Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25[edit]

Category:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom[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 as proposed (no hyphen). -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a "standard gauge". GB uses the very common 4'8 1/2" standard gauge, but Ireland, both North and South, uses the Irish broad gauge instead. Like most railway categories, this is better structured around "GB" as the geographic term, not "UK". See the existing and long-established Category:Locomotives of Great Britain et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sure, I missed the other discussion, and the reasoning is sensible. I would support a speedy rename in this case. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just came across an exception to the rule for Ireland: Hibernia (locomotive). As noted on the railway company's page, the D&KR was built to standard gauge in the 1830s and then regauged to Irish gauge in the 1850s, which would lead me to believe that there were other locomotives and rolling stock classes that were also built to standard gauge for Ireland. So I retract the speedy support, and I'm starting to question if the name change is really appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is clearly a case where GB is the appropriate country name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with correction: It should be Category:Standard-gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom; hyphenate compound modifiers. Adding this hyphen is a routine speedy CfR rationale, so just get it right the first time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "standard gauge" is not normally presented with a hyphen and is in widespread use in the industry without a hyphen (examples include: [1], [2] [3], [4], [5] and [6]), so I would oppose using a hyphen in the renamed category. Slambo (Speak) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed related to the hyphen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The reason that his has been relisted is a pedantic issue over hyphenation. The hyphen is technically correct, but unusual. Category:Standard gauge locomotives of Great Britain is perfectly acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think now that we're a few weeks after the relisting, it is safe to close this discussion, but as I am involved in the discussion another admin should do it. I've been waiting to recategorize a large number of articles in the parent category that would fit into this target category because of this discussion. Slambo (Speak) 14:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without the hyphen per the normal use of the term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 31 August 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:Electric cooperatives[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: withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: It seems most energy cooperatives produce electric power, mostly from renewable sources, while at least Elektra Birseck Münchenstein is also involved in District heating. All in all, at this point it seems we should subdivide these articles by country rather than by energy type. Articles may be additionally categorized by the type of energy they produce or the energy sources they are using, but this category scheme is about the company structure. U.S. states however seem to be too fine grained at the moment. --PanchoS (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging US Category/Support Upmerging Minnesota but to different target/Would Also Upmerge "generation & transmission"/Neutral on parent The electric cooperatives in the US were mostly created during the Great Depression as a result of the Rural Electrification Act. Like most electric utilities in the US, they have only recently focused on renewable non-hydro energy and they are overwhelmingly electric focused.
Minnesota is too small of a category and should be upmerged but to Category:Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the United States probably came about because cooperatives are exempt from the separation of transmission and generation with deregulation but that names is too long. I'm not familiar with the international cooperatives so I'll defer to other editors there. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: Do we have any potential common ground here? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th Proposal
  • Current loose articles (mostly phone companies)
  • Category:Electric cooperatives (This would also have it's other current parents)
  • Current loose articles
@PanchoS:RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venue We should probably move this conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy since we're pushing the bounds of CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: Thanks for all your input!
    Indeed, "electric cooperatives" is a widely used term and concept with a long history, while "utility cooperatives" isn't. I'm even unsure if "Cooperative utilities" wouldn't be the better name for the latter. Therefore I agree with you we should refine categorization for these per-state categories rather than upmerging them to "utility cooperatives". At the same time, I checked the member directory of NRECA and it seems that for most states (except New England and California), there should be a sufficient number of electric cooperatives, plus at least 200+ historic ones, so with some more coverage, a complete per-state breakdown should be viable. There are also 66 Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the US, so no need to upmerge that one either.
