Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1

Category:Books by Indian authors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for nationality like this and substantial overlap with other categories like Category:Indian books by writer ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is written and published in India, so belongs in Category:Indian books. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty trivial where it is written or published. Just think of a book written in India that is actually about China. We currently categorize by (nationality of) writer and by topic, those are the important characteristics of a book. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2020 (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:Bengali novels 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: keep. MER-C 18:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is conflating language with nationality. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The category contains 2 Bangladeshi and 3 Indian subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So how does that support the nomination argument??? It would appear to undercut it completely. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was assuming this was a confusion between Bangladeshi and Bengali, but that is not actually the problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a valid category. The Bengali language is spoken both in West Bengal (India) and East Bengal (now Bangladesh). There appears to be a sixth category which is currently in Category:Bengali-language novels and should probably be in this one. That category is largely about individual novels, so that merging this category there would not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It clearly isn't "conflating language with nationality", since there are two nationalities involved. One might change to "Bengali-language" but I don't think this is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2020 (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.

State supreme court justice categories

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: procedural close, duplicate nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems like it is saying that all of these people have held a seat in the Supreme Court of the United States, when it needs to be more specific so people won't get confused.
Talk ↔️ Contribs 17:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Talk ↔️ Contribs 14:49, 2 October 2020 (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.

Merging Australian city councillors with Local political office-holders in Australia

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 using "local councillors", as they are councillors of a city / town / shire rather than of the State; i.e.
– Fayenatic London 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale:@
Ivar the Boneful: i am opening this request following discussion available here
.

Serprinss (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged to "Category:State local councillors" instead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as nominated. The categories here are a bit of a mess, but this proposal does not present a coherent solution.
There are two issues to be resolved:
  1. Not all local councils have "city" in their title, so per the discussion at
    WT:AUP#moving_Category:Australian_city_councillors_articles_into_state/territory_based_subcategories, that leads to some omissions. Per the article Local government in Australia
    , all Australian local govt is single-tier, with no distinction of status between city and shire ... so the "city councillor container categories are probably unhelpful.
  2. "Local government politicians" is an inappropriately vague term, because it does not distinguish between those who held political office and those who did not.
The first step in unravelling this mess is to get rid of the vague "local government politicians" categories. that should be done by creating a new category for each state of the form Category:Local political office-holders in New South Wales, Category:Local political office-holders in Quuensland, etc ... and selectively moving into those categories only those articles or subcats which are actually about holders of political office.
Once that is done, it may be appropriate to merge the "city councilor" categories in the "political office-holder" categories. But the first step is to get rid of the vague "local government politicians" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very few councillors are notable, except mayors who are already categorised as mayors by state. The term "local government politician" is just as meaningful as "councillor" (unless the concern is that this theoretically allows the inclusion of local government politicians who haven't ever been elected. It is very unlikely that they would be considered notable, without some other source of notability.).--Grahame (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Then I support a move to councillor by state.--Grahame (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No need for distinction between city/non-city councillors. Regarding the naming of the categories, "politician" in Australia is generally understood to mean elected MP/councillor/political officeholder, but better to be clearer on a global level where the term may not be interpreted this way. --Canley (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a tricky one: in principle, because the roles are different there is value in having separate subcategories for municipal councillors rather than comprehensively erasing the distinction from mayors by just throwing them all into the overgeneral "local political officeholders" bucket — ideally, a "local political officeholders" category should always be completely empty of individual articles per se, and should exclusively contain subcategories for people grouped by their specific local political office. And while municipal council isn't an inherently notable role that guarantees an article in and of itself, it's quite common for municipal councillors to advance into more notable roles at higher and more notable levels of government, so we do still have a non-negligible number of articles about people who have been municipal councillors anyway. But it is also true that there isn't value in distinguishing city councillors from town councillors in that context. So I can't support this as constituted, because just throwing them up the tree isn't appropriate and some form of subcategorization for councillors is warranted, but I also can't oppose it if that just leaves the categories where they are now, because where they are now is definitely a misfire (both on the inappropriateness of imposing a city-town distinction and the bad capitalization of the New South Wales category.)
    In the Canadian context, we avoided the city-town problem by naming the relevant categories as municipal councillors instead of city councillors, but I don't know if that term would be a suitable solution in the Australian context — is "municipal" a word that Australian English uses to encompass cities and towns? Or is there another way that these subcategories can be renamed, so that city and town councillors can be grouped together in a tree that upholds the useful councillor distinction while dropping the pointless city-town division?
    Categories are warranted for this, though I do agree that these aren't the best names for them. So some kind of renaming is more appropriate than just upmerging them to a parent category — I just don't presume to know what the best new name for them would be in Australian English. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Municipality" used to be a common term, but most are now called "city", even though they often cover a small part of a metropolitan area. There is no difference between the powers of urban and non-urban councils, so the term "local government" is used to cover all of these entities. In the past the members of municipalities were often called "aldermen", but now they are uniformly called "councillors". Incidentally there are already categories for mayors, who are the only councillors ever likely to be notable as councillors (not that all or even most mayors are likely to be notable). Mayors often change, so several councillors in a typical council may have once been mayor. There is not any point taking into account that some councillors may later achieve notability in another role, such as member of state parliament.--Grahame (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if I understand this correctly, mayors in Australia are councillors too (which is not the case in every country). So ultimately, local government politicians may be renamed to councillors, of which mayors are a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct.--Grahame (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: with that, shouldn't we just go ahead with the merge as nominated, and separately nominate the targets for rename to councillors? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, as I mentioned above, the problem with that is that "local government politicians" is a broader set than councillors, because "local government politicians" includes people who haven't held electoral office. So a simple rename doesn't work; a purge is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, that doesn't solve the problem.
    If a category needs to be purged, then it should be purged before the contents of another category are dumped into it. This proposal would dump the contents of a well-defined category into a vague one, which makes the purge a much bigger job. Who is volunteering to do this extra avoidable work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: fair point, I just want to avoid that we end up in a stalemate while we do not disagree on the content. What about renaming the nominated "city councillors" categories to "councillors" categories (without city) and thereafter moving articles manually from "local government politicians" to "councillors" (only if appropriate, of course)? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, that sounds viable. After that is done, the "local government politicians" categories would be container cats, which would need to be merged to various targets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle and BrownHairedGirl: that sounds like a good idea. would we have to open a new discussion regarding that or can we just discuss it here? Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 05:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First we'll have to move the articles and then we should come back here. But presumsbly the latter will be a formality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle and BrownHairedGirl: my question is, do we need to open a new discussion regarding this suggestion or can we decide to move the category to city councillors here? Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 08:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We first have to wait until if and when this discussion is closed as move "city councillors" to "councillors", than without further discussion we can move articles from LGA politicians to councillors and finally we need to return here to discuss deletion of the LAG politicians categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2020 (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:Film controversies

