August 25
Category:Fellows of the British-American Project
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only
03:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Essentially this is categorisation by membership of an organisation, and I don't think being a fellow of the
British-American Project is sufficiently defining to be worth a category. Becoming a fellow mainly involves attending a conference, and apparently there are around 600 of them.
Robofish (
talk)
00:07, 26 August 2012 (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.
American animated films
- 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 and sort out contents afterwards.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
This nomination is split into two parts, as there's two 'source' category name sets. One deviates more than the other - and could, in fact, almost be speedied - while the second contains categories, while not in the wrong naming format like the first set, would look odd in their primary trees after the renaming of the first set, if not also renamed. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
Set 1: 'Animated features released by Foo' to 'Foo animated films'. For consistency with the parent categories in
Category:Films by studio, all of which use the 'Foo films' format.
|
|
- 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:Competency Assesment
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: This is a
WP:FAKEARTICLE - and a rather spammy one at that - with a few random, nebulously-associated articles 'categorised' as a fig leaf and as a see-also section.
The Bushranger
One ping only
17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Why should this category not be deletedI am not a professional copywriter or an editor or a lexicographer...I am just an amateur with an interest and competency in competency assessment. Since Wikipedia is about all contributing, I thought I shall contribute to create this category. Competency Assessment is the key for success of any organisation's growth and therefore it deserves a special category.... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
114.79.144.169 (
talk)
07:18, 26 August 2012 (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:Woolworth companies
- 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: relisted at
CfD 2012 September 16. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Delete.
WP:OCAT by shared name. The sub-cats are unrelated entities, and "see also" links would be better than a hierarchical structure. Also, all the direct members of the category and other companies sharing this name are listed in
List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. (Note: at the end, the sub-cats should be members of ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Wikipedia categories named after retailers.) –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete While the three (or so) companies have shared names because the others were named after the American original, there's not enough connection there to categorize them together. It's also a magnet for miscategorization, as can be seen by some of the members.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and prune to remove the namesake companies. Woolworths has a very confusing history with all manner of sell-offs, buy backs and more with the name going all over the place. Cases like the Australian store which, AFAIK, was never linked to F.W. Woolworth but just copied the name should be removed but there's still a lot to populate the category.
Per past discussions that created the current tree I don't think
Category:F. W. Woolworth divisions that were sold to another company, were then spun off into their own company and subsequently went bankrupt or renamed themselves would be terribly useful.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
14:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into new
Category:F. W. Woolworth Company - see next nom in list. Yes, the history of the group is confusing, but ther criterion shoul be that the company was at one time a subsidiary or associate of
F. W. Woolworth Company, which is (or should be) the main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:04, 27 August 2012 (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:Woolworth
- 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: relisted at
CfD 2012 September 16. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: To match parent article
F. W. Woolworth Company. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and cleanup Things are a little confusing because there's the Woolworth Company, later Venator Group and now Foot Locker, Inc., and then there are the retail chains known as Woolworth's and Foot Locker. The
Foot Locker article and
Category:Foot Locker category attempt to cover both the chain and the parent. I see enough content about Woolworth's brands and people to see it as a standalone, but content that is related to the Woolworth Company and not Woolworth the store (e.g.
Claire's,
Kinney Shoes) would more accurately be placed in
Category:Foot Locker now.-
choster (
talk)
19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom and main article,
F. W. Woolworth Company. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Rename as nom. The criterion should be that the company is or was a subsidiary or associate of
Category:F. W. Woolworth Company. The UK version of Woolworths was a subsidiary of the US company until bought out by the Paternoster syndicate, but the US company retained a 20% stake. The retail shops retained the Woolworth brand, but a series of demergers took place, initially (if I remember correctly) demerging Kingfisher from Woolworth. Later, B&Q and Comet were split off. Ultimately the original Woolworths shops went bust spectacularly a couple of years ago. We need one parent category to cover all the emanations of Woolworths. We may also need a
Category:former Woolworths companies to cover companies that were (but no longer are) connected with the original retain empire, but the initial move should be to merge everything inot one parent that can then be split.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:15, 27 August 2012 (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.
Ships
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep both (i.e. do not rename). --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the current names of the cities of
Elbląg and
Szczecin. -
Darwinek (
talk)
16:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Addendum. Please note that the renaming of the actual cities is not the objective here. We can say instead: "Elbing shipyard", or "Stettin shipyard" (similar to Battle of Stalingrad as oppose to Battle of Volgograd because the city Volgograd is not called Stalingrad anymore). Conversely, the names Elbing and Stettin are not "Prussian"... They are contemporary names in the German language.
Poeticbent
talk
17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose the ships were not built in the Polish cities, they were built in the Prussian cities, thus the new names do not match the contents of the categories. The current names define the time period while the new names makes the time period different from the period when the ships were built. --
76.65.128.252 (
talk)
04:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose These places were/are in different countries at different points in history. It may be that the scope of each category needs to be clarified but they should remain separate.
