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:Merge. Now that Cat:Craters on Earth has been more clearly defined to include only impact craters and exclude origins by volcano or explosives, Cat:Astroblemes is now redundant. Both cats had a nearly-disjoint set of craters which have now been sorted into the mutual subcats
Category:Earth Impact Database (for confirmed craters) and
Category:Possible craters (for notable suspected craters or those confirmed but awaiting EID listing).
Ikluft (
talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom.
Ikluft (
talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose This makes no sense, since the universe is not composed soley of the Earth. AFAIK, astrobleme does not refer specifically to the Earth. To merge the two together would promote systematic bias.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 76.66.192.144 (
talk) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply
There is also a
Category:Craters for the wider context - so
Category:Astroblemes is still redundant either way. Cat:Craters was also clarified months ago as being defined for impacts, and does not include volcanic or other non-impact craters.
Category:Astroblemes was very clearly being used just for impact structures and craters on Earth even before I began sorting articles between subcats for confirmed and possible. I respected that and didn't change the way the category was being used. But the category is now redundant, (effectively) empty and unneeded.
Ikluft (
talk) 05:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I still have a problem with the current naming scheme... why "craters on Earth" instead of "impact craters on Earth"? Since there are obvious volcanic confusions and maintenance problems therein. Also "possible craters" has nothing to indicate that it is Earthly craters only, or that it's about impact craters. The description in "possible craters" is biased towards only Earthly phenomena, there are "possible craters" that have not been defined as impact craters on objects other than Earth.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The other categories clearly did have to deal with that, and at least for now solved the confusion by setting the definition with instructions in the text. It isn't a bad idea to put the clarification in the category name. But those are separate discussion topics to take over to those categories. (I posted your suggestion on
Category talk:Craters on Earth. We'll see if consensus is easy or difficult. But that should not be a condition for this CFD.)Ikluft (
talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Re-reading that, I should take a different approach. I should ask whether it will help reach consensus on this discussion if a CFD also begins about renaming of "Craters" and "Craters on Earth/etc" to "Impact craters" and "Impact craters on Earth", and so on with the rest of that tree of categories. Although this point may be moot since anonymous comments don't count on CFDs. If it matters, log in and let us know if that would help.Ikluft (
talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)reply
(struck out comment on anonymous user comments - misread
WP:CFD.)
Ikluft (
talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Note for closing admin: If we don't hear from
76.66.192.144 or others saying otherwise then this appears to have answered the questions for this CFD per
WP:SILENCE.
Ikluft (
talk) 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
My concerns are being addressed with a wholesale rename of the crater categories to a clearer "impact crater" naming system, and adding "Earth" to ambiguous titles.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (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:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport
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:Rename. This is not limited to settlements since other levels of government can also provide this service as well as private companies and government entities. For example, the
National Park Service provides free shuttle buses that service
Springdale, Utah and
Zion National Park and they operate a free route in
Grand Canyon National Park. I would not be opposed to deletion either since this category opens a entire class of problems. Who has to operate the buses? How many routes need to be free. How about seasonal service? Another option would be to upmerge to
Category:Zero-fare transport services and maybe review the entire structure?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Leaning toward delete - per my comments in the 8/15 discussion of the sub-cat, I'm not convinced that providing some level of free transport is defining of a municipality and it's definitely not defining of a private corporation shuttling its employees. May I suggest closing the 8/15 discussion and combining it with this one? It would be absurd if that CFD resulted in merge and this one got the merge target deleted.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify - Interesting subject, but not suitable for a category imo.
83.80.18.68 (
talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that a category like this is useful, but perhaps it makes more sense to place into that category articles about the transport systems in question (e.g.
King County Metro), rather than about cities themselves? On the other hand, a list could work as well - it could be done as a table with 3 columns, one for the city/county/whatever-place name, one for the transport system, and one (if applicable) for the link to a section about that particular ride free area, e.g.
King_County_Metro#Ride_Free_Area.
Vmenkov (
talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify (changing opinion as nominator). Based on the discussion it appears that there is support for retaining the information and improving how it is presented. The format suggested by
Vmenkov seems to be a good way to start the table.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (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:Verona
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:Not rename.
