- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Miami Sharks players to Category:Miami Freedom players
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – which bit of WP:OVERCAT is transgressed? It seems to me a neat way of categorising Teofilo Cubillas whose article does not mention Miami Freedom - categorise him as a Shark, and subcat Sharks under Freedom to denote historical links. Oculi ( talk) 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge/delete - traditionally one franchise/team has one category, plenty of CFD consensus for this. Giant Snowman 07:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge Miami Sharks is a redirect to Miami Freedom, so that I take this to be a rename of a now long defunct club. My rule on this is "one franchise: one category" - despite renames, relcoations, changes of league, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge clearly the same club. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
13:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Paganism in the United Kingdom to Category:Neopaganism in the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename Consistent naming with rest of the category tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2C/C2D. kennethaw88 • talk 03:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: upmerge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Hungarian Neopaganism to Category:Neopaganism by country
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category, serves no navigational purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support with no objection to recreating if additional articles are created. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Editor2020 17:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge This would remove an unneeded layer of category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Former fire stations in Canada to Category:Defunct fire stations in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Former fire stations to Category:Defunct fire stations
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Former is used to describe buildings that no longer exist. Defunct is used for re-purposed buildings like the ones included here. This rename would title the subcategories in the same way. For the parent category, the introduction specifically says Buildings once used as fire stations, but no longer active for that purpose. The parent categories all reflect a building where the use was changed as opposed to a demolished building. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment that's a very ambiguous naming method for destroyed buildings. I suggest the entire category tree for buildings that no longer exist be changed. --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there is
Category:Demolished buildings and structures which I thinks covers destroyed buildings.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to
Category:Former buildings and structures it is for those that no longer exist, accoring to
Category:Demolished buildings and structures it is for those deliberately demolished. So, that still leaves "former" as being a highly ambiguous descriptor for destroyed buildings. (Note: destroyed does not imply deliberate demolishing, earthquakes can destroy buildings, floods, etc) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think your issues should delay this rename. They probably do need discussion to see if there is a way to do this without the ambiguity and without creating too many category trees. Maybe at the WP:CAT talk page? Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- According to
Category:Former buildings and structures it is for those that no longer exist, accoring to
Category:Demolished buildings and structures it is for those deliberately demolished. So, that still leaves "former" as being a highly ambiguous descriptor for destroyed buildings. (Note: destroyed does not imply deliberate demolishing, earthquakes can destroy buildings, floods, etc) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there is
Category:Demolished buildings and structures which I thinks covers destroyed buildings.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support per category naming method for buildings no longer having the same use as previously. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rename Defunct is broad enough to cover all things once fire stations and not such at present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to
Category:American Wiccans.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Adherents of Celtic neopaganism to Category:American Wiccans
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article here, no navigational purpose to categorize.
I'm not entirely sure if Wiccan priestesses is the right category to merge to, so I'm open to other suggestions.Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SMALLCAT RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Wiccans. Editor2020 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Oppose upmerge that removes the American category. If that parenting is incorrect it should be corrected in the article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded small cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Dianic Wicca
- Nominator's rationale: The category contains only two articles and they already refer to each other immediately in the body text, so categorizing them does not serve any navigational purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to
Category:Wicca. Editor2020 17:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are in Category:American Wiccans already, so that has been taken care of. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded small cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If this category will be deleted, its parent Category:Goddess monotheism will become empty and can then also be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
08:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Canadian Wiccans to Category:Canadian neopagans
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Canadian neopagans only contains Category:Canadian Wiccans so one of the two categories is redundant for sure. Neopagans is the more established category name, so I would propose to keep Category:Canadian neopagans as the one category to be kept here. But I'm also open to a reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as part of a series. Category:Wiccans by nationality makes sense since that tree extends above there. I'd rather delete the Category:Fooian neopagans categories when the Wicca category is the only content. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that would be a reverse merge, that's fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge to Category:Wiccans. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to
Category:Wiccans. Editor2020 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the latter two suggestions with the alternative merge are based on
WP:SMALLCAT, I wouldn't mind this either.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- At second thought I imagine there's nothing against upmerging to Category:Wiccans and to Category:Canadian neopagans, is there? Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the latter two suggestions with the alternative merge are based on
WP:SMALLCAT, I wouldn't mind this either.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think either can be said to be necessarily redundant when both are constituent parts of a category tree: Category:Neopagans by nationality and Category:Wiccans by nationality. I've added some more articles, including one to Category:Canadian neopagans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Meaningless outside the context of a particular country's copyright law, as terms of protection vary presently and have varied over time. Previously deleted in 2009 per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 27#Category:Public domain films; all the reasons given there still apply. postdlf ( talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete You can't go around tagging films as being in the "public domain" without providing the scope of the PD status. At the very least the category would have to be sub-divided into "Films in the public domain in the United States" etc. I am not advocating such categories should exist, but if they do they need to exist at country level to reflect the copyright jurisdictions.
