Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 7 September 9 >

September 8[edit]

Recipients of trivial military awards[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The above medals are largely trivial due to how frequently they are awarded and the number that are awarded. In addition categories are supposed to be categorize articles by their defining characteristics, and these categories do not meet that as no one is inherintly notable for receiving one or multiple of these awards. As one example of how frequently these are awarded, since 2001 alone over 500,000 Army Commendation Medals have been awarded.[1] Recipients of awards should be grouped into a list rather than a category generally speaking anyhow, especially when they are non-defining characteristics. — -dainomite   20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite   20:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: wikipedia have info about notable people only like generals, admirals, etc. so number of people not too large as User:Dainomite say. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanquisher.UA: I'm not saying the categories are too large, I'm just saying that the awards themselves are non-defining characteristics which is the opposite of what categories are for, to quote Wikipedia:Categorization "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic". — -dainomite   20:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dainomite: I'm just saying that these cats created along time ago (except three of them). So per delete request we can lost some useful info. So I thinking - Keep. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each of general or admiral wears these awards with honors, so each general or admiral thinks "It's notable medal." - Keep. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 21:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generals and admirals (and us peasants) wear/wore them because regulations require all medals, ribbons, etc. that have been awarded be worn. Not a good argument to keep, it would call for the creation of [[Category:Air Force Longevity Ribbon]], which all USAF generals have (with clusters). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Info About Notability - Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Direct citation: Corporal Hayes was awarded a Letter of Commendation with Commendation Ribbon by the Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, Lieutenant General Roy S. Geiger, for his "meritorious and efficient performance of duty while serving with a Marine infantry battalion during operations against the enemy on Vella Lavella and Bougainville, British Solomon Islands, from 15 August to 15 December 1943, and on Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, from 19 February to 27 March 1945. See full article here. Keep.Vanquisher.UA(talk) 15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#AWARD. These awards are widely issued, and are not defining of their recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - These trivial award categories are the runaway Kudzu plants of Wikipedia! This is a good start on pruning them way back. Cgingold (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - although I partially agree with the nominator that these don't particuarly need to be tracked as a category that isn't to me a valid reason to delete them either. Considering all the categories I feel are completely useless regarding Userboxes, these really aren't that big of a deal. There is also some utility to having this especially if the motion goes through at the Milhist page to remove all the Medal displays (referred to there as Medal farms) from the articles. We would then have no listing of them on the articles and with that would no longer be presenting an accurate picture of the article to the readers. Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But deleting the category doesn't impact medal farms. The images would still be on Commons to add wherever appropriate (or, some would say, inappropriate). I don't think there's much of a chance that there will ever be a consensus at WP:MILHIST to do anything about medal farms, so they're probably here to stay. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "We would then have no listing of them on the articles" - if there's no mention (ideally with a reference) of the medal in the text of an article then the article shouldn't be in the category anyway. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a good way to ensure that happens is to systematically strip off all mention of it from the article. First from the medal display, then the infobox, then the category. Then someone will say its not in the infobox, there is no category, there is no medal display, why are we mentioning this if its not notable enough to bein one of those? I have seen that happen multiple times over the years. A steady erosion of the content of articles. Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (although I wouldn't use the word "trivial"). DexDor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, explain reason for this edit? Vanquisher.UA(talk) 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DexDor: Yeah... after creating the section I regretted adding the word "trivial" to the name but I didn't want to go and change it after the fact. =/ — -dainomite   23:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These awards are not defining of the people who received them. They lead to category clutter. We should categorize people by who they are, not what awards they are given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the first 3 people in one of the awards categories involved here and found that all were in six award categories. That is way too many, and why we should avoid virtually all awards categories. People who get awards often are given lots of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The number of medal categories shouldn't and doesn't matter. Look at Douglas MacArthur or Audie Murphy to name just 2. Both have a long list of award categories. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @KumiokoCleanStart: Out of curiosity what is your opinion on WP:OVERCAT and specifically the WP:NOTDEFINING section? For instance, is one of David Petraeus's defining characteristics receiving the Defense Meritorious Service Medal? In my opinion no. However, I would say that a defining characteristic of him is that he was a United States Army general. — -dainomite   23:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure this is the right place for the discussion but I generally scoff at the whole overcat mentality. If its a cat and it applies to the situation then use it. Some people are going to have a few and some a lot, there's no way to get around that. We shouldn't be chopping them out just because the person has a lot of them. Their there for a reason and we should use them as such without worrying over how many there are. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kumioko, your dismissive remark about "the whole overcat mentality" is just plain ridiculous. I would suggest, to the contrary, that you are a perfect illustration of the "no category is too trivial" mentality. If you think that category clutter is a non-issue you are completely ignoring the very real negative impact all of those excessive categories have on the usability of the category system. Very few readers are going to expend the time and effort required to comb thru the endless array of trivial categories that can be found at the bottom of all too many pages. That is the reason I said that trivial award categories are the runaway Kudzu plants of Wikipedia. The fact that you dismiss this concern out of hand tells me that your views on the subject should be dismissed out of hand. Cgingold (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually if you want the truth I think our system of categorization on this site sucks and needs a complete revamp. I think it worked ok in the early days when the pedia was small but now its so large that many of these categories contains thousands of articles; its hard to tell the difference between what categories go to what namespace; which ones are redirects or not; which ones are used or needed; etc. But if the category is appropriate for the article, then add it. That's all I am trying to say. As far as usability of the article goes though, the categories are useless because frankly 99.9% of the readers of the articles don't give a shit about the categories. The catergories are for us more than the readers. Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It seems to me that one of the primary reasons Categories aren't used more than they are by readers is because, all too often, there is a massive, visually confusing welter of categories on display at the bottom of the page -- more often than not arranged alphabetically, which is utterly pointless, or in some other equally pointless random order -- rather than arranged thematically, which I try to do whenever possible. The overindulgence in award categories is a major contributor to the problem because listing one such category after another after another just makes the eyes glaze over. Cgingold (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  I'll make you a deal, when we can delete the thousands of unused and unencyclopedic userboxes and associated categories I'll change my mind. But as long as we have several thousand of those, that don't belong here in the project at all in the first place, I am not going to change my mind that these categories aren't of some use. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Um, I'm pretty sure there are no userboxes or associated categories on any of the articles. Or have I missed something? Cgingold (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No miltiary award is really trivial, but the above awards were so massively issued (we're talking hundreds of thousands of awards in the past fifty years) that a category would be quickly overwhealmed. Support a deletion. -OberRanks (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete. They are not trivial, but I suspect that too many awards will have eben made for them to be defining or to make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Don't Listify The same reasons that make this such a poor choice for a category make it an equally poor choice for a list. There are simply too many people receiving these awards to make it a defining characteristic. Too often these overbroad categories seem to be created as it allows for an opportunity to manufacture boatloads of edits to add these categories to each of the thousands of articles and run up edit accounts while adding little or nothing to the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some comments above. So common that there are probably more people who have the award with Wiki articles where it isn't mentioned (and there's probably no WP:RS to verify it) and aren't categorized than those in the category. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are people like Eluyn Gines who has won 5 of these awards, and still may not be notable. These categories lead to clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Too minor to categorise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians in Mauritius[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 as empty; may be re-created if the need arises. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is empty so I am recommending we merge Wikipedians in Mauritius with Category:Mauritian Wikipedians. There aren't any users in this one anyway. Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2013 (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:User cdo-N[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: speedy delete (CSD C1: empty category), with no prejudice against recreation if/when it can be populated. Per Ethnologue, "cdo" is the ISO 639-3 code for Min Dong. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused Category. If someone selects this with the template we can always recreate it but we shouldn't keep it just in case someone someday claims it. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused Category. If someone selects this with the template we can always recreate it but we shouldn't keep it just in case someone someday claims it. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combining relaterd items. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and also Category:User cdo, which is empty apart from the two empty subcategories. They are suppoed to relate to WPans who speak Ming Dong Chinese, but we do not seem even to have an article on that language nor is it at Ming Dong. I do not know, but I suspect the whole thing is WP:HOAX. If it had been renamed, I would expect a redirect to have eben left. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2013 (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:P4 laboratory[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To clarify the scope of the category: P4 = Biosafety level 4.