Mondalor (
talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (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:Film industries
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:Merge - appears to be covering the same material and the target is much more expansive and consistently organized. I've done some clean-up and reorganization in the industries category and there are a few articles that don't fit quite right in the target but overall the industries category is redundant.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (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:Performance artists by country
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. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (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:Artisans of Japan
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. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per above; nothing else much is really to be said on the matter. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:00, 17 August 2009 (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:Tollywood Bangla
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. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:14, 22 August 2009 (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:Kannada film industry
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:Delete - the lead article,
Kannada film industry, is a redirect to
Cinema of Karnataka and
Category:Cinema of Karnataka already exists. The category should not be merged because the contents are already appropriately categorized within various more appropriate film-related categories and should not be categorized at the "Cinema of Foo" level.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I would suggest manually adding the single article rather than dumping several inappropriate articles into the target.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Most if not all seem to need merging.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Random articles for actors, singers and the like ought not be categorized in such an upper-level cat.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
In this case there are no lower level categories, so it is appropriate. Where the target category has appropriate sub-cats, they should of course be merged there. What I wonder does "random" mean exactly here?
Johnbod (
talk) 17:28, 26 August 2009 (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.
WikiProject Haystacks categories
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: Delete These categories are associated with
WikiProject Haystacks which no longer exists. Only content is a single template which is listed at TfD.
PC78 (
talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedily delete as soon as that template is deleted.
Debresser (
talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (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:Cinemas of the Soviet Union
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: Delete The creator of
Category:Cinema, nominated below, has also created this. Its sole content to date is the main article
Cinema of the Soviet Union, which is not the same thing at all, and is the main article for the parent category
Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union. If retained, it could serve, I guess, as a grouping of all cinemas by country categories of former Soviet republics, including that of the Baltic States. But problem with that is that many articles will be for movie theatres built after the fall of the USSR, and so would have nothing to do with the former state. So I guess it can only be safely applied to specific theatres or theatre chains built or active during the days of the USSR: but I would question whether that's a defining characteristic for those theatres today. If a cinema happened to get built in
Riga in the 1980s, because the Latvians wanted to built it, does it make it a "cinema of the Soviet Union"?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - if meant to capture cinemas (theatre buildings) it is redundant to
Category:Theatres built in the Soviet Union. If meant to capture articles relating to the film industry in the former Soviet Union, absent additional articles it is
small and its growth potential is unclear. The single article can go with its companion articles in
Category:Film industries and the category deleted with no prejudice to re-creation should articles be created to suitably populate it.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Oops, I see we already have
Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union so this is completely redundant.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as superfluous to already existing categories.
Debresser (
talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (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:Cinema
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:Delete. The category creator appears to be building a new, poorly thought out category tree for Cinema, especially that of the Soviet Union, unaware that
Category:Film exists, and with the nominated category as a sub-cat of
Category:Cinemas and movie theaters.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. It might be prudent to retain this as a category redirect to
Category:Film.
PC78 (
talk) 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Redirect, or delete as 2nd choice.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (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:Bosnian War (1992. - 1996.)
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: I feel that the proposed name covers the content better than the current name.
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 10:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge - to
Category:Bosnian War. The two dozen or so articles are already chronologically sub-divided by categories for conflicts by year and Bosnia-H.G. history by year. A third chronology category is unnecessary and I question the wisdom of the individual sub-cats by year as well.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- The proposed name would be better if the category were a worthwhile one, but it is not. It contains only 4 or 5 annual subcategories, with no possibility of expansion, and thus serves no useful purpose.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:09, 16 August 2009 (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:Assemblage
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:Rename. The category contains people and is part of a people-centric category:
Category:Artists by medium.
Clubmarx (
talk) 08:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename - and populate. The category is currently very scanty and of little value: just two entries, missing prime exponents such as
Joseph Cornell,
Bruce Conner, etc.
AllyD (
talk) 10:23, 16 August 2009 (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:Artist redirects
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:Delete. There is no clear reason for this category. The two members of the category don't illustrate the intent of the category. Tracking redirects does not seem to be a reason to keep the category.
Clubmarx (
talk) 08:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete categories of redirects are without any value whatsoever. They may even prevent the redirect functioning as it should.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I oppose any category that is not a Wikipedia maintenance category, that should consist solely of redirects.
Debresser (
talk) 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as unnecessary categorization. I suggest the same treatment to
Category:Arts redirects and its many child categories, all by the same creator.
Jafeluv (
talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (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:Appointees to a national government
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: poorly named attempt at starting a category page for central or federal government politicians who are appointed (as opposed to elected). (Was wrongly thinking that all 'politicians' are elected, but obviously this is untrue.) And that there may not be many such politicians, perhaps it should simply be
Category:Appointed politiciansMayumashu (
talk) 04:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. What is relevant to us is the function a politician has within a government, not whether someone was elected or appointed. Gerald Ford was president, that's what he should be categorized as, not as an unelected president.
