Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3[edit]

Category:Films with alternate endings[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: listify. MER-C 10:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Films with alternate endings to article List of films with alternate endings
Nominator's rationale: Alternate endings are not defining features of films. That this category has been made a subcategory of Category:Films by type is even more egregious as this definitely isn't a type of film. I also question the existence of Category:Fiction with alternate endings, but I believe it can be argued that a book with an alternate ending is a more significant occurrence. In any event, converting this into a list will allow for better discussion (and sourcing) of why a given film's alternate ending is somehow significant, versus just being a bonus feature on a DVD. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify... surely it should be "...alternative endings", though? "Alternate" means to switch back and forth. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A film with multiple, contradictory endings is rare enough to be covered in a category. Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My collection of DVDs with alternate endings included as bonus features begs to differ. DonIago (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2019 (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:Intersectional racial topics[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. MER-C 10:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't the way wp categorization normally works (e.g. we don't normally have category names ending in "topics").  If an article (or group of articles) is about the intersection of two topics we simply categorize it in both topics - e.g. a category such as Category:Police aviation is placed in/under each of the topics without introducing any "Intersectional ... topics" layer(s).   I'm not proposing to upmerge to Category:Intersectionality as the articles in these categories (e.g. Jews and Buddhism) don't generally belong in that category (which is under Category:Critical theory and Category:Discrimination). See also related CFD. DexDor (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2019 (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:Louisiana portals[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. MER-C 10:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. There is only Portal:Louisiana, and no other portals for that state. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:03, 3 September 2019 (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:19th century in Birmingham, West Midlands[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: do not rename. MER-C 10:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current title(s) is/are a bit inconcruous and ahistorical, considering West Midlands wasn't created as a county in England until 1974. In my opinion "Birmingham, England" would have been a more 'one size fits all' disambiguator for England's second largest city (the suggestion it was moved to "Birmingham, England" was overturned by the suggestion of one editor), but that's another argument for another time. Prior to 1900 Birmingham was definitely a growing town/city in the county of Warwickshire. Sionk (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of consistency with reality? Not everything is consistent, or permanent. Sionk (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.Withdraw and start article discussion again Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a can of worms, best left well alone. Oculi (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Midlands is (I think) not a modern concept for the region. Even though West Midland County did not exist before 1974, the concept of West Midlands did as a region. This has been a longstanding agreed solution to the ambiguity with Birmingham, AL (which is bigger). Furthermore the issue is not as simple as the nom implies, as parts of the present city (including Harborne and Handsworth) were formerly in Staffordshire and other parts (including Northfield and Yardley) in Worcestershire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2019 (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/2019_September_3&oldid=1073192325"