Category:Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy alumni[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: Category for alumni of a voice acting education program, whose article contains no reliable sourcing to suggest that it's notable at all. People are not defined by being alumni of non-notable schools. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suspect that you do not read Japanese. I certainly do not. We need to be wary of declaring things NN, because there are no English sources. I do not know whether it is a notable school or not. Are you sure there are no RS in Japanese? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep stuff just because better sources might exist than are present in the article. To consider it notable, someone who can read Japanese would have to show the evidence that any actual reliable sources do exist, rather than it necessarily being my job to prove that they don't — nothing would ever be deletable at all if "well, maybe some real sources might actually exist somewhere" were all it took to make it keep an article keepable, and the article's existed for seven years without having a single source added to it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Japanese Wikipedia has an article about Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy but (based on Google translate) it appears to be unsourced and the main content of the article is a list of alumni, like here in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 December 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. The compromise outlined in this discussion would require a separate proposal, as it would affect all "people by city and occupation" categories. ℯxplicit 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that this IP's objection doesn't count. If no valid objections arise, maybe we can process this as unopposed after the regular 48 hours. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a valid reason to object this renaming proposal, by all means don't hold back until there's a CFD. Now that you've had two chances to explain, you might miss out on that opportunity. Not liking it does not count as a valid reason. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The valid reason the is "adding a second comma for it's location would ruin the sentence" for the "by occupation" sentence. Could you still take that proposal to the full CFD? Also User:Bearcat will decide to support speedy or oppose speedy rename for the proposal on the extra comma. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:45E0:D560:2C77:BA57 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to read the Copyedit for punctuation guidelines for "by occupation" categories. You don't need the extra comma for the "by occupation" categories. Adding the city-province next to the comma and "by occupation" categories would ruin the sentence. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:45E0:D560:2C77:BA57 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. On the contrary, without the comma, the "by occupation" part would seem to be related to [State] only:
1) People from Tulsa
2) Oklahoma by occupation
Considering this goes against the manual of style, and the most other such categories include the comma (see the parent categories), don't hold your breath. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true, don't you see all categories for the "by occupation" title would have been used as "Category:People from Tulsa, Oklahoma by occupation". the comma only used "once" between the city and province or state. The "by occupations" stays perfect without the second comma next to the by occupation. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:45E0:D560:2C77:BA57 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to postulate that that "by the contrary" fails WP:COMMONSENSE. Any reasonable person won't read it as two seperate things. I'm not going to object simply on the grounds of I know a losing battle when I see one, but seriously this perincious picayuneness on "but *grammar*", especially in categories, is just another thing for people to point and laugh at Wikipedia about. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have seen a trend in media – online and on paper – towards adding the second comma. So I guess people will have more to laugh at. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. The second matching comma ruins the sentence. Some of the Canadian categories are just Canadian grammar. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ruins the sentence (a phrase, really) in what way—by making it grammatically correct? Also, can you please clarify what you mean by "Canadian grammar"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:52, 26 November 2017** (UTC)
The grammar for its Canadian English is not using its second comma next to "by occupation". For e.g. "Category:People from Windsor, Ontario by occupation". The second comma next to "by occupation" is not used for its grammar in Canadian English or any English language. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's patently incorrect—the use of a second comma in a comma-separated location name is, in fact, an accepted punctuation rule (see, for example, here and here). Now, I understand there may be differences between variants of English, but I have not seen any indication of that so far. Could you perhaps point to a source that supports your assertion that Canadian English does not use the second comma after a two-part location name? Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
chit-chat
