< July 17 July 19 >

July 18

Category:African migratory birds

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. Timrollpickering 08:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
other "migratory birds" categories
  • Category:Eurasian migratory birds
  • Category:Asian migratory birds
  • Category:Oceanian migratory birds
  • Category:American migratory birds
  • Category:Central American migratory birds
  • Category:North American migratory birds
  • Category:Eastern North American migratory birds
  • Category:Western North American migratory birds
  • Category:South American migratory birds (added 19th July)
  • Category:Migratory birds (Northern Hemisphere)
  • Category:Holarctic migratory birds (added 19th July)
Nominator's rationale: There are a number of problems with these categories. (1) They are named "African ..." etc rather than "... of Africa" which is inconsistent with similar categories (relevant CFD) and slightly misleading. (2) With the current category structure they cause incorrect categorization (e.g. Cape cormorant is in Category:Migratory birds (Northern Hemisphere)). (3) Articles appear to have been categorized regardless of the content of the article e.g. here where the article doesn't mention migration. (4) In previous discussions (example) difficulties with categorizing birds by their migration status have been identified.
Note: I'm proposing a straight delete (rather than upmerge) per the points made by other editors in this CFD for a similar set of categories (mostly created by the same editor). DexDor (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ta - now included. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2018 (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:Fictional volleyball players

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. The primary argument for keeping was a sensible distaste for an upmerge, but as noted by another contributor, no such upmerge is necessary. Marcocapelle also notes that one of the two articles probably shouldn't be in the fictional sportspeople category tree at all. ~ Rob13Talk 15:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in the category. Just not a popular theme in fiction JDDJS (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2018 (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.

Foo in films --> Films about foo

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. Timrollpickering 08:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Category: Foo in film, rename these categories to make it more clear that they are to be used only in cases where the category is a central focus of the film, not merely an element of it. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be overly picky, but if primarily about were used as a recognized meaning of "about" in these sorts of categories, they should never be in more than one "about" category, and what reliable sources are there to tell us what is the primary topic. I recall having a conversation here about this with @BrownHairedGirl: where we bandied about what was the primary topic of the film Titanic: a ship, a disaster, a love story, or as she put it, perhaps best, "hubris". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree that a film can't have more than one primary topic, especially if one feels (and I'm not saying you do) that a film can have more than one primary genre. DonIago (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that this was discussed at Category talk:Rape in film, and the unilateral redirect by User:MagicatthemovieS mentioned above ("as the latter already exists but redirects to the former") circumvented that discussion, so the discussion was never really concluded. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the case at the time, but the most recent discussion, linked to in my rationale, leans in the direction that just because something occurs in a film doesn't mean it merits being in a "foo in film" category, and that consequently making the category names more clearly indicate that they are intended to be used for primary topics, not just incidentals, was a reasonable approach. Otherwise we could have "food in film" with thousands of entries; I don't think that's what we really want. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A film with a rape scene in it will be fit for "Rape in film", but that does not at all mean that it is a "film about rape". That is the perfect argument for supporting the nomination per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2018 (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:Films scored by John Barry (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: reverse merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redundant. Tijd-jp (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2018 (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:International Shrines of the Roman Catholic Church

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. Timrollpickering 20:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "International shrine" - unclear, arbitrary term. No definition or classification explained by any main article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2018 (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:Roman Catholic shrines

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. ℯxplicit 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundancy. Along with the merging above for convenience. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Roman Catholic Church is mentioned much more often than Latin Church, because Roman Catholic Church is mostly used aa a synonym of Catholic Church. The real question is: how often is Roman Catholic Church used with the intention to refer to the Latin Church only, in contrast to the Eastern Catholicism? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but it seems this whole Latin Church ("Roman Catholic?") and Eastern Catholic Churches name controversy needs an overview. Perhaps an individual case like this one does not suffice, but would need a more central location. Please feel free to contribute at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholicism). Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2018 (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:Roman Catholic missions sui iuris

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:Missions sui iuris. Timrollpickering 20:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic missions sui iuris to Category:Catholic missions sui iuris
Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with parent category and entries included in the category. "Missions sui iuris" would perhaps be even more according to the category's entries, but a little precision wouldn't hurt. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would support that as a secondary best alternative. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2018 (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.

Fatimid

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. Timrollpickering 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename since Fatimid was not a nationality, but a dynasty (see Fatimid dynasty) after which the Fatimid Caliphate was named. The people in the Fatimid Caliphate were actually Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Turkic people etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (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 Nations non-governmental organizations

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 18#Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations. ℯxplicit 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations to Category:Non-governmental organizations related to the United Nations
Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with creation of Category:United Nations Associations as such. But for the other content, purge to somewhere else sounds quite vague, so I would rather create Category:United Nations Associations as a subcategory of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) That is also perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessively long and jargony, and I don't think the jargon "accredited" is actually supported by RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, it is more precise to say Category:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations (not sure about the "at" preposition). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:NGOs with consultative status at the United Nations (being shorter) sounds reasonable too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (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.
More