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:Listify and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the normal solution to award categories is Listify and delete. This would be my vote, except that this will involve a deletion review since the article Picasso Award has just been converted to a redirect to UNESCO. Some one clearly put good work into providing a list of award winners from on-line newspaper sources, etc. So what do we do? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete indeed. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2010 (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.
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the sole subcat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge but for a different reason; the distinction between "visual art" and other arts is usually done here by "art"=visual art, and the larger group as "arts". Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was just created today, and an IP is adding tons of articles on films to it. I see no point in having a category that is largely qualitative. -download׀sign! 15:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. If it is indeed a recognized genre, we do have categories for genres of film. There is an article on the topic. But I'll change my vote if anyone can refute this. --Bsherr (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is well-referenced, and seems to have a consistent definition of the subgenre, a definition with an origin in a reliable source. However, that does not mean the category is necessary or justified. This is especially the case when multiple films are being added to the category without justification. No further films should be added to the category while this discussion is ongoing, and recent additions, especially non-Hong Kong films, should be removed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me as a matter of consistency that all genres should be treated similarly. And I don't see why this discussion should prevent growing the category; doing so doesn't make administration of the consensus of this discussion any easier or harder. Of course, articles that don't belong in a category should be removed, everywhere on Wikipedia. The decision of justification should be made on the article talk page, but boldly adding the category is acceptable WP:BRD. Can you justify why such unusual restrictions would be warranted here? --Bsherr (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear in my comment above. What I meant to say is that the anonymous user should be discouraged from adding more films to the category, at least until he has engaged in some discussion, because he clearly does not have a good grasp of the category's definition. Simply adding films 'cause he thinks they fit is not helpful. He added numerous non-Hong Kong films to the cat., and I believe a lot of the Asian films he added are also inappropriate, as this sub-cat. refers to a specific style of action, and not every film meets the standard. Being bold does not justify incorrect categorization. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps name a good forum here or on the anon's talk page? --Bsherr (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator of this deletion informed the anon. of this discussion, so I am hoping he will participate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My vote has to be for deletion. While the article gives a pretty good definition of this "style," it is not a genre, per se, and is not a term in wide use amongst other critics. It is more of a sub-sub-genre, and we are better off with the article, with a short list of films that fit this specific definition, than an overpopulated category which will be nearly impossible to keep free of inappropriate films. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, but we ought to relist to allow sufficient time for replies now. --Bsherr (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a style of film that is notable enough to have an article. Is the standard different for a category? And why is it more difficult to keep this category free of inappropriate films than any other similar category? --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in the article is very precise, referring to a small subset of Hong Kong action films. At this point, there are a great many articles in the category that are not appropriate, and in the future it will continue to be a catch-all for all sorts of action films, including Japanese films, which, by definition, are not appropriate. As I said above, it is better to have a short list in the article of films that meet the definition, that list will be easier to maintain.
Yeah, I get that you're saying a list is better, but I'm not sure that means it's ok to delete the category. There's nothing affirmatively wrong with having the category. None of WP:OCAT seems to apply, no? --Bsherr (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, I agree that this should be relisted to allow for more discussion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – articles are categorised by 'defining characteristics', namely a property that should not be omitted from a précis. I have looked at several articles in this category, none of which even mention 'heroic bloodshed'. Several of the films mentioned in the article heroic bloodshed do not reciprocate the mention. IMO the category should be pruned of all articles which do not mention the genre, leaving such as Dang Bireley's and Young Gangsters which mention it prominently. (ie Keep but prune.) Occuli (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The genre certainly exists. The nomination does provide any clear reason to delete the corersponding category. Adding articles to a category is to be expected. The objection that the category is qualitative seems feeble. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2010 (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.
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:close, improper venue. — ξxplicit 06:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? - This is not the proper venue for such a suggestion. You are proposing an exception be added to the WP:CSD#C1 speedy deletion criteria. I'd suggest bringing this up at WT:CSD if you want this changed. I strongly disagree with the proposal, by the way. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2010 (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.
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 all. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is not your father's ABA. Rather, it's a relatively new league with no connection to the league of Dr. J and company. I see no evidence that this league calls itself "ABA 2000" any more. The last category is functionally a delete nomination, since all teams are in Category:American Basketball Association 2000 teams already. That one should go because we don't categorize any league's teams by when they entered.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks for nominating these.--TM 18:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice job on these Mike. Definitely the disambiguation is needed in this case, and the expansion teams one can just be merged into the teams category, as proposed. Information on which teams are expansion and what year they joined can easily be included on the main article page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:51, 3 November 2010 (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.
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplicate categories; target is older and more appropriately named with the necessary "(2009)" disambiguation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Though I will point out that this league's category date suggests the league no longer plays. Perhaps (2009–present) might be better. There's also the model of Category:International Hockey League (2007–). I'm not sure what the precedent is for things like this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--TM 23:34, 7 November 2010 (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:MLB players who have played 20 seasons[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing by arbitrary figure. What makes a player who played 19 or 21 seasons any different than one who played 20?TM 04:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of the category is good, although 20 may be a little high. mechamind90 04:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I agree that whatever number of years is selected, the choice is arbitrary and therefore inappropriate for categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 1 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Usernames in violation of the username policy are considered less important, but these users in the "Banned Wikipedia users" category are more troublesome. They should not be building themselves up to the worst high-profile banned users. Viewers can use the "What links here" tool to find where the Banned User template is transcluded. mechamind90 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete this category, policy-based or otherwise. Of the tens of thousands of blocked accounts, these users have specifically lost their privilege to edit Wikipedia, far beyond the technical measure of a simple block, and a category to coordinate and navigate through users share one of the darkest—if not the darkest—characteristics of a Wikipedian seems pretty useful to me. — ξxplicit 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that's really the kind of thing LTA or such pages are for. My statement is that we don't need the lesser-known banned users to be easily cheered by the trolling groups. I'm only saying reduce the general publicity. mechamind90 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a sensible functional category. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (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.
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. (2 subcategories should be renamed too.) ArmbrustTalkContribs 20:10, 4 November 2010 (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:People from Washington Heights, New York[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and category. ArmbrustTalkContribs 20:05, 4 November 2010 (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:SDP MPs in the 1979-1983 Parliament (UK)[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The UK MP tree doesn't break down MPs into the party+Parliament combination. Generally, it breaks them down into a tree for party and a separate tree for Parliament. The category for MPs of this party doesn't yet exist, so I suggest that this category be renamed that, after which MPs from the party who served in different Parliaments can also be added to it. The articles in category are already in Category:UK MPs 1979–1983, so there is no need to upmerge to that. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- The reason for this category is probably that the SPD merged with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats very shortly after the 1983 election, so that there will not be any sister categories for other Parliaments. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that is correct. There was a party by that name that continued to exist until 1988. There was an informal alliance called SDP–Liberal Alliance, but the parties remained formally distinct. Rosie Barnes was elected for the SDP in 1987, for example. The Liberal Democrats didn't form until 1988. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:54, 3 November 2010 (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.
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. — ξxplicit 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to nominate all of Category:Iona College, which also omits (New York).--TM 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, I'm okay about renaming the other Iona College cats as well.--Lenticel(talk) 04:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to conform with common naming standards.--TM 05:27, 3 November 2010 (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.