    In the end, it all comes down to renaming the individual per-state categories, but that's a completely different endeavour to the original nomination, so I'm withdrawing this nomination here. --PanchoS (talk) 03:57, 31 July 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:Seattle restaurateurs[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: double merge. – Fayenatic London 19:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategorization. Has just three entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:44, 25 July 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:Taxation collaboration candidates[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 (closing two simultaniously). From reading Fayenatic london's comment, it seems the only way to delete these categories is via a group nomination of all categories that use the aforementioned parameter. No prejudice against a new discussion that incorporates all these categories. -- Tavix (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only page in this category is there because it was a candidate for collaboration in 2009 by a collaboration that went inactive in 2009 (note: strangely, this category was created in 2016). DexDor (talk) 21:28, 25 July 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:Aviation collaboration candidates[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 (closing two simultaniously). From reading Fayenatic london's comment, it seems the only way to delete these categories is via a group nomination of all categories that use the aforementioned parameter. No prejudice against a new discussion that incorporates all these categories. -- Tavix (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a page was (a candidate for) a collaboration (sometime before 2008 when Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration became inactive) is hardly a characteristic that needs a category. It's just adding to an unnecessarily bloated category structure and long lists of categories on talk pages DexDor (talk) 21:18, 25 July 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:Terrorist incidents by target[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all subcategories related to the terror, but all are the attacks. 95.133.149.157 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: I think so, too. Didn't check any of them, but in the meantime, some categories might have been recategorized or split. But in the end, a rename doesn't preclude a later split, which I'm not opposed to. I'm not even a big fan of the "attacks" scheme, but it would simply be incorrect to have non-terrorist attacks in a terrorist attacks category. The proposed rename simply aims to fix this urgent problem ASAP, while deferring deeper changes to future nominations. PanchoS (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, here they are.[7][8] In both cases I think it's OK to leave them only in the sub-cat Category:Terrorist incidents against transport; so we don't need to keep the nominated category. @Marcocapelle: even though these edits are justifiable, it would be helpful if you would leave an informative note when removing contents from a category that is subject to a current CfD discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I hadn't realized it would lead to this amount of confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 4 August 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:N.W Letlalo Street.[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: procedural close, category has already been deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category that was created as a mistake. —swpbT 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Since you recently created this, any administrator can delete it for you. It doesn't need to come her to CfD. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:35, 26 July 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:Greenlandic political party stubs[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 category and upmerge template. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less than 20 total articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this point. Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 16:50, 25 July 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:Anarchism by form[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: renamed to Option A. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: As previously raised on Category talk:Anarchism by form, "by form" is a weird way of referring to anarchist schools of thought. "Genre", "style" or "thread", as proposed there, however don't convince me either. Unless someone comes up with a better proposal, we should follow the main article. The "anarchists" subcategory may be either accordingly renamed (a), or it may follow Category:People by political orientation (b). I'm unsure which is better. --PanchoS (talk) 15:30, 25 July 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:93s BC conflicts[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 redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too specific to likely be populated with anything else. —swpbT 14:56, 25 July 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:Acanthodii stubs[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much all articles tagged and still only 14 total. Propose upmerging tempalte and deleting category. Dawynn (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is an unusual case. List of acanthodians has a long list of red links for potential articles on 107 genera. The problem is that most of these have not even reached the stage of becoming articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stub categories are for existing stubs. Upmerging the template and waiting for 60 stubs to recreate this category is the typical thing to do when we're so far away from enough articles. ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Prehistoric fish stubs and redirect the template. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 4 August 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:Energy producers[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: procedural close, categories have already been deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with only one entry. Does not needed for the category tree of energy companies, no clear criteria for inclusion. Beagel (talk) 09:55, 25 July 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:Songs written by Courtney Harrell[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No article on category subject, see no reason to have a cat on their works. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The songwriter(s) are a defining attribute of the song, that is not dependent whether the songwriter is notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of her five songs is written by at least one other person who is not the artist performing the song, so I have a real issue with saying "the fact that Courtney Harrell wrote this song is a defining feature of this song." There's got to be some sort of lower limit where this becomes WP:TRIVIA. I'd also note WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan. This writer has a page at AllMusic [9] and Discogs,[10] but I can't find any sources that might allow us to create an article about her. IMHO, co-writing songs as one of many does not confer sufficient notability to make that contribution defining. Her self-promotional page [11] highlights three songs, none of which have not achieved articles in Wikipedia (e.g. theme single from Think Like a Man); although she claims "Grammy honors", this is only for contributing to the writing of one song on F.A.M.E. (album), and not the one which won "Best Song". The best that I can find is this[12] for the Kelly Rowland song "You Changed", but it has no article and I can't see a way to work that citation into the article on the album. Having a category seems in effect promotional (but I do not denigrate the good faith work of Richhoncho, who created it). – Fayenatic London 19:25, 3 August 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:Songs written by Clarence Coffee Jr.[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. Reasonable arguments for and against, but there's clearly no consensus to delete. It's worth noting that we typically do categorize by songwriters, so this would be an exception if deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, WP:TRIVIAL. We don't have an article on the subject of the category, so I don't see why we need the cat. