. I don't find it confusing at all to have e.g. Labor Day (film) categorized under category:Screenplays by Jason Reitman, on the contrary, it's quite an elegant expression. No such user (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note While we're at it, there is a number of national categories listed that could benefit from speedy renaming regardless of the outcome of this CfD:
 * Category:Screenplays by Mexican writer
 * Category:Screenplays by New Zealand writer
 * Category:Screenplays by Iranian writer‎
 * Category:Screenplays by Hungarian writer‎
 * ... should all be in plural (writers). No such user (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename to "Films with screenplays by...". This compromise seems to make the most sense accuracy-wise, since the articles in these categories are indeed about the films, not the screenplays. @ Brown HairedGirl  I'm not sure if you ever saw this new formal proposal, since it was made eight days after you last posted here. Would you be amenable to formally getting behind this solution? The applicable categories have all been tagged with this discussion for months, so everyone who cares about this topic has had plenty of time to weigh in. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (changing my !vote) Support alt rename to "Films with screenplays by...". but strongly oppose Category:Films by writer.
 * Thanks for the ping, @Newshunter12. I did comment on this suggestion on 10 May, and had hoped that there might have been more commentary from film buffs.
 * At this point, it's time to wrap this up, so I have come off the fence. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)


 * 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:Serfs

 * 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: do not merge. MER-C 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Serfs to Category:Peasants
 * Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Russian serfs, which doesnt need an intermediate category. Rathfelder (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to both parents - This category can always be re-created in the future in the event that articles about non-Russian serfs are created. But at present there's no need for it. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Serfdom is a condition of debt bondage, and serfs could be legally "bought, sold, or traded". Peasants as a group also included free tenants, who could not be sold, could own land of their own, and were obligated to pay rent and taxes. When the Russian Empire abolished serfdom in 1861, it effectively abolished slavery and gave peasants the freedom of movement. It did not abolish peasantry itself. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge at least to Category:Serfdom (Dimadick may have a point that merging to Category:Peasants is less appropriate). Currently there is only one subcategory in it so it is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seein' a problem here, guys. Dimadick appears to be perhaps a bit confused about the outcome of merging. He/She seems to acknowledge that "peasants" is a broad term that encompasses both free & unfree labor -- which is reflected in Category:Peasants quite properly serving as the parent for Category:Serfs. All we're doing by merging is elimating Category:Serfs and making Category:Russian serfs a direct subcat of Category:Peasants (as well as making it a direct subcat of Category:Serfdom). Voila, mes amis. Ze probleme, she does not exist! Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Peasants may be free or bonded. Most serfs were peasants, but not all peasants were serfs.  Their precise status will have varied with time and place.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We need a category specifically for people who were serfs, Serfdom and Peasants are too imprecise for this. As it was, this was merely a redundant category layer for Russian serfs, but serfdom was widely practiced in medieval Europe, and there are notable non-Russian serfs with WP pages. I've added one of them to the category just now.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  01:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the nature of serfdom varied from place to place, so I think we need country sub-categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, the original rationale is no longer valid after Category:Croatian serfs has been created as another subcategory. It would probably be better when nominator would withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to withdraw. I've no objection to the category if it's populated.Rathfelder (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2019 (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:Vampire: The Requiem

 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Vampire: The Requiem to Category:World of Darkness
 * Nominator's rationale: A single-article category; should be merged with the parent category for the series that Vampire: The Requiem is part of. Alexandra IDVtalk 08:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SMALLCAT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (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:Kindred of the East

 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Kindred of the East to Category:Vampire: The Masquerade
 * Nominator's rationale: A small category only containing one article; should be merged with the parent category. Alexandra IDVtalk 08:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:SMALLCAT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (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:Hunter: The Reckoning video games

 * 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 per the extended proposal. MER-C 08:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Hunter: The Reckoning video games to Category:Hunter: The Reckoning
 * Nominator's rationale: The parent category is already very small, only containing a single article about the Hunter: The Reckoning tabletop game; it makes little sense to then have a sub-category for articles on the tabletop game's three video game adaptations. Should also be merged with Category:World of Darkness video games. Alexandra IDVtalk 08:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support merging Category:Hunter: The Reckoning video games to Category:World of Darkness video games and Category:Hunter: The Reckoning to Category:World of Darkness per WP:SMALLCAT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support extended proposal by Zxcvbnm. I have tagged the parent category as well. Both categories have a SMALLCAT issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also support the extended proposal by Zxcvbnm, as the original nominator.--Alexandra IDVtalk 11:22, 28 June 2019 (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:Antonovych Prize winners
<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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting antonovych prize winners


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD. The article Antonovych prize already contains a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete yet another OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2019 (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.