Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 23

May 23

Category:Eldorado Resorts

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Eldorado Resorts to Category:Caesars Entertainment (2020)

Nominator's rationale: C2D, article moved. 162 etc. (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy rename, per this RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anglo-Egyptian War

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) 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Anglo-Egyptian War to Category:Anglo–Egyptian War

Nominator's rationale: Uncontroversial renaming per MOS:NDASH. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 18:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy per WP:C2D to match Anglo–Egyptian War. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anglo–Egyptian War is incorrect. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES: "Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry". I have moved the article back to Anglo-Egyptian War, the way it was before the recent undiscussed move. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Wrong Venue Missed the recent rename of the main article. If the format of the main article is controversial, we need a formal WP:RM there and then if/when it is renamed through consensus, this category can be speedied per WP:C2D . - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Good Ol’factory. "Anglo" wasn't one of the combatants. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Good Ol’factory. --Just N. (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cook Island religious leaders

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Cook Island religious leaders to Category:Religious leaders in the Cook Islands
• Propose renaming Category:Cook Island missionaries to Category:Missionaries in the Cook Islands
• Propose renaming Category:Cook Island clergy to Category:Clergy in the Cook Islands
• Propose renaming Category:Cook Island bishops to Category:Bishops in the Cook Islands
• Propose renaming Category:Cook Island Roman Catholic bishops to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the Cook Islands

Nominator's rationale: The state's name is plural in the islands Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support - though while the state's name is "Cook Islands", the demonymic adjective is "Cook Island", as is the case with several such island groups. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The standard format for people from the Cook Islands is "Cook Island FOOs". See Category:Cook Island people and subcategories. Why are these categories from that Category:Cook Island people tree being singled out? Additionally, this tree should not be treated any differently than any other nationality tree. And why is the nominator pre-emptively changing a nominated category from a by-nationality category to a by-country one? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that the original purpose was nationality rather than state. As a quasi-dependency of New Zealand, I'm not even sure that the Cook Islands is a state. I don't think that it has is a UN member. Most entries in the nominated categories are for people who work in the state as opposed to people who are natives of the state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Cook Islands is a state. It's what's called an "associated state" – associated with New Zealand. It is not a member of the UN but conducts its own foreign relations and has joined various UN organizations. Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens but they have their own nationality. I created the category Category:Cook Island religious leaders, so I can say with confidence that the original intent was to create a nationality category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - my personal view is that there should be both Category:Cook Island religious leaders ('nationality') and Category:Religious leaders in the Cook Islands (place). Denis Browne (bishop) for instance is clearly a New Zealander born and bred, who spent a few years as Bishop of the Cook Islands (Rarotonga). Hendrick Joseph Cornelius Maria de Cocq is clearly Dutch and spent a few years as Bishop of Rarotonga. Raui Pokoati is both a Cook Island person and in the Cook Islands. Oculi (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw nominations per clarification of @Good Olfactory: above. Per advice of @Oculi: above, I intend to create the nominated targets as new, parallel categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I created Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the Cook Islands as advised above and populated it. At the same time, I took note of the nationality of each of the RC bishops; where they were New Zealand or Dutch nationals, I changed them from "Cook Island bishops" to the appropriate expatriate category. I stopped at the last one when it became clear that there were in fact no Cook Island nationals in the category at all. So rather than be accused of de-populating a category out of process, I let it remain, even though he is a NZ national. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Good Olfactory. --Just N. (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stories within Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio

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:Stories within Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio noting this follows the recent move of the main page per requested move of Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Stories within Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio to Category:Stories within Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio

Nominator's rationale: Strange Tales is definitely the more commonly-used translation as a cursory search would show. Also would like the parent category to be renamed too. Thank you Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Belgian chroniclers

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) 02:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Belgian chroniclers to Category:Prince-Bishopric of Liège chroniclers