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The songwriter(s) are a defining attribute of the song, that is not dependent whether the songwriter is notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree with Richhoncho up to a point, but Fun (Pitbull song) is attributed in the infobox to 9 writers; moreover none is mentioned in the text. We don't know what CC Jr contributed. Oculi (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take Occuli's point, but Coffee is credited as a songwriter irrespective of any amount of contribution - and he could have made a major contribution, or hardly anything at all - as some so called "singer-songwriters" do (not mentioning any names!), but are included in the songwriter categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps, with the level of contribution being "undefinable", the songwriter is maybe not a defining characteristic after all? I'd also note WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here. MSJapan (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. It is defined that Coffee contributed to the writing of the song. As soon as two or more people write a song together we have no idea or concept of who wrote what. Are you now suggesting that co-written songs should not be defined by their songwriters? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article on the songwriting/production team The Monsters and the Strangerz does at least contain minimal biographical details about this writer, and this makes it worth having the category as an aid to navigation. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 3 August 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:Fictional victims of motor vehicle accidents[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. ~ Rob13Talk 22:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a fictional character has been in a car accident is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic - many fictional characters have hundreds of things happen to them. Note: the category text is "This category refers to fictional characters that are victims of a motor vehicle accident and may or may not have suffered minor or serious injuries and disfigurments or had died from the accident." and the category has been created with no parent categories. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-defining trait Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 14:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the amount of counter and ever expanding developments seen in comic book characters and characters from folklore among others, this has potential to be trivial. Even a character who has a defining loss of limb, limp, no use of legs, in a wheel chair as a result of an auto accident, may in some cases in one story line/type of media appearance have that as the back story, and in another a different backstory to explain this defining condition that does not involve an automobile at all. In fact with how some characters get reset in time, I would not be surprised if we could find a fictional character who is in a wheel chair in one story because they were in an auto accident and in another story because they were in a carriage or horse drawn coach accident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mr. Toad wasn't in it! He is now. Talk about notable. It also has parent categories. Poop-poop! – Fayenatic London 21:26, 1 August 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:American military personnel by state[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: inconclusive. To satisfy those wanting consistency (myself included), I'm going to renominate these in the "Option A/B" format so we can hopefully get consensus to either move the other states to this format or these states to the other format. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: That discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#Category:American military personnel by state. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Military personnel from Connecticut to Category:American military personnel from Connecticut
Category:Military personnel from New York to Category:American military personnel from New York
Category:Military personnel from New York City to Category:American military personnel from New York City
Category:Military personnel from Oregon to Category:American military personnel from Oregon
Category:California military personnel to Category:American military personnel from California
Category:United States military veterans from Indiana to Category:American military personnel from Indiana
Nominator's rationale: :to match the parent category Category:American military personnel by state and the five subcategories for the states of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia and Wisconsin (why not for more states?). Some personnel in the California and New York City categories are not American military personnel, so will need to be moved. Hugo999 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also a useful new category would be Category:20th-century American military personnel, to match Category:20th-century French military personnel etc, and so that the category Category:American military personnel of the Korean War is no longer a subcategory of Category:20th-century United States government officials. Likewise for other centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC) This now done Hugo999 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 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:2115 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 or merge, in any case the category had been emptied already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure note: the member was 100 Years (film). See Template talk:Film date for follow-up. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: What do users make of this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The film was made in 2015. Just because the current plans call for it not being released for 100 years does not change the fact that it is a work of 2015, not 2115.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the Category:Films by year scheme a categorization by creation date or release date? I always thought it was the latter. That said, categorizing for a release date 99 years in the future seems a bit too much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The film should (perhaps) be in the category Category:Films set in the 2110s Hugo999 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All films are put in the category of year of release, regardless of when the film was actually made. For example, films that are first released on New Year's Day are obviously made the previous year, but we'll cat them in the year it was screened. For this one, it would be a good idea to remove the film date template in the infobox (this drives the category) and simply leave it in the upcoming films category. Then recreate the category in approx. 96/97 years from now... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A huge meteorite is expected to strike the Earth in 2106, potentially wiping out humanity, so having a category for film releases in 2115 is jumping the gun. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Unreleased films. I've always opposed categorizing by any future release date, which is WP:CRYSTALBALL not only in this particular case. --PanchoS (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Unreleased films. The one film has been made, but is locked in a safe, with a view to it being released in 2115. Whether it will be is pure WP:CRYSTAL. If the category is being driven by a template, then the template needs amending; or perhaps remote categories need salting to prevent creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Unreleased films. In this case the film has been created, it has not been released, and it is rather unlikely to ever be released. We can generally place some belief in release schedules covering the next year or two. Not the next century. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 29 July 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:Fictional wealthy characters[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 and salt. ~ Rob13Talk 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The similarly named Category:Wealthy fictional characters was deleted in 2006, then again in 2007, and endorsed at DRV. I'm only bring it here instead of speedily deleting it under G4 because of the time frame involved since the last discussion on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the term "wealthy" is just too undefined to work here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per previous discussions, and the criteria for "wealthy" is unclear in this instance Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent and per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_25&oldid=1089914388"