Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished between 1925 - 1931

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. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles and it is a very short period to categorize destroyed landmarks in Spain by. Besides we do not even have a more general Category:Disestablishments in Spain between 1925 - 1931 or even Category:History of Spain between 1925 - 1931. Both articles are already in the tree of Category:Disestablishments in Spain by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Currently Category:Demolished buildings and structures is diffused by centuries, years, countries and a few cities, but there is no other intersection of period and country. If we would want to start that here, it would probably make more sense to create intersections by century, to keep in line with the existing century structure, rather than taking an odd period like 1925 - 1939. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I've created the new merge target and adapted the nomination accordingly. Also I have merged the three discussion into one. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The usual tree is "buildings and Structures" not landmarks. Accordingly diffuse to appropriate subcategories of Category:Demolished buildings and structures. The three under discussion only have one or two articles. Unless they can be better populated they must go. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also a "Landmarks" tree, though it's not as complete as the B&S one, so a double upmerge would be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think many of these articles qualify for landmarks. They are about buildings and structures for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now Merge as nom -- These three categories contain a total of four articles, in contrast with 15 Francoist demolitions. If we wanted to (and there is scope to populate better), we might have a category for pre-Francoist Spain, but I doubt it is worth it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to @Marcocapelle, Grutness, and Peterkingiron: although it is not very obvious from the current parenting, these categories form part of Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished by period. Does that affect your views? – Fayenatic London 06:21, 12 June 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:Women empowerment in Bangladesh

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, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT, without a particularly clear distinction from the parent. And even if this were to be kept, it would need to be renamed to Category:Women's empowerment in Bangladesh for grammatical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 3 May 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:Mayors of Daly City, 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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just four articles, of which three are up for AFD as not passing
WP:NPOL — there's only one person here whose article definitely isn't going anywhere, and even his notability claim has more to do with passing NATHLETE for his sports career than NPOL as a mayor. Daly City is a "council-manager" city, which means the mayors are selected internally among the city councillors and serve ceremonially for a year, but have no actual executive authority. So it's not a city whose mayors pass NPOL just for being mayors per se — which means that there's no prospect of growth here. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We have an established consensus that five is the minimum number of mayors who have to already have articles before a dedicated "mayors of city" category is warranted. So even if all of the articles survive (which they won't) this is still a
WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with your assertion that there is an "established consensus" as you describe.
And what's the hurry? Why not wait for the AfDs actual outcomes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you have a project ahead of you of going back through years of CFD discussions to overturn all the several hundred discussions on "Mayors of (City)" categories that were closed as deletes on exactly the basis I described. Consensus is established by the discussions that have actually happened on similar categories in the past, not by whether you personally choose to agree with those conclusions or not, and CFD has an extremely clear and unmistakable history of deleting "mayors of (city)" if the category population falls short of five, with very close to no examples of the contrary ever happening unless somebody got the population over five by rushing additional articles into place before the discussion closed. And "the hurry" is that because AFD closers do not routinely check the categories to see if they've been depopulated below the SMALLCAT threshold as part of the article deletion process, the category will get forgotten, and just linger indefinitely as a one-item category, if it doesn't get addressed concurrently with the article discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
bright line rule.
As to the AfDs, how hard is it to make a note to watch their outcomes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 7 May 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-built ships

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. – Fayenatic London 05:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ships by town or city
42 more
Ships by River
Nominator's ratioanle. The convention of Category:Ships by country of construction is "Ships built in Foo". The convention of Category:Ships by city of construction is also "Ships built in Foo".
I spotted 3 subcats of
WP:C2C
speedy nomination is obviously void.
I see no benefit to readers or editors in having two conventions, so this nomination will align the UK to the convention for the rest of the planet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS When tagging the categories, I noticed that 11 of them relate to rivers. "Ships built in the River Foo" would be silly, so for those categories I have amended the rename target to "Ships built on the River Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nominator's rationale; no need to have two conventions for categories. In the article body, we can of course continue referring to the ships as "Clyde-built ships" etc. Tupsumato (talk) 06:20, 4 May 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:Fossils of Russia