If you want to talk about the second comma next to by location. Why don't you talk to User:Bearcat about the second comma next to by location. The strong administrator will figure out to review the proposal. Thanks. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I being summoned, exactly? What gives me any special insight into this? Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearcat, Could you review the "by occupation" categories for proposal for adding the second comma next to by occupation. I already "oppose" the proposal for adding the second comma next to by location. There are some Canadian location categories by occupation to be included. Is it possible for the Canadian location categories by occupation without the second comma for an example "Category:People from Windsor, Ontario by occupation" is it because of possibly the Canadian grammar. To find out talk to User:Black Falcon. Thanks. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you think I have any special insight into whether a comma would be warranted in that context or not? I already saw this discussion earlier (you might find it fascinating to notice who the nominator was in the discussions both directly above and directly below this one!), and would have contributed to it already if I had anything to contribute. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the Canadian location categories by occupation. I know you're professional at Canadian related articles and you are a helpful admin. The single comma for city-comma-province next to by occupation can be used once. Is it the "Canadian grammar" that I'm asking as a question? We won't talk about it until tomorrow. A lot of users are expected to review. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that I have a really hard time understanding what you're getting at, like, a lot of the time that you approach me about a lot of things, right? Bearcat (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're tired and I'm tired too. Don't be exhausted just give it a rest and review the categories if you can support or oppose. We'll talk about it until tomorrow and think about it. Thanks. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline whatsoever that supports what IP 2001:569 ... claims, whether relating to Canadian English, or to the expression "by occupation", or to anything else. I can't even imagine a rationale for removing the comma in category names when it's perfectly logical in any similar expression in a full sentence – such as "Do you know where I can find a list of people from Buffalo, New York, by occupation?". HandsomeFella (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per nominator's rationale.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting suggestion and may be worth considering, but that would put these categories at odds with all other location-and-occupation categories. Within category names, current practice is to use the construction "People by [X] {preposition} [Y]" only when [X] applies to [Y]—e.g. Category:People by county in California. I also wonder what a compromise achieves, given the only objection so far is an unsupported claim that punctuation rules are different in Canada. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that would make the first second category People by occupation from Buffalo, New York. There are no occupations from Buffalo, New York. Unless you count Keeper of the Waterfalls. Jokes aside, it sounds awkward. Sorry. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the extra comma is necessary in UK English, much the same as needing to match an opening bracket with a closing bracket. Oculi (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with the second comma? Why are you so desperate "avoiding" it? Just like Oculi – and WP:Copyedit#Punctuation, you know the guideline you don't want to read – says, if you have an opening bracket, you need a closing bracket. The same goes for commas, the only difference is that commas are implicitly closed by the end of the sentence, so you won't have a comma followed by a full stop/period. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listen HandsomeFella, I don't like your arguments. I don't want to talk about the second comma. If all users can support Peterkingiron's proposal that would be helpful. I want any user's reply. And HandsomeFella, do not reply me back. Please stay away from me. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:6CA5:BC2B:7750:77F6 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listen IP. I don't particulary like your arguments. You haven't actually been able to provide any arguments at all, other than you don't like the commas. You don't want to read the guidelines, yet you still keep on like you don't hear anything. If you can't present any real arguments, you really should give up. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What did I tell you HandsomeFella, you keep on replying me. I don't want to hear HandsomeFella's new reply. Your making negative comments on your previous reply. You are making mean comments. I am not giving up hope. Please stop talking to me at all HandsomeFella. I want any users reply but not HandsomeFella and I don't want any mean, negative or any personal attack comments. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:1C5C:F0F:3BEE:CC57 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making these personal and distracting comments. You did this earlier with Bearcat in the "chit-chat" above. It is not appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marcocapelle, I am extremely sorry. I know I was sleeping. I almost make mistakes. I almost never make off topic comments. My IP keeps on changing, because I lost internet connection many times. Please accept my apology. Marco, I support Peterkingiron's proposed plan. On all of the by occupation geographical locations. Are you willing to support Peterkingiron's proposed plan that I supported? First of all its my fault each other's arguments. Marco, if you read this please accept my apology, I won't offend anyone. Thanks for your time. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:C6F:3C58:EF31:6345 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kerry Raymond: And I updated the instances that pointed to WP:CFD/S. Sorry I missed this step during the nomination, and thanks for pointing it out. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems like a basic grammar change. Buffaboytalk 22:05, 17 December 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: Misguided eponymous category that's serving as a compilation of several different overcategorization errors: it contains three of his family members and three organizations he was associated with (both violating WP:OCASSOC), two things that were merely named after him (violating WP:SHAREDNAME), one community whose only connection to him is that he once inaugurated a memorial shrine in the community (violating WP:DEFINING), and one book he wrote. All of which means that if this were purged of everything that shouldn't be categorized this way, all that would be left is the eponym and the book — so it would also fail WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) contains articles legitimately related to Nujoma.--TM 21:33, 3 December 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 12:24, 7 December 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:Paintings depicting the Massacre of the Innocents[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.
