Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11

Category:Luke Jerram installation artworks

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
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: I wasn't aware of the correct naming scheme at the time I created this. Apologies (what a way to make my first category!). I believe this falls under
WP:C2E.Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 23:14, 11 February 2023 (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:Grand Theft Auto III

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: There’s only one article and three redirects in the category (which all target the only article in the category). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:34, 11 February 2023 (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:Sportspeople by region

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT unnecessary shim category contains only 1 subcategory. This is the only occupation in parent Category:People by region.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2023 (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:Danish Education Ministers

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent Category:Education ministers by country Estopedist1 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2023 (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:Adult animated television series by 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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename, television series are normally diffused by country, e.g.
WP:C2C because the other parent is "by nationality", though that parent is nominated for deletion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2023 (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:Adult entertainment by 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: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There aren't any merge targets that I think are applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who have access to Baylor

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category is empty apart from the userbox. If kept, rename to Category:Wikipedians who have access to Baylor University or Category:Wikipedians who have access to Baylor University Press per article Baylor University. This was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Gonnym and Armbrust: pinging participants to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "Baylor University Press". Although this currently only contains an unused userbox, it is part of a Wikipedia Library access set, so could be useful. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Baylor University Press or deletion because empty. Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete empty Kbdank71 00:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as empty, with no objection to a recreation under the renamed title if an actual user joins. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 11 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who have access to IMF

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, empty category apart from the userbox. If kept, rename to
speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
copy of speedy discussion
@Gonnym, Fayenatic london, and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename using "IMF eLibary". – Fayenatic London 13:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    • I support renaming rather than deletion, because it is part of a structure about access under Wikipedia Library, and because once populated it could be useful e.g. for other editors seeking confirmation of sourcing via someone with access to this library. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Empty Kbdank71 00:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:26, 11 February 2023 (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:North American Soccer League (1968–1984) drafts

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete in spirit of
WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no such "precedent". That has not been discussed here, and most should be deleted.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This screams failing
    WP:COPSEP. Perhaps a rename? –Aidan721 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I cannot believe that the players are notable for being part of a draft, rather than for being players. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2023 (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:Pennyworth (TV series) characters

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: All the characters with articles are mainly Gotham series, not defined by appearing on Pennyworth. ★Trekker (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: orphaned subcategory per Fayenatic london
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: for both nominated categories, Merge or Delete will now have exactly the same outcome, as all three member pages/redirects are already in the target categories. @Gonnym: also, they all have names ending with the disambiguator "(Gotham)". – Fayenatic London 17:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure delete is fine. I just noted that the shows are not the same. It seems that the editor that caused this mess was also blocked so that makes sense. Gonnym (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2023 (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:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Category:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems