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I always thought Ford was appointed vice president by the Senate and was then constitutionally appointed president after the resignation of Nixon? But regardless, that confusion is another reason not to have this category: when is a politician appointed and when elected?
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Whether Ford was "appointed" to either office depends on how one interprets the wording of the
25th Amendment. Technically, he was "nominated" to the Vice-Presidency by Nixon and "confirmed" by Congress, then when Nixon resigned Ford "became" President. The word "appointed" does not appear in the amendment in regards to filling either office, but our article itself describes Ford as "appointed". Anyway, regarding the categories, I'm inclined to delete both of them for now and then open a discussion somewhere as to whether categorizing politicians by dint of being appointed is worthwhile. At least in the United States, I believe the majority of federal political offices are filled by appointment (all federal judgeships, all Cabinet posts and many sub-Cabinet positions, all ambassadorships, federal commissioners, etc.). If retained, this would likely be a container category only since I would guess that by definition a politician appointed to a federal post is going to be categorized by that position and not simply as an appointed official. The by century category should go regardless at this point and, if retained, the former should probably be renamed to something like
Category:Appointed federal office-holders which mirrors
Category:Political office-holders by country, the closest model I could find.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- this is so vague as to be useless. Yes, Justices of US Supreme Court are appointed, but they do not govern. US Cabinet officers (not in cat) are appointed by the President, but is it useful to categorise them like this? Gerald Ford's appointment was by the senate, but could we not regard that as an election? UK Life peers (not in cat) are like Candian Senantors (in cat) appointed, but they are legislators, rather than part of the government: some will be in opposition to the government. Since the current contents are only categories, the "by century" category must certainly be deleted, even if the other is kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as too general to be usefull for categorisation.
Debresser (
talk) 23:17, 16 August 2009 (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:21st-century by journalists
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:Speedy Delete -
WP:CSD#G7 author request. ---Xdamrtalk 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: non-sensical page erroneously started by nominator
Mayumashu (
talk) 02:55, 16 August 2009 (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:Filmmakers
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: nominator at this point neutral on deleting or not. Would like, rather, to see what contibutors think, as according to
film director a 'filmmaker' is not just one involved in any way to the making of a film but, rather, just a film director or, for some, a film producer as well. The nominated category page however is being use to hold anyone involved such as actors, screenwriters, etc. Does the article page need to be corrected or this category and its subcats deleted?
Mayumashu (
talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename Perhaps it should be renamed to 'Cinema occupations' or 'Film occupations' which would house all the subcategories of directors, actors, etc. The articles in this category will need to be disbursed. 'Filmmakers' seems synonymous with 'Film directors' to me. There are lots of other categories that have an occupations category. Also, the nationality categories just need to be grouped under 'Filmmakers by nationality'.
Clubmarx (
talk) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Filmmaking occupations, I suggest, per the parent category
Category:Arts occupations and other similar categories therein. But then we'd also need to create Category:Cinema occupationsCategory:Film industry people, I believe, as an intermediate category between Filmmaking and the top-level Arts grouping, to include film professions beyond film creation, especially in the distribution and exhibition end of the business, where frankly I think there is a lot of work still to do in category and article creation.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm just looking for a way that
Category:Film distributors (people) and the like could be grouped along side actual film-making occupations, in a top-level Film occupation category. Right now they can't be.
Category:Film distributors (people) are categorized under Film distribution companies and Mass media owners by medium. And if
Category:Filmmaking occupations becomes the top level category, they still won't be able to be, because this is not an occupation that makes film. But they are both employed at different ends of the same industry. So if
Category:Filmmaking occupations is the consensus choice here, I'd then go ahead and create a new top level like
Category:Film industry people under
Category:People by occupation, grouping this one, distributors, exhibitors,
Category:Film festival founders. film publicists, and others, which I don't think will be too controversial. And if it is, it'll get CfRed and we'll get it right.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
A sucker as I am for your film references, I don't think it's quite right to call distributors and such Filmmaking occupations. I work in the biz and I sense a very vivid distinction between filmmaking and the rest of the industry. That said, if everyone else is okay with this, let's just go with it as the top-level cat.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Category:Filmmaking occupations seems sufficient. This would contain 'Film directors' etc. Other Arts-related occupation categories do not start with 'People by'. The person-centric nature of the category is assumed with 'occupations.'