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. There also appears to be consensus that articles about the films themselves should not be placed in this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Has been emptied out-of-process due to reasoning "Category is for categories, not the objects of those controversies".

What is the real purpose of these categories? Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What's the problem? (See Category:Mass media and entertainment controversies) Kanghuitari (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the whole tree ought to be considered in collectively. I am not sure what a "film controversy" is other than films that are controversial for some reason or another, which by today's standards nearly every film tends to generate some controversy or another - even those that weren't controversial when debuted. Moreover, not sure what controversial films have in common: some are controversial for their subject, their personnel, their language or images, their viewpoint, their quality (or lack thereof), or dozens of other reasons. Other than the shared name or concept of "controversy" nothing really to link them. Same is true of other media, which ought to be considered together. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don’t see anything wrong with a category populated with categories and subcategories as long as it’s substantively populated, not as a holding space. Trillfendi (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge articles about films, only keep articles about controversies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Marcocapelle said. Starzoner (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another out of process sneak emptying! This would be clearly against policy is more people supported the proposal on talk to officially outlaw this practice. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elizium23 and Johnbod: User:Trivialist has removed a few films from the category (which I agree with, see above) but has not entirely emptied the category. The rationale of the nomination is confusing, to put it mildly. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few films? Try over one hundred and fifty! That category used to be generously populated with films, by consensus, and now it's not. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For comparison, there's
    WP:CATDEF. Anyway, I think the category should be kept, if it can be limited to articles about controversies, and not just any film ever described as "controversial." Trivialist (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2020 (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/2020_October_1&oldid=988347906"