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. MER-C 07:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a novel and its two television adaptations. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, every television series does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; a television series gets one of these if, and only if, there's enough spinoff content to justify it for navigational purposes. But with just the three eponyms and nothing else to be filed here, this isn't needed — the three articles can and do already link to each other in body text without requiring a category to keep them bundled. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very limited content that does not require such navigation. Not suitable at this time. SFB 21:24, 10 May 2015 (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:purge of people who are not individually from Meizhou. – FayenaticLondon 08:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. Right now, this category (more so, its subcategories by county-level divisions) contains and are explicitly stated to include persons whose ancestries are from Meizhou, but I believe that this is a poor way of trying to serve multiple purposes. Based on the Taishan precedent (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_7#Category:Taishanese_people), I believe that a "from" category to serve those who are born there (or, at least, had lived there a substantial amount of time) and a "of descent" category would better reflect reality. --Nlu (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge "People from" categories require the person to have a substantial connection with the place, by birth or residence; if it is merely by descent they should be in a descent category. Category:People of Meizhou descent is probably too specific. Rather than create that the purged items should go into a higher level descent category. Should it be "Cantonese"? I am not quite sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too specific - Guangdong is a place of 106.4 million people, and I think Meizhou descent has a relatively distinct identity. (I assume you were referring to Category:Cantonese people.) --Nlu (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose@Nlu: Meizhou doesn't appear to be an ethnicity or nationality, thus your proposition suggests a logic similar to something like Category:People of Texan descent (i.e. for people whose ancestors were from an area with much self-identification, but which does not have nation status). I don't think a sub-national descent category is helpful – certainly the national and ethnic descent categories are already a mess that I don't think warrants more subdivision. No opposition to gather this as a list. Given the article size, this could even be included at the main Meizhou, or alternatively you could work on new content for Meizhou people instead. SFB 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: I think you're missing the point of the proposal a bit. In the abstract, I agree that the idea of distinctive "ancestry" may be overblown, but the point is that other editors - perhaps more Chinese-cultured than I am - view it as important (and ancestral origin appears to be even more strongly viewed among the Cantonese people than with people of origins from other parts of the Chinese-speaking world), which led to the messy phenomenon that I described above in the proposal (people who aren't actually from Meizhou at all being placed in the category). Sure, I can prune the people who really aren't from Meizhou from the tree; they will be reverted/returned. Gathering as a list doesn't work - because that will make it even more tempting for editors to add those people back. Splitting the category allows hopefully some sense of sanity here. --Nlu (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nlu: I think the argument for this category should come from the editors in favour of re-adding this category. It doesn't sound like you have the resources to prove that this kind of descent is distinct enough to warrant creation of any entirely new locational-descent style tree. SFB 00:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge per Peterkingiron and Dimadick. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2015 (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. – FayenaticLondon 08:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, history of Kosovo refers to the entire history of the Kosovo region, while Republic of Kosovo only refers to the most recent part of history. Note: even if rationale would be right, it should have been a merge proposal instead of a delete proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge would be actually good thing. Please, its empty, can you delete/merge/redirect this, whateveer you think its good. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But what will be in there? I am ok to have it, but why? It would have 10000000 articles then. Macedonia covers far bigger region then Kosovo, and Republic of Macedonia is only part of Macedonia, so those two are not the same. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; "History of the Republic of Kosovo" is an entirely reasonable subcategory of "History of Kosovo". bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is Stalker. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. You decided to delete a category which was recently added to articles on my watchlist. If you have a more coherent or policy-based response, I look forward to it. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everyone here believe you. Me too. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category is empty now, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't empty on 3 May. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anastan, please put the articles back in this category. It is highly inappropriate to empty a category while the category is still being discussed. If the closer of this discussion would decide to delete the category, he or she will take care of deleting the content. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was already done in the same day, i just removed 3 articles that was added few hours before that. It still needs to be discussed WHAT will be in this category, as it can be quite big. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting them back. I'm not really following you with the problem it might get too big. If it happens, child categories can be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is a legitimate subcat with lots of potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you insist on keeping it, then make sure to clarify that this category "only refers to the most recent part of history" (as said above), as to not have two overlapping categories. The Republic of Kosovo can only be seen as such after 2008.--Zoupan 01:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I changed the header just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did some purging and some populating just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This category scheme overemphasizes the change in 2008, ignoring that Kosovo was functionally outside the control of Serbia from 1999 on. At best this category is too soon. A seperate article works, but I see no reason to have a seperate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's a matter of overemphasizing. A declaration of independence (as happened in Kosovo in 2008) is a pretty important event in the history of a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (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:Filmfare Best Tamil Movie Award winners[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 already listed. – FayenaticLondon 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(If kept) rename per nom. However, is this a sufficiently imnpoortant award to fit the exception in WP:OC#AWARD. The Oscars (Academy Awards) do, but many lesser awards do not. The usual outcome there is Listify and delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2015 (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. MER-C 07:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The most non-defining, over-large category possible. This would be a category for almost every significant film ever. It's far more notable for a film not to have received a home video release. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have already categorized those articles in either 'Culture of Odisha' or according to respective district. Now this unnecessary category (Culture of Kosala) need to be deleted. If some article is missed please categorize it and then delete "Culture of Kosala".--Shiti (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and clarification, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following clarification. We deplore emptying before nomination; but where the outcome might have been a multiple merge, which the nom has effectively already undertaken by adding the target categories, it would be helpful if that was stated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (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:merge/delete. Streets of Athens are already in the Streets of Greece hierarchy, by city. – FayenaticLondon 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category. Attica is the region around Athens. The only thing in this category is Category:Streets in Athens so it's completely redundant with Category:Roads in Attica. Conceptually this category is also problematic: qccording to the article, streets are urbanized roads next to buildings so grouping them by city makes sense; grouping them by rural regions does not. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2015 (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:Firearms manufacturers by nationality[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.
Support for parent However, keep the rest. The criterion should be where the factory lies not which country it belongs to, so that we should kep the "in" format. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support "Firearm" for all nominated categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for parent But, as Peterkingiron said, it's easier to categorize them by where the factory is physically located, not by who owns it. DexDor, I agree; the "s" is probably incorrect. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily the case. The articles in these categories are not always about factories; in many cases, they are about companies with multiple production sites. Take Heckler & Koch, for example—a German manufacturer with locations in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all as explained by Balck Falcon, but use "firearm". – FayenaticLondon 23:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. A company can be fairly well connected with a specific country, and if it is linked with mutiple countries for whatever reason, this is defining to it. Where the factory is that puts the firearm together is not defining, because this could be a long way from where it was designed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, but note that overall parent is Category:Firearms so should subcategories including these use “Firearms” not “Firearm”? Re country of design, the Bren light machine gun and the Vickers light machine gun were Czech and French designs made in Britain (the Bren is apparently still made in India). The Lewis gun was designed by an American and apparently orginally made (c1913) in Belgium but primarily manufactured in Britain. Hugo999 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Firearm manufacturers of" country, with no prejudice for fixing the entire Category:Manufacturing companies by country tree - we have Category:Car manufacturers, not "Cars manufacturers", and similar for other categories, because that's how English works. As for the issue of "in" versus "of", I don't see any difference between the firearms category subtree and the rest of the category tree. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:46, 5 June 2015 (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.