Clubmarx (
talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I completely disagree. If the subcats were occupations and not people in them then they would be named
Category:Film directing,
Category:Acting,
Category:Screenwriting, etc. which obviously they are not. What s an example of an art-related occupation category that does not start with people? I m curious. (And I m thinking now that
Category:People in film occupations may be preferable to 'People by...')
Mayumashu (
talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks. No, these are all misnamed, to be linguistically technical, but I can see now how common usage does allow, for instance, 'artist' be both an occupation and person doing that occupation (as there is not term 'arting' to describe the activity). 'Actor' is the person in the occupation of 'acting' is straightforward example of the difference, but again common usage does allow, upon further consideration, both 'acting' and 'actor' to be the name of the occupation carried out by an actor. Given that there is this pre-existing list, I too will, for the time being, support
Category:Film occupationsMayumashu (
talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Cool. The 'people by' is still not correct, see
WP:COP (finally found it).
Clubmarx (
talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. I would challenge the original premise of the nominator. I find the idea that only a director or possibly producer can be a filmmaker is nonsense. Given the number of people who work on a film, for the director to claim it was all his own work is clearly not true unless he is some sort of jack of all trades. The parent category is
Category:Film making, so the logical name for the category for those involved in the making of films is
Category:Filmmakers.
Cjc13 (
talk) 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you point to any RS where a film actor or film score composer is referred to as a "filmmaker"? While I agree with your logic regarding the collective nature of film making, for our category names to be most useful, they need to reflect commonly used names for things.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Here is a dictionary which simply defines a filmmaker as one who makes motion pictures,
[1] which allows for a broad range of people. In Wikipedia,
Film making is defined as "the process of making a film, from an initial story idea or commission, through scriptwriting, shooting, editing and distribution to an audience", which allows for a broad range for filmmakers. Filmmaker is often used to describe a particular producer or director or often producer/director but that does not mean that the others are not filmmakers.
Cjc13 (
talk) 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Filmmaking occupations or something, but certainly don't delete. We need such a category, but "filmakers" normally suggests directors.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Whilst not being against a rename, just because some directors are referred to as a filmmaker, it does not follow that filmmaker means the same as director. Some producers, such as
Jerry Bruckheimer and
Dino De Laurentiis say, are also referred to as a filmmaker for a start. Often filmmaker is a term used to describe someone who is involved thoroughout the process of the making of the film, so it would certainly be able include scriptwriters such as
Charlie Kaufman and
Richard Curtis. Usually the term filmmaker is used becuse the person does more than one job, eg writer/director or director/producer, because the term filmmaker is flexible enough to cover both jobs in one word. However this does not mean that other people who are involved in filmmaking are not filmmakers. If you can come up with a better term by all means use it.
Cjc13 (
talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
But we have actors & all sorts in the category - it is eccentric to call a pure actor a "filmmaker", & clarity is essential in category names.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree there should be clarity and would support the creation of a new category, perhaps as you suggest
Category:Filmmaking occupations or
Category:Filmmaking professions for subcategories relating to a particular sector of filmmaking. Within the category though is
Category:American filmmakers which seems to consist of people who have made small independent films, usually short films. They have usually done most of the work themselves, ie. been producer, director, scriptwriter, cameraman and editor. Filmmaker, or perhaps independent filmmaker, seems to be the way to sum up their work, although they usually go on to specialise in one job, such as producer or director.
Cjc13 (
talk) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (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:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in Maine
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. Single entry category not likely to expand much.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's already doubled in size, and there appears to be no reason not to believe that it will expand further. Grouping the hundreds of aviation incidents in the U.S. by the individual states in which they occurred is a rather productive means of organizing the parent category, regardless of the paucity of incidents in any one state.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It would be better to group by airline. Also, that avoids the issue of crashes in multiple jurisdictions.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment surely an accident only happens in one state -- that where it lands.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Didn't the two recent crashes on the Hudson river occur right on the border between New York state and New Jersey?
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The latest one from what I have read, while not a commercial flight, may have actually occurred over land and not the river. But I think all reports place the impact over NJ. Since the airplane drifted after impact, I'm not sure where the wreckage was actually found. In was in the main channel of the river. I'll also point out that is is possible for aircraft involved in an accident or incident to land or crash in two different states.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. See
Wikipedia:OVERCAT#Intersection by location - since aviation (and particularly accident investigations by NTSB) is federally regulated in the US, there is no basis for categorization by state.
