Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Paintings in a 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Paintings in the collection of the Frick Collection to :Category:Paintings in the Frick Collection

:* Propose renaming :Category:Portrait paintings in the collection of the Frick Collection to :Category:Portrait paintings in the Frick Collection

:* Propose renaming :Category:Paintings in the collection of the Berenson collection to :Category:Paintings in the Berenson collection

:* Propose renaming :Category:Paintings in the collection of the Foundation E. G. Bührle Collection to :Category:Paintings in the Foundation E. G. Bührle Collection

:* Propose renaming :Category:Paintings of the Wallace Collection to :Category:Paintings in the Wallace Collection

:* Propose renaming :Category:Paintings of the Wellington Collection to :Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection

:Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection. In that discussion, paintings by museum were categorised as "Paintings in the collection of X Museum", and it was noted that further discussion would be appropriate where the institution itself uses the word "Collection". – Fayenatic London 20:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, especially for "collection of the Berenson collection". "Berenson collection" (i.e. the collection of Bernard and Mary Berenson) isn't even the name of a museum of organization, so the category's current name is nonsense. Ham II (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support sensible and clearer. Aza24 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Makes sense. Grutness...wha? 03:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. --Just N. (talk) 13:21, 1 July 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.

: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. ✗plicit 01:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:1960 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1961 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1962 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1963 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1964 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1965 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1966 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1967 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1968 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

:* Propose merging :Category:1969 LGBT-related films to :Category:1960s LGBT-related films

Procedural nomination. Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 14#LGBT-related films by year, these categories (which I had not included in the first batch) were speedy-deleted yesterday because the user who had created them (who was the same user as the others) was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. But the articles weren't upmerged back to the decade category, and were instead just left loitering in the redlinks, so I had to recreate them under my own name to deal with that problem.
When it comes to LGBT-related film, the 1960s were a bit of a transitional decade — there were more noteworthy films in this genre in the 1960s than there had been in the 1950s or before, but still considerably fewer than there have been anytime since the 1970s, with the result that some of these categories are still in WP:SMALLCAT range — a couple of them do get into the double digits, but others still only have three or four articles, so there could be potentially valid arguments in both directions.
1960 is the cutoff point at which we currently start maintaining standalone List of LGBT-related films of 1960 lists by year instead of List of LGBT-related films of the 1950s lists by decade, but it still isn't exactly the point at which we have to do it that way for size management reasons — the largest category here (1969) has 17 pages in it, which is still smaller than the smallest category we ever see again after 1969, and there would still be fewer than 100 articles in a merged by-decade category (which is the primary reason why this decade wasn't subdivided by year until the banned user's recent category creation binge, even though everything from the 1970s on was), so it's kind of a coin toss as to whether they're needed or not.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way — I'm fine with them personally, but not willing to fight to the death for them if consensus would prefer to upmerge — but am listing them on procedural grounds strictly because I had to act to recreate speedy-deleted content previously initiated by a banned user. I will say that I don't see the value in keeping some but upmerging others — we should either keep all of them or merge all of them rather than treating 1962 differently than 1963 — but I can see valid arguments for both keeping them or upmerging them depending on consensus. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

::Given that this was a procedural nomination where my reasoning was quite equivocal about how I could see cases for both keeping and merging, I think it would be more helpful to provide some reasoning of your own rather than just saying "per nom". Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep, when merged it would become a rather big decade category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I've checked it and just only one has less than 5 articles (1960 - 4). So no SMALLCAT. Any real big categories (which is what we would get otherwise) aren't very useful as they lack clarity. --Just N. (talk) 13:33, 1 July 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.

: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. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:1980s Indian superhero films to :Category:1980s superhero films

:Nominator's rationale: Not enough content. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• There are currently 8 entries, is that not enough? If not kept, dual merge also to :Category:Indian superhero films and also nominate the 1990s and 2000s siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Eight articles is truly enough to have a subcategory. --Just N. (talk) 14:02, 1 July 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.

: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 parents. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Golden Orange Award to :Category:Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival and :Category:Turkish film awards

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose 1) It's sort of an optical illusion to see only one subcategory and assume it is a SMALLCAT and superfluous. If you open the cat you find in the second layer lots of articles. Indeed a very populated category. 2) If you dump it there would originate a gap in the category tree structure. 3) Wikidata can't live very well with all those mishmash collection categories like Festival articles and cats that comprehend the awards as well. For all these reasons don't merge this! --Just N. (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

:* This is a misunderstanding, with merging you do not create a gap, that only happens with deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 1 July 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.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose Deleting/Listifying :Category:The Peter G. Peterson Foundation

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)

:The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is an American think tank focused on reducing the national debt and founder Peter G. Peterson is certainly defined by this association. All the other people in this category are already listified right here in the main article as being members of an advisory board. The problem is that not one of those other biographies even mentions this association. Not one. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the biographies mention this association actually. --Just N. (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

:*Clarification User:Just N. added a passing mention in all the biographies since I nominated the category. No objection to those edits but wanted to clarify that I was accurately describing the category contents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:36, 1 July 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.

: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, adding the main article and sub-cat into appropriate parent categories. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose Deleting/Listifying :Category:Kit-Kat Club

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCVENUE)

:The Kit-Kat Club was a gentlemen's club in London. That group met at the Upper Flask tavern and at Barn Elms park and those 2 venues are the only 2 articles in this category other than the main article. Those public venues are already listified in the intro to the main article along with several other locations the club met at different points. This doesn't seem defining and the 3 articles are already crosslinked so it doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If this category is deleted, what should happen with :Category:Members of the Kit-Kat Club? Its only parent category is this category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Good point! Just added the subcat to multiple parents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The venues where the group met aren't defined by that association — and once they were removed all that would be left are the eponym itself and the members subcategory, which isn't enough content to justify an eponymous category. I can also see some prospect of this becoming misconstrued as a category for the nightclub in Cabaret, for the record, but that wouldn't need its own category either. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This 18th-century English club in London had strong political and literary associations. A central meeting point of Whigs. Lots of initiatives and ideas for actions were born there. A high cultural historical impact symbolized in this category. Don't dump it! --Just N. (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

:* That is an excellent reason to keep the article, but it does not tell anything about the definingness of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 1 July 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.