As discussed on my talk page (permalink). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (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:16th/17th century in Central America[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. The hyphenated form (e.g., "16th-century") is appropriate when the phrase is used as a compound modifier. When it is used as a noun, as in this case, a hyphen is not needed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The standard format for centuries in countries etc uses a gap not a dash. Hugo999 (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom We typically use the dash in categories such as "16th-century people", when it is used as an adjective. This is not such a case. Dimadick (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or the other, I don't care which. There should only be one category for each century, not 2.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge preferably as nom. The hyphen is incorrect where century is a main noun, not one serving as an adjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use DOS[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category and its extremely doubtful anyone is using straight DOS anymore. Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless, empty category, and likely to remain so. Begoon talk 05:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would think it is likely that there remain DOS users amongst us. Whether they would categorize themselves as one is an open question. Several businesses have maintained software that runs atop DOS, and not just small businesses, but some very large ones as well. Some employees of these companies will encounter, and use DOS. That ignores the fact that FreeDOS is still a going concern, and has partisans who favour it. This could also be used for people who prefer the command line WinDOS in MSWindows, and frequently use it. So, it remains that this category is empty, is it due to lack of knowledge of such a categorization? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category is not empty and I expect it to pick up a few more users. Technical 13 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pointless. Doubly so if you look down and see all the ...who use windows xx... have been deleted. I use Linux. So what? I also use a shovel, irony, and American express. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob, the windows xx below were deleted per CSD:G7 (author request) as they were all merged into Category:Wikipedians who use a pre-WinXP Microsoft operating system. DOS would not fit into this category because there are shades of DOS (IBM-DOS [PC-DOS], DR-DOS, FreeDOS) that are not Microsoft. There is a Category:Wikipedians who use Linux as well if you care to add yourself. Technical 13 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As eloquently put above, why is there any more need for this than there would be for Category:Wikipedians who have a dishwasher? Nobody, I assume, is going to be editing wikipedia from DOS, and if, by some strange quirk they are, so what? It's no use, therefore for software development, statistics (since it relies on self selection), or testing, or any other conceivable purpose. As for merging the other categories to some contrived "Microsoft prior to XP" invention, that's even less use, and looks like nothing other than an attempt to save "some category - any category". Really - what is the point of any of this fluff except in relation, maybe, to some of T13's Userboxes, which can stand or fall equally well without contrived categories. Honestly - I fail to see the point of any of it. Lots of bytes of attention gaining discussion, though - I'll grant you that, at least. Begoon talk 20:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I used DOS for many years to connect to the internet, but I can't see how it could be be any use for editing Wikipedia. And if it isn't used for Wikipeia, it's irrelevant to collaboration ... so as others have pointed out, it's a suseful as Category:Wikipedians who have a dishwasher or Category:Wikipedians who own a woodstove. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its extremely doubtful anyone is using straight DOS - I use MS-DOS 6.22 on my other PC. Why? Because I have some legacy software that simply won't work on anything more recent. Plus, it does what I tell it to do, and doesn't try to second-guess me. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I use DOS too - on virtual machines, and an old testbed PC - I loved DOS 6.22 with all my heart. Why on earth does that make it a useful category for wikipedia users any more than the Category:Wikipedia users who used to have an MG Midget one to which I would also belong? I hesitate to say it, but I also have an OS/2 machine. I have an old unused Psion organiser too. This is all very silly. Begoon talk
