Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 28

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

September 28[edit]

Category:Lists of jazz festivals[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 re-categorize sole article to parent categories. Multiple redirects not re-categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All entries are redirects to the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straight Delete/Reparent Main Article Clearly should be deleted since multiple redirects to the same article don't aid navigation. I would just reparent the main article, List of jazz festivals, though so we don't push out these redirects to other categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including the further specification by RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There's no navigational use for a category which exists just to contain one article and a bunch of redirects to that same one article. But RevelationDirect is correct that we should only recategorize the main article itself, not all of the redirects. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 10 October 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:De La Salle Brothers schools in Hong Kong[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 per this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C contested by Armbrust with reference to this recent CfD. Whatever was decided there, this is a simple realignment with other members of Category:Lasallian educational institutions, namely Category:Lasallian schools in Singapore and Category:Lasallian schools in the United States. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 28 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.

Category:Fantasy 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to do the same things as Category:Supernatural horror films. Fantasy usually is a more pleasant fictional event, (i.e: dogs that talk, life after death, etc.) so I think Supernatural horror is the better terminology here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked up some of these and they can all be invariably classified as Category:Supernatural horror films, Category:Horror comedy films and Category:Monster movies. I don't think "Fantasy horror" is a notable sub-genre and Allmovie don't have an entry for it either, while they do list many other horror sub-genres. The category is underpopulated (for good reason) so I agree with binning it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have never heard of this genre, but I doubt if the term "fantasy" is only used for pleasant tales. Sword and sorcery is considered a genre of fantasy, but its tales concern bloody battles, villainous sorcerers, and horrific monsters. For example the novel The Hour of the Dragon (1935-1936) features an undead sorcerer (Xaltotun), a vampire princess (Akivasha), a living mummy (Thoth-mekri), an entire organization of villainous human sorcerers (the Black Ring), and a random collection of other villains. It is not exactly a pleasant tale and has horror elements, but it is typically classified as fantasy. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fantasy doesn't have to be pleasant. However, "fantasy horror" is commonly known as weird fiction, dark fantasy, or fantastique. Since we've already got Category:dark fantasy films and Category:supernatural horror films, this is pretty much redundant. I understand what the creator was going for here, but it fits well enough under existing categories, which have the benefit of being established genres. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fantasy isn't necessarily pleasant — just think Game of Thrones, The Lord of the Rings, etc. — but "fantasy horror" is not a recognized or objective subgenre term for a particular type of horror film. By definition, most horror films centre in some way on aspects (disembodied supernatural forces, vampires, werewolves, mummies, zombies, poltergeists, etc.) that could technically also be classified as "fantasy", and Dimadick is entirely correct that stories more typically classified as "fantasy" can have some horror elements in them too — so the distinction between a "fantasy horror film" and a "non-fantasy horror film" is far less clearcut than it would take to justify a separate category. We already have other categories that cover this on a more properly sourceable terminology and a more WP:DEFINING basis, so this is just redundant. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearcat. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 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.

Category:Sojourned[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: nomination closed as user error. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Will combine Si Trew (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redlinked category, which according to its edit history has never actually existed at all. Did you just misspell the link for another category? Never mind, I've found what happened. The nominated page is actually a redirect, not a category, but the nomination statement ended up here because the nominator accidentally used the wrong template to nominate it (which I've done at least once too.) Nominator has already resubmitted the nomination to MFD, so there's no need to leave this open given that there's nothing for CFD to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 28 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.

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois[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 Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois to Category:Adjutants General of Illinois and Category:Adjutant Generals to Category:Adjutants general of the National Guard of the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The plural of "adjutant general" is "adjutants general", not "adjutant generals" -- adjutant is the noun and general is the adjective, not vice versa. (See, frex, the correctly named Category:Adjutants General of New York.) Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp makes a good point about the general category. I'd support that option as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 4 October 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:Left 4 Dead[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 5 articles seem like more than enough. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too little justification for deletion. Tim! (talk) 19:44, 28 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.

Category:Gackt[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) 03:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--there are just two interlkinked subcats and one main article which is linked from them as well. The only other thing in here is a navbox and Tempest 3D, which does not justify an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 28 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.

Category:Regional Italian[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) 03:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By the contents of the target category, these are synonymous, although Dialects of Italian is a dab page, the cat covers one of the meanings only, and per WP:SMALLCAT to merge to the larger one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. For the other meaning of Dialects of Italian there is a separate category anyway, namely Category:Languages of Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I understand that there are some so-called dialects that are not mutually comprehensible, but the target is better than the current name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As it stands, this is just an eponymous category whose only content is the eponymous head article itself, and is thus not a good basis for a one-item WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 10 October 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_September_28&oldid=1074817539"