The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

See previous Cfr on changing Category:Cinema to Category:Film.

This may also effect the articles named "Cinema of", but the archived discussion listed above, and comments on WP:Cfr Cinema of Greece, suggest that Renaming parent to Category:Film by country, and subs to Film in foo. Current Cfr's below should probably be directed to this Cfr and/or removed.

This would also apply to all sub-cats relevant to this naming scheme (cat:Cinema of foo → cat:Film in foo):

Category:Cinema of Albania, Category:Cinema of Australia, Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom, Category:Cinema of Canada, Category:Cinema of Catalan, Category:Cinema of Chile, Category:Cinema of China, Category:Cinema of East Germany, Category:Cinema of Colombia, Category:Cinema of Cyprus, Category:Cinema of Finland, Category:Cinema of France, Category:Cinema of Germany, Category:Cinema of Hong Kong, Category:Cinema of India, Category:Cinema of Iran, Category:Cinema of Italy, Category:Cinema of Japan, Category:Cinema of New Zealand, Category:Cinema of Poland, Category:Cinema of Romania, Category:Cinema of Russia, Category:Cinema of Singapore, Category:Cinema of South Africa, Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union, Category:Cinema of Spain, Category:Cinema of Sweden, Category:Cinema of the United States, Category:Cinema of Yugoslavia <>Who ?¿? 5 July 2005 06:25 (UTC)

• Keep - I would prefer the categories to be reverted to Category:Fooian cinema, but this idea is even worse. Both Film by France and Film in France are unsatisfactory. Film in France means films generally in France, not just French films. Film by France or Film of France don't really make sense. JW 5 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

• Rename - Need to be consistent, either call everything cinema, or motion picture, or film. Latter has been decided upon by default introductory article Film and redirection to that starting point on Search, and subsequent changes. We don't need to get diverted into a fight over primary term. However, do consider French film over Film in France, et al., as I can see JW's argument on that score: at least it will lessen chances of half the Film by Country categories and articles ending up being indexed under C for Country and the other half under F for Film, as we currently have with Cinema by Country (see where Cinema of Sweden is vs. Cinema of Singapore). Or else everything under F for Film... 12.73.194.251 5 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Cinema by country, but do not do the subcat thing. Category:X-ian cinema (e.g. North American, British, African, Iranian) is far more natural, more widely used and precise. There's a tendency to overenforce consistency in CfD, when ease-of-use is more important. - Splash 5 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

• Comment I can agree with JW's points on sub-cat'ing. Suggestion of Foo film is decent; would anyone agree on Category:French films, etc.. with Splash's suggested X-ian naming of sub-cats. <>Who ?¿? 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
• Rename main to Category:Film by country, and sub articles to Category:Fooian cinema per JW. - SimonP July 5, 2005 19:46 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename - Keep Category:Cinema by country (or rename to National cinemas, rename the subcats to Category:French cinema, etc. Though in truth, I'd actually prefer a broader category than cinema by country, as this excludes a very related segment of film categorization, which would be ethnic cinematic traditions, e.g., African American cinema, Jewish cinema, Asian American cinema, etc. These are at least as relevant as strict national boundaries, and there is a tremendous amount of overlap. Jun-Dai 5 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

• Standardise (rename where necessary) to "Cinema of foo" style. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

• Keep. -- Kbdank71 6 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

• Standardise to "Cinema of Foo". Fooian opens too big a can of worms, with Nigerian, Nigerien, Monegasque, Gilbertese, and all the other weird variants, not to mention that Dominican cinema, Dominican cinema, and American cinema are all subcategories of American cinema... Grutness... wha?

• Comment - I would definitely support a change to Fooian cinema for sub-cats. But I think there is a problem with the category "Film by country" because there is already a category called Category:Films by country, which I had forgotten. This is so similar to the proposed title that it can only cause confusion. I don't think we can have a category Film by country and another called Films by country.

With regard to the point made by Grutness, I don't think there are problems with renaming subcats to Fooian cinema because these were the original category names so it's only a question of reversion. It seems unnecessary to worry about naming conventions for non-existent articles, as no-one is likely to write one on Gilbertese cinema, unless Grutness is offering. JW 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't even realize that category, Category:Films by country, existed. My main point is renaming/merging all the Cinema titles to Film to standardize with previous Cfr's. See: 1 and 2. Suggest merging into these existing categories. <>Who ?¿? 9 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

The Films by country category just duplicates much of what's in the one we're talking about renaming, or adds pieces to it. It doesn't make sense to keep both categories, much less under different primary terminologies. Merger vs. deletion of duplication is in order here. See NOTE below. 12.73.196.105 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Thanks for those links, I've been meaning to look at that CfR debate. Having read that I would now suggest caution in mass renaming of all Cinema articles to Film. The reason given for the renaming was that it would standardise articles and categories, as most already used Film or Films and only a few used Cinema. The argument was not that film was the most appropriate term, but that it was the most used. Bearing in mind categories on national cinemas, cinema actors, etc, I am not convinced this is true. It also seems possible that the debate might be re-opened in the future and someone will plausibly argue that Cinema should be the default term and not Film, particularly as the word "film" is ambiguous and has several meanings that are not related to movies. That would then entail another mass renaming.