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are essentially the same category. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nominator that the way it is now does not make sense, per
    WP:OVERLAPCAT. I wonder if we can somehow agree to restrict the extinct animals to those animals which became extinct after prehistory. By just merging the categories, those animals will remain lost in the crowd of fossils. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose. Category:Fossils by country has 78 subcategories,. No reason is offered for singling out Russia. And fossils are not necessarily of extinct species. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is a difference between recent extinctions and prehistoric distinctions and the categories should reflect that. Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology is devoted to prehistoric extinctions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Extinction is devoted to recent extinctions. Plantdrew (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but purge -- I would suggest we draw a line at the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 BC. If the extinction was earlier, it is a fossil; if later and extinct animal. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1) The category "extinct animals of ..." is reserved for animals that got extinct in historical times, so when we know they were alive but also have seen them disappear. Generally the 10,000 BP Holocene mark is a good boundary, as Peterkingiron says and Plantdrew and also Marcocapelle have noted. The category "prehistoric animals of ..." is for the pre-Holocene fossil record. 2) "Fossils of ..." may contain fossil animal species but also fossil plants, so are not "essentially the same category", a certain overlap is inevitable. 3) I have been working hard to rearrange and recategorize the "Prehistoric animals of ..." category into the deeper sections per period, e.g. "Triassic animals of ...", and even organize the articles further for animals that are restricted to a certain time period, e.g. "Trilobites of ..." for trilobites instead of "Paleozoic animals of ...". 4) Categories are essential and good tools to list all the elements of a certain group, in this case "Fossils" of a specific country, "Russia". If one wants to have a good overview of the different fossils found in Russia, it doesn't make sense to look under all the different subcategories of "Triassic animals of ...", "Prehistoric plants of ..." and "Cretaceous animals of ..." and try to get an overview on the fossils found in a country. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:43, 23 May 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:Plant biologists

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, "plant biologist" is an apt description of what a "botanist" is... Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, everyone knows the similarity. At least everyone who knows what botany is. I'm curious as to why this went unnoticed for 1.8 years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Good catch! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 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 universities and colleges

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: keep. This results in an inconsistent position as the national sub-cats were renamed last year, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_10#Catholic_universities_and_colleges_by_location, which followed several others on the log page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 12. I suggest someone re-nominates both sets together with options A (Catholic)/B (Roman Catholic), as one group or the other ought to be renamed to match. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added on relisting:
Nominator's rationale: Per
talk) 12:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 19:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not objecting to the change, but there should not be a consequential change to British categories, where the omission of "Roman" would be ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Too late! The national categories were already renamed last year, see Category:Catholic universities and colleges by country and discussion here. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Creates avoidable ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ambiguity issue JarrahTree 11:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to maktch the article Catholic Church. In the discussion over that name the claims of so called ambiguity were rejected in favor of the very clear precedent and rules of common name. Those who seek to claim ambiguity ignore the reality of English usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding a sub-category to the nomination. These two seem to be isolated hold-outs, as their other parents and sub-categories have already been renamed without "Roman".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should have a centralized discussion on whether everything should drop the "Roman"; there are many categories retaining the "Roman" (e.g., Category:Roman Catholic media (and many of its daughter categories), Category:Roman Catholic art (and many of its daughter categories)); there is also apparently a category tree under Category:Eastern Catholicism which although in full communion with Rome, now, have a quite different liturgy, tradition, and history and apparently eschew the label of "Roman". And there is the category tree under the above-mentioned Category:Anglo-Catholicism, which apparently is not in full communion with Rome. Given the diversity of use of the term "Catholic"; this discussion should be centralized to harmonize the naming of articles and categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A
    WT:CAT would be a centralized discussion esp if properly notified. As to the ambiguity, I find your explanation v odd. The ambiguity issue is not whether "Catholic" could be used an alternative name for those other denominations, but whether the term "Catholic" includes them or is restricted only to the Roman Catholic church. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • In the US, many of the "Catholic universities" are governed by organs of the Roman Catholic Church, typically various religious orders (Jesuits, the Congregation of Holy Cross, Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary, Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, and others). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: when it takes a whole para of complex reasoning about subtle distinctions and institutional structures to explain why there is no ambiguity ... then I think you have made the opposite point to what you intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just taking part of a randomly picked article John Paul the Great Catholic University as an illustration with my italics: "JPCatholic emphasizes its loyalty to the Catholic Church, and lists impacting the culture for Christ as one of its main goals. The University was named one of North America's 21 Catholic colleges and universities which most faithfully live their Catholic identity...." This is all about Catholic identity and not about Catholic Church. Even if you declare yourself loyal to, it means you are not part of. The university is not part of the Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean but are you sure you're not misattributing a physical organisational bounderies definition that ultimately neither the Catholic Church nor its adherents are expected to do even themselves?
talk) 11:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 21:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, since the ones in opposition are in minority, you are asked for convincing examples, please, that could relativise the references to consistency in the above proposal. Could you name at least one university that self-styles as "Catholic" but has no affiliation with the
talk) 14:48, 23 May 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 Spanish composers

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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT --woodensuperman 13:05, 3 May 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.