Nominator's rationale: All lived long before Belgium was established, and most were from the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. Will need a bit of purging if this is agreed. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Chroniclers from the Low Countries would make a much more accurate alternative. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Disperse. Of the articles currently in the category, most are not specifically about people from the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. This is too early to categorize by nationality, the articles are ok in the tree of Category:Historians by century and in addition they should be moved to Category:People from the county of Flanders, Category:People of the Prince-Bishopric of Liège etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm quite happy with that proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Are Chroniclers sufficiently distinct from Category:Medieval historians to warrant a seperate category? Rathfelder (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. It is useful enough to distinguish them from other medieval chroniclers, and dispersing them in all the feudal states that then constituted present-day Belgium would not be useful. They belong in Belgian history so Belgian is not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment everything you said is correct, as far as it goes, but is not quite the topic at hand. This isn't about whether their their work is "part of Belgium's history" (i.e. the precoditions and causes behind modern Belgium), it certainly is. It's about the fact that we primarily categorize people by citizenship (or subjectivity in monarchies), and there wasn't a Belgium to be a subject of at the time.

  --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  We primarily categorize people by nationality, not citizenship. What we are meeting here is the usual petty contradiction between historical logic and geographical logic in the organization of categories. States of the past may have changed, and it is sometimes hard to consider if an entirely new nation-state is created when a new regime with a new name replaces a former one: some contributors here, for instance, would consider the French Fifth Republic, or the United Kingdom, or the Federal Republic of Germany, as entirely new countries different from the French Fourth Republic, the Kingdom of Great Britain, or Third Reich Germany. While we can probably agree that the Kingdom of Belgium was established in 1830, it is very debatable that there was no Belgian nation before that. Nation-building is a long process which in this case prominently involves the culturally and economically brilliant medieval and Renaissance periods of Flanders and Brabant under Burgundian and Habsburg overlordship, the rift created with the Northern provinces at the time of the Reformation etc. The name Belgium and related names have been used in English and other languages from the 16th century for the southern regions of the Low Countries, not to mention of course Roman Gallia Belgica. On the contrary, citizenship in the many counties and fiefs and principalities that formed the Holy Roman Empire is hardly defining, was sometimes changing for individuals that moved between states (you did not have to go very far) and would be a very bad base for categorizing individuals of the early modern period. I therefore consider that using Belgian is not anachronistic at all for people from present-day Belgium before 1830, no more than Italian or German for people before the unification of these countries. Of course, there are also people (mostly Flemish nationalists) who do not consider that a Belgian nation exists even today, but that is another issue. Place Clichy (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Place Clichy. --Just N. (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This is applying Belgian in an ahistorical way and falsely given the impression that modern boundaries control the past in ways we should not imply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I doubt if the term Belgian was used in the 13th century. Most of these people described as Flemish. Should we call the category Flemish chroniclers?

  I doubt just as equally that the word Flemish was used in the 13th century. The word Flanders was certainly used, even though not with the meaning given to it today. Anyway, the very concept of nationality is pretty fuzzy when applied to the 13th century. Place Clichy (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paralympic taekwono practitioners of Turkey

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete C2E. Typo in title. CeeGee 10:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, this is an empty category. You could've tagged for speedy deletion instead of bringing it to CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Walloon writers

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: split between Category:Belgian writers in Walloon and Category:Belgian writers in French. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Walloon writers to Category:Walloon-language writers

Nominator's rationale: Pretty much the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Walloon language is a dialect that not all Walloon writers use (many write standard French). --10:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Disperse, if sources confirm they write in Walloon then they belong in Category:Belgian writers in Wallon (which is proposed to be speedily renamed to Category:Belgian writers in Walloon), otherwise they should go to Category:Belgian writers in French. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Some of the articles say the people wrote in French, some in Walloon and some dont specify either. So as it stands the category doesnt work. It could, of course, be intended as a purely geographical category, but I think that would just be a source of confusion, so I think we should go with Marcocapelle - purge it and then delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Disperse per Marcocapelle. If the articles don't specify either some time-consuming extra recherche might be necessary if not even the French Wp article can help. --Just N. (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment We do not categorize writers by where they write, so I do not think we should have Category:Belgian writers in Walloon. Physical location of writing is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete/ merge applicable contents to Category:Belgian writers in French. The location where writing is done is not defining, and it seems that people do not think this is a doable ethnic designation, so we should go for the clear and definable language one. For the record I also think that we should scrap all the singers by language categories. Singing in a language can be done with very little or even in some cases no actual understanding of the language. There are people who learn to pronounce Italian enough that they can sing operas, but have no idea what the words they produce actually mean. On the other hand writing requires a deep familiarity with the languae and so is defining. Which is why few people are in more than 2 by language written categories, but I can quickly find people in 5 or more by language sung categories. So I really think the latter are non-defining and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who died in Fort Breendonk

