Category:Albums produced by Lee Thomas Miller[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Miller only produced half of Brand New Girlfriend, and his only other production credits are non-notable singles by Steve Holy and Amy Dalley which were never put on an album. Precedent is that the producer should have worked on at least a couple full albums to have their own category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:49, 24 April 2016 (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:Television series by Universal Studios[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.
Comment: @47.54.189.22: have you already checked that the members of the nominated category are in that other one? If not, your nomination should be "merge", not "delete". – FayenaticLondon 12:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: All of the Uni Studios shows are already in the Uni TV category, so this is why it is being delated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has been prematurely removing pages from Category:Television series by Universal Studios prior to the conclusion of this proposal. I recommend suspending discussion until the status quo can be restored. Ibadibam (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the pages to the category, and checked in with the nominator. Everything's copacetic. Ibadibam (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Reverse merge. TV by Uni TV is inappropriate duplication. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2016 (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:Entertainers who have performed in yellowface[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.
Nominator's rationale: Obviously this is a sensitive subject, and one I don't know enough about. Category was created by @Tleeditor, who joined a few weeks ago. It's possible that there is a real category to be created in this area, there's an extensive hierarchy at Category:Blackface minstrelsy for instance, including Category:Blackface minstrel performers. But yellowface is far less of a thing, in fact it's a redirect to Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood which in turn is up for merger with Portrayal of Asians in American theater. Tleeditor has slapped the category on a bunch of fairly well-known actors, with little evidence to support it although I haven't looked in detail. I leave this one to the floor.... Le Deluge (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Different Reasons While Mickey Rooney's performance in Breakfast at Tiffany's was disgusting, it was a one-off acting performance not a career specialty making this a WP:PERFCAT issue. (The closest I can think of is Boris Karloff's five Detective Wong movies but he wasn't typecast afterward.) In contrast, blackface minstrel performing was often a niche career. No objection to listifying in the article space, although I suspect playing "redface" in Western movies was so common that a list would be unwieldy. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I was proposing it for deletion as a non-defining WP:PERFCAT, but with the caveat that there could be some performers for whom it was defining in the same way as blackface. I just don't know enough about it - my guess would be that there may well be a handful of performers for whom it was defining, but there's so much potential for trivial mentions that it's a bad idea anyway.Le Deluge (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You only have to google to find lots of incidents of this, especially heinous is 21st century incidences - Cloud Atlas (Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess), Emma Stone in Aloha, Luise Miller won an Oscar in yellowface in The Good Earth, as did the white woman who played Billy Kwan in The Year of Living Dangerously. Katherine Hepburn has done yellowface (Bad Seed), Marlon Brando has done it, Christopher Lee, Paul Muni, the list goes on and on. Hollywood has notoriously been eager to display Asian culture without showing Asian people. This is a very big issue if you are at all ...not white. To dismiss its significance makes Wikipedia a "white safe" place but uninclusive of diverse people. Recently the Calvin Trillian (sp?) poem in The New Yorker has given more credence to the "we want to experience Asian culture but not see your people" current trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.31.2 (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. There's no attempt by "Wikipedia" to "ignore" this area, that's why there's an article about Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood - the argument is that there's lots of precedent for not categorising performers by performance per WP:PERFCAT.Le Deluge (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance variant; next we'll have actors who swished offending LGBT sensibilities of today, actors who spoke with an accent not their own (cultural appropriation), actors who played disabled people (why didn't hollywood cast an appropriate actor), Jewish actors who played Christians, Christian actors who played Jews, Protestant actors who played Catholics, anyone not of the Roman Pagan faith who played an ancient Roman, etc. trivialities Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (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.
Categiory:Lutheran bishops in Sweden by diocese[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.
Nominator's rationale: The category name contains an implausible typo ("Categiory"). It redirects to the correctly spelled category but this is unnecessary as any incoming links to the misspelled category are extremely unlikely. 97198 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2016 (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 and please stop this recent 'notable deaths' madness. Otherwise, we will soon be running out of trout to use for slapping. -- WV ● ✉✓ 06:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have the appropriate category in place for this type of article, and do not need an extra layer of subcats for the deceased person's former occupation in life — and categories, as a rule, should never contain the word "notable" in their names. The standalone notability of the death incident is an inherent precondition for this kind of article to even exist at all, so "notable" does not have to be explicitly restated by the article's categories. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Category:Deaths of musicians. All the articles are one the death of a specific musician. If the circumstances of their death were not notable enough to require an article, we would not have one. However the category needs to be limited to articles about the death, not merely general bio-articles that mention the death. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this excellent suggestion of rename Such category would allow one to read about different articles and compare and learn. An early reaction to support delete can be knee jerk but Peterkingiron's idea is outstanding! Whiskeymouth (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deaths by person most certainly does not need or want to be subcatted by the deceased subjects' former occupations in life. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Deaths of musicians. The problem (if it's a problem at all) is the existence of separate "Death of ..." articles for these musicians. But since these articles exist, they should be categorized accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do we really need a category stating this? I think that "Deaths by person" or other categories related to death causes should suffice. I agree that this seems simply over-categorizing.--GDuwenTell me! 20:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not overcharacterization because this category allows the readers to read about big deaths among musicians. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2016 (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:Scottish lochs with reported cryptids[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete as above: Category:Scottish loch cryptids is sufficient. Cryptids refers to lake monsters, whether suspected, mythical, or whatever. The present category is in the nature of a performance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I will change my opinion to delete then, on the grounds of duplication. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyone can claim a cryptoid in any loch; I'll claim one in each so now the category would be duplicative of its parent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (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.
