Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 5 October 7 >

October 6[edit]

Category:Athletics NC champions templates[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies the meaning of "NC". I also propose moving other athletics national championships templates into here. SFB 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended nomination for simplicity: Clarifies the scope as NC = national champions, defines the scope as Australian only and amends wording in line with other ongoing nomination of "national sport champions. I have created Category:National athletics champions templates as the parent to this instead. SFB 10:35, 2 November 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:Judgment[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; create Category:Judgment in religion to contain the relevant content; I will make Category:Judgment a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is explicitly an assortment of topics with a wp:SHAREDNAME. The legal sub-cat should be moved up into the parent Category:Court systems. The religious sub-cats have a common grandparent Category:Eschatology, and could be given "see also" links between each other. The articles on works of fiction are already listed at Judgment (disambiguation). Those are sufficient navigation links already. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 6 October 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:Russians in Israel[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination from July cleanup. Was a speedy in the category. No opinion on the merits.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The emigrants will be Russian Jews. This is not a diaspora of ethnic Russians. I suspect that Isreal has several sub-ethnicities, by orign and would suggest that we bring these and sabras (?correct spelling) - native born Israelis in line with each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 13 October 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:Organizations whose agendas relate to reproductive rights[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) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination from July cleanup. Apparently not listed. No opinion on the merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 6 October 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:Philosophical 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too difficult to define reliably and notably. DrKiernan (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. For the first three films in this category, philosophical is not a defining characteristic. The fourth film is also in the category 'Films about philosophy' which seems to be a much clearer category description anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 6 October 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:Advocates of responsible parenting being promoted by governments[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) 01:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination from July cleanup. Apparently not listed. Two similar nominations were deleted following discussions on July 21. No opinion on the merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 6 October 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:Corsica football clubs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination from June cleanup. Was nominated as a speedy. Probably best to close out with a full discussion since the nomination has been open so long. No opinion on the merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 6 October 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:American people of Persian-Jewish descent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination from June cleanup. Was nominated as a speedy. Probably best to close out with a full discussion since the nomination has been open so long. No opinion on the merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 6 October 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:Three Kingdoms in popular culture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination from June cleanup. Was nominated as a speedy. Probably best to close out with a full discussion since the nomination has been open so long. No opinion on the merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category is about related fictional works, not the role Three Kingdoms in modern society. SFB 19:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- My first reaction was that this was a fictional franchise. In fact it turns out to be about a period in Chinese history. Nevertheless, (like a fictional franchise) the amount of material in the whole tree is modest, and I wonder whether some of the smaller sub-cats should not be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 13 October 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:California soccer teams[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination from June cleanup. Was nominated as a speedy. Probably best to close out with a full discussion since the nomination has been open so long. No opinion on the merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 6 October 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:Surnames by culture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination. Found doing cleanup and apparently not listed. No opinion on merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - on the basis that there are no surnames in Anglo-Saxon (they didn't use them, only occasional bynames), only English surnames derived from Anglo-Saxon words or names. I suppose it could be renamed to Category:English-language surnames of Anglo-Saxon origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith1000 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete -- These are English surnames derived from English (as opposed to Norman French). Many of what we have are in fact the application of a place-name as a surname. The place-name may be of Saxon origin, but the surname will be 12th-15th century origin. Others are occupational names, but again of Middle English origin. There will probably be a rump that is neither. I am voting "delete" because surname articles are typcially lists of people with that surname and say nothing about the origin. If we did keep it the previous contributor's suggestion is the best that I can think of, but I hope we will not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 13 October 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:Films set in country houses[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a defining feature of the film. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I disagree, films primarily set in country houses like Gosford Park or Remains of the Day are very much a defining feature of the film. You could argue though that the criteria needs to be a little more rigid for what is included.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible keep The whole category needs pruning. The majority appear to have plots which could be placed anywhere and only have a tangential link to a 'country house'. For Death Becomes Her and Skyfall, for example, the large house is irrelevant to the plot. Gosford Park and Remains of the Day are certainly set in a country house but surely their story line is more to do with society at that time rather than the house. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a rename to Films featuring country houses and a stipulation that there must be some discussion of the country house in non-plot related portions of the article. DonIago (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a solution but it would have to be for those films which notably feature them and not every film which happened to pass one or whatever though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've always been of the opinion that the best way to establish that something is a "notable feature" is via reliable sourcing anyhow. :) DonIago (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial, and suffers much of the same problems as most of our film categories: how much of the film must be set in a "country house" (undefined) to qualify, and what reliable sources say it's at least this much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept to Category:Films set in country mansions. The typical candidate will be set wholly or mainly in the mansion of a British peer or the equivalent elsewhere. Yes the subject matter will not be the house but the kind of society found in such an upper class dwelling, often looking at an earlier period than the present. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That restriction is not going to work for Gosford Park which is one film that I would expect to be in the category. The owner there (Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon)) was a knight not a peer. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:01, 17 October 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:Albuquerque Sol FC 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles that go into this category fail WP:NSEASONS. Therefore, this is a redundant category. Kingjeff (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty category. @Kingjeff: It's easier to nominate the articles first, then the category can be automatically deleted as empty using {{db-catempty}}. SFB 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was already nominated and deleted. Kingjeff (talk) 20:04, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_6&oldid=1074814012"