< August 8	August 10 >

August 9

Category:Films about legal appeals

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 to Category:Courtroom films. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Films about legal appeals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category creator will no doubt disagree, but I believe that a separate category for courtroom films that happen to include sequences in an appellate court is an example of WP:TRIVIALCAT. We already have such categories as Category:Courtroom dramas, Category:Courtroom films and Category:Legal films.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to parent. This does seem overly specific. I don't know many people that would distinguish a film from others by the fact it uses an appellate court. SFB 14:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very few courtroom films ever made concern appeals, as opposed to trials. This category, presently containing 12, lists them all. Considering that some legal related websites [1] have wondered openly about what courtroom films deal with appeals, and the number is so limited (because it's so specialized), a category containing all those films is entirely appropriate. Many other categories on Wikipedia have as little as 12 entries (or even less). There's nothing trivial about this at all. It is something of genuine interest and is perfectly encyclopedic. Wikophile (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Wikophile (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but that fact that someone posed a question about this, at some time, on his blog, doesn't sway me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how much about legal appeals (plural, not one in particular, note) must a film be in order for inclusion? Is that objective? What reliable sources tells us it's at least that much about legal appeals? None usually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different than Category:Films about capital punishment or, frankly, any of the myriad other Category:Films by topic. If a film should or shouldn't be included, that can be debated on the film's own page. I note that you don't take exception to any of the current listed films, all of which tell the story of appeals. Let this category be. Wikophile (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not recognized in reliable sources as being a distinct genre of film in its own right, but is merely an non-defining WP:OCAT distinction that's being subjectively applied to some films whose core genre is just plain "legal". Just as an example, while The People vs. Larry Flynt certainly ends in an appellate court, the film is primarily about the original trial itself, and the appeal part is basically just a coda rather than the core of what the film is about. Bearcat (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2014 (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:Christian 90's record labels

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Christian 90's record labels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: recently created, unnecessary and spelled incorrectly (should be 90s). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an apostrophe catastrophe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a category with a quaint name that will warm many hearts. It makes me happy just thinking about it. SFB 19:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not sure what is being attempted here, is it Christian record labels established in 90s, disestablished in the 90s, or just plain trading in the 90s? As it can only be the last then it needs to go.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OCAT by an intersection of two unrelated traits that don't constitute a meaningfully defining combination. If "Christian 90's" were a genre of music in its own right, then this might be warranted — but it isn't. Which means the category is just "things that happen to be both x and y", and we don't base categories around that sort of trivia. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete -- Cat is for christian record labels, established in the 90s. So it has a clear function. Why don't ask: "Is this cat confusing or does its presence make Wikipedia (or the specific cat tree) worse?" Because I'd think the answer to that question would be "No, the cat is not bad (in itself)". It even has the potential to increase its number of articles. -- CN1 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why do we need categories that intersect the specific genre of music the label releases with the decade in which the label was established? Nobody's arguing that the category is unclear; what's being argued is that it isn't a defining intersection of traits. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because people interested in record labels might find it useful to search record labels by time and by genre. CN1 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we already have separate trees for "record labels by genre" and "record labels by year of establishment". Why do we need a category that yokes those two things together into a single category? Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is confusing (is "Christian 90s" a genre? is it for labels created in the 1990s? is it for labels that traded in the 1990s? 1890s?). It does make the category tree worse because it creates a twig that combines attributes in a unique way that is not replicated elsewhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Description says "..created in the 90s" - the cats function is clear. -- CN1 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - People don't read the category descriptions, as a rule. The category's purpose and function has to be made unambiguous and unmistakable within the name itself, without relying on a usage note to paper over any confusion or ambiguity, to be acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary diffusion. Already and appropriately in Category:Christian record labels . --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent

The result of the discussion was: merge; there's more or less a consensus here that both should not exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent to Category:Writers by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: The proposed category overlaps with both the "writers by ethnicity" category and with the Category:Writers by nationality. I think the "writers by ethnicity" cat pretty much does everything that the "ethnic or national descent" does, and combining the two sets of articles would make for a cleaner cat organization. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aristophanes68.--Jann (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. For example I'm of Scottish ethnic descent (i.e. ancestry) but not Scottish ethnicity - they're two distinct things Mayumashu (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is even more reason to merge, since 'descent' in the category name is apparently confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole tree unless someone seriously can prove with reliable sources that the fact that all writers who N generations in the past had a single ancestor who was a resident of FOOLAND (national descent) or was FOOIAN (ethnicity) somehow defines both the writer and their writing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The consequence of the proposed merge is that we get rid of the descent and only base the category on ethnicity. I think you should support the idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mayumashu. You people can discuss right here if 'ethnic or nationl descent' is a trait worth categorizing, or not, and it won't be an easy discussion, but as long as that issue is not cleared, you cannot get rid of nominated cat. I am an advocate for keeping the 'descent' tree. It is a big tree, take a look for its topcat Category:People by ethnic or national descent and go down some cats. Do you people want to delete all these cats too? -- CN1 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do we then merge and delete the "writers by ethnicity" category as being redundant to this one? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd keep them separated, as I dont see great redundancy or overlap. If a writer is jewish or of some other ethnicity, he clearly belongs to Category:Writers by ethnicity. Instead Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent is used .. for what? I looked up the cat description of Category:People by ethnic or national descent - it reads: "lists people according to which ethnic group or country their forebearers were native or belonged to". CN1 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very impressive tree for sure. Are there any restrictions on whom to include in the tree, e.g. by number of generations back in history, or by a % of ancestors belonging to a nationality or ethnicity? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example These questions are left unanswered. E.g.: Angelina Jolie - "Jolie has stated that she is part Iroquois; her only known indigenous ancestor was a Huron woman born in 1649". She is categorized as "..by iroquois descent". It seems that the only definite criterium is, that the person itself is not part of the ethnicity, but their forebearers. And this is a clear distinction. You may not think its an important one, but there are hundrets of 'descent'-categories at this point, so I think they're being used. -- CN1 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your example quite clearly demonstrates that the category needs to be restricted, doesn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This example shows (imo) that it is impossible to make a clear restriction for this category! Instead one should think, if it is important for the person, to be a descendant of an ethnicity. Does it influence the person culturally? Is it a very rare ethnicity? Does the person identify with the other people of the ethnicity? Etc. If yes, then categorize, if no, then just don't. -- CN1 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think categorisations should occur on purely an identity basis. If someone specifically mentions that they identify with a heritage, then they should go in the category. Otherwise, no. SFB 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the categories for actors were recently merged the other way, i.e. to Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 1. The main category this way round (occupation, then origin) is Category:People by occupation and ethnicity, so I wonder if it would be better to rename the actors subcat back to "by ethnicity". In parallel to the nominated categories, Category:Politicians by ethnicity contains a fairly well-developed Category:Politicians by ethnic or national descent, which ought to be considered with this one. Although Category:People by ethnic or national descent is a very well established sub-level of Category:People by ethnicity, it seems from the Actors discussion that we only need an intersection with occupation at one of those two levels. I note that the most detailed part of the occupation-by-origin hierarchy is Category:American people by occupation and ethnic or national origin, which uses "origin" rather than "descent". – Fayenatic London 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. I think that occupation should intersect with ethnicity or national origin, but not descent. This means we should nominate any categories of occupation by descent either to be renamed & pruned, or upmerged to all parents. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge The differentiating of ethnicity and descent is too technical a line to always figure out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge where appropriate' There is only one ethnicity in the given category (Hmong) - the others refer to countries which cover many differing ethnic groups. And not sure why Amish features here (??). SFB 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been bold and moved the Hmong and Amish writers categories into the ethnicity tree as these are explicitly not descent categories. SFB 00:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Max van der Stoel Award winners

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Max van der Stoel Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Having received this award does not apear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the recipients (currently 3 of the 5 articles do not mention the award). This category also places articles about organizations in a category that is for articles about people. See also WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support but listify first. We do not seem to have Max van der Stoel Award. This is the usual outcome for award winners' categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having received this award is not less defining than receiving Nobel Prize. "This category also places articles about organizations in a category that is for articles about people" Organisations can be award winners, too, and this is a widespread practice (see, e.g., Nobel Peace Prize). Fuseau (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is less defining than receiving a Nobel Prize - most/all articles about Nobel Prize laureates mention it in the article (usually/always in the lead). Articles about organizations do not belong in Category:Award_winners because that is a subcategory of Category:People_by_status. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be persuaded to consider this award appropriately defining, if we actually had an article to explain what the award is (who presents it, for what reasons, etc.) — but it cannot be given an automatic presumption of defining notability in the absence of such an article. Delete per nom; I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can explain it adequately. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]