Keep -- We do have a main article on Massacre of the Innocents. This lists 4 paintings with articles, to which can be added that main article, making 5 . That is a little small for a category, but not exceptionally so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes three articles about paintings, because one of the articles is about two paintings. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 26 November 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: Per C2D, the article is Dzau District. The category was nominated for speedy move, but the move was opposed. Note that the name of the article is contested (it is Java District in Georgian, and arguments could be made whether Ossetian or Georgian name is primary), but in any case this should be discussed at the article talk page first, this nomination is solely about the capitalization of the district.Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 25 November 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: I have looked for sources that indicate that ABS-CBN produces telenovelas, but I have not found anything, they all indicate that they are TV series. Well, I do not know how they agreed to create this category. but it is totally different from the "Category:Televisa telenovelas" and others. Philip J Fry / talk 04:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request clarification. I'm not parsing your argument here — a telenovela is a kind of TV series, so I'm not seeing how TV series and telenovela are mutually contradictory. Could you clarify why you think this is "different from Televisa telenovelas and others"? Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to say is that ABS-CBN does not produce telenovelas, as it happens in Latin America and Brazil. Then because there must be a category that says ABS-CBN telenovelas. For example, in these pages [1], [2], it shows how TV genres are classified in Televisa. What I want to say is that for this to be telenovelas, at least there should be reliable sources so that they can be included in the telenovela category. And then, I do not see any source that indicates that these series are telenovelas.--Philip J Fry / talk 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I've got a better sense of what the issue is here now, so I'm ready to express an opinion below. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/split per BearcatMove to Category:ABS-CBN drama series - I believe the requester is under the impression that the telenovela format is limited to Latin America. It does seem though that limited-run Philippine television drama serials are of a similar style, and indeed a lot of them seem to be Filipino remakes of LA telenovelas and use that term is used to describe them. As we have List of drama series of ABS-CBN and Template:ABS-CBN drama series, a category using that naming would seem appropriate rather than a full deletion. -- Netoholic@ 21:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Added: changing vote per better solution. We should also use the same approach for other Network-genre and country-genre categories. ---- Netoholic@ 05:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: I think his proposal seems more reasonable, but what would happen then with Category:Philippine telenovelas.--Philip J Fry / talk 23:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/split. To be honest, I'm not actually convinced of the value of categories that intersect "genre of television series" with "network" at all — the United States, for a similar example, does not need categories that isolate CBS sitcoms from ABC sitcoms from NBC sitcoms. These should each be in one category that just groups them as Philippine dramas without network separation, and one category that just groups them as ABS-CBN shows without genre separation, not an intersected cross-category that marks them as specifically ABS-CBN dramas or telenovelas or whatever. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 25 November 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.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Keep. One of the valid exemptions to SMALLCAT, written right into SMALLCAT, is where the category is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subcategorizing people by nationality. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat - one of numerous one-article categories in this hierarchy. A quick scan of Category:Billionaires by nationality reveals at least a dozen others like it. Yeah, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF - but in cases like this it seems that it rightfully fills a tree as per bearcat's comments. Grutness...wha? 18:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arafat is categorized in enough other ways, that adding another single-entry cat just for him is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of an established category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 30 November 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 December 26#Category:Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy alumni. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
