Category:Iranian people of Assyrian descent
[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The two categories seem the same. Taranet (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Iranian people of Assyrian ethnicity. "Descent" is inaccurate. This is not an expatriate community, but an indigenous ethnicity, a sort of sub-nationality. These people are Christians and members of the Assyrian Orthodox Church. Alternatively, Category:Assyrian people of Iran or Category:Assyrian people from Iran. In the Middle East, since the conquest by Muslim rulers, the various Christian denominations have become largely endogamous communities, causing them to become almost a separate nationality, though without any national homeland. Accoringly the normal format "Fooian of Booian descent" fails to fit. A few years ago, a lot of effort went into renaming all Booian Fooian categories (except American ones). Precedent would imply Reverse merge if none of my suggestions ois accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, most American categories were renamed. We have Category:American people of Chinese descent, Category:American people of Russian descent, Category:American people of Jamaican descent etc. We do have Category:African-American people but that is because the nature of being African-American is that it is an ethnic group, only in theory defined by having ancestry in Africa. There are a few other excpetions, like Category:French Armenians, and then of course there is Category:German Jews. Since Jewishness is general treated as an ethnicity, not a religion, we have Category:Jewish atheists for example, it might do well to think of the status of Assyrians as similar to that of Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Iranian Assyrians to match the very similar category Category:Iranian Jews. In both cases we are dealing with an ethno-religious identification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Iranian Assyrian people, which appears to be the most common format for an ethnonational category (compare to Category:Iranian Armenian people, Category:Iranian Kurdish people, and Category:Iraqi Assyrian people). Assyrian descent, in the absence of Assyrian identity, is trivial and non-defining. Someone who is "of Assyrian descent" but does not consider himself or herself, and is not considered by others, to be an Assyrian should not be in a category for Assyrians. In retrospect, I think that the move to 'Fooian people of Booian descent' was a mistake because it moved us away from identity, which often is personally and socially defining and significant, to the more verifiable but insignificant accident of ancestry known as descent. I suppose, though, that that's a topic for another time... -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you forget that Category:Russian French people is ambiguous, where it is not clear if they are French people in Russia, or Russian people in France. When we renamed the old categories to the descent categories, some people ended up in the wrong categories because of this ambiguity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite the same. Russian and French are nationalities, and so Russian French people could refer to either Russian people of French "ethnicity" or French people of Russian "ethnicity". In the case of Iranian Assyrian people, it can mean only Iranian people of Assyrian "ethnicity", since there are no Assyrian people of Iranian "ethnicity".
- If your comment was meant more generally, then I do see your point, but I still think descent or ancestry are trivial characteristics compared to actual, active identity. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2013 (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:Android films
[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. I expect this to return here at some point, maybe as an outright delete nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename per what appears to be the standard naming convention seen in Category:Films about amnesia, Category:Films about prostitution, Category:Films about suicide, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Androids in film - although they're all over the place the equivalent sub-categories of Category:Fiction by topic seem to me to use Category:FOO in BAR more than Category:FOOS about BAR. I find that a better construction and it relieves editors of the need to subjectively decide that a film is enough "about" an android to categorize rather than the verifiable fact that android there be. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything special about androids that would make films "about" them any harder to identify than films about any other topic. If you want to improve the guidelines for categorizing films by topic, that should be a much broader discussion. Also, Category:Fictional androids already exists and Category:Robots in film does not. —Coder Dan (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Just to be clear, do you have an actual objection to the idea of renaming the category to "Androids in film"? Do you favor "Films about androids"? because I can't figure that you've expressed an actual opinion on the subject of the nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My first comment expresses three objections to the name "Androids in film":
- Your justification for the name isn't unique to androids, so it shouldn't be done without a larger discussion of film categorization in general.
- Category:Fictional androids might be a better place if you want to categorize material by references to individual androids, since the same android is sometimes featured in more than one medium.
- If Category:Androids in film is created, it should be a child of Category:Robots in film, but nobody seems to have considered that important enough to create yet.
- My second comment expresses the objection that the combination of topic name and list content is (obviously) inconsistent with Wikipedia practices. I understand the fuzziness of trying to categorize fictional works by what they're "about", but one can say that about almost any issue of any topic in all of Wikipedia. The world is complex and sloppy, but we need to make as much sense of it as we can.