Historic places in New Zealand

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: do not rename the renaming nominations, but merge those nominated for merging. Participation has been strong over the renamings, but the mergers do not seem to have been examined closely. It is not appropriate to merge the regional NZHPT categories to Category:Heritage New Zealand, as their sub-cats (the ones nominated for renaming) are already within Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places, Heritage New Zealand Category 2 historic places or Heritage New Zealand historic areas; so I will implement the merger by merging where appropriate to Category:History of the Auckland Region etc, because I do not think anybody intended to remove the subcats altogether from the parent hierarchy for each region. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT
layer of one 1 or 2 subcategories.
speedy discussion
  • Oppose as proposed. Heritage New Zealand no longer uses the term register, but instead uses list, and the category is not for the list but for items on the list or listings, so the category name should become Category:Heritage New Zealand listings in Otago. Paora (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup to:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie, Paora, and Schwede66: tagged from the previous nomination, added many from Speedy objections, with agreed format.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this scheme addresses all of the various issues that the rename process identified in this category tree. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the "from" category names after the 25 Jan renaming went through. The CFD templates were removed and will have to be reinstated. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwerfjkl: there was only 1 category up for renaming on 25 Jan. These rest had not been tagged, and had been segregated, They should not have been copied to CFDW (and hand changed), and the CfD tags for a completely different week removed. Especially with wrong capitalization! @Fayenatic london: thank you for informing us of that colossal screwup. I'd spent over 4 hours hand tagging them, and I'll not be spending any more hours retagging them. If untagged categories can be renamed once to improper capitalization, they can be again to proper names. Speedily.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @William Allen Simpson, ah, sorry, I didn't realise that. I'll retag them soon.
    Also, if you need to do a mass nom, I can tag them for you. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like @Fayenatic london is taking care of this. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, just needed an Undo on each page. While I was passing through I noticed that the sort keys are inconsistent, but sorry, I left those for somebody else to harmonise.– Fayenatic London 08:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'd actually posted the following note, that I'd expected the closer to read:
    • Procedural issue: Only one tagged. The others will need to be re-nominated and tagged after conclusion here. Also, related speedy will need to be re-nominated and tagged.
    Yeah, I usually check the sort keys afterwards on bulk nominations. Also, after up/down merges, ensure its categories got merged, too. Sometimes they aren't.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. This is a misinterpretation of
    WP:CATNAME. Without the "Heritage New Zealand" prefix, the category names become meaningless. These categories were all just moved to the current locations, and do not need moving again a day later. Paora (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Further comment:
    WP:CATNAME is clear: Choose category names that can stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. Removing the "Heritage New Zealand" thwarts that objective. Paora (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose removing "Heritage New Zealand" from the name, per Paora. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Paora. "Heritage New Zealand Category 1" is the thing. See Heritage New Zealand#New Zealand Heritage List / Rārangi Kōrero ("The historic places are organised in two categories: Category 1 ... Category 2 ..."). "Category 1" can't stand alone. —Alalch E. 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind one way or the other, but I don't think the opposers have made a very strong case for the long names being necessary. Sure, "Category 1" couldn't stand alone, but "Category 1 historic places in X" could, cf. the UK cats e.g. within Category:Grade I listed buildings in England by county. Or is there another NZ register of historic places apart from Heritage New Zealand?
    • Also, even if the nominated renamings are opposed, the NZHPT categories need to be either merged or renamed. – Fayenatic London 10:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, there are other lists of historic places in New Zealand. Each territorial authority (local council) in New Zealand maintains its own list(s) of historic places, with one or more categories, as part of their district plans, with different criteria (that vary from council to council) from those used by Heritage New Zealand. Thus, the local lists may be quite different from the national list compiled by Heritage New Zealand. Paora (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a lifelong interest in historic preservation, and live in one of the original homes in the oldest historic district of Ann Arbor. (Down the street from "Ann [Allen]'s Arbor" on Allen Creek. I'm an Allen, on my mother's side.) My great-aunty on my father's side lived in a "category B-listed" art deco house in Scotland. We have local historic districts, but the listing standards are state and national by law.
  • "Category 1 historic places in X" is how we've done the rest of the world. We don't graft "National Heritage List of <Foo>" onto each of them.
  • This eliminates the "New Zealand [...] in <region>, New Zealand" naming issue.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to William Allen Simpson's three points above:
    • Interesting but not relevant here, as this discussion is about New Zealand, not Michigan or Scotland.
    • How we've done these New Zealand categories for the last 10 years, since the first of these categories were created, is to begin the category name with the listing authority, until now NZHPT, i.e. the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, to distinguish clearly from local authority heritage listings. This format has been stable and has not previously attracted comment. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has been renamed Heritage New Zealand, hence the need to rename the category.
    • Not a big issue.
    Paora (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point to take away is that I'm familiar with categorization of historic places in multiple jurisdictions. New Zealand isn't really that different. While nobody cared enough to notice that NZHPT junk on the old categories, that's not a good reason to resist standard category naming practices.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the various upmerges and deletes; the tree seems unnecessarily complicated (this removes all references to NZHPT unless I have missed some). Oppose the removal of 'Heritage New Zealand' (which is contrary to
    Oculi (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2023 (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.