Film scores by composer nationality

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. Disclosure: I am closing this despite
WP:INVOLVED as there is a clear consensus here, and no other admins appear to be active at CFD at the moment. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: As the articles are the films and not the scores, category should take the format "Films scored by X composers", as per the subcategories and this discussion. However, do we even need to categorise by composer nationality? Only these two and Category:Films scored by French composers and Category:Films scored by Spanish composers exist. No Category:Films scored by American composers, Category:Films scored by Italian composers, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 12:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except these are categories containing film articles, not soundtrack articles. If they were soundtrack articles, I'd be inclined to agree, but the soundtrack composer is not the creator of the film, which is what the subject of the article is. Or rather, the nationality of the composer is irrelevant to the film article, but not to the soundtrack article. --woodensuperman 13:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. However, against the option of merging these to Category:Film scores by composer, they do form valid sub-categories of their other parents e.g. Category:Works by Bangladeshi people and Category:Bangladeshi compositions and recordings. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm on the fence with this one. I guess that's why I nominated to rename with a question mark over the validity. I certainly think this is a more valid hierarchy than the ones I've nominated for upmerging below. --woodensuperman 13:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename looks like these are sensible, well-populated categories. I see no reason for deletion. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Also the parent category should be renamed? Tijd-jp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's grammatically valid. All film scores are by composers - these are divided by composer. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, it means "Category:Film scores by composer" is preferred over "Category:Films scored by composer(s)". Tijd-jp (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Most Bollywood films will be scored by an Indian composer. It is good to keep these separate from Hollywood films, largely with American composers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 6 May 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.

Film soundtracks by language

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. When I pinged Peterkingiron and Richhoncho, I was hoping that one might change his vote, leading to a consensus, but both withdrew their votes instead. – Fayenatic London 10:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise film soundtracks by the language of the film for other languages (e.g. Category:French film soundtracks), so there is no reason for these. We do however categorise by nationality of the composer, see Category:Soundtracks by artist nationality. --woodensuperman 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm wrong, that's the soundtrack artist. Shouldn't we have a Category:Soundtracks by composer nationality though? --woodensuperman 13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtracks are not about the dialogue, but the music. I really don't think this soundtrack tree is beneficial. --woodensuperman 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: given the above reply, do you still oppose the merge? – Fayenatic London 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I misunderstood and am not an expert here. However, if the soundtrack is purely instrumental, its language should be irrelevant, but if it involves song, language is surely highly relevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bringing all them under one umbrella is going to be a huge mess, especially for Indian films where there are minimum dozen of languages and more than 200 films produced in a year. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of other languages and they all sit quote happily together in Category:Film soundtracks without "a huge mess". --woodensuperman 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my comment on the grounds that Category:French-language soundtracks exists, I am not sure whether this means there is a WP style these cats are not following. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​ Good find! Adding these, there are now 10 language categories (plus instrumentals) in Category:Soundtracks by language. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 5 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.

A. R. Rahman soundtracks

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, also to parents Category:Tamil film soundtracks and Category:Hindi film soundtracks where applicable. – Fayenatic London 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not need to separate soundtracks by the language of the film. We don't do this for anyone else. --woodensuperman 12:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if these categories are not kept, two of them also need to be upmerged to the other parents Category:Tamil film soundtracks and Category:Hindi film soundtracks, unless those are also deleted per the discussion above. On the other hand, if they are not merged, then the last one should be renamed as "English-language..." for clarity. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom as these are very narrow intersections. Also agree with Fayenatic london's comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 11 May 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.