Ikluft (
talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (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:Merge. Now that Cat:Craters on Earth has been more clearly defined to include only impact craters and exclude origins by volcano or explosives, Cat:Astroblemes is now redundant. Both cats had a nearly-disjoint set of craters which have now been sorted into the mutual subcats
Category:Earth Impact Database (for confirmed craters) and
Category:Possible craters (for notable suspected craters or those confirmed but awaiting EID listing).
Ikluft (
talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom.
Ikluft (
talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose This makes no sense, since the universe is not composed soley of the Earth. AFAIK, astrobleme does not refer specifically to the Earth. To merge the two together would promote systematic bias.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 76.66.192.144 (
talk) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply
There is also a
Category:Craters for the wider context - so
Category:Astroblemes is still redundant either way. Cat:Craters was also clarified months ago as being defined for impacts, and does not include volcanic or other non-impact craters.
Category:Astroblemes was very clearly being used just for impact structures and craters on Earth even before I began sorting articles between subcats for confirmed and possible. I respected that and didn't change the way the category was being used. But the category is now redundant, (effectively) empty and unneeded.
Ikluft (
talk) 05:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I still have a problem with the current naming scheme... why "craters on Earth" instead of "impact craters on Earth"? Since there are obvious volcanic confusions and maintenance problems therein. Also "possible craters" has nothing to indicate that it is Earthly craters only, or that it's about impact craters. The description in "possible craters" is biased towards only Earthly phenomena, there are "possible craters" that have not been defined as impact craters on objects other than Earth.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The other categories clearly did have to deal with that, and at least for now solved the confusion by setting the definition with instructions in the text. It isn't a bad idea to put the clarification in the category name. But those are separate discussion topics to take over to those categories. (I posted your suggestion on
Category talk:Craters on Earth. We'll see if consensus is easy or difficult. But that should not be a condition for this CFD.)Ikluft (
talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Re-reading that, I should take a different approach. I should ask whether it will help reach consensus on this discussion if a CFD also begins about renaming of "Craters" and "Craters on Earth/etc" to "Impact craters" and "Impact craters on Earth", and so on with the rest of that tree of categories. Although this point may be moot since anonymous comments don't count on CFDs. If it matters, log in and let us know if that would help.Ikluft (
talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)reply
(struck out comment on anonymous user comments - misread
WP:CFD.)
Ikluft (
talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Note for closing admin: If we don't hear from
76.66.192.144 or others saying otherwise then this appears to have answered the questions for this CFD per
WP:SILENCE.
Ikluft (
talk) 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
My concerns are being addressed with a wholesale rename of the crater categories to a clearer "impact crater" naming system, and adding "Earth" to ambiguous titles.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (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:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport
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:Rename. This is not limited to settlements since other levels of government can also provide this service as well as private companies and government entities. For example, the
National Park Service provides free shuttle buses that service
Springdale, Utah and
Zion National Park and they operate a free route in
Grand Canyon National Park. I would not be opposed to deletion either since this category opens a entire class of problems. Who has to operate the buses? How many routes need to be free. How about seasonal service? Another option would be to upmerge to
Category:Zero-fare transport services and maybe review the entire structure?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Leaning toward delete - per my comments in the 8/15 discussion of the sub-cat, I'm not convinced that providing some level of free transport is defining of a municipality and it's definitely not defining of a private corporation shuttling its employees. May I suggest closing the 8/15 discussion and combining it with this one? It would be absurd if that CFD resulted in merge and this one got the merge target deleted.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify - Interesting subject, but not suitable for a category imo.
83.80.18.68 (
talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that a category like this is useful, but perhaps it makes more sense to place into that category articles about the transport systems in question (e.g.
King County Metro), rather than about cities themselves? On the other hand, a list could work as well - it could be done as a table with 3 columns, one for the city/county/whatever-place name, one for the transport system, and one (if applicable) for the link to a section about that particular ride free area, e.g.
King_County_Metro#Ride_Free_Area.
Vmenkov (
talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify (changing opinion as nominator). Based on the discussion it appears that there is support for retaining the information and improving how it is presented. The format suggested by
Vmenkov seems to be a good way to start the table.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (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:Verona
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:Not rename.