- As for "Android films" and "Films about androids", I have no preference between them. I chose "Android films" because it matches "Robot films", which already existed, but those names are somewhat ambiguous: "Android films" could mean films that were produced by androids, or films that androids enjoy watching :D
- —Coder Dan (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Films that would go into Category:Androids in film would be mis-categorized in Category:Fictional androids because fictional androids are not films. It is permissible to discuss individual categories as they come up without there being a wider discussion. That no one has (yet) created Category:Robots in film has no bearing on this discussion at all. If our goal is to make as much sense of the world as we can then it should be a no-brainer to avoid category names that are ambiguous by their nature. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To consolidate my previous points: Even if we could somehow make the criterion for including films in an android-film category more "objective", the correct name for such a category would be something like "Films involving androids", "Films that mention androids", or "Films in which androids appear". That list category could be a child of the topic category Category:Androids in film, which would also include things like individual androids that appear in films, technologies that are used to depict androids in films, etc.. —Coder Dan (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my reasons in the debate about time travel films yesterday. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the discussion above suggests, there is a significant difference between Category:Films about androids and Category:Androids in film. The former is a focused set category that should include only articles about films "about" (somewhat subjectively defined) androids, whereas the latter is an unfocused topic category that could include articles about films, fictional characters, and fictional elements. In principle, we could have both categories, with Category:Films about androids being a subcategory of Category:Androids in film, which in turn would be a subcategory of Category:Androids in fiction. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. "Films about androids" is the clear intent of this category; "Androids in film" implies articles about the androids themselves (i.e. Terminator (character), not The Terminator), and the current title is ambiguous "Android films" could (and indeed, for me, at first glance was) be taken as "Films made using Android (operating system). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, someone wanting to find a film they know is about robots should not have to figure out if they are androids or not. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Androids are a distinct and recognized subset of robots. Extending that line of reasoning, we should also do away with Category:Androids so that someone wanting to find an article about a robot should not have to figure out if it is an android. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Androids doesn't hurt because you can find Actroid for example in Category:2003 robots and Category:Robots of Japan as well. Luckily no-one has yet split the latter two categories. Siuenti (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Having an android in a film is not defining. What next Category:Elf films, Category:Dragon films. etc. The films will generally not be about androids, they will just have an android as a character. Category:Androids in film would have articles that cover the topic, not articles on films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2013 (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:Edwardstone
[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: speedily deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) for the following reason: "C1: Empty category". -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category with only one member, and doesn't appear to be anything else that would go in there. Every other village in Suffolk does not have its own Category Sven Manguard Wha? 19:58, 5 October 2013 (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:Italian-American actors
[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 to Category:Actors of Italian descent, and salt to prevent recreation without a formal deletion review. I will also salt Category:Italian American actors and Category:American actors of Italian descent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Deleted twice before via CfD. Still fails WP:CATGRS. Non-notable intersection. Nymf (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt - recreation of previously deleted category, which will obviously be re-created unless it's blocked. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt per WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of previously deleted category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't agree that it was identical to the previously deleted category, but 100% support deletion. However re-phrased, it fails WP:CATGRS. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually was deleted once under this exact construction way back in 2005 but since then the history is mixed. I still believe it should be speedied but whether it is or not it and common variations on the theme should be salted since otherwise they will be re-created and deleted endlessly. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt but Upmerge to Category:Actors of Italian descent. Italian-American is being used the same as of Italian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only deletion discussion this has ever survived was a massive one that also involved other ethnic groups, where none of the actual discussion focused on people of Italian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (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:Superman animated shorts
[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:
Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 13. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. There has been a new Superman short recently released called Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam by WB studio. The purpose of the rename is to avoid confusion what the short films from Fleischer Studios and that particular one from the Warner Bros and its future releases.NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not a big fan of long-string category names like the suggestion. In the absence of any but one Superman animated short not from Fleisher my inclination would be to re-parent the existing category to remove it from the Fleisher tree, add the Fleisher short articles to appropriate Fleisher categories and simply add the new short to this category. Otherwise we have no place to categorize Superman/Shazam as a Superman animated short unless we create a single-item category for it, which I oppose per WP:SMALL. If this category must be renamed then make it Category:Fleisher Studios animated Superman short films to match logical parent Category:Fleischer Studios short films. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither do I, it was just what I came up. But if anyone got a better idea, feel free to say and do so. The reason of the rename is to avoid confusion with the animated short films from Fleisher and those from WB. Even though, for now, there are only one short film from WB, sources say that there will be more DC Comics based short films as DC Showcase, to tell stories about Batman, Wonder Woman, Robin, and of course, Superman. See this category Category:DC Showcase as there are already a number of DC Showcase films from WB.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2013 (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.