Cultural depictions

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. Note 1: There is support from both sides for listing and purging less significant instances. That can go ahead anyway without further discussion, but if there's a mass purge which might be contentious then I suggest linking to diffs or noting the removed items on the category (or main article) talk page. Lists in some form probably exist in all these cases already, either near the end of the main biography or as a separate page. Note 2: the category for James Joyce has been separately nominated and deleted with partial merging per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 3#Category:Cultural depictions of James Joyce. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more categories
Nominator's rationale: manually merge as follow-up on this earlier discussion in which the top "depictions of people" category was merged to Category:Works based on real people. In contrast to the works categories, the depictions categories contain an awful lot of non-defining mentions, so this really has to be sorted out manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, Fayenatic london, Johnbod, Peterkingiron, and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Few down, still so many to go.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is entirely correct. This nominations only contains Cultural depictions categories insofar there is also a Works category. Many Cultural depictions categories do not have a Works category in parallel and have not been included here. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support as a step forward. Once this is accomplished, I think we should have a discussion concerning "X works", "Works about X", "Works by X", "Works based on X", etc. (As well as the usage of the word "media" vs. "medium".) And then write up some guidelines on this. It seems every few months some enthusiastic editor comes along to re-create the wheel and wastes a LOT of everyone's time. - jc37 06:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Preferred: Listify - per the discussion. This is apparently a mess, and merging would actually make more work in the long run, trying to sift through the categories for whether the character merely "appeared" or was actually part of the story in some way. - jc37 14:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no mess, the term 'Cultural depictions of...' has been a stable and functional aspect of categories for many years. And please read
    Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates which specifically and repeatedly instructs that categories and lists are not mutually-exclusive and that neither should be used to harm the other. Why do people who comment in CfD keep on making the same mistakes when those WP instructions exist? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    lol. Thank you. You made me smille : )
    All I'll say is: Why indeed?  : ) - jc37 14:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. But what an odd and useless retort. Please elaborate at what made you both lol (I only write that when I actually lol) and smile, or are you counting the smile as a lol? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to comment, but ok - Several reasons. Here're just two:
    One may be that, I've been active in CfD off-n-on for about 16 years, and, well, I think it's fair to say that I'm more than pretty well versed in most policy regarding
    WP:CLN
    ).
    And for another, only a few minutes prior to your comment, I literally had just noted CLN in a comment further down this thread. (Though, thank you, your comment inspired me to clarify it.)
    So when you ask: "Why do people who comment in CfD keep on making the same mistakes when those WP instructions exist?" - I can but respond: "Why indeed?" - jc37 16:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and document!
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cultural depictions can be more than just a single work or groups of works, a character is not a work but a depiction for example, and a non-fiction work like a scholarly article isn't really a "cultural depiction".★Trekker (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per StarTrekker, i.e. a character depicting Thomas Jefferson as one character of many in a television series is not a "Work about Thomas Jefferson", it is a cultural depiction. Jc37's response above is concerning, to sub-divide and sub-divide: "Cultural depictions of..." is understandable, functional, has been fine, and nothing is broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Depicting Thomas Jefferson as one character of many in a television series does not make it a defining characteristic of the television series. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not at all what I meant. If there was a specific version of a fictionalized figure that has an article that is a depiction but not a work (such as Prince Hal).★Trekker (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, StarTrekker, so let's find out exactly what you meant, so we can better understand each other.
    Please provide one or more examples of a depiction that you feel is not a creative work. - jc37 05:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like my explanation is pretty clear, but ok, Joe Biden (The Onion) is a character not a work.★Trekker (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any character, even if it is based upon a real person, is a creative work. Any other examples? - jc37 10:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Characters are not works, characters are characters.★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you did not click on the links I provided. Regardless, thank you for clarifying. So the issue here is that you are unaware that character is an
    element of a creative work, and thus it too is a creative work. - jc37 14:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If someone is depicted in a cultural film, comic, etc. they are the subject of a cultural depiction. Ipso facto. There is nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The Asterix series of comics figures Julius Caesar as the main antagonist. At first glance I would say it is not a work about Julius Caesar, but it still is a notable depiction, not one character of many (as a hint, 4620 hits on Scholar). I agree that non-notable cultural depictions (translated: random appearances) should be purged, but may not there be room for notable ones, as in the example above? Where would you place this example work in the proposed structure? Place Clichy (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ This is important too, "cultural depictions" is a far better descriptor in many cases.★Trekker (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a creative work about Caesar. Even a parody is a work. Of course, here is where Jc37 chimes in that these should be "based upon" instead of "about".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, its not about Caesar or based on Caesar, its about Asterix, Caesar is a major character sometimes, but most stories are entirely fictional and not "based on" Caesar or other historical events.★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why exactly would we be categorizing every time
