Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

Category:Maluma (singer) albums

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.. For the record,
WP:C2D states that it "generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name", so this full nomination was required. – Fayenatic London 21:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Since the parent article is named Maluma shouldn't the category follow the same naming convention? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:42, 13 February 2022 (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:Musician video games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Category:Musician video games

Category:Millennials

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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. We don't know that any of these people identify as "millennials". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A millennial isn't an identity, it's a generation of which you either are part of or are not. If you are born in 1989, you get put in a category for people born in that year, so there's no reason to not have a category for people born between 1981 and 1996 ie; millennials. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, plus we already have a defining DOB. We don't have categories of, for example, "People born in the 1960s" because they're spurious. Also, "Millenial" suggests certain characteristics of the person, which may not be relevant in the slightest to that person. Lastly, the ranges for "Millenial" dates of birth are disputed. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' "Millennial" doesn't suggest anything beyond that the person was born during that specific generation. It's useful to categorize people, recently-born people, according to the generation in which they born. The generation they belong to has experienced events that other generations might not have. Besides, just for pedagogical purposes, it's be best to have that category. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - textbook case of
    WP:NONDEF, this is a broad umbrella term for individuals born during a specific time period, but such a category could be conceivably be created for any time period. For biographical articles this category is too generic in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 'Comment' No, because unlike a category that would be created for any random time period, this category encompasses people who have shared experiences. A generation. It's not just any time period. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About as meaningful as categorizing someone by their astral sign. Demographic errata that does not connect one person to another in a defining category. Zaathras (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ill-defined category, as exact year range isn't well defined. We already classify bios by birth year with relevant categories by year.--Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not that I nessessarily support such a proposition, but could Category:Millennials be used as a container category for Category:1981 births all the way up to Category:1996 births or whenever the time period ends? I would still question the necessity of such a category, but it might be viewed as a useful encyclopedic tool by some. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the beginning and end dates for such things are somewhat arbitrary. no, I do not feel this is a good idea. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if kept it should certainly become a container category per Inter&Anthro, but it would not improve navigation in any way because we can already navigate trough year by birth categories. Besides there is the issue of arbitrary beginning and end dates as mentioned above. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there were a decent number of articles about the
    Millennial generation, there could be a reason to have the category, but not simply as a parent for Category:1990 births, etc. I also expect this isn't a term used universally. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete There is no agreement about what constitutes a generation. This is a cultural epithet. Rathfelder (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the boundaries are arbitrary. I suspect that different authors will be defining the period as involving different years, so that it is a subjective category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idea of "generations" was conjured out of thin air by historians decades ago. It may be a popular concept, a way of looking at culture and such, but it's utterly nebulous and not natural. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that it is cultural in the sense that it implies members experienced certain things culturally relevant in that timeframe (e.g. smartphones, streaming entertainment) but such things are not a guaranteed experience for everyone. Being born into this time period alone should not be enough to make you a member of that generation; for all we know, plenty of notable people were born in this timeframe but far away from civilization as we even know it, without our technology or other trends, to the point that if they ever came to our attention it would be very difficult to argue we could call them "millenials". Honestly, I'm quite sure this is mainly a Western thing; it probably doesn't even apply as a valid term to people born into impoverished cultures that are nonetheless connected to the rest of the world. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:11, 1 March 2022 (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:Songs about food

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. – Fayenatic London 17:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails
WP:OR. Previously deleted by CfD dated 2 March 2015 Richhoncho (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2022 (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:Songs about 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails
WP:OR. Previously deleted by CfD dated 11 Sept 2012 Richhoncho (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2022 (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:French formal gardens

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:Châteaux with formal gardens in France, Category:Châteaux with Renaissance gardens in France. – Fayenatic London 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, (with few exceptions) the subject of the articles is about châteaux, not about gardens. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' No, it's an error based in the word 'garden'. Factually those 'formal gardens' are castle owned parcs. Only quite rich feudalists could afford such parcs and manpower to cultivate them in historical times. Nowadays they are mostly public parcs that need the fees from tourists to cover a part of the expenses. Please keep in mind that formal garden is actually different from garden as we know it from everyday life. --Just N. (talk)
  • Oppose proposal. To keep the existing is correct. Maybe a note should be added that formal gardens are not gardens but nowadays pleasure grounds for local recreation and tourists. --Just N. (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply added after relisting) Apparently this comment is based on a misunderstanding of what a formal garden is. But that is completely unrelated to the rationale of the nomination as the articles are about chateaux, not about gardens or parks. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2022 (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/2022_February_13&oldid=1077547001"