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.
Rename to Films by philosophy. There are plenty of films influenced by philosophical movements, without actually being "about philosophy". Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite popular misunderstanding, philosophy is not a point of view, it is a particular type of content. We are perfectly able to populate this category appropriately. Furthermore the philosophy category tree needs a film category of this sort, just like the history category may as well. Greg Bard (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly rename to Category:films by philosophy, given its present contents. I'm still not convinced that Category:Films by topic is not sufficient though, so deleting "Philosophical films" would not result in any appreciable loss as it's basically an intermediate category grouping only some topics, which have more specific (sub-)categories anyway. Inclusion seems to be poorly defined, e.g. is feminism a philosophy or an ideology? Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete not clear at all what a philosophical film is. Does bill n teds excellent adventure count? Or the matrix? Films about philosophy (which would also include films about philosophers) which I think already exists suffices here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
Delete This is a recreation of a previously deleted category, and it really needs to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the proponents of keeping or renaming this category seem unable to agree on what it might be for. That suppotrts the nominator's concern that the category is "vague and confusing". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 24 January 2014 (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: Which countries an animal species has been introduced to is not, generally, a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species. DexDor (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This subject matter can much better be covered in an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2014 (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:Anglican church buildings converted from Roman Catholicism[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 to Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings. This seems to be unlikely to be objected to by those deleters that remain, and is specifically agreed to by three of the people involved here. (In debates like this, where a new reasonable suggestion emerges, it would be useful if the people who are pinged do actually come back). -Splash - tk 23:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't see this as being anything but offensive to Anglicans and Roman Catholics alike. Ignore, for the moment, the impossibility of a building converting to an organised religions. Catholics will argue that no "conversion" was involved, rather that an act of state approved larceny was involved. From the Catholic standpoint, the category would therefore be "Church buildings of the Roman Catholic Church expropriated by the Anglican Church". From the Anglican standpoint, no such larceny took place; there was a continuity of tradition, albeit with reformed services. It's just that some or all or the congregation was no longer welcome to continue to worship in the building. So no conversion then, but continuity. From a practical standpoint, most pre-reformation buildings would have be be shoved into this category. That's a lot of work. The parent category should probably go too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (assuming the articles are in by-country categories) per nom and BHG. In reply to FL, categories for former things (e.g. Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings) don't need further categorization by what the thing became. DexDor (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A large number of English Anglican churches are medieval in origin. Any pre-reformation church would come into the category, becasue the whole church in England was reformed at the Reformation. There are NO pre-reformation churches (except ruined monasteries) that did not become Anglican. If this was about post-reformation Catholic churches that became Anglican, it might provide a useful category; but it is not. I suspect that the sibling Lutheran category suffers from a similar defect. All medieval churches in the Nordic countries, and those in German states whose princes were protestant would fall into. The whole category scheme is mistaken. The Anglican Church was reformed; it did not become apostate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Category:Anglican church buildings does not have any other category for pre-15th-century buildings. I think that's because they were not constructed by the Anglican Church. Is there an acceptable rename? These church buildings are categorised as Anglican church buildings by location, but will not be categorised under Anglican church buildings by age if this category is merged/deleted. – FayenaticLondon 14:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it somehow There are only 12 here for heaven's sake - a full category would have over 40,000 for England alone. Perversely, one of the 12 is Savoy Chapel, almost the only building that could be in Category:Anglican church buildings converted '''to''' Roman Catholicism as some Stuart monarchs let their Catholic queens do their Popish stuff there, something the article doesn't mention. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2014 (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.
Merge merge as per Obiwankenobi Mike (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2014 (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: /Upmerge to Category:Courtney Love. There's no need to subcategorize, since any subcategories will be works by her. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, it's part of a larger Category:Works by musician, which is in turn part of Category:Works by creator. I don't see a reason to single out the Courtney Love example as it does include a subcat for her books, similar to other such categories. And yes I know WP:OTHERCRAP. But unless one is willing to nominate the entire container category, not seeing why Love's should be singled out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons listed by Shawn in Montreal. Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (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. There was a clear consensus that this is a common trope in fantasy fiction, and is frequently defining to the works involved. The only editor to support the nomination was Carlossuarez46, who raised the question of much about "body swapping" must a work be to justify inclusion in this category. As Carlossuarez46 noted, that question can be asked of all the "about"-type categories, so rather than seeking piecemeal attempts to delete one category in that big series, it would be more productive to have a centralised discussion about this. Hopefully that would lead to a consensus on some principles which could then be applied to the many instances. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a valid category and a notable plot device in (science)-fiction and is defining to the work involved. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the creator is doing a lot of overcategorization and some of it is very dubious, however I think this is actually a pretty reasonable category. It's a common enough meme. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the same problems as all the "about"-type categories; how much about "body swapping" must a work be and what reliable sources tell us it is at least that much. Wasn't there body swapping in some episode of Star Trek, so Star Trek gets categorized here because it is about body swapping? The not-quite final frontier? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the program is divided into episodes, perhaps, but since the title would include all its episodes, it too would be categorized here too; hence, the uselessness of these categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful category for a notable plot device. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Body swapping is a recurring fantasy theme/trope; also useful for contrasting with Bodily Possession in fiction, Brain Transplant in fiction, Mind Control in fiction, etc. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (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.