Mondalor (
talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (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:Film industries
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:Merge - appears to be covering the same material and the target is much more expansive and consistently organized. I've done some clean-up and reorganization in the industries category and there are a few articles that don't fit quite right in the target but overall the industries category is redundant.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (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:Performance artists by country
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. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (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:Artisans of Japan
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. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per above; nothing else much is really to be said on the matter. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:00, 17 August 2009 (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:Tollywood Bangla
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. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:14, 22 August 2009 (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:Kannada film industry
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:Delete - the lead article,
Kannada film industry, is a redirect to
Cinema of Karnataka and
Category:Cinema of Karnataka already exists. The category should not be merged because the contents are already appropriately categorized within various more appropriate film-related categories and should not be categorized at the "Cinema of Foo" level.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I would suggest manually adding the single article rather than dumping several inappropriate articles into the target.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Most if not all seem to need merging.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Random articles for actors, singers and the like ought not be categorized in such an upper-level cat.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
In this case there are no lower level categories, so it is appropriate. Where the target category has appropriate sub-cats, they should of course be merged there. What I wonder does "random" mean exactly here?
Johnbod (
talk) 17:28, 26 August 2009 (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.
WikiProject Haystacks categories
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: Delete These categories are associated with
WikiProject Haystacks which no longer exists. Only content is a single template which is listed at TfD.
PC78 (
talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedily delete as soon as that template is deleted.
Debresser (
talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (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:Cinemas of the Soviet Union
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: Delete The creator of
Category:Cinema, nominated below, has also created this. Its sole content to date is the main article
Cinema of the Soviet Union, which is not the same thing at all, and is the main article for the parent category
Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union. If retained, it could serve, I guess, as a grouping of all cinemas by country categories of former Soviet republics, including that of the Baltic States. But problem with that is that many articles will be for movie theatres built after the fall of the USSR, and so would have nothing to do with the former state. So I guess it can only be safely applied to specific theatres or theatre chains built or active during the days of the USSR: but I would question whether that's a defining characteristic for those theatres today. If a cinema happened to get built in
Riga in the 1980s, because the Latvians wanted to built it, does it make it a "cinema of the Soviet Union"?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - if meant to capture cinemas (theatre buildings) it is redundant to
Category:Theatres built in the Soviet Union. If meant to capture articles relating to the film industry in the former Soviet Union, absent additional articles it is
small and its growth potential is unclear. The single article can go with its companion articles in
Category:Film industries and the category deleted with no prejudice to re-creation should articles be created to suitably populate it.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Oops, I see we already have
Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union so this is completely redundant.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as superfluous to already existing categories.
Debresser (
talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (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:Cinema
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:Delete. The category creator appears to be building a new, poorly thought out category tree for Cinema, especially that of the Soviet Union, unaware that
Category:Film exists, and with the nominated category as a sub-cat of
Category:Cinemas and movie theaters.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. It might be prudent to retain this as a category redirect to
Category:Film.
PC78 (
talk) 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Redirect, or delete as 2nd choice.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (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:Bosnian War (1992. - 1996.)
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: I feel that the proposed name covers the content better than the current name.
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 10:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge - to
Category:Bosnian War. The two dozen or so articles are already chronologically sub-divided by categories for conflicts by year and Bosnia-H.G. history by year. A third chronology category is unnecessary and I question the wisdom of the individual sub-cats by year as well.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- The proposed name would be better if the category were a worthwhile one, but it is not. It contains only 4 or 5 annual subcategories, with no possibility of expansion, and thus serves no useful purpose.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:09, 16 August 2009 (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:Assemblage
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:Rename. The category contains people and is part of a people-centric category:
Category:Artists by medium.
Clubmarx (
talk) 08:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename - and populate. The category is currently very scanty and of little value: just two entries, missing prime exponents such as
Joseph Cornell,
Bruce Conner, etc.
AllyD (
talk) 10:23, 16 August 2009 (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:Artist redirects
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:Delete. There is no clear reason for this category. The two members of the category don't illustrate the intent of the category. Tracking redirects does not seem to be a reason to keep the category.
Clubmarx (
talk) 08:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete categories of redirects are without any value whatsoever. They may even prevent the redirect functioning as it should.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I oppose any category that is not a Wikipedia maintenance category, that should consist solely of redirects.
Debresser (
talk) 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as unnecessary categorization. I suggest the same treatment to
Category:Arts redirects and its many child categories, all by the same creator.
Jafeluv (
talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (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:Appointees to a national government
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: poorly named attempt at starting a category page for central or federal government politicians who are appointed (as opposed to elected). (Was wrongly thinking that all 'politicians' are elected, but obviously this is untrue.) And that there may not be many such politicians, perhaps it should simply be
Category:Appointed politiciansMayumashu (
talk) 04:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. What is relevant to us is the function a politician has within a government, not whether someone was elected or appointed. Gerald Ford was president, that's what he should be categorized as, not as an unelected president.
