Category:Unofficial works based on Star Wars[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: Unofficial works means fandom, in this context. This category was created 8 years after the merge target. The merge target and this category include the same categories, but the target includes another 28 articles as well. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, who says it isn't fandom? Just because Mel Brooks directed it? Perhaps he is also a fan? 16:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As a reader I would expect "fans" to mean unauthorized, spare time, hobbyists and convention types not professional productions. I do see your perspective though. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current Nomination I'm not comfortable with Hollywood parodies being under fandom. I'm open to other changes to this tree though. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the category includes productions that have nothing to do with "fandom". Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt merge to Category:Works based on Star Wars, a category with only two subcats and no articles isn't really helpful for easy navigation and I don't see a high need for separating out "unofficial" things. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category:Works based on Star Wars per Marcocapelle. Given the uneasiness with merging everything to Category:Star Wars fandom, it's fair to just remove the "unofficial" designation: it's not necessary and not a standard way of categorizing works based on another work. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 29 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: Just because it's a topic category, doesn't mean it needs the word "topic" in the title. CN1 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think the name was constructed that way because "transgender" is an adjective not a noun, or at least it used to be. Have other editors seen it used as a noun? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency, per WP:C2C. I wouldn't have a problem with renaming the entire tree of Category:Transgender to something else, but only as a later step, and honestly I don't see a good alternative right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 22 September 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:rename. Some clean-up/further action/possible re-nominations are going to be required after this is done. I'm not going to do this clean-up as part of the close of this discussion, so if interested users could do so, that would be helpful.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per conventional reference to military of a country (State of Palestine) rather than region (Palestine region) and in light of the recent conversion of Palestine into disambiguation page; also in the consequence of similar rename procedure earlier this year. Some categories are to be renamed to Palestinian National Authority prefix in line with page content.GreyShark (dibra) 07:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. However, such concerns are the exact reason for the rename - Palestine is currently a disambig page, which may refer to State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority, Mandatory Palestine, Palestine (region) and even more less utilized topics. There is no other case in Wikipedia i'm aware of when a region has a state-like category tree, so "Palestine (region)" should not be such, even though some users would like to have a fictional "Historic Palestine" state. Since the State of Palestine is the only topic viable for modern "country" definition (whether we agree or not) it should be the parent of the whole category tree. Arab citizens of Israel topic in my opinion doesn't belong to "State of Palestine templates", Palestinian diaspora is somewhat related and "Palestine (historic region) topics" is an irredentist WP:FORK of "Palestine topics" template and thus should be merged.GreyShark (dibra) 05:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom or - if applicable - split per Debresser. I think the latter only applies to #4 and #6. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The issue raised by Debresser is a topic for another day. nothing in Debresser's comments prevents this nomination going ahead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Because of the multiple connotations of Palestine (partly historical), this nom should be implemented. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 18 September 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.
