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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the sole subcat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 22 October 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:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States[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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The result at TfD was to merge the template for shared IP addresses of the US military into the template for shares IP addresses of government agencies and facilities. The remaining question is whether this category has any remaining utility. I would advance the proposal that it does not have any remaining utility, that for purposes of the shared IP templates, US military shared IP addresses are treated the same as all government shared IP addresses, regardless of country. I therefore propose the deletion of the category, and that the merge be completed by redirect. Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One thing to note is that there is no indication in the current name or proposed name that this is a category meant for user pages. Someone seeing this category might think there's some sort of set of articles on military IP addresses; there's no indication that this is a project category. I'd try something like Category:Wikipedia user pages of shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be supportive of renaming too. --Bsherr (talk) 16:02, 29 September 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) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the proposal above has turned into moving both pages to a third name, the second category needs to be tagged as being discussed. Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no one proposal in these discussions, I'll tag the categories as being discussed for renaming. --Bsherr (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the simpler current names. It is not just about the talk pages, but the whole account doing the editing. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:58, 21 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) 17:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm relisting this again since yet more categories have been added to the discussion. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the new rename proposal since an indicator that it's a Wikipedia page grouping has been added. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category is no longer populated by a template (by no action of mine). --Bsherr (talk) 20:22, 29 October 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:Shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses[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:Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No Wikipedia-project-related reason to distinguish. Bsherr (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this seems to be added by {{SharedIPCORP}}. I don't share the nom's confidence that there is no 'reason to distinguish'. Occuli (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me how I might secure your confidence? --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. If it's useless to the administration of the encyclopedia, why keep it? --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of the merge, this category and the target category need some sort of identifier showing this is a category for Wikipedia user pages, such as Category:Wikipedia user pages that are shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses, due to the possibility of confusion for someone thinking there is a series of articles on shared IP addresses or corporation/business IP addresses. VegaDark (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such is already proposed for the target category. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 10 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) 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as well why this would help Wikipedia to distinguish such IP addresses in its own category. Why is it more helpful to group IPs that originate from a corporation or business, than say Category:Shared IP addresses from beet farmers in Pennsylvania? Merge if no examples of the use for this is revealed, although I'll happily reconsider if such a use is revealed. {{sharedIPCORP}} serves a purpose in that it can identify COI edits, but I can't think of a reason to specifically go searching in a category for such IP addresses, so attaching a category to this template seems unnecessary. VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 22 October 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.
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]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently empty, appears disused, appears dependant on manual categorization, and is deprecated by Special:LongPages, per WP:SIZE. Bsherr (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support reasonable-sounding nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 26 October 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.
Support After reading Subculture I get it now. –Moondyne 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match what appears to be the main article, though not expressed as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 29 October 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.