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 Category:People who died in Breendonk concentration camp to Category:People who died in Fort Breendonk. Note that we still have Category:Breendonk concentration camp, Category:Breendonk concentration camp prisoners‎, Category:Breendonk concentration camp survivors‎, and Category:Breendonk concentration camp personnel‎ , so a follow-up nomination may be in order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:People who died in Fort Breendonk to Category:People who died in Breendonk concentration camp

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same place, Fort Breendonk. Rathfelder (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Category should be "Fort Breendonk" – the Germans used it as a prison but it wasn't strictly a concentration camp. --10:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support merge to People who died in Fort Breendonk. As noted above, it was a prison rather than a concentration camp. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Merge or reverse merge, the two categories serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm perfectly happy with the reverse merge. Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Preferably reverse merge Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'd prefer merging to Category:People who died in Breendonk concentration camp. That 'prison' was de facto a concentration camp! The Nazi party just prefered to do the murderous part without any posiible observation by foreign people like the Dutch. -- Just N. (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection

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 "Paintings in the collection of FOO". (On whether to add "the" before FOO, a point not discussed, I have just kept what already existed in the nominated categories). For some, the new name might be problematically repetitive: there are some that are worded "Paintings in the collection of the FOO Collection". But I'll leave this issue alone and anyone can follow up on it with a new nomination if they desire. Perhaps it is not a problem at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Paintings of El Escorial into Category:Paintings in El Escorial
• Propose renaming Category:Paintings of Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum to Category:Paintings in Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum
• Propose renaming Category:Paintings of Mumok to Category:Paintings in Mumok
• Propose renaming Category:Paintings of Pinacoteca di Brera to Category:Paintings in the Pinacoteca di Brera
• Propose renaming Category:Paintings of Royal Holloway College to Category:Paintings in Royal Holloway, University of London
• Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna to Category:Paintings in the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna

and 122 others:

Nominator's rationale: Following on from this nomination in which Category:Paintings of the Louvre was changed to Category:Paintings in the Louvre, and this one in which the same pattern was applied to its subcategories, I propose changing all instances of "Paintings of" a museum, etc., to "Paintings in" the same. This is less ambiguous than the current phrasing, which can be read as meaning that the paintings are depictions of the buildings themselves. There is currently a mix of both styles at Category:Paintings by collection, and it would be best to standardize to the least ambiguous one. The equivalent Commons categories invariably use "in", not "of". Ham II (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC) NB: The link to the second CfD discussion was previously a duplicate of the link to the first; now corrected. Ham II (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ham II, "of" is no better or worse than "in", which may short for "in the collection of", but can be read as "in the building". There is no such ambiguity with "of". Works can be on (long term) loans or in a different location. Work can be "in" the museum, but not be part of the collections, etc. "of" can be understood to mean that a painting depicts the museum building. Vexations (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alt rename to "Painting collection of". The points in this and the previous discussion are legitimate: "Paintings of the Louvre" is ambiguous and could constitute paintings of the Louvre building. "Paintings in the Louvre" does not account for whether the paintings are indeed physically inside the Louvre building. The best compromise is slightly more specificity, that the defining trait is their belonging to the "Painting collection of the Louvre". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Czar: Paintings in the collection of is more often used in sources; see this ngram. I would be strongly opposed to using this kind of phrasing for the museums which already have the word "collection" in their name; Paintings in the Frick Collection is far better than Painting collection of the Frick Collection or Paintings in the collection of the Frick Collection. Ham II (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, I'd support making an exception for those. As for "Painting collection" vs. "Paintings in the collection", no strong feelings. I'm not surprised that the latter has more ngram hits because it is a natural phrase. If others are fine with the extra wordiness, works for me. Otherwise I err towards concision as long as the meaning is clear. czar 06:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  An advantage of "in the collection of" is that subcategories of these categories could be made consistent with their parents without becoming very clunky: "Paintings by Sandro Botticelli in the collection of the Uffizi" is much better than "Sandro Botticelli painting collection of the Uffizi" or "Botticelli painting collection of the Uffizi". Ham II (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per previous discussion. "In" is greatly superior to "of" - it removes any ambiguity as to whether the painting is of a specific subject or in a location.Grutness...wha? 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. - Eureka Lott 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think Czar's suggestion is a better alternative. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the alt rename suggestion from czar. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Which is the best name? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I support the alt rename suggestion from Czar. --Just N. (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Paintings in the collection of per HamII, in any case this should be plural 'Paintings' both for accuracy and appearance. 'Painting' sounds as if the crew is repainting the walls. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: if we're going with an alt rename, I prefer Ham II's suggestion as a clearer option. - Eureka Lott 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Grutness, Sean Stephens, Kevlar, and Justus Nussbaum: What do you think of the alt rename "Paintings in the collection of [...]", as that suggestion was made after your posts? Ham II (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that's a decent alternative, but I personally still prefer Czar's suggestion (it's a lot more concise and explains the category in less words). Sean Stephens (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me - and I prefer it to Czar's suggestion, as it is better grammatically and easier to make it consistent with other categories (see Ham II's comments). Grutness...wha? 02:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mohel