Mjroots (
talk)
08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose I basically reiterate what has been said before. It would feel a bit strange to see German World War I warships built in Poland.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (
talk)
13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - this would be an exception to the "use the most current name when the name changes" standard. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
13:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Support the cities are the same, the current name should be used.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose I agree with Mjroots and ADA.
dain
talk
14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I think having separate categories is a good solution. If any ships build in Elbląg are notable and get their articles,
Category:Ships built in Elbląg should be created. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
19:51, 31 August 2012 (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:Terrorism fuelled by Pakistan
- 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. It's not impossible to believe that there's a non-POV way to name this category, but no one here seems to have buy-in on one. No prejudice against taking another go at it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Pure POV. Needs either renaming or deletion
Facts, not fiction (
talk)
15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Creator's rationale: I wasn't trying to be mean or anything. I simply figured that since there is an article about
Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism /
Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden with plenty of
verifiable or justifiable content in them, it would not be POV to create a category on such basis. Nevertheless, I could have chosen the name more prudently.
Wikipedia is not a vote, by the way.
Mrt3366 (
talk ·
contribs ·
count)
09:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Update: There
is was a
proposal to speedy-rename this category by the author but it was quickly declined because of the existence of this full CfD thread by
The Bushranger. Feel free to suggest new names here if you want it to be renamed.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- "Textbook definition of
WP:POV and
WP:SOAP" - really? I didn't know that.
"the placing of the articles within the category is also a sorry case of
WP:SYNTHESIS" - that doesn't mean the category itself should be deleted.
I propose a renaming of the category. If there can be categories like
Category:Islamic terrorism by country or
Category:Islamic terrorism in India with good reason, there could also be a category titled,
Category:Alleged Pakistan-sponsored terrorism or
Category:Terrorism alleged to have been sponsored by Pakistani organizations or something in those lines.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
16:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- I have requested a speedy-rename.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- This should be fully discussed, then renamed, if kept. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
17:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- But it has been nominated precisely because of the name, I think your argument kind of collapses on itself.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- "I don't think there's a neutral and objective way of wording this" - If by "neutral way" you mean a
censored or
sanitized way, then you're right and that's because the
blatant truth is so
against Pakistan.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- I've been asked whether this was a 'delete' or a 'rename' comment. It could be a 'Rename', except that I think this category is trying to cover too much at the moment: both acts of terrorism by independent Pakistani organisations and alleged acts of terrorism by the Pakistani government. Those don't really belong in the same category, that's what I meant by 'too broad and vague'. I'd support a renamed version of this category only if it was narrowed down to something more specific with clear inclusion criteria.
Robofish (
talk)
09:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- "I think this category is trying to cover too much at the moment" — Well that's not
insurmountable, is it?
So you think it could be a rename, provided that the articles are categorized cautiously?
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The category is a vague collection of events and incidents that have not even the remotest connection to Pakistan, apart from the fact that they are alleged by India to be connected to Pakistan. Heck, even those allegations have not been proven or verified. This category is clearly problematic because it is being used to push and advance one particular point of view. It should be deleted as a pure case of
POV-pushing.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Then de-categorize the articles with appropriate edit summary, instead of pushing its deletion altogether.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:POVTITLE is talking about an article. Come on! If you cite pov-title then I also can site
WP:SUBPOV.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
-
"Standard article naming conventions apply" on Categories too. --
SMS
Talk
09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- So be it then, as evidenced through usages in significant majority of reliable sources, let us follow the sources, as
WP:POVTITLE tells us, and use a new more suitable name (as suggested by me and others in this thread) as the category title. This is what I have been saying all along that the name is the problem as opposed to the existence of this category.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?)
11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Appallingly POV category. And now we seem to have
this Category, which is being slapped onto/includes the same pages. While I can buy the argument that it is a more neutral - if cumbersome - title, in a way it's worse, since as currently constituted it suggests that only Pakistan - of all the countries in the world - is, or faces allegations of being, a state sponsor of terrorism. And ultimately, isn't the new proposed category ultimately fairly meaningless and just as open to POV manipulation, albeit on a wider scale, since pretty much every country has faced allegations of sponsoring terrorism? As noted above, the POV pushing in this area, often from established and prolific editors, debases Wikipedia.
N-HH
talk/
edits
10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- The category I created does not just contain allegation against Pakistan. And given it was just created perhaps you would help populate it? This category can be used on all articles which contain allegations of SST, I am of the opinion it is a useful and needed cat.