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I always thought Ford was appointed vice president by the Senate and was then constitutionally appointed president after the resignation of Nixon? But regardless, that confusion is another reason not to have this category: when is a politician appointed and when elected?
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Whether Ford was "appointed" to either office depends on how one interprets the wording of the
25th Amendment. Technically, he was "nominated" to the Vice-Presidency by Nixon and "confirmed" by Congress, then when Nixon resigned Ford "became" President. The word "appointed" does not appear in the amendment in regards to filling either office, but our article itself describes Ford as "appointed". Anyway, regarding the categories, I'm inclined to delete both of them for now and then open a discussion somewhere as to whether categorizing politicians by dint of being appointed is worthwhile. At least in the United States, I believe the majority of federal political offices are filled by appointment (all federal judgeships, all Cabinet posts and many sub-Cabinet positions, all ambassadorships, federal commissioners, etc.). If retained, this would likely be a container category only since I would guess that by definition a politician appointed to a federal post is going to be categorized by that position and not simply as an appointed official. The by century category should go regardless at this point and, if retained, the former should probably be renamed to something like
Category:Appointed federal office-holders which mirrors
Category:Political office-holders by country, the closest model I could find.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- this is so vague as to be useless. Yes, Justices of US Supreme Court are appointed, but they do not govern. US Cabinet officers (not in cat) are appointed by the President, but is it useful to categorise them like this? Gerald Ford's appointment was by the senate, but could we not regard that as an election? UK Life peers (not in cat) are like Candian Senantors (in cat) appointed, but they are legislators, rather than part of the government: some will be in opposition to the government. Since the current contents are only categories, the "by century" category must certainly be deleted, even if the other is kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as too general to be usefull for categorisation.
Debresser (
talk) 23:17, 16 August 2009 (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:21st-century by journalists
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:Speedy Delete -
WP:CSD#G7 author request. ---Xdamrtalk 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: non-sensical page erroneously started by nominator
Mayumashu (
talk) 02:55, 16 August 2009 (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:Filmmakers
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: nominator at this point neutral on deleting or not. Would like, rather, to see what contibutors think, as according to
film director a 'filmmaker' is not just one involved in any way to the making of a film but, rather, just a film director or, for some, a film producer as well. The nominated category page however is being use to hold anyone involved such as actors, screenwriters, etc. Does the article page need to be corrected or this category and its subcats deleted?
Mayumashu (
talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename Perhaps it should be renamed to 'Cinema occupations' or 'Film occupations' which would house all the subcategories of directors, actors, etc. The articles in this category will need to be disbursed. 'Filmmakers' seems synonymous with 'Film directors' to me. There are lots of other categories that have an occupations category. Also, the nationality categories just need to be grouped under 'Filmmakers by nationality'.
Clubmarx (
talk) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Filmmaking occupations, I suggest, per the parent category
Category:Arts occupations and other similar categories therein. But then we'd also need to create Category:Cinema occupationsCategory:Film industry people, I believe, as an intermediate category between Filmmaking and the top-level Arts grouping, to include film professions beyond film creation, especially in the distribution and exhibition end of the business, where frankly I think there is a lot of work still to do in category and article creation.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm just looking for a way that
Category:Film distributors (people) and the like could be grouped along side actual film-making occupations, in a top-level Film occupation category. Right now they can't be.
Category:Film distributors (people) are categorized under Film distribution companies and Mass media owners by medium. And if
Category:Filmmaking occupations becomes the top level category, they still won't be able to be, because this is not an occupation that makes film. But they are both employed at different ends of the same industry. So if
Category:Filmmaking occupations is the consensus choice here, I'd then go ahead and create a new top level like
Category:Film industry people under
Category:People by occupation, grouping this one, distributors, exhibitors,
Category:Film festival founders. film publicists, and others, which I don't think will be too controversial. And if it is, it'll get CfRed and we'll get it right.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
A sucker as I am for your film references, I don't think it's quite right to call distributors and such Filmmaking occupations. I work in the biz and I sense a very vivid distinction between filmmaking and the rest of the industry. That said, if everyone else is okay with this, let's just go with it as the top-level cat.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Category:Filmmaking occupations seems sufficient. This would contain 'Film directors' etc. Other Arts-related occupation categories do not start with 'People by'. The person-centric nature of the category is assumed with 'occupations.'
