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: I'm guessing this category was made back when all the Game & Watch games had their own articles. Since this is no longer the case, we don't need a category for 1 article. Upmerge and delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2012 (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: I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion in this category are and I'm not sure it's a useful distinction to make, to boot. Of course there are the obvious remakes (SM64DS and SMA4:SMB3). However, why isn't New Super Mario Bros included as a remake? There seems to be a continuum between remake and original game. Evidently, Mario Bros. is included because it has been included as a remake in other games. Super Mario All-Stars is a compilation of remakes. I suggest upmerging to Mario platform games to avoid this messy issue of thinslicing categories. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. What is and what is not a "remake" is at times unclear in games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea for any that this is not already true. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2012 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no agreed upon definition of "tech noir," and the main article for the subject lacks reliable sources. Therefore the articles added to this category are arbitrary and merely the opinion of editors. This is not acceptable. Until there is a main article that clearly reflects the cited opinions of notable critics, this category should be deleted. All of the films categorized are already listed in other, more appropriate, categories. RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: There are several sources on this topic, such as books, 2, and websites. Just because the main article is not well developed, doesn't mean it can't be cleaned up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Andrzejbanas. A useful category with a strict definition can be made on this topic, so we should improve not delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is sufficiently subjective that no objective criteria are set out for inclusion and exclusion that makes those included a sufficiently cohesive set that those excluded could not possibly be part of that set. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Prune to only those films actually defined as such in reliable sources. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrzejbanas. If reliable sources identify a film as being part of the tech-noir genre, then that ought to be sufficient. Tech-Noir Film: A Theory of the Development of Popular Genres, for example, includes an appendix (pp. 179–186) of tech-noir films that could be used to support and expand this category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is an agreed upon definition of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "agreed upon definition"? The definition on the category page is useless, and the main article is a mess. If there are sources, then the main article needs to be rewritten and sourced. Then, a list of relevant films can be included there. But, I still see no purpose for this category. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:12, 30 July 2012 (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: To match the main article, toll road for the type of roadway these authorities, commissions and agencies manage. An "expressway" is technically a type of road with limited access control and some level of incomplete grade separation; is an intermediate type of road between a divided highway and a freeway. Exclusive of toll roads, expressways are typically maintained by whatever agency handles freeways, divided highways and non-divided highways in that jurisdiction; only those freeways (which may be called expressways) which are tolled are typically maintained by a special agency. Imzadi 1979→ 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this since the term "expressway" is a type of road, which could be a freeway with limited access. Changing the name to "Toll road authorities" would be better, since the pages contained in the category have tolls and operate similarly. Tinton5 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the whole category except Category:Shuto Expressway is about US authorities, and Shuto looks as if it is about the roads not the tolling authroities. Accordingly rename to Category:United States toll road authorities, then purge. I strongly suspect that there are similar authorities in other countries, but probably not on a scale to need more than continental categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to worry about producing a geographic breakdown yet. If the category gets too big, we can spin out subcategories as needed. Imzadi 1979→ 00:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supper Fayentic the fact that we already have a Japan specific category says that dividing this category at the national level does work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2012 (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:Japanese occupation of the Korea films[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 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: All the members of these categories are South Korean citizens. There is no such thing as a plain old Korean citizen after the 1948 division of Korea. The categories should either be renamed, or all their members should be moved to new South Korean categories and the existing category retained to act as a parent to hold the South Korean category and any future North Korean category (e.g. Category:North Korean rugby union players). 61.18.190.15 (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2012 (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:Korean players of American football[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, without prejudice to creating Category:South Korean players of American football if it can be populated. Even if it sparsely populated, the category could exist under the established-tree exemption of WP:SMALLCAT. If the applicability of such a category to a particular article is in question, as it is in the case of Lee and Ward, discussion on the article's talk page or at a WikiProject (e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games) would be appropriate to determine whether the category should be added. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Hines Ward, the sole member of this subcategory of Category:Players of American football by nationality, is miscategorised: he is an American citizen of ethnic Korean descent born in 1976 in South Korea. There is no such thing as a plain old "Korean citizen" after the 1948 division of Korea; there are only South Koreans and North Koreans. The only other potential candidate for membership in the category is the guy in this 1918 photo (about whom no article exists). 61.18.190.15 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support even thought the nominator is apparently forgetting John Lee who was born in Seoul. I recall there was a football player about 10 years(Played for UVA or Virginia Tech I think) ago but he might have been Korean-American. WP:SMALLCAT applies. There is very little room for growth....William 16:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right I forgot about him. But since he was born in 1964 he'd belong in Category:South Korean players of American football if it ever became appropriate to create that category. (Don't by-nationality-and-occupation categories fall under the "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exception to WP:SMALLCAT)? 61.18.190.15 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a small cat. The one person in this category may or may not qualify. Although born in Korea to a Korean mother, his father was an American citizen and he lived most of his life in the US. Cateogries like this are for people who are such by nationality, not merely by descent or ethnicity, and his status as a Korean national is fuzzy at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification about WP:SMALLCAT. But now that I look at it again, I still don't think that Category:South Korean players of American football would have any members (at least who have Wikipedia articles). John Lee (placekicker) was indeed born in Seoul, but he naturalised as a U.S. citizen in 1985 [1], and South Korean didn't allow dual citizenship at the time. Current Korean sources refer to him as 한국계 (i.e. "Korean descent") rather than as a South Korean citizen. Cheers, 61.18.190.15 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2012 (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.
