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; no consensus to delete, but could be re-nominated to focus on such a proposal. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be intended for listing films, not wizards. As such, the category name should be clarified to indicate that it should only be used in cases where wizards are a primary feature of the film, per WP:CATDEF. DonIago (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are these films "about wizards" or merely feature them? How much about wizards (or perhaps, a single wizard in some people's POV) must a film be to merit inclusion here, and what reliable source(s) tell us such film is at least that much about wizards? Take the well-known Lord of the Rings films. What are they about? I think if you look at literature, you'd be hard pressed to find "wizards" among the top answers. (e.g., our article The Lord of the Rings (film series) only uses the word "wizard" once and "wizards" never.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and it is probably also a good idea to purge the category per Carlossuarez. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Carlossuarez46. This category seems too much like a crufty overcategorisation to me. Rename as a second option. ReykYO! 09:07, 2 October 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:Green Party MPs, MPPs, and MLAs of Canada[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: This is a container for further subcategories, not a content category that's being directly applied to articles beyond the basic list. However, it's not necessary as an intermediate step between the merge target and the subcategories -- these subcategories all quite naturally belong in the parent category without needing to make the reader two-step their way through a redundant detour, the list itself is already double-parented by both categories as it is, and no other political party in Canada has a category of this nature. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This category helps readers find people who have been elected and sitting as an MP/MPP/MLA and with more Greens being elected each election, such as last night in New Brunswick, it's very much needed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the target category serves exactly the same purpose. This category is adding nothing that the target category isn't already doing in a perfectly satisfactory way that had absolutely no need for this as a "refinement" to it. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: No, it doesn't. Other countries have categories that are equivalent in role and purpose and structure to the subcategories of this; no other country has an intermediate parent category equivalent to this, sitting between the role categories and the natural parent. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. Also worth noting, for the record, that Canada doesn't have more such categories because our Greens have accomplished uniquely more than they have elsewhere, it's just that other countries don't always have as well-developed schemes in place yet of subcategorizing legislators by party aside from the MEP level. If Germany were actually subcatting its federal Bundestag and state Landtags by political party the same way we do in Canada, its Greens would have many more categories to file in this tree than Canada's do, because all 16 of its state legislatures and the Bundestag have had Green members, and even Canada can't claim anything comparable yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom only. This is effectively a container category (except for a list article), as it the target. Most of the categories have less than the normal minimum of 5 articles, but I am willing to overlook that. However we only need one parent/container, not several. I am opposing Bearcat's dual merge are the target is a parent covering many countries and should be the parent to a single Canadian parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The nominated category is the single Canadian parent category so I am afraid your vote should be keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The target has a lot more subcats, some of whom are no doubt members of legislative assemblies (however named). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The target has a lot more subcats, correct. That could be solved by creating a single Canadian parent, correct. But the fact remains that this parent would simply replace the category we are discussing now. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 3 October 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.