Although it's often a good idea to standardise, I think we should recognise that "Film"' and "Cinema" are not always interchangeable, and articles and category names shouldn't be changed to fit an arbitrary rename. JW 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

I can agree with that, it just seemed logical to make them uniform, even before the other Cfr's, I fealt "cinema" was an outdated term. I see no problem with leaving them unchanged for now, but think a seperate discussion on the titles, should be held in the near future. <>Who ?¿? 21:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep no renmaing. There is a template:EuropenaCinema now too. I think cinema is a better name than film anyway. Falphin 03:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply

"Europena"? And, you would now revise *everything* else in Wikipedia to Cinema, rather than adjust one template title, just because you think cinema is a "better" word than the default Film?? 12.73.196.105 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and standardize as "Cinema of Foo" but I'd prefer Rename as "Filmmaking in Foo" or "Film Production in Foo" or "Film industry in Foo" I've been proposing renaming many of these categories and articles to Film, but my objective is not consistancy, but that of clarity. I think in most cases things should be changed to film, but these categories are about FILMMAKING. Cinema conveys this. If you say "Cinema of France" that means the films and filmmaking of France. "French film" is ambiguous. Is it made in France or is it the French Language? "Film in France" is just plain confusing. I'd prefer "Filmmaking in France". It is better than "Film Industry of France" because not all films come out of the established industry. I think "Filmmaking by country" is the clearest and least ambiguous category name. It is consistant with "film" being the most used term, and goes well with "Films by country" -- Samuel Wantman 02:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Who are you, and why did you erase my NOTE? Also, Cinema no more means "filmmaking" than does film or motion picture or movie; the terms are interchangeable to the average person ("I'm going to the cinema" does not mean I'm off to watch a film being shot). "Film" has become the default term in the Search, and now under Culture, so consistency is the *only* reason for change, and consistency makes the site more user friendly and allows for better organization. An un-example of which was in the Note you erased. Additionally, categories & articles are not just about making films, but the makers, the end product, the corporations, the associations, the awards, and all and sundry aspects of the cultural phenomenon. 12.73.196.105 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I think you "accidentally" deleted your own comment. See revision history. <>Who ?¿? 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

"Filmmaking by country" is not as simple as has been suggested. Many American films, including many of the most famous, are not made in the U.S. American films like The Matrix or Star Wars Episode II, for example, were made in Australia. So "Filmmaking in Australia" would have a different meaning from "Australian cinema". I am also still not convinced that "Film" is the term most used for categories, unless you are including articles on individual films, which is misleading. JW 10:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

"Filmmaking by location", or something similar, will solve the problem of how to categorize films shot by one country's company in another company. See IMDb; that's their procedure. And, note, "Film" *is* now the term of choice for Wikipedia, both on the Search field and under Category:Culture. It makes no sense to use other terms, unless you change everything to "cinema', "motion pictures", "movies" or whatever: does that not seem obvious?

And, why is Kdbank71 suddenly on a rampage to suppress this discussion. A discussion't not supposed to be "dead" until 5-7 days have passed, and you, Samuel Wantman, and one or two others have just posted in the past couple of days! 12.73.198.28 19:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• You are incorrect. CFD discussions are closed 5-7 days after creation, not 5-7 days after the last contribution. R adiant _>|< 09:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely incorrect. Not sure how I missed this, had to see it on WP:ANI, thought this was closed. There is absolutely no consensus, way too many naming schemas, better left unchanged at the time. <>Who ?¿? 09:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

To be clear, I was saying 12.73.198.28 was incorrect :) <>Who ?¿?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 14:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Charlotte --> Category:Charlotte, North Carolina to conform with standard location naming conventions. — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 5, 2005 03:11 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not exactly sure what this was created to categorize. It's an orphan, and seems useless to me. -- Dmcdevit 5 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

• Er, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga? Delete, I don't see the point. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 07:38 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• DELETE, from the common usage of UTC, it is Universal Coordinated Time, from the History, it is also about zulu time. 132.205.64.154 6 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Delete. Empty. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 14:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I nominated this for two reasons

• It's empty
• It's redundant with Category:American cryptographers

I was browsing under orphaned categories and saw both of them listed with 0 articles. I started to populate American cryptographers, since it seems like it that might be what people would look for. I don't know if it's possible to redirect from one category to another. -- Barista | a/k/a ???? | T/ C 4 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

