Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 7
<
Log
May 7
Category:Extraterrestrial articles missing geocoordinate data
- 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: result (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Useless and empty. KMF (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2017 (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.
Years in Islam
- 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: soft delete (see ]
- Propose deleting Category:1870 in Islam
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all year categories from 1870 to 1979 are empty except for the Mosques completed subcategories. All that remains, in almost 100 categories, is four articles and Category:Iranian Revolution in 1979. There isn't a whole lot of growth potential; note that most of Category:History of Islamis about medieval and Early Modern politics (Caliphates, Sultanates, Muslim dynasties), while articles that are about Islamic religion in modern times are mostly post 1980.
- Note to closer: before deletion of these categories, the before-mentioned 4 articles and Category:Iranian Revolution should be moved to Category:20th-century Islam and to Category:YEAR in religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom without prejudice as to their later re-creation should volumes warrant it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- The categories that I looked at consisted of a single subcat - Mosques completed in 19xx. This is an unnecessary cat-level. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (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:Psychological science fiction films
- 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:Psychological films and Category:Science fiction films (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per ]
- Question @Swpb: Would it change if we would simply remove the header text on the category page? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, my rationale would just change to WP:TOPTEN is a specific case. There needs to be a firm, non-subjective criterion for determining category membership, which doesn't exist in this case. Discussion of what films should be considered "psychological science fiction" belongs in article space, where statements can be explained, caveated, and most importantly, individually cited. It's just not an appropriate basis for a category, no matter whose list is used. —swpbT 19:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)]
- No, my rationale would just change to
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
KeepComment My first instinct was that this should be deleted but it appears there is a significant number of reliable secondary soures that identify "psychological science-fiction" as a valid sub-strait of science-fiction: Google books. In that sense it is notable. Allmovie has twenty pages of films (12 films to a page) listed under its "psychological science-fiction" category so SMALLCAT probably dosn't apply to this i.e. a concerted population drive would fill it out. I think we need to get rid of the "Allmovie" criteria though because it is not Wikipedia's purpose to replicate Allmovie's database; Allmovie is very US-centric and any source that meets the general RS criteria should be adequate for sourcing puroposes. All genre categorization is subjective to a degree but provided sourced content in accordance withWP:DUE supports the category then that should be sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)]- Delete that all movie has a category doesn't make it definitive. It's subjective pure and simple. If not, and this is defining, it seems that the movies so included should be removed from the more general "science fiction" categories which parent this; that's the obvious test of whether it's defining and objective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the subjectivity argument: all genres are subjective to a degree, but they can be objectively tested against reliable sources in accordance with WP:DUE. Also, if we are going to argue against the existence of the category on the basis of it being subjective would the same argument not apply to the parent categories? You can argue that the subjectivity occurs higher up the hierarchy and membership of the sub-genre category is just a logical consequence of membership of the parent categories. However I find Carlossuarez46's point about the sub-genre being non-defining very persuasive: the way categorization works is that the article should be removed form the parent category when it is added to the child category; the question then becomes do we really want such articles removed from the "sci-fi" and "psychological" films categories? In all honesty I cannot say such an action best serves the interests of the reader or editor who use the categories. Articles should be placed in the categories where most people would expect to find them, not tucked away in some obscure sub-category. This works with something like "romantic comedy films" because a film like Pretty Woman is probably perceived more as a romantic comedy than either a straight comedy or romance film, but this is not true of "psychological sci-fi". I have establised the notability of the genre above though so perhaps a list would be more appropriate than a category? Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)]
- Many of these types of categories are subjective. Consult different sources and different opinions are expressed. Such is not really the case of most of the encyclopedia (different sources really don't dispute that gray wolf belongs in Category:Wolves, e.g.). A list would likely be better so that different sources can be compared - this is done with items which have different answers when differing sources are consulted (see List of best-selling music artists or One-hit wonder from the music world). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)]
- Many of these types of categories are subjective. Consult different sources and different opinions are expressed. Such is not really the case of most of the encyclopedia (different sources really don't dispute that
- I don't agree with the subjectivity argument: all genres are subjective to a degree, but they can be objectively tested against reliable sources in accordance with
- 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.