Delete per nom; and suffers from the same problems "about" categories suffer generally. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's rational seems nonsensical, since it fails to point how is this overcategorization. There are few problems in "about categories" which are present in other categories. But I have to point that we have an article on brain transplant, but not a relative category. An "in fiction" category seems to be a bit premature when it does not serve to disambiguate from other examples. And the fictional examples listed in brain transplant seem to have considerable overlap with body swap. Any particular reason for the two concepts not sharing a category? Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brain transplant is far beyond medical capabilities, but it raises some interesting philosophical questions as to the identity of the post-transplant individual. Perhaps we should merge with a body swap category. Do we have one? I see no objection to categorising fiction by its subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination appears motivated by a dislike of who created the category rather than an objective assessment. I don't see why this is an OC, given that examples like Robocop and Spock's Brain are in it. Sure this is not as common as Category:Shapeshifting in fiction, but I don't see the OC angle and it hasn't been explained above. Note that there is no Category:Brain transplant and since currently all such transplants are fictional, the category under discussion here could be renamed as such, but this is not an argument made above. (In that case the Shapeshifting cat should probably be renamed too, unless someone has discovered it in reality). Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a common theme in science fiction, and the nomination doesn't really give any reason why it's unnecessary, simply making an assumption based on the user's previous edits. flarn2006 [utc] time: 04:42, 22 January 2014 (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:Recipients of the Order of Duke Branimir (Croatia)[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 and DELETE. It would not be appropriate to delete a non-tagged, non-nominated, recently not-deleted category via this discussion, and it is much cleaner and less complicated to do that properly (less headache all round). For clarity, however, I do not find this debate to have reached a consensus to delete the proposed merge target also; since things there are balanced pretty evenly between retaining it as a merge target and deleting it entirely. -Splash - tk 23:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are duplicates; both relate to the Croatian Order of Duke Branimir. The disambiguator appears to be superfluous.
Delete bothWP:OCAT#AWARD; these are described as the 6th most important award of Croatia - is anyone notable solely for winning this? Does winning this make one notable? not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Carlos and my nomination in November. If not deleted then merge. For info: there is a list at Order of Duke Branimir. DexDor (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if kept). We seem to have four people in it. I am against us having categories for national awards made to foreigners for diplomatic reasons, and this presumably applies to the NZ politician, but the rest appear to involve honouring nationals of the country and (Sir Fitzroy MacLean) service to a predecessor state. These are not mere category clutter, but direct evidence that others have recognised their distinction (i.e. notability). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. Given that the previous deletion nomination was closed only minutes before this nomination, it seems inappropriate to use this housekeeping exercise (removing duplication) as a re-run of that discussion. Repeating the same unsuccessful proposal so soon is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping. As to deletion of both categories, please note that per conventional CFD practice the target Category:Recipients of the Order of Duke Branimir has not been tagged. It would be wrong for an untagged category to be deleted at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both These are minor awards and categorizing by them is over-categorization. Expressing our policy based views that these are not good categories is not an act of forum shopping. BHG has generally supported the straightforward fact that people can make any proposal within a CfD discussion. The fact that new people not involved in the previous discussion have come forward to support deletion suggests the previous close may have been done too soon, and that relisting might well have been a much better option.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, the previous discussion was open for 53 days rather than the usual 7. If that closure was premature, we might as well stop closing discussions. I support the principle that a category tagged for a CFD nomination may be subject to an action other than that initially proposed, but I have never supported XFD making decisions about untagged pages. Nor have I ever supported forum-shopping. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In the earlier discussion, I was not aware that two separate categories existed for the same subject. From a WP:ODM perspective, national disambiguation is only required for ODM categories where two or more countries have the same name for an order or decoration. In this instance, it is not warranted - as the order is named for a prominent Croatian it is unlikely that any other country has a similarly named award (I couldn't find any with a basic internet search). Sixth in order of precedence is not particularly minor. In the US this would be the equivalent of calling the Distinguished Service Cross/Navy Cross/Air Force Cross/Coast Guard Cross minor awards (if one allows that the two grades of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold and Silver Medals are senior as the criteria appear to suggest). The Croatian equivalent to the Victoria Cross/Medal of Honor is seventh in their order of precedence. Searches of Croat language sources suggest appointees to the Order are mostly Croatian nationals with the odd foreigner thrown in for good measure where they have significantly contributed to Czech interests, ie not de rigueur for their appointment. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both categories are not tagged, and as the discussion was not speedy-closed due to being immediately after the previous closure, the fact that consensus has changed towards deletion of what are, in fact, inappropriate categories, is relevant. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:49, 1 February 2014 (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.
