Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:Albums recorded at Aobadai Studio[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) 00:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typically, this category scheme was created when albums are recorded in a notable venue thus making it somewhat of a defining aspect of the album, such as Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios. There doesn't seem to be any novelty to this studio that makes it any more noteworthy that an album was recorded there. Many of the articles don't even or barely mention the studio. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll admit I am not aware of the reputation of this Japanese studio, but we currently have no article on it. On what source is this categorization based? Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial category. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:00, 5 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:Television series by Pinewood 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.
The result of the discussion was: rename as proposed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is unclear, and confuses the location of filming with the company that did the filming. Trivialist (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Most items in this category are actually television series, though I see it also includes some television films which are apparently in the wrong category. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow -- The studios are studios, not a company. The headnote says "made at". I would suggest Category:Television series filmed at Pinewood Studios, which probably describes what actually happens. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments There is a bit of ambiguity here. The term Pinewood Studios apparently refers to a studio facility in Buckinghamshire, where numerous films have been filmed since its foundation in 1936. The Studios itself used to be a subdivision of the Rank Organisation and several films shot there were affiliated with the company. But it has long been standard practice for the corporate parents of this studio facility to license its use by whatever other studio or company can afford it. Several of the films filmed in the facility were productions by Eon Productions, ITC Entertainment, Warner Bros., Brandywine Productions, etc. The only thing these films have in common is their filming location, not their corporate ownership. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the physical location of where a television show was made even defining enough to be categorized by? Do we want to put Batman v. Superman and Transformers in the same category because they both have their iconic, culminating battle scenes shot at the Michigan Central Station in Detroit?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The location of film and the company that did the filming are distinct questions. The very fact that my question about whether we want to categorize all films with shots of the Michigan Central Station together is called "odd" tells me we do not really know what these categories are doing, and if we do not know what the category does, there is no way to know what does and what does not go in the category, and thus we should delete the category as too ambiguous to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 27 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:Pinewood Studios 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: rename to Category:Films shot at Pinewood Studios. There's consensus that's the best title for the category. -- Tavix (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is unclear, and confuses the location of filming with the company that did the filming. Trivialist (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category covers films, not television series. Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, sloppy cut-and-paste on my part. I've corrected the proposed category. Trivialist (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if I understand correctly, Pinewood Studios is a shooting location, not a producer. In which case it should be Category: Films shot at Pinewood Studios, as a subcategory of Category:Films shot in England. However, if Pinewood Studios is the producer, it should remain Category:Pinewood Studios films. Now, if it's the former, do other soundstages have their own categories? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For a history of the Pinewood Studios see the relevant articles. It is a studio facility in Buckinghamshire, not an independent company. However one of its recent corporate parents, the Pinewood Group, has apparently named itself after the facility. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right and one of the subcategories of the nominated category is Category:James Bond films, which, again, do not list an entity "Pinewood Studios" as production company, but rather Eon Productions, which does state that Eon "also operates from Pinewood Studios." Still, this is just going to confuse people. Fooian Films films is reserved for films by studio, not films shot at a Fooian soundstage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)You are correct Shawn in Montreal. It is just a production facility/soundstage, so the proper name for this category is "Films shot at Pinewood Studios". However, it may need further dabbing, as there is now a prominent branch of the studio in Atlanta, GA, meaning as proposed to rename now, those films would be allowed in the cat, even though it is meant for the films shot in the UK. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which would be fine by me, btw. We categorize by so many shooting locations. The UK Pinewood Studios is pretty famous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed rename (new): This cat should be renamed to Category:Films shot at Pinewood Studios. Thoughts @Trivialist, Dimadick, and Shawn in Montreal:? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned above, I'd feel more confident if someone could point to any other categories of Films shot at Fooian soundstage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just created Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios. I don't know of any soundstage that has its own category beyond Shepperton Studios, which is also listed at Category:Shepperton Studios films. Which pointed out is incorrect wording, because they are not a film production/producer studio. They are sound stages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. If you're now creating other stuff as a way of bolstering the case for this, that doesn't leave me very confident, I'm afraid. My oppose remains. I think it should probably be deleted flat-out, but I won't stand in the way if others feel strongly about renaming in some way. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not creating to bolster anything. I'm create cats as they should be, as you yourself pointed out above, Pinewood Studios is a shooting location, not a producer, which is 100% correct. I'm confused about your stance to still oppose, when you yourself suggested it be named "Films shot at Pinewood Studios" in the first place. Can you clarify this to me? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suggested it as a possibility. But I asked the question: is there was precedent for this. So you then sort of created one. I'm very cautious when it comes to creating potentially huge categories ad hoc. We also have Pinewood Toronto Studios. We going to create categories for every sound stage in the world where films are shot at? People may decide this overcategorization, as a sort of form of WP:OCVENUE. And they may very well be right. If it were me, I would have probably raised the matter at the WikiProject Film before starting a new branch in this way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know how many other soundstages actually have articles on here beyond Shepperton and the Pinewood Group. That to me would be the first basis for creating a cat, along with the fact a film is sourced as actually filming there. So these Pinewood cats, plus the Shepperton one (renamed) and one for Toronto would be fine and not overcategoriztion in my opinion. These are useful cats for films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Category:Films shot at Pinewood Studios" would be fine, though reading the discussion I'm starting to lean more towards Shawn in Montreal's concern about this being overcategorization. Trivialist (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Films shot at Pinewood Studios It seems reasonable to have categories for major production facilities. It seems to me that there is a stronger rationale for having a category for films shot at Pinewood Studios than there is for films shot in Buckinhamshire (which is where Pinewood is located and which a category also exists for). Some of these facilities (Pinewood/Elstree/Shepperton) have rich production histories and have had books written about them (see Pinewood Studios: 70 Years of Fabulous Film-making) so it seems like a logical extension of the current categorization to have a category that groups together films shot at Pinewood. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The specific filming location of a film is not defining to the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 27 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:Gravity Falls (season 1) episodes[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 ("One franchise, one category" doesn't make much sense here in light of the extensive nature of the parent category. Such a change would require a very broad discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles for its own subcategory. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and there's no categorization of Gravity Falls episodes by season, this is the only such category. Brandmeistertalk 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – It seems many of the season 1 episodes are categorized in the parent category rather than the subcategory, but the nomination still stands, too few episode articles overall. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Gravity Falls. My rule is "one franchise: one category". There are perhaps 20 items in the whole tree, which is not enough to need a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 3 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.

Kin of Taoisigh[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Taoisigh it's the head of the Irish government and as such those are WP:NONDEF, also per similar precedent. No need to have such categories for every statesman in the world. Brandmeistertalk 21:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Same as Fathers of Presidents of US. Where would it end? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bogus rationale offers only assertion rather than evidence. The nom makes no attempt to assess whether this relationship is WP:DEFINING for any of the people so categorised. For example the child-relationship is most certainly defining for Vivion de Valera, Liam T. Cosgrave, Liam Cosgrave, Maureen Haughey, and Seán Haughey ... as the nom would be aware of if they had done their homework.
    It is also very mischievious to cite siblings of POTUSs as a precedent without disclosing that there is an open on fathers and mothers of POTUSs, in which the delete faction are similarly keen to entirely avoid any assessment of actual definingness. Slow down, or you'll create a pileup at WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what was already stated, being someone's kin is a trivialization of categorization guidelines. Due to WP:COPDEF such categories would only contain people who are exclusively known for being someone's kin, making such categories perennially incomplete which isn't encyclopedically helpful. The only two solutions are categories like the abovementioned Category:De Valera family or listifying. Brandmeistertalk 11:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Brandmeister: I'll try again. Please look at the articles, where you will see that the people so categorised are indeed defined by their relationship to a Taoiseach.