    Julius Ceasar appeared in fiction? At best this is something that should be a list, so that the appearance in question can be explained - just as you did just now. There are limitations to the category system, and this is one of them. See Point #2 at WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category, for more information. Incidentally, this whole "culteral depictions" tree of categories, are subcats of Category:Works based on real people. - jc37 14:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But the work here is the Asterix comics, and that is clearly not about Caesar. CharacterJulius Caesar (Asterix) redirects to List of Asterix characters § Julius Caesar and should most probably not be made into a full article. Categorizing the actual work (Asterix), rather than the character, as a cultural depiction of Julius Caesar (in comics) feels like the right move. I agree that a purge is probably needed, e.g. the 3 boats named Giulio Cesare (1, 2, 3) have nothing to do in Category:Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar. I also agree that minor character appearances would probably be better served by list articles. However, the mere notion that notable cultural depictions simply do not exist leaves me sceptical, which makes me lend towards keep/purge, unless I read clearer explanations on how these notable depictions would fit in the new structure. Place Clichy (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, just because the entire work may be considered to be about a topic, it does not mean that the elements which make up that work are any less creative works themselves. I have linked to them already, but please see:
    literary element, and pretty much any elementary school literature class. - jc37 16:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Of course Asterix's Julius Caesar character is a creative work and is about Julius Caesar. However, that character is not eligible for a Wikipedia article: the Asterix series of comics is, so that's the only creative work we talk about here. And that works depicts Ceasar, but is not about Caesar. More generally, in any fictional or novelized universe, specific books or films or video games etc. are often worth Wikipedia articles, but individual characters rarely are. However, the cultural depictions in them are often (at least sometimes) noteworthy, as in the list of examples given below in my answer to Marcocapelle. So it's a moot point to discuss the categorization of non-existing articles about 'literary elements' in works about Foo categories. Place Clichy (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cases where a cultural depiction is defining for the article while it is not a work about the subject are extremely rare. I can't imagine we would keep up an entire category tree, full of non-defining mentions, for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not say rare. There are plenty of cases where a secondary character achieves its own notability (John Falstaff comes to mind), and that also happens to real-based characters. Richard Burton's depiction of Mark Anthony in Mankiewicz's Cleopatra, Katharine Hepburn's Oscar-winning interpretation of Eleanor of Aquitaine in The Lion in Winter (the 'Lion' referring to Henry II), Anthony Hopkins as Pdt-to-be John Quincy Adams in Amistad are examples. In fact, Academy Award nomination lists for Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor have plenty of roles based on historic characters(Best Actress/Actor being more frequently for title roles). And that's only for Hollywood: notable cultural depictions in secondary characters also abounds in novel (Richard Lionheart is probably more well-known for the character in Ivanhoe and Robin Hood that his actual own deeds, as can be said of the real D'Artagnan vs. that of The Three Musketeers), play or opera (think of Philip II in Verdi's Don Carlos, or Marshall Kutuzov in Prokofiev's War and Peace). Also, there is the question whether even highly fictionalized title roles, such as the many fantasized depictions of Cleopatra, would really qualify as works about a historical figure. So I am leaning towards keep/purge unless I read clearer explanations on how these notable depictions would fit in the new structure. (I took the liberty to fix the indentation to place this line as an answer to my previous comment. Correct me if I was wrong.) Place Clichy (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge/listify when possible. This discussion shows that there is a space for cultural depictions of some characters in works that are not directly about them (e.g. Julius Caesar in Asterix, Richard Lionheart in Robin Hood or Ivanhoe or D'Artagnan in The Three Musketeers). HOWEVER, the Cultural depictions category tree has grown out of proportion, including many references such as a mere shared name (such as boats named Julius Caesar) or appearance of a minor character, for which disambiguation pages and lists (or article sections) of cultural references would be more appropriate than categories. So there's probably a long and tedious work ahead to purge these categories and listify what can be, but in any case the huge and valuable amount of information that's been put into them should be kept. Anyway, the notable depictions alone justify keeping the categories. Place Clichy (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons mentioned by several other editors: not all significant depictions of a person/thing occur in works about that topic; Asterix was the first thing that came to mind for me—albeit for Cleopatra, rather than Caesar—but of course many other examples come to mind, not to mention that the wording seems clumsy when it comes to say, paintings or especially sculptures. Michelangelo's David is a statue of David, not about David—although it may "say" things about David. And I would say that if a warship is named after someone, that has enough significance to be mentioned somewhere, although some sailboat being named after the same person would usually not; but these would certainly not be "works about" the person, or to be honest even "cultural depictions". I mention this because, besides "boats" having been mentioned above without distinction, the word purge which occurs several times in this discussion is usually invoked to justify deleting large sections of various articles mentioning the cultural influence of a subject—rather than merely editing such lists down to say, notable depictions rather than trivial mentions. I suggest that thoughtful pruning and purging are two very different processes, and that if something along these lines is done, it should be the former, and not the latter. P Aculeius (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I'm completely fine with Listify/Delete, for the reasons you mention, per point #2 at WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category. - jc37 17:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And maybe that's the solution. Close this as kept/opposed and open a new discussion on listification/deletion... - jc37 17:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion? Seriously? Why not just close Wikipedia down and call it a day. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most of the participants favour deleting all of this material. At most, figuring out the best place or format for it, and pruning it to remove obviously non-notable entries. P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I said. I didn't suggest "deleting all of this material." Please try reading what I said, again. - jc37 19:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37, by Listify/Delete do you mean "listify or delete", or "listify i.e. delete "? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. It's typically intended to mean Listify, then Delete. When meaning the reverse, I usually say "Delete, listify if wanted." Thank you for asking for the clarification, I'll try to be clearer in the future  : ) - jc37 03:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I agree with Trekker. Cultural depictions is a far wider category than single works, and typically more useful in actually locating articles. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2023 (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:Museums in Jelgava

