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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same issue is a constant problem across 100s of infoboxes. There are no universal, global standards of the left-right axis, and categorizing articles along the axis is a dead end. The category merely invites to edit warring, and does not help in structuring the encyclopedia. Soman (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are a number of problems with categorizing parties, and generally the self-identification is the only reasonable standard. Categories like this will only continue the endless revert wars that already plague the infoboxes. Category:Fascist parties should only be populated with parties that self-identify as fascist. --Soman (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is that we use secondary reliable sources, not primary sources. Your suggestion would lead us to categorise the National Socialist German Workers' Party as socialist rather than fascist.
What endless revert wars? (I asked before. Do you actually have examples, or not?) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument of BrownHairedGirl. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the well stated argument of BrownHairedGirl. Hmains (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (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:upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. There is no advantage to merging into a category with 30 other specific subcategories, while the phrase "procurement practices" is a well-known business term about various procedures used in formal purchasing of materials. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2018 (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 each Category:CountryName feature films to Category:CountryName films. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion these categories are not needed, as all films are implied to be feature-length, unless they are short films. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant to "Category:<NATIONALITY> films". When we say just "films" on Wikipedia, we mean feature films. Otherwise we would specify if it is a short film. Until there is a consensus to clarify "feature film" all the time, there is no need to have these overly specific categories. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Also largely unused, given that the American category, the most populated one here, only has five entries in it despite there being closer to 50,000 American feature films with Wikipedia articles. Note that I've also nominated the parent categories Category:Feature by medium and Category:Feature, which will become a rolling succession of emptied categories if and when these are deleted, for deletion as well — although I've listed them for a separate discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 5#Category:Feature by medium because the argument against them is slightly different from the argument against these. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2018 (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 both, and possibly listify. To assist anyone who wants to create lists, I have made a list of the pages currently in each category:
Nominator's rationale: There was a time, when I was so broken-hearted. Because I tried to categorize a certain song as being quite obviously influenced by Pachelbel but this was reverted as vandalism. My theory is that membership in categories like these is based less upon the degree of observable derivation, and more upon whether the fans allow it to be mentioned. ―cobaltcigs 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- Unclear membership criteria and lots of OR problems. What makes a song "based on" a classical work? Does it need to recognizably have the same melody, or is it OK if it has a completely different tune but the same chord progression? This is unworkable. ReykYO! 07:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Providing the inclusion is reliably referenced in the article and not subject to an editor's opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The phenomenon is certainly real. Check out this video. Categories probably aren't the best way to handle it. ―cobaltcigs 16:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I think that a well-referenced grouping of such works is useful and not just because I'm a fan of Brian Eno's Discreet Music) — but a list is probably a better way of doing that, not to mention that it's easier to ensure a list is well referenced than a category. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 February 2018 (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: Ignoring the poor English, this is non-defining and trivial. A similar category was deleted previously. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationals (which I cannot improve on) from the previous CFD. MarnetteD|Talk 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand what bother can give this category? It has reason to exist exactly like Category:Films using computer-generated imagery. If the problem is the name, the name can be changed. The previous cancellation should not be taken in support of this cancellation because in that case it was a clear punishment against the author of the category, considered unpleasant in his work. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is nonsense, we do not punish editors for unpleasant behavior by deleting categories that they create. In the previous discussion there were substantive arguments in favor of deleting the category, that is the reason why it got deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films are not defined by every individual narrative technique that happens to be present in their scripts. It's valid for our concept article about the fourth wall to list some particularly noteworthy examples (though trying to list every example that happened at all would just be WP:TRIVIA), but it's not a useful basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2018 (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 like Star Trek: Phase II (fan series)[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: My first choice is deletion due to an overly narrow scope. This is for users who like a Star Trek fan series - There's only one article that users in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on (even if we assume those in a "who like" category have a collaborative intent, which is highly debatable), Star Trek: New Voyages. My second choice is to rename the category to match the article title - Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Voyages. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2018 (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: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Extensive precedent to delete other "search engine" categories, see here. It does not help benefit the encyclopedia to know which search engine a particular Wikipedian prefers to use. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can help to know this for an individual in very rare, specific cases such as the one you cite. it cannot help to group said users in a category, however - It is common to conflate the idea that certain information being useful to know means that it useful to group by way of a user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely passing a remark because I disagreed with a lot of what was said in the nomination. I wasn't suggesting what should happen about the category. Thincat (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2018 (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/2018 February 19#Category:Procurement practices. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)