        While you are at it, re-read WP:COPDEF. It does not say that such categories would only contain people who are exclusively known for being someone's kin. What it does say is that people should be categorised only for attributes related to their notability ... and in these cases, being related to a Taoiseach is an important part of their notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: and @BrownHairedGirl: I took BHG's kind advice and read WP:COPDEF. The pertinant section, as I see it, was the scope. It says: “Currently, people tend to be categorized by the following broad categories…By association, By ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, disability, medical or psychological conditions, By the person's name, By nationality and occupation, By place, By year”. Regarding Association, the guide is “Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories.”. So that seems to remove any ground for "kin of" type categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: that's very silly reasoning. The phrase tend to be categorized by the following is descriptive rather prescriptive, and it is tentative rather than definitive. It in no sway precludes the many other ways in which people are categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Perhaps the nominator thought it unnecessary to burden us with too many words in the expectation that voters would click on the rationale provided in the close precedent that he cited. It appears that BHG was on the losing side of that debate. The rationale provided in the precedent was "The US has no formal title or informal cultural role for brothers and sisters of Presidents like we do for First Ladies. Now many of these people are defined by being a relative of some sort with the President which is why all 50 articles are also under their specific family category in". The analogy with Irish political families is very strong IMHO (e.g. Category:De Valera family, Category:Cosgrave family, Category:Lemass family). That's enough homework for the minute. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, an extraordinary refusal to analyse whether WP:DEFINING applies to any of the articles in these categories. Do you intend to keep this up until we get to DRV, or do you want to address it beforehand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 30 June 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:SAAFL clubs in Adelaide[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) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially a duplicate of its parent category, Category:South Australian Amateur Football League clubs. No need to upmerge because all articles are already in the parent cat. Jenks24 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 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 wights[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) 00:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary subcategory of undead. — TAnthonyTalk 20:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A category with only a single page, really? nyuszika7h (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should note that the article White Walkers was also placed in this new category, but I removed it because these fictional creatures are not wights (though in-universe they apparently create wights). Even so, two items in a category would be equally unnecessary.— TAnthonyTalk 15:37, 29 June 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:Male criminals[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: keep for now to facilitate renomination including child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Criminals by race, religion, sex is a trivial characteristic. No need to break these up by sex; it seems that very few articles on criminals have been so categorized and rather than creating a whole tree where one isn't needed, it ought to go now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Do you mean Delete and up merge to Category:Criminals by sex and Category:Men Ottawahitech (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Delete category based on trivial distinction. We've long since established and repeatedly reiterated that this kind of category does not belong here. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge - per above. Neutralitytalk 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, until the subcats are deleted. This is basically a container category, and deleting it while leaving the subcats in place merely makes it harder to find the categories in which articles are actually placed.
    I agree that in general categorising criminals by sex is an irrelevant intersection, which breaches WP:CATGRS. So I looked at the subcats to see if there were any which might actually be potentially valid categories, but I couldn't find any. So I would happily support a nomination to delete this category once its subcats have been deleted or merged ... but so long as the subcats exist, so should this category.
    I suggested that the nominator withdraw this proposal, and open a new nom which includes the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 5 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:Female criminals[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: keep for now to facilitate renomination including child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Criminals by race, religion, sex is a trivial characteristic. No need to break these up by sex; it seems that very few articles on criminals have been so categorized and rather than creating a whole tree where one isn't needed, it ought to go now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Do you mean Delete and up merge to Category:Criminals by sex and Category:Women in society? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Delete category based on trivial distinction. We've long since established and repeatedly reiterated that this kind of category does not belong here. It's hard to believe I have to repeat this. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge - per above. Neutralitytalk 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Do you mean Delete and up merge to Category:Criminals by sex and Category:Women in society? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Actually, I'll go for a straight delete. Neutralitytalk 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, until the subcats are deleted. This is basically a container category, and deleting it while leaving the subcats in place merely makes it harder to find the categories in which articles are actually placed.
    I agree that in general categorising criminals by sex is an irrelevant intersection, which breaches WP:CATGRS. So I looked at the subcats to see if there were any which might actually be potentially valid categories, but I couldn't find any. So I would happily support a nomination to delete this category once its subcats have been deleted or merged ... but so long as the subcats exist, so should this category.