    It would be an interest/expertise categorization of Wikipedians, just like any other categorization of Wikipedians. (Otherwise it should not exist, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK). It would be the same as those who use Linux, or {{User Arduino}}; one wouldn't use an Arduino to edit Wikipedia either, though it is theoretically possible to do so. "User DOS" would identify a population of Wikipedians for which DOS expertise might be available from, and for which there may be a response to pondered DOS-based questions. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the points to remove seem justified. 69.180.112.205 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category seeks to group users on the basis of a characteristic that has no relevance to encyclopedic collaboration. I have used Windows, Android, iOS, and OS X, but that doesn't mean I have any idea about those topics or any interest in editing articles related to them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 98[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: Speedily deleted by Miniapolis (talk · contribs) per CSD:G7 request -- Talk page also deleted as requested with CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. If anyone is still using Windows 98 they aren't admitting it. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless, empty category, and likely to remain so. Begoon talk 05:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Empty category that will not be used, has been blanked by the author (me), and has been tagged as CSD:G7 and corresponding talk page has been tagged as CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 3.x[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: Speedily deleted by Miniapolis (talk · contribs) per CSD:G7 request -- Talk page also deleted as requested with CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category and its doubtful anyone is using Windows 3.X anymore. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless, empty category, and likely to remain so. Begoon talk 05:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Empty category that will not be used, has been blanked by the author (me), and has been tagged as CSD:G7 and corresponding talk page has been tagged as CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows ME[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: Speedily deleted by Miniapolis (talk · contribs) per CSD:G7 request -- Talk page also deleted as requested with CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category and its doubtful anyone is using Windows ME anymore if they ever did. Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless, empty category, and likely to remain so. Begoon talk 05:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Empty category that will not be used, has been blanked by the author (me), and has been tagged as CSD:G7 and corresponding talk page has been tagged as CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows 95[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: Speedily deleted by Miniapolis (talk · contribs) per CSD:G7 request -- Talk page also deleted as requested with CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think it would be ok to delete this Category now. Its doubtful many are still using Windows 95 and this category is empty as a testemant to that assessment. Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless, empty category, and likely to remain so. Begoon talk 05:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Empty category that will not be used, has been blanked by the author (me), and has been tagged as CSD:G7 and corresponding talk page has been tagged as CSD:G8. Technical 13 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (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:Films that use CGI[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: no consensus to delete; renaming to Category:Films using computer-generated imagery for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Given the number of films that use CGI, this is a weak defining characteristic for a category. Trivialist (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Category:Films using computer-generated imagery. CGI is no longer exceptional in film-making, but it is a technology which has emerged only in the last 15 years or so ... so it remains a small item in the history of motion pictures, and most films still do not use CGI. Many of the early CGI films are clearly defined by it, such as Titanic and The Perfect Storm ... while the whole of the Lord of The Rings series is also clearly defined by it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though as BrownHairedGirl suggests it probably could use redefinition or more subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Some films use CGI extensively, but some use only miniscule amounts. It doesn't seems encyclopedic to draw an arbitrary line between the two, and I don't think there's any value in lumping almost entirely computer-generated films in with films that use one or two digital effects. If it's to be kept in some form, this category will need a better definition, and I can't think what that might be. —Flax5 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If there are reliable sources saying that the film employs CGI technology, then it should qualify for the category. I agree that the acronym could be expanded as BrownHairedGirl suggests. Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename as BHG. I've noticed she's very sensible.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So many films use CGI at least partly that this is not really defining of films. Most scifi/comic book/fantasy films made in the last 15+ years will use at least some CGI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no longer defining. It may have been in 1978, as would have such things as people owning computers, people owning electric cars, or people moving from East Germany to West, but alas, it's commonplace now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Movies now use CGI one way or another so that category would have to apply to almost every movie. I don't see how it can be useful either. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_8&oldid=1136102618"