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. (Only the first one was tagged.) – FayenaticLondon 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of these are comically overlapping with just the plain "[Nationality] films"; others are just very small and dubious; and in most cases this is just WP:OVERCAT from an intersection - all of these films already have Category:English-language films and the relevant nationality. The mere fact of sharing a language and being produced in the same country is not really a pertinent combination, and most of these films are indeed very much unrelated to each other. So these categories fail the purpose of a category, which is to link related pages together, not be the equivalent of Wikidata about random characteristics of a film... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be busy temporarily so if somebody wants to start adding the CFD template to all of these and they do so before I get back, you're welcome to do so. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of these. An 'English-language Canadian film' is not a useful distinction as it will apply to most Canadian films, but the nom does not make it clear whether the above list is exhaustive - Category:English-language Indian films is not included for instance. Category:English-language Hungarian films which is included, has 40 members, which is hardly small. In any case the nom should be a double upmerge, not delete. I would agree that members of Category:English-language Hungarian films should all be removed from Category:English-language films and Category:Hungarian films (unless there is an argument for 'non-diffusing'). I would probably support a nom restricted to countries where English is the main language; I think we do this for novels. Oculi (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I got all that were created by the same creator recently. Many of these are single entry categories (including those for Cambodia, Ecuador, Singapore, Vietnam, and a fair few others... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Also, I think it would actually be preferrable to have "[Country] films" and "English-language films" as separate categories. Think of all the movies which might be international co-production. Then instead of having "English-language films", "[Genre] films", "[Country A] films", "[Country B] films", "[Country C] films", ..., and if this scheme of subdividing those categories by country is followed, you have "[Country A] English-language films", "[Country B] English-language films", "[Country C] English-language films", "[Country A] [Genre] films", ... Unless the specific intersection of "Country A" and "language/genre/whatever other characteristic" is particularly notable or significant (say, I don't know, Category:American World War II propaganda films), then this just leads to needless clutter and to categories which only link objects related by the most superficial of characteristics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:French-language films is an example of what you would prefer. Other editors would say this is too large and should be diffused (and would then spend days doing it). Diffusing by country is fairly standard. These film categories are a complete mess: some films appear to enjoy 5 or 6 'nationalities'. Oculi (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: They are indeed a "complete mess". The whole point of categories is linking related articles or articles on similar subjects together. The mere fact of sharing a language obviously does not prevent two items from being entirely unrelated. To take non-film examples from a topic I know well, this and this obviously have far more in common than, say, the first of these and any other "German-language vocal music". On deeper reflection, this looks like the kind of "trivial fact" category tree which would be more appropriate for a structured database (like Wikidata). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far there are few comments on these points specifically so a fresh more focused nomination might be useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Should probably add Category:English-language Nordic films to that group. The definition of that category, in which English is wholly or partially spoken, also leaves me afraid that the creator, who also populated these, likely didn't take WP:DEFCAT into account (as being "partially spoken" does not mean it is a defining characteristic...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep -- This is a destructive nom. The language, which is spoken in a film, is necessarily a defining feature of it. I would expect there to be Category:French-language Canadian films, mainly made in Quebec; similarly Talagog-Language films in Phillipines and Hindi-Language films in India. English-language films made in England or in United States would certainly be a stupid category, because few will be made in any other one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that "English-language films" should go (although, to be fair, it clearly is not achieving the purpose of a category, which is to link related items together, not function as some form of metadata), I'm saying that the intersection of "Nationality" and "language" is not a pertinent categorisation scheme. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the intersection of nationality and language seems an obvious categorisation for people interested in international films. Not seeing a valid reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International coproductions are an important part of film history, especially the European English-language coproductions in the 1960s and early 1970s. And Canada? Canada has two official langages. 2003:DD:C738:4334:DC77:804F:B80A:500C (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a whole, especially since English is usually not a common language for most of these countries, but I am open to having guidelines on when a category is appropriate or not. For example, would we really have Category:English-language American films? But Category:Spanish-language American films could make sense because the majority of films would tend to be in English (and assumed by readers to be the case). Similarly, Category:French-language French films would not be useful either, but French productions in non-French languages could be useful. In the case of Canada, if both English and French are official languages, maybe it makes sense to have categories for both. Perhaps there could be guidelines at MOS:FILM about this in general. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I say "as a whole" because I don't think this discussion should result in deleting all of them. However, I would be open to deleting a category that has only one or two entries. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be since some categories seem to have more than a few. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how to vote because I feel like there is a good point made here about how some of these are ridiculous to have, i.e. English-language Canadian films, but others seem rather useful category, i.e. English-language South Korean films, but others are definitely violations of SMALLCAT or are those weird multi-country categories. There's a good point about how weird the film nationality categories are to begin with and how we might end up adding three or four of these to an article because of the way people apply nationalities to films. I simultaneously find this intersection to be worth something, but at the same time I also wonder if there is a better way to handle this. I don't know if that's restricting this intersection to specific circumstances, or structuring it via WikiData, or what. I wonder if this conversation is too big to be had at this venue at the moment. Would a procedural close to allow a broader discussion at the MOS (as suggested by Erik), then a re-nomination of all or any relevant categories after that be an option? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a likely intersection that could support categories. Further Canada has many French language productions so it isn't "obvious" that it should be English, its more obvious it should be French, as they seem to be more notable as a percentage of notable ones, unless they are foreign coproductions. -- 15:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.142 (talk)
Comment With the fact that category intersection searches are possible (try "English-language films" and "Canadian films"), and with the fact that most of these films are really entirely unrelated beyond the mere fact of sharing a language, I don't see what navigational capability (i.e. the purpose of categories) would be lost by deleting these intersections... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2022 (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. – FayenaticLondon 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NARROWCAT and probably WP:DEFCAT too (films may be notable for being about LGBT subjects; and they might be notable for having Christmas as their subject too; but the intersection of these too is a random, non-defining intersection - LGBT-related Christmas films is, correctly, not an actual article - and "related" is an awfully vague word). See also WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the other one, on top of the fact that it contained only two films (and one of them seemed at best dubiously categorised, so I removed it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Silly intersection. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2022 (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: It's unclear to me under what circumstances a person could be a sex offender without being convicted of a sex offense. I can't see why these shouldn't be merged. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, this is a container category for Category:Sex offenders by nationality and its 30 subcategories, it should only be deleted if the entire by-nationality tree is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Containerise BLP issue make it difficult to have categories on people who are not convicted. However we need a category for those like Jimmy Saville who were clearly guilty, but died without being charged; and in the subject category Willy Mckey who apparently jumped to his death to avoid conviction, having confessed. A containerised category could include Category:People charged with sex crimes, which is perhaps where Willy Mckey belongs, even though he was not formally changed. Jimmy Saville is currently in Category:Sexual harassment which is not an appropriate place for bios. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it would be inconsistent to containerize this category if not also the 30 nationality categories are (discussed and) containerized. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Containerise per Peterkingiron. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (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:Granddaughters of Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia[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. – FayenaticLondon 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Being someone's grandchild/great-grandchild etc is not more defining than simply being a general descendant, and considering royal marriage paterns many people are probably descendants in different lines in different generations. The Category:House of Saud already covers a lot as well.★Trekker (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unnecessary specification. In addition, King Abdulaziz's article is named Ibn Saud, so the naming of the category should also be reconsidered. --Egeymi (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2022 (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: The supposed WikiProject does not exist anymore. Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2022 (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. – FayenaticLondon 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Chlamydiae") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Chlamydiota).[1] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --awkwafaba (📥) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (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. – FayenaticLondon 09:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:43, 8 March 2022 (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. – FayenaticLondon 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Epsilonproteobacteria") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Campylobacterota).[2] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --awkwafaba (📥) 12:36, 11 February 2022 (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.