    I suggested that the nominator withdraw this proposal, and open a new nom which includes the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 5 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:Marvel Cinematic Universe 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: administrative close: was deleted by another editor (see discussion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While perhaps not a precise recreation of previous categories of this nature, consensus has been to delete similar categories on at least three separate occasions. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be irrelevant to the merits of the category, please note that there is concern it was created by a sockpuppet of an editor who previously created a similar category. SPI here. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems almost certain that this is yet another sockpuppet of someone who has kept creating these categories for more than 10 years despite warnings and category deletions. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While not exactly the same as previous categories of this nature, there is still consensus that these categories should not exist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete delete this unnecessary category per repeated consensus regarding categories of this nature. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The category is actually the same one I had proposed for deletion some time ago, and which was deleted. It was not populated by just Coulson and Selvig back then: it was populated by lots of comic book characters, with Coulson and Selvig being the only examples of actual MCU characters. Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note It was created by a CensoredScribe sock so I deleted it under G5 criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Would it be possible to WP:SALT this category considering its frequent recreation?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 5 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:Gujarati-language film 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, and redirect template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only six articles - but more importantly the parent Gujarati-language films category only has about 30 articles, so it's not going to get within a bull's roar of the stub threshold in the foreseeable future. Delete, and upmerge the template to Category:Indian film stubs. Grutness...wha? 13:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree about very few films (for now), the upmerge category is too broad. Coderzombie (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you propose the stubs to go, then? It's the immediate parent, and it only has 259 stubs, so it's not "too broad" for stub-sorting purposes. Since stub sorting categories are for maintenance, not navigation, breadth isn't really of overriding importance - the number of stubs within a category is. Ther'll be noting to stop it getting its own category once it's reached the required 60+ stubs, but for now, upmerging it into its immediate parent makes the most sense - as is already done with {{Assamese-film-stub}} and {{Bhojpuri-film-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 13:37, 28 June 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:International scientific societies[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No obvious differentiation Rathfelder (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- A few of the organisations may be inter-governmental bodies, rather than societies, but otherwise the difference is largely one of name, but there are societies in both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no clear reason for this division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - division is artificial. Neutralitytalk 23:08, 5 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:2000s comedy horror 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: no consensus. We're not going to keep moving categories back and forth as editors move around the main article. Achieve a stable article title at WP:RM and then renominate as necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 06:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent article horror comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (this applies to all these categories) - isn't the more usual term "comedy-horror" (in that order and hyphenated)? I've only ever heard the term "horror comedy" a couple of times (both, IIRC, from American sources - perhaps its another US English vs Commonwealth English problem...), but "comedy-horror" is widespread as a term here. I'd have changed the article rather than the categories. Grutness...wha? 12:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took the liberty to merge all these different nominations into one nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term "comedy-horror" is widely used on Wikipedia. The title of the article should be changed instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We the term "comedy horror" more on Wikipedia. The title of the article has already been changed (although it really shouldn't have been changed while this CfD was in progress. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Horror comedy" is the more common term. I'll quote what I said in another CFD: Doing a Google search at Fangoria, there are 1120 hits for "horror comedy" and 62 for "comedy horror". At Variety, there are 912 for "horror comedy" and 107 for "comedy horror". And, at Starburst, there are 158 hits for "horror comedy" and 61 for "comedy horror". Both Shaun of the Dead and The Rocky Horror Picture Show are described as "horror comedy" films in their articles, and these are probably the most prominent British examples. And Starburst is a British magazine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: this should be closed in conjunction with the reverse proposal for the parent categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_1#Category:Horror_comedy. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wrong Venue The name of the main article needs to be formally settled in an RM discussion since there are varying opinions. After that I would favor speedy renaming the categories. Moving a content discussion about the article to the CFD board isn't the right venue. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:06, 9 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:Tamil television series endings by year[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 all to Tamil-language television…. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the subcats here