Clubmarx (
talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I completely disagree. If the subcats were occupations and not people in them then they would be named
Category:Film directing,
Category:Acting,
Category:Screenwriting, etc. which obviously they are not. What s an example of an art-related occupation category that does not start with people? I m curious. (And I m thinking now that
Category:People in film occupations may be preferable to 'People by...')
Mayumashu (
talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks. No, these are all misnamed, to be linguistically technical, but I can see now how common usage does allow, for instance, 'artist' be both an occupation and person doing that occupation (as there is not term 'arting' to describe the activity). 'Actor' is the person in the occupation of 'acting' is straightforward example of the difference, but again common usage does allow, upon further consideration, both 'acting' and 'actor' to be the name of the occupation carried out by an actor. Given that there is this pre-existing list, I too will, for the time being, support
Category:Film occupationsMayumashu (
talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Cool. The 'people by' is still not correct, see
WP:COP (finally found it).
Clubmarx (
talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. I would challenge the original premise of the nominator. I find the idea that only a director or possibly producer can be a filmmaker is nonsense. Given the number of people who work on a film, for the director to claim it was all his own work is clearly not true unless he is some sort of jack of all trades. The parent category is
Category:Film making, so the logical name for the category for those involved in the making of films is
Category:Filmmakers.
Cjc13 (
talk) 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you point to any RS where a film actor or film score composer is referred to as a "filmmaker"? While I agree with your logic regarding the collective nature of film making, for our category names to be most useful, they need to reflect commonly used names for things.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Here is a dictionary which simply defines a filmmaker as one who makes motion pictures,
[1] which allows for a broad range of people. In Wikipedia,
Film making is defined as "the process of making a film, from an initial story idea or commission, through scriptwriting, shooting, editing and distribution to an audience", which allows for a broad range for filmmakers. Filmmaker is often used to describe a particular producer or director or often producer/director but that does not mean that the others are not filmmakers.
Cjc13 (
talk) 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Filmmaking occupations or something, but certainly don't delete. We need such a category, but "filmakers" normally suggests directors.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Whilst not being against a rename, just because some directors are referred to as a filmmaker, it does not follow that filmmaker means the same as director. Some producers, such as
Jerry Bruckheimer and
Dino De Laurentiis say, are also referred to as a filmmaker for a start. Often filmmaker is a term used to describe someone who is involved thoroughout the process of the making of the film, so it would certainly be able include scriptwriters such as
Charlie Kaufman and
Richard Curtis. Usually the term filmmaker is used becuse the person does more than one job, eg writer/director or director/producer, because the term filmmaker is flexible enough to cover both jobs in one word. However this does not mean that other people who are involved in filmmaking are not filmmakers. If you can come up with a better term by all means use it.
Cjc13 (
talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
But we have actors & all sorts in the category - it is eccentric to call a pure actor a "filmmaker", & clarity is essential in category names.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree there should be clarity and would support the creation of a new category, perhaps as you suggest
Category:Filmmaking occupations or
Category:Filmmaking professions for subcategories relating to a particular sector of filmmaking. Within the category though is
Category:American filmmakers which seems to consist of people who have made small independent films, usually short films. They have usually done most of the work themselves, ie. been producer, director, scriptwriter, cameraman and editor. Filmmaker, or perhaps independent filmmaker, seems to be the way to sum up their work, although they usually go on to specialise in one job, such as producer or director.
Cjc13 (
talk) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (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:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in Maine
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. Single entry category not likely to expand much.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's already doubled in size, and there appears to be no reason not to believe that it will expand further. Grouping the hundreds of aviation incidents in the U.S. by the individual states in which they occurred is a rather productive means of organizing the parent category, regardless of the paucity of incidents in any one state.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
It would be better to group by airline. Also, that avoids the issue of crashes in multiple jurisdictions.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment surely an accident only happens in one state -- that where it lands.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Didn't the two recent crashes on the Hudson river occur right on the border between New York state and New Jersey?
94.212.31.237 (
talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The latest one from what I have read, while not a commercial flight, may have actually occurred over land and not the river. But I think all reports place the impact over NJ. Since the airplane drifted after impact, I'm not sure where the wreckage was actually found. In was in the main channel of the river. I'll also point out that is is possible for aircraft involved in an accident or incident to land or crash in two different states.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. See
Wikipedia:OVERCAT#Intersection by location - since aviation (and particularly accident investigations by NTSB) is federally regulated in the US, there is no basis for categorization by state.
Ikluft (
talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (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.