Film scores by A. R. Rahman

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. Disclosure: I am closing this despite
WP:INVOLVED as (i) there is consensus here apart from the category's creator, and there are adequate replies to his objections; and (ii) no other admins seem to be active at CFD at the moment, leaving a 2-month backlog. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Categories for composers of films' scores should take the format "Films scored by X" (per this discussion), and categories for articles about soundtracks should take the format "X soundtracks", so firstly these are wrongly named. However, there is no need to separate the films by language. We don't do this for any other composer, Category:Films scored by Ennio Morricone, etc... --woodensuperman 11:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd missed those. It's still a bad idea. As far as size goes, the number is much smaller than Category:Films scored by Ennio Morricone. Do you really think we should be breaking that down into subcategories by film language too? It's a bizarre subdivision quite frankly. --woodensuperman 13:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. The contribution by A. R. Rahman remains music, NOT words, national or cultural identity. It is a disservice to the works of A R Rahman to separate that way. This !vote applies to any other separated in a similar way. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the excellent points from Richhoncho above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "We don't do this for any other composer" is a bad rational. If its needed, it should be done on the need basis. India is the country with multiple languages and Indian composers often compose in varied languages. The films mainly consists of the songs in the specific language unlike Hollywood movies where the Original Score has more significance.The total number of films scored by composer is significant here. I think renaming them as per Fayenatic's proposal is the best idea. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt:. You are correct India is a large country with multiple languages and films have been split up accordingly (including dubbed from one language to another). That is great but we are not discussing that here, we are discussing whether a composer (i.e. the music man) should have his works artificially separated because on the language spoken in the film. This is no benefit to people interested in the works of A R Rahman, in fact it diminishes Rahman's work. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rahman's work has been majorly identified for his language specific songs. A quick look at some of the jukeboxes uploaded by some official channels like T-Series, Saregama Tamil, Venus would give you an idea as how he is been identified in India. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument to separate according to lyricist. Not composer. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the lyricists' work in a single language and not multiple like composers. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, when this has been reopened after the discussion on the talk page of the non-admin, we would need an absolute consensus to have this moved, with more than 7-10 votes at least in favour. Unless, it would not be a fair deal. Let more people get involved and opine with clear opinion. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A big shout out to Marcocapelle who has shown he is a fine editor by reconsidering his own decisions.
  2. An electronic slap on the wrist to Vivvt for not acknowledging he created the sub-categories being discussed were created by him.
  3. All the subdivided ‘Films scored by’ that have been separated like this have been done by Vivvt and nobody else, and all done within the past few months.
  4. This suggests that there is no substantive WP support for the creation of these sub-cats.
  5. Arguments about the size of the category should not be considered, Category:Films scored by Ennio Morricone is not split by language of film although he has scored about twice as many film as Rahman.
  6. The very valid point made by Vivvt above that, “Most of the lyricists' work in a single language and not multiple like composers” confirms composers work in music not languages. By that alone we have proof that this overcategorization.
  7. There have been no substantive arguments for retaining the existing titling, size is not relevant, the language spoken in a film does not affect the music or the composer one iota. Why would anybody actually need such a category?
  8. The language of love (music) is a communication over and above the more usual forms of communication.
  9. There are already categories for Films by language, so anybody looking for films by language are already catered for.

--Richhoncho (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the primary reason for re-opening the discussion is to get a clearer consensus on renaming while consensus on merging is lacking. User:Woodensuperman suggested that in the previously quoted discussion that merge votes should also be read as a preference for renaming over doing nothing. @Richhoncho: do you agree on that? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the nom is says rename, it is technically a merge. At the moment the nom, 2 !votes, and a further "avoid overcategorisation" support the nom. That leaves the creator and Fayenatic (who may wish to comment again) against the merge/rename. So, yes, I do agree with User:Woodensuperman, but happy for further discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally I would suggest re-listing, expanding the nomination to include all composers whose film scores are subdivided by language. However, it does appear that all those categories were created by user:Vivvt, who has participated in this discussion, so no further notification is necessary. I have therefore struck my !vote. On closer examination, the 26 sub-divided categories that I mentioned above are not all divided by language; some are divided by decade, so they would need a separate discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 21 May 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:Anti-corruption 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with our treatment of other NGO categories. Category:Anti-corruption agencies can then become a subcategory of this. Rathfelder (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The distinction between state-backed anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption non-governmental organizations is an important one which should be retained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator does not propose to merge or move anything, so the articles in this category will stay together as a category, while Category:Anti-corruption agencies will stay another category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the distinction will be lost. State anti-corruption agencies are a type of anti-corruption organization, but they are not a type of anti-corruption non-governmental organization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This needs to be a wider nomination dealing with Category:Non-governmental organizations. I don't really see how the above linked discussions and the nominator's rationale can be treated as uncontested if we continue to maintain that category. I find it hard to make an assessment when it's unclear to me if there is a separate reason to maintain the parent category but not topical subcategories. SFB 23:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the procedural oppose. I'm only looking at the previous discussions right now and it is really odd that big parts of the tree have been deleted two years ago but the remnants of the tree including its top category still exist. We should make an explicit decision whether or not to cut the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A negative definition for organisations is pretty unhelpful. Most organisations are non-governmental. The term works within the context in which it was produced - which was international development. But it has been agreed, twice, that it is unsuitable as a category for individual organisations by subject or by country, I take it because it is impossible to say that any organisation other than government agencies, don't belong in it. This leaves a miscellaneous collection of sub-categories, four of which relate to conflicts in the Middle East. I don't know if these are helpful. Meanwhile, if we don't do something to stop it, the main category is filling up with articles about individual organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which confirms that the discussion should primarily focus on the main category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 8 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_3&oldid=1127484484"