• The correct name should be Category: U.S. Cryptographers, surely. Create that and delete both the others. Grutness... wha? 5 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
• Also notice, (All Orphans), Category:Canadian_cryptographers, Category:Computer_cryptographers, Category:Cryptographers_at_Bletchley_Park (?) Category:Cypher-machine_cryptographers, Category:English_cryptographers, Category:French_cryptographers, Category:German_cryptographers, Category:Israeli_cryptographers, Category:Italian_cryptographers, Category:Polish_cryptographers, Category:Russian_cryptographers, Category:SIS-cryptographers Category:Cipher_machine_cryptographers. -- Dmcdevit 5 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
  • Good point. I noticed one of the people I put into Category:American cryptographers was also listed under Category:SIS_cryptographers. Still, that's a lot of orphans. Looking at Category:Modern_cryptographers I notice some of the sub-categories are under-populated with 3 - 5 entries, and none of the subcategories are by nationality, but more by the services. It might be a better idea to fold the articles into Modern_cryptographers. I would leave the Alan Turing subcategory though. His category has a lot associated with it, and he covers a wide variety of topics, not just cryptography. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 5 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldnt it be merged from Category:American cryptographers, and delete Category:American cryptographers . <>Who ?¿? 5 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

Delete, merge, create as per Grutness, missed earlier suggestions. <>Who ?¿? 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

• There's strong precedent for (countryname) (profession) categories. Still, it should be United States (the country) rather than US (the abbrev) or America (the contintent). The SIS and Cipher ones should go imho, and certainly the Bletchly Park one. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 07:38 (UTC)
• Keep, it is at the correct place; for the rest, the SIS and Bletchly Park cats are useful, so keep them too. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Keep Category:United States cryptographers, and merge Category:American cryptographers into it. As for the orphans, delete them. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 14:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge Roman Catholic actresses with Category:Roman Catholic actors & delete. Delete empty categories Bengali actresses & Indian actresses. - Nigosh 4 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• Merge, do not subcategorize by gender. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 07:38 (UTC)
• Merge per R.- Splash 5 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
• Merge, do not sub-cat. by sex. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Merge. Ditto. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was superseded by another nomination -- Kbdank71 14:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This was created in error in a mass renaming, from Category:Catalan_cinema. It is currently in Category:Cinema by country. I don't know if this is supposed to be a per-language or per-territory category. What should it be renamed to? -- Beland 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

• I'd say by country. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Cinema of Catalonia and move to within Category:Cinema of Spain. - Nigosh 4 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
• Comment, ugh, oh no, not another one. (Cinema). I think these all need to be renamed, as Radiant pointed out in WP:Cfr Cinema of Greece, and I commented on Cfr umbrella. I think i'm going to nominate the lot of them now. <>Who ?¿? 5 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
• See Cfru on "Cinema of foo". <>Who ?¿? 5 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
• Superseded see above. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Superseded; please do not vote here. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Washington, D.C. et cetera, for that is the proper name. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 18:01 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Rename - Wikipedia shouldn't succumb to the U.S. Post Office's irrational fear of punctuation. -- Polynova July 6, 2005 20:36 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. -- Cleared as filed. 8 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Usage, not tradition, should dictate preferred forms in an online encylopedia, and "DC" is the most popular usage-- not to mention the form used throughout the official District of Columbia website. Wikipedia doesn't use M.L.B., N.Y.S.E., or S.E.C. after all, any more than we use British forms like Nato and Aids. - choster 03:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete both empty content at Category:People from Washington, DC MeltBanana 4 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

• However, the proper name is Washington, D.C. with the periods, so the category name should reflect it. Delete the wrong two. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 18:01 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Delete the wrong two as per Radiant! -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Disc jockeys and so forth. Avoid acronyms in category naming as much as possible. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 08:24 (UTC)

• Oppose Those are all reasonably distinct roles -- Dtcdthingy 4 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

  I think the proposal is to keep these distinct, but to rename them all. -- Beland 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Pragmatically, these categories are likely to be often recreated by the domain experts, who generally would not consider the alternatives as being relevant to their contributions. - Nigosh 4 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

  As Beland said. The proposal is four renames, no merging. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 07:38 (UTC)

  And I believe that the proposed renaming would not be used by those contributing articles. Keep all these categories as they are. - Nigosh 5 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

• Still oppose Disc jockey is an obselete term and not neutrally synonymous with DJ -- Dtcdthingy 5 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)
• Keep as per dtcdthingy. Radio DJ skills are talking and pushing buttons or inserting carts. A club DJ is just as likely to be running everything from a laptop now. DJ is the term. SchmuckyTheCat 5 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
• Keep everybody refers to them as DJs. The reason we should generally avoid acronyms is because people might not know the abbreviation for some random society or other — when the incredibly widely used abbreviation is so well know, it wouldbe obfuscatory to expand it. - Splash 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
• Keep, "DJ" is more common. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Rename. If "DJ" doesn't stand for "Disc Jockey" anymore, what does it mean? -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.