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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge and move
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2023 (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:Culture in Latvia by location

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: emptied, redundant, unique category name per https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/60108 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2023 (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:Television episodes about the Crusades

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Category:Television episodes about the Crusades

Category:Quaker meeting houses

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Category:Quaker meeting houses

Category:User krc-0

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding convention we don't categorized people by the languages they don't speak. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:42, 11 February 2023 (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:Climbing equipment companies

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: combine to
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: These are effectively the same, most mountaineering equipment companies (and manufacturers) also make climbing equipment and visa versa. The new target category should also, therefore, be renamed as "Climbing and mountaineering equipment companies". Aszx5000 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given we have two large "head" categories of "mountaineering" and "climbing", it is better not to choose one over the other (and for some people, climbing is rock climbing and not mountaineering). Also, would not disperse, as most of these companies have consolidated over time and do such a wide range of mountaineering, climbing, hill walking, camping, etc so dispersal would not be helpful. For example, here is one of the biggest climbing and mountaineering magazines, Outside, calling Mammut Sports Group a "mountaineering and climbing company". We have them in Category:Climbing equipment companies and in Category:Mountaineering equipment manufacturers. We should merge and rename "Climbing and mountaineering equipment companies", like the magazine. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that we previously merged Category:Climbing and mountaineering-related lists, which also made sense. Aszx5000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 11 February 2023 (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:Climbing magazines

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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: These are effectively the same, most mountaineering magazines (and journals) cover climbing and visa versa. The new target category should also, therefore, be renamed as "Climbing and mountaineering magazines and journals". Aszx5000 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do this as some historically only focused on mountaineering, and as we have the major head category of Mountaineering, so readers will search for them from that. Also, some of these are not "magazines" but "journals", with large advisory boards, issues and volumes, etc. Given there is not a large amount, merging them all into "Climbing and mountaineering magazines and journals" would make it easier for readers to find them without missing any due to what are now semantic definitions. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2023 (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/2023_February_11&oldid=1141012157"