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Mohel to Category:Mohels

Nominator's rationale: Mohel is singular. Categories are usually named after plural versions of occupations (doctors, teachers). So, mohels, not mohel. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films with screenplays selected in The Black List

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Films with screenplays selected in The Black List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING. Arbitrary characteristic that has no bearing on the film's eventual reputation; not all of these films were so fondly remembered after they eventually came out. We don't categorize based on the hype films receive prior to release, especially since it rarely carries over to its post-release reputation. It also does not dictate anything intrinsic to the films themselves; it has less to do with the movies themselves and more to do with audience's reactions to them. In other words, it's not about something internal to the topic, but something external to it, which we do not categorize for. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The Black List (survey) feels similar to a WP:TOPTEN list. Even if it were defining to the original screenplay, our articles are generally about the final films. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This category provides much more usefulness to film interested users than a lot of other categories about galas and celebs. It is definitely defining, and not only for the original screenplays, marking the quality aspect instead of the cinema box office aspect. And certainly I do not consent to all those airy-fairy musings (citation: "it's not about something internal to the topic, but something external to it". That's wrong, that sounds IMHO like careless talking. "which we do not categorize for". We? That statement seems more a very subjective personal point of view. It is not at all grounded. The business aspect (popularity = cash flow) is not all we have to notice but the media studies user also wants the other sides (aesthetics, relation to life reality, etc). Black List points to that. And I'm not talking about vague musing like "feels similar to". --Just N. (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It is not defining, it is a list generated from criteria maintained by an organization external to the conception, production, and distribution of the films mentioned therein. Find any random movie article and show me its placement in categories that are not concerned with any of those things. That "careless talking" stands thus far without an adequate rebuttal, and "that's wrong" is a WP:NOREASON rationale. "We" have long categorized based on what actually forms the topic of an article; this is not my view, this is the view of the community. This was agreed upon long ago, and is not up to any of us here anymore. The Black List was not involved in any film's production and ultimately had no bearing on the things defining to each film's existence. It does attempt to vouch for why anyone should care about certain films, but in that case it is doing no more than Wikipedia does, and nothing we do here is defining to the topic either. There are many interconnected topics within the realm of media studies; some categories do allow for examination of connections the way you describe, but that is emphatically not the point of categories. That is more the rationale for "See also" sections, which have their own set of restrictions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• The opposition is an example of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: films should be judged more by quality and less by cash flow, hence our categories should reflect quality. Even so, a screenplay in the Black List is a very indirect measure of quality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not to mention it's done before the film is even produced, and screenplays change during production all the time for myriad reasons. It would be like if we passed an article as being Good before ti even existed just because some editors put together decent suggestions for it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, there is also a discussion about Category:Television series with screenplays selected in The Black List on May 28. The two discussions should probably be closed in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Meanwhile the other discussion has been closed as delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced and stay with keep. Black list as an organization external to the conception, production, and distribution of the films sounds perfect: so they take no interest in cash flow generating PR. Just as I stated and you still misunderstand: this organisation is sth like an independent critics' organisation. Media studies people and film critics are always interested to get infos about directors /screenwriters w/o having to dig deep and time-consumingly. Wikipedia is valuable to them for reasons /hints like this. --Just N. (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• And as I said before, helping them with that is flatly not our job. If they want, they can go directly to the source, i.e. wherever this Black List is published. Wikipedia is not the only place where ideas come together to be browsed at the same time, so will not be the only resource used in media studies. And with that, I believe I have made my final rebuttal. Think what you will. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. When I saw this I thought it was related to the Hollywood blacklist. Per WP:CLNT, the common feature shared between this films is a good topic for a list (for which the main article does just fine) but is not defining for a category. Considering that this appreciation of the screenplay (which is in fact intrinsically biased) is a defining characteristic of the film is probably giving too much importance to screenplay. Excellent screenplays make terrible movies and vice versa. M*A*S*H comes to mind as a film for which, according to director Robert Altman, so many liberties were taken with the screenplay that the film ended up winning the Academy Award for best screenplay. Place Clichy (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Hello! Project members

