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: We do not categorize national sports teams by language... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete - We might possibly have purged the north African (Near East) teams and renamed to Middle East, but I do not think that useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2017 (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:Palestinian people of American descent[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: I have no idea what is even meant with this category.... unless it is, which I suspect, a mistake for American people of Palestinian descent... Huldra (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe category is empty, so either the page which it contained has been removed from it or been deleted. As far as its definition is concerned, it is for citizens or residents of Palestine who have American descent (eg. an American parent/s). Mar4d (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Just figured it out, and restored it, as the article was correctly categorised. Mar4d (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it unlikely to be well populated. The one member is a Palestinian with an American mother. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This for Palestinians whose ancestors were Americans. Dimadick (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to what Huldra seems to believe, there have been Americans who have emigrated from the US to other countries. I have even known people who would fit in the category Category:Germans of African-American descent. While I generally oppose having one article categories, this is part of a general system of people from x country of y descent, and as long as we have explicit mention of such descent in the article, I see no reason why any given x country of y descent category should not be allowed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having the surname "Clerk" is not a defining trait and so a category serves no purpose. I'm sure that surname categories have been deleted before but I can't recall any. Xezbeth (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale to keep category: I totally disagree with the proposal for deletion. There are categories of notable people who share the same surname. This is very common on Wikipedia. There are no rules that prevent the categorization of notable people based solely on their surnames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs)
convert to article/list comparing to other surname articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of that, maybe that was the original intent. There's already a list at Clerk (disambiguation) that could be split out. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have splitClerk (surname) from the disambiguation page, and added citations typical of an anthroponymy page. Cheers! bd2412T 00:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete We have many categories about specific families (and even that get dicey with how far out you go.) But this is textbook WP:SHAREDNAME. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2017 (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:keep. ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, the works are mostly set ashore or on ships. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as "on the Foo Ocean" isn't normal English for referring to events on an island in that ocean - "in" is better in that case. DexDor(talk) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, more or less This one of the problems seen in the "in sea" discussion: most of the members are not set in/at/on the ocean, but are instead set on islands. there's no way that these could be held as happening on the ocean, and even in is questionable. I'm increasingly of the view that these need to be reorganized into "on islands in ___ ocean" and "at sea in ___ ocean" categories given that stories about sea travel are a different kettle of fish from island stories. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) Support alternative split (thus withdrawing the original nomination). I'm expecting that in the end "at sea" will coincide with "on ships" but let's just see how things develop. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Films set primarily on-board or outside a submarine go in this cateogry. Anyway, here the ocean is a broad geographical area. Or we can go one step forther The Other Side of Heaven is mainly set in the United States and Tonga (though filmed in New Zealand and Rarotonga), but there are not only scenes of sailing, but people struggling to swim out of the ocean, so some of it occurs literally "in the Pacific Ocean".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the RM at Talk:Saint_Lawrence#Requested_move_1_August_2017, Lawrence of Rome was moved to Saint Lawrence. The Commons category also is simply Saint Lawrence. Moving this category to match both its main article and its commons category makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons as the mv from Larence of Rome to Saint Lawrence. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I can't disagree with all of the above, but I see the danger that people will throw "everything Lawrence" into this Category, rendering it useless. The current lemma makes it very clear which one of the many Saint Lawrences this is about. In this regard I even find the initial move unfortunate, but not quite as disastrous as the renaming of the Category would probably be. --BjKa (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RM at the main article clearly established this Lawrence as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the n-gram at the RM showed, there was only 1 detected English-language source before 2000 that used this phrasology. Any since could actually have borrowed it from Wikipedia. The question here though is if the category should match the title of the main article, which per WP:CONSISTENCY, is a clear yes. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- He is the primary topic. The existence of the rest can be handled through an "otheruses" capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguoation is more important in the case of categories, capnotes are harder for people to identify, so I think this category name remains justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert: the issue in this case is that the disambiguation is used in one English-language sources before the year 2000 according to Google n-grams. I haven't gone from through the web archive searches of the few sources that use this title, but it appears that the January 2007 unilateral move of this page may have actually been the cause of it popping up in a very small minority of sources since then given the prominence of the English Wikipedia. I'm sympathetic to the argument that categories need better disambiguation, but this title in particular is not in common usage among English-language sourcing, and the odds of its very minimal surge in popularity this century could be because of the unilateral judgement of one editor 10 years ago are not slim. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Rename The main article is Saint Lawrence and having different naming formats in the category space hinders navigation. Who knows if the people that named the article that way were misguided, drunk or under demonic possession, but CFD is not the forum to argue what are really article renames. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2017 (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: This category looks like precisely the reason that the state needs to be disambiguated: One of the parent categories is a New York City category, and one of its subcats is a state-level category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:55, 10 August 2017 (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: This serves the same purpose as the now-deleted category "Kamal Haasan Hindi films". But I don't think there is a Wiki policy stating that acting credits can have categories. Kailash29792(talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is even worse than a performer by performace category. The fact that a given individaul acted in a film is not notable enough to categorize by, and this would lead to horrible category clutter. This topic is much better covered by filmographies in the article on the actor in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2017 (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:Wikipedians who are against Donald Trump[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: It groups users by dislikes, on the basis of irrelevant likes, by advocacy of a position and may be divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive 135.23.232.202 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hi there! It has eligibility as a Wikipedian-related category in Wikipedia through Category:Wikipedians interested in politics. There is an category for Wikipedians who support Donald Trump. [[Category:Wikipedians for Donald Trump] . So why shouldn't we add an opposite category? It is not a Trump-related website, but an encyclopedia. Happy editing! The Stray DogTalk Page 22:21, 12 August 2017 (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: Is there any Wiki policy stating that acting credits can have categories? I think not! Kailash29792(talk) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (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:Nestorianism in the Abbasid Caliphate[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. ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content, these are all biographies. No objection against recreation of the category when a number of topic articles are written about Nestorianism in the Abbasid Caliphate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support both renaming rationale and caveat on future recreation. Constantine ✍ 06:41, 10 August 2017 (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:Companies listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange[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 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:merge all into Category:Mobile phone films. Category:Films by technology went almost entirely unnoticed be the delete arguments, where there may lay some validity to the existence of this category. Whether it is merited shall be seen at a later time, but for now, reasonable arguments for its retention have been supplied. ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining basis for a category. Wikipedia does not maintain a comprehensive system of categorizing films by what type of camera equipment happened to be used to film them — and once mobile phone cameras got good enough, it was simply inevitable that they'd start getting added to the mix of options. But being shot on a mobile phone is no more inherently defining of a film than being shot with any other kind of digital camera, but we deleted Category:Films shot digitally when it was tried. (Plus this misses at least one notable example, Tangerine — which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, obviously, but does illustrate a lack of consensus that this would be needed at all.) And even if we somehow needed to categorize for this, for some reason I'm not seeing, we would not need three different categories for the exact same thing — we would need just one category for it. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do have a Category:Camcorder films, which could very well take in all the gadget made films, possibly with a wider definition, or if necessary, by renaming it accordingly. HoverfishTalk 17:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One, redirect others rationally not connected Nominator's observation- Wikipedia does not maintain a comprehensive system of categorizing films by what type of camera equipment happened to be used to film them- with Category:Camcorder films. This makes a bias here. 157.50.15.227 (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category was created in 2005 and it was not until 2006-07 that films categorization started becoming more organized to reach its present form. As you see, in its parent category, i.e. Category:Films by technology, a comprehensive system of categorizing films by what type of camera/equipemnt was used, was never really created. So there is not really any bias against smartphones, just a matter of whether we want to get into ANY such categorization. The case of mobiles etc, does not need a new category, it could all fit under a possible "Home-grade technology films" or similar, and merge everything there, including the now obsolete camcorder items. But this issue may be somewhat outside the scope of this CfD. HoverfishTalk 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge three categories into one e.g. to Category:Mobile phone films, for now this is still defining, but without objection to delete the category after for example two years if this phenomenon becomes very widespread. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the type of camera used to create a film is non-defining. This also leads to a question, how much does one of the specified camera types need to be used to qualify in the category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2017 (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: As an eponymous category is unnecessary with so little content, suggest rename, repurpose and cleanup. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:15, 10 August 2017 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 4#Category:New York hip hop. ℯxplicit 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