Facts, not fiction (
talk)
10:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Key word and biggest problem: "allegation". -
The Bushranger
One ping only
03:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Rename -- There is probably the basis for a legitimate category here. There is widespread suspicion that emanations of the Pakistani state are involved in terrorism in Afganistan. However the Pakistan state denies this. It is not clear if the perpetrators are independent organisations that the Pakistani authorities have infiltrated, but failed to suppress or control, or whether the authorities are dissembling in their denials.
Category:Terrorism allegedly fuelled by Pakistan might fit the bill or
Category:Allegations of Pakistan-fuelled terrorism. That Pakistan is guilty of what is alleged is a view widely held by independent journalists and foreign governments. We need a non-POV title, but should keep the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete the title has many POV issues, and opens up even more controversial categories.It should be remembered that we avoid "alleged" categories, so throwing that word in the title will make the category name even more porblematic.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:41, 27 August 2012 (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:Basketball players from Istanbul
Category:Japanese in California
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep all. The current names fit the convention pointed out to by choster. However, it's clear from the discussion here that this convention causes confusion about the purpose of these categories, so editors may want to consider a wider discussion on renaming all these categories to something less ambiguous.
Feel free to make any such wider nomination immediately. The failure of this particular proposal should not be cited as an impediment to solving the underlying problem identified here. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: The proposed category names more accurately reflects the topics being categorized
Myasuda (
talk)
14:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Japanese Americans are not Japanese. The other category names in similar sub-categories should also be changed. This is just the first one to be nominated. —
Myasuda (
talk)
19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Should it not be 'People of Japanese descent in Foo'? -
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- That would work for me. —
Myasuda (
talk)
19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- read the category articles As with similar categories I mentioned above, the content is not bio articles. It is aricles on Japanese culture and history in the US. These renames are perfectly not applicable and do nothing but confuse everything here.
Hmains (
talk)
23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Rename -- "Japanese culture and settlement in foo". The content is not bio-articles, which according to the international standard (not applied in US would be 'People of Japanese descent in Foo', but the content covers neighborhoods with a high Japanese population and Japanese gardens (inspired by Japanese culture).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for now. Foos in Bar is the most common naming format in
Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by state; see for example
Category:Ethnic groups in New York or
Category:Ethnic groups in Louisiana. Any change should be done systematically.-
choster (
talk)
14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Keep in this case Japanese is being used as an ethnic, not a nationality, designator. There are Texas Germans and there are Japanese Hawaiians, not Texas German-Americans or Japanese-American Hawaiians, well there are the later, but they would be a different ethnic group. These categories are about the history of these ethnic groups in the place. It is ethnicity, not mere descent, that is being tracked. Thus the original culture is playing the controlling role.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:46, 27 August 2012 (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:Portrait by Hans Holbein the younger
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: listify. The list already exists at
List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger, but the list should be checked to ensure that it includes all the articles validly placed in this category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains the subjects of the portraits e.g.
Henry VIII of England, not articles about individual portraits. The paintings are in
Category:Paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger. This would work better as a list to avoid
overcategorisation, and it already exists at
List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger.
Tim! (
talk)
09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Nearly identical to
Category:People important in Tudor England, it's clearly non-defining. I cannot imagine we've categorized people by who painted them.
Mangoe (
talk)
10:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Retain As the nominator for deletion notices, it is a category for articles about people depicted by Holbein, not the paintings themselves. Holbein also painted religious and allegorical subjects. As Holbein was latterly in royal employment, there are political diplomatic reasons why he painted non-English sitters, as he did. The category, as is clearly stated, also includes sitters whose portraits are not known to exist, who were painted for diplomatic reasons which were recorded, and these people would not appear in a list of paintings. (I suppose you might think of it like a category "Subject of biopic film" or "On Senator McCarthy Blacklist" if these had any merits)
Unoquha (
talk)
12:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete a) not defining for the known sitters; b) category names should be plural; c) there are very few paintings in the list that Tim! links to that are not portraits.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
04:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Listify by merging into
List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger: I suspect that there is more in the category than the list. This category is a misuse of category-space, since it is categorising people painted by Holbein. That is a performance by performer category (albeit not quite the usual kind). REname, if kept to
Category:People painted by Hans Holbein the younger.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:37, 27 August 2012 (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:Idol groups
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale:
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING most of the groups in this category are also in boy bands or girl groups categories.
Krystaleen
08:17, 25 August 2012 (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:Hip Hop double albums
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only
03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessay diffusion of double albums by genre. All are categorized in artists whose parent categories are under hip hop and each of the albums are already in
Category:Double albums, so no need to upmerge. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
Talk to me
07:55, 25 August 2012 (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:Wikipedians who wish a lot of others would come back too, but who don't have the energy to categorize them all
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Presumably in response to the absolute embarrassment to the user category system that was to keep
this category, this is even less helpful- Two wrongs don't make a right. Does not support collaboration in the least. Violates
WP:USERCAT.