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: selective merge and delete. (I checked which pages needed merging using WP:PetScan.) – Fayenatic London 09:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose Upmerging Category:Former Hello! Project members to Category:Hello! Project members

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC generally

Hello! Project is a J-pop musical ensemble group selected through a reality TV show and the association seems defining to these young Japanese women. But we don't typically categorize by current/former band membership because the distinction is not defining and it creates a maintenance issue. For instance, we don't have Category:Former Menudo (band) members or Category:The Beatles former members. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Upmerge per nominator, and per precedent for literally every other musical group we have member categories for. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The target is a sort of container category. Perhaps all articles in this category are already in some other subcategory of Category:Former Hello! Project members so that the nominated category could be deleted instead of merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a fair observation that no loose articles are in the target category so I went through the first 10 articles: 5 were in some other Hello! Project while 5 are not (not counting the Category:Hello! Project stubs). - RevelationDirect (talk)

• Thanks for checking. In that case either manually merge, or merge by bot and manually purge (applying WP:SUBCAT) afterwards. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members

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 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Propose Upmerging Category:Former Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members to Category:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC generally

Being a member of the Wikimedia Board appears defining to the articles but we don't typically categorize by current/expired terms of office because the distinction is not defining and it creates a maintenance issue. For instance, we don't have Category:Former mayors of London and there are no other "former" subcategories of Category:Trustees of educational establishments. This tree works best when the leaving/expulsion is defining, not routine expiration of terms of office. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I'd see it as a useful information for our users to get the 'former' at first sight. And it's a very limited number of persons so not much of a maintenance issue. OTOH I wouldn't tear my hairs out if a majority would decide to merge it. --Just N. (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• In this case it ís a limited number of persons, but other categories may follow with more persons. I would rather not encourage that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, it's the WMF and for that reason of natural interest for all Wikpedians. Important to know which person just was or still is in the board. Don't think your vague warning is reasoned: no big numbers to be expected. --Just N. (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Of natural interest to X" smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. At present this is not how we categorize past membership in any group of any sort. We shouldn't make an exception for groups with direct relation to the encyclopedia itself (it reeks heavily of conflict of interest). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge Invariably the category currently named for "former" members will continue to grow, while the category implicitly only for current members will never exceed a certain size and will always experience considerable turnover. For all group member category schemes I have witnessed here on Wikipedia thus far (politicians, sports teams, musical groups, to name but a few), and as I said in the discussion directly above this one, the general idea is, "Once a member, always a member." Many categories, e.g. Living people, will necessarily evolve and remain fluid over time, but we should minimize that as much as possible to maintain the usefulness of our categorization schemes. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bringing forward three arguments: What an unreasonable exaggeration (citation: "will always experience considerable turnover". Those people are elected every few years anew, in rare cases somebody retreats for health or familial reasons and has to be replaced. What a "considerable" inflated amount of maintenance! Another aspect: isn't it desirable to refresh now and then your knowledge about which personalities are actually NOW active in that board? And 3rd: certainly a merged category which comprehends lots of has-been persons is nearly useless (except for historians naturally) for most of the users/wikipedians. --Just N. (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.