Nominator's rationale: Unlike the remaining categories in Category:Television series debuts by country, Tamil isn't actually a country but a language. We don't even split Category:American television series debuts by year by language so I don't see the need to do it for Indian shows. Now, from what I can tell, every category here relates to a television series in India so I'm suggesting merger into the India category. If I'm wrong, then we can split the individual series into Sri Lanka which I presume is the only other country at issue here. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the subcats here
Nominator's rationale: Parallel to this CFD discussion, unlike the remaining categories in Category:Television series endings by country, Tamil isn't actually a country but a language. Category:American television series endings doesn't get broken down by language so I don't see the need to do it for Indian shows. Now, from what I can tell, every category here relates to a television series in India so I'm suggesting merger into the India category. If I'm wrong, then we can split the individual series into Sri Lanka which I presume is the only other country at issue here. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 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:Independent politicians in the United States[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 action. S. Rich or other editors may consider submitting a fresh nomination to propose renaming or merging all 49 state subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Independent politicians in the United States has numerous subcategories for the 50 states. But these are listed using the proper noun "Independent". (E.g., Category:Alabama Independents.) This, of course, would mean one of the several Independent Party-s. But the category actually seeks to list independent politicians. So I propose that various the state listings be renamed "Category:Alabama independent politicians" etc.. What is the best way of doing this? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Srich32977: What a mess! It might be defining that someone does not have a political party when they are elected to the US Senate or the like, but being a private citizen who doesn't register with a political party is not meaningful per WP:OCASSOC. I was looking mainly at the Delaware sub-category based on my familiarity: Jan C. Ting switched his party registration form Indep. to Rep. to run for the U.S. senate; his registration status as a private citizen is hardly defining. John Cook (governor) is listed because many offices in post-colonial America were initially non-partisan (and there are a lot of similar examples). Looking more broadly, there are a lot of political parties with "independent" or "independence" in their name so the meaning here could be unclear to readers from different countries. Category:Independent politicians in the People's Republic of China is also a mess: these are political dissidents in a context where opposition parties are banned; their lack of a party affiliation is both obvious and non-defining. So, at the least, rename and purge but I'm not totally sold this is a viable tree: we normally do not categorize by things that the article is not so I'm not sure these should even be kept.
You might want to see if moving this conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics gets more input than it has here though; other editors may feel differently. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion would be to purge the categories of all articles that don't have to do with politicians who held a major office while not registered with a major party. Let's see where we end up and go from there. I'm guessing this will eventually be deleted outright, but maybe there's enough politicians where this is defining to make it worthwhile. Bernie Sanders comes to mind as an example of someone who was defined by his party registration until his recent presidential campaign. ~ Rob13Talk 06:11, 10 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:Television series by ABC 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.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney TV category are changing, so the time has to come to merge the ABC Studios category into the Disney category, but the Lucasfilm and Saban categorys will say. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: ABC Studios is a distinct production unit of Disney; all Disney-owned shows shouldn't be lumped into one category. Trivialist (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the reasons listed by Trivialist. Dimadick (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If this was a small category or a brief brand, I would concur. It isn't and it isn't. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ABC Studios is a production label, not a true production company, its a company founded by Disney in 1985 as Touchstone Television, then it was rebranded under the ABC name, as the name Touchstone was fading out. 47.54.189.22 (talk)
  • Oppose -- If shows are branded as ABC, we should categorise them so. Disney should be there as a parent. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for shows made by ABC when it did not belong to Disney to be in a Disney category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No more comments they Oppose, and that is that, also, don't close my mergers as keep or i will be mad. 47.54.189.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling us. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose / Speedy close – Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet and has made similar nominations that make no sense and have been widely opposed before. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:35, 29 June 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 Disney–ABC Domestic Television[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivialist is changing the Disney TV categorys around, so time to merge the DADT category into the Disney category. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 47.54.189.22 has been trying to merge all Disney-related TV categories into one category for a while now. I'm not sure why he/she is using me rearranging some category hierarchies as an excuse to merge these categories. Trivialist (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That someone made changes in the category is not a valid reason to change or delete it. Dimadick (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Comment Per above. Reading through Disney–ABC Domestic Television, I'm also wondering if "Buena Vista Television" should have been lumped in here. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DADT is a production label not a true production company, it is a label of Disney for distribution of its library, syndication programs. 47.54.189.22 (talk)
  • Oppose / Speedy close – Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet and has made similar nominations that make no sense and have been widely opposed before. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:35, 29 June 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_June_28&oldid=1138410006"