VegaDark (
talk)
06:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Firstly, I don’t understand the nomination. My first reaction is to note the lack of diligence by the nominator. I created, and that’s not hard to determine. I could have readily informed his presumption. It has nothing (directly) to do with Bish and Giano. In fact, I thought I was still seeing them around, although I cross paths with Giano very infrequently.
I don’t get the connection alluded with the linked CfD, although the references to heartlessness caused pain.
Why did I create this category? I came across the
redlink and remembered the number of times I have read “What happens when a Wikipedian dies?” Dies or disappears “… He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care?” Some care.
What happens when a Wikipedian dies? Through natural causes, by others or by their own hand? He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care? To all those Wikipedians who may have died and been forgotten here, Thank you for your contributions and Rest in Peace.
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians &
Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians are good locations to go when you want to dwell on the memories of past acquaintances. But you go there unobserved. There is no evidence of others paying respects there.
Some choose to write on memorial pages. That’s no always appropriate. And less often is it appropriate to make idle conversation. Some choose to make lists of no-longer-active accounts. That’s a semi-private activity.
I miss quite a number of other editors who no longer seem to be around. Unrelated examples include W.marsh (I like to think still here under a pseudonym), Radiant! (regularly lurks), Badlydrawnjeff (dunno) and Abd (if only he could control his verbosity). There are many others, but I don’t want to list them publically, let alone rank or sort them.
What I’d like to do is know others who similar regret the absence of others. Having found someone already in such a category, I joined. I think the category suitable for this purpose. I think this purpose is worthwhile, as one important facet of any community. I don’t know that it is actually “productive” in any direct sense.
Regarding
WP:USERCAT, I afraid that I have little respect for it. It’s supported rigidly by a few according to a very narrow idea of what is good for the community. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
05:26, 28 August 2012 (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:American cult films
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Not a genre as such. Difficult to define. Seems to be based on one user's personal choices.
DrKiernan (
talk)
06:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
:Weak delete: By that rationale
French New Wave isn't a genre because it says French. You make a good argument on personal choices, though. Sort of. Read my edit summary.
Lighthead...
KILLS!!
06:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The category for
Cult films was deleted in a previous discussion. There is no real def. of a "cult film".
Lugnuts
And the horse
07:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Based on Lugnuts clarification. I have to admit, I glossed over DrKiernan's argument of difficult to define. Wholeheartedly support deletion.
Lighthead...
KILLS!!
01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Delete limiting the scope to US films isn't going to fix the issues that led to the last deletion.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Don't I called it "Category:American cult films" because in the future, I was thinking of doing other categories of cult films from other countries. - FriscoKnight, 8:59, 25 August, 2012
- Delete. Impossible to cite. Far too many films are titled cult films without citation or notation. Remove the category.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- There also many categories like American drama films that have the same situation but that category is still around. So, what's the difference? - FriscoKnight
- Weak keep (don't really know how this voting thing works but what the hell) – I think the cult film is an interesting phenomenon that would be of interest to be documented. It's a category that may require maintenance, sure. So do other categories – I cleaned out so many films like
Child's Play, for example, from the
slasher film category. I don't think this one will be any worse. I'd advocate immediate removal of the category from articles in which its status as a cult film is not established.
- "There is no real definition of a cult film" – I'd say a film with a highly devoted/dedicated, but small, underground, fanbase.
Troll 2,
Pink Flamingos,
Donnie Darko,
The Room all have obsessive fanbases, but I reckon they're all still underground films, in that, for example, they wouldn't readily be shown on the same TV network that would air something like American Idol or The O.C. which the majority seem to watch.
- There is no absolute necessity for a category like this, but I think if there's an article on cult films, it wouldn't hurt to have a category as well.
Lachlan Foley (
talk)
06:54, 26 August 2012 (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:Grain elevators in Alberta
Category:Grain elevators in Buffalo, New York
- 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 to
Category:Grain elevators in New York, and add all articles to
Category:Buildings and structures in Buffalo, New York. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by city category in the tree and it contains only 3 articles. With
Category:Grain elevators not over populated, I not sure that we need this category or if there is a need to break these out by city.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Grain elevators in New York - as with the Canada ones, this should be seen as the start of a populatable category tree - in this case, 'grain elevators by state', which I'm quite sure is populatable - grain elevators pop up throughout the Midwest and Great Plains like weeds. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Breaking them out by country would be legitimate, with by state or province subcategories where warranted — but by individual city certainly isn't needed. Rename to
Category:Grain elevators in New York per The Bushranger, or upmerge to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Grain elevators in the United States instead of just ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Grain elevators.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- cmt the US country level should do just fine, based on the numbers involved
Hmains (
talk)
23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Grain elevators in New York. This category has potential to be too big for just a US category, but there is no reason to do it by city.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:53, 27 August 2012 (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.