Betty Logan (
talk)
21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given that there are over 200 sovereign states in the world, subdividing by nation wouldn't make for a good category system either. postdlf ( talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. This can be easily rescued by redefining it as films that are public domain in all countries, which is what I intended when I created it. Subcategories can be created for important subclasses such as PD in the US; we already have
Category:Images in the public domain in the United States so what's wrong with creating
Category:Films in the public domain in the United States? Otherwise if we want to delete this we should also delete
Category:Public domain books,
Category:Public domain music and a number of other categories found in
Category:Public domain. In fact, this nomination should be a mass CfD nomination for all related categories. We cannot make a decision here without discussion all other related categories. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
04:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Images in the public domain in the United States is a maintenance category for organizing files for Wikipedia use. It's not a content category like this one. Are any of the included articles actually verifiable as "public domain in all countries"? I don't know that I've ever seen a source make such a broad statement before instead of just saying "public domain in the U.S." or elsewhere. Show me, please. postdlf ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I think the public domain books category is even worse than this one, seeing as how film has only been around since the late 1800s, but we're talking about thousands of years for books. postdlf ( talk) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- subcategorize Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin , Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions , Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States ; that should deal with the ambiguity. This should be kept as a container category holding only categories. As the US is the IP jurisdiction that Wikipedia is concerned with, a Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States should also exist. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as being non-defining. Most of the articles don't even mention the fact, they just have the category slapped onto the page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not a defining aspect of the works. We shouldn't categorise by copyright status as the contents will largely not have much in common and will have reached this status in different ways and for different reasons. In the long-term this will be as sprawling and unmaintainable as if we tried Category:Copyrighted films. SFB 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Copyright status is a defining characteristic for many readers, including but not limited to lawyers, film students, manufacturers, distributors, presenters, and the media industry at large. A good number of people come here first when they're trying to find this information. The list does need editing for international differences, but as a topic it's clearly encyclopedic. SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- @ SteveStrummer: Given the wide differences in what constitutes "public domain" surely lists (by country?) would be a much better way of gathering this information? SFB 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous. In addition to the question of which country, the images of
It's a Wonderful Life are in public domain, but some aspect of it is still covered by copyright law. According to my recollection, it was the synchronization copyright covering the soundtrack. According to Wikipedia, its showings are restricted under copyright law because the
The Greatest Gift is in copyright through (i believe) 2054, and It's a Wonderful Life is a
derivative work of The Greatest Gift. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
00:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment can't we just specify "films partially in the public domain" and "films fully in the public domain" by my suggested subcategories scheme, as subcategories ? --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Category:Films kinda sorta in the public domain and
Category:Films like totally in the public domain?
postdlf (
talk)
17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- By my earlier suggestion, which that is not. That doesn't even look similar to what I wrote immediately above your reply. -->
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Foreign films partially in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films partially in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films completely in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films completely in the public domain in the United States --- NOTE: There is no by country breakdown, it only deals with country of origin and the United States (US because that is the IP-jurisdiction that Wikipedia is legally concerned with) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- But content-wise, there's no justification for limiting article categorization in this area to the U.S. We do that with files for maintenance purposes because we use those files here and editors need to know the laws affecting those files' usage. We do not use a film by having an article on it, so when categorizing such articles it doesn't matter what WP is "legally concerned with". Which means that this awkward array of hair-splitting and often vague ("partially") categories you propose, bad enough as it is, would also proliferate for other countries.
postdlf (
talk)
13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then we can drop that, and just do it for "domestic" without dividing by country. --
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin (subcategories:
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ) ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then we're still stuck with unworkably vague category names like "partially". You'd be hardpressed to find any film that doesn't have any elements in the public domain, whether because those elements are uncopyrightable (...somewhere), or because those elements are adaptations, quotes, or samples from other works that are in the public domain (...somewhere). This is simply too complicated and context-specific to be handled through the clumsy category system. postdlf ( talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then we can drop that, and just do it for "domestic" without dividing by country. --
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin (subcategories:
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ) ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- But content-wise, there's no justification for limiting article categorization in this area to the U.S. We do that with files for maintenance purposes because we use those files here and editors need to know the laws affecting those files' usage. We do not use a film by having an article on it, so when categorizing such articles it doesn't matter what WP is "legally concerned with". Which means that this awkward array of hair-splitting and often vague ("partially") categories you propose, bad enough as it is, would also proliferate for other countries.
postdlf (
talk)
13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- By my earlier suggestion, which that is not. That doesn't even look similar to what I wrote immediately above your reply. -->
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Foreign films partially in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films partially in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films completely in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films completely in the public domain in the United States --- NOTE: There is no by country breakdown, it only deals with country of origin and the United States (US because that is the IP-jurisdiction that Wikipedia is legally concerned with) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Category:Films kinda sorta in the public domain and
Category:Films like totally in the public domain?
postdlf (
talk)
17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment can't we just specify "films partially in the public domain" and "films fully in the public domain" by my suggested subcategories scheme, as subcategories ? --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not country specific so likely to be untrue, moreover, certainly not defining. What's next books? Looks like the banned books category metastasized. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is a nightmare waiting to happen. It just invites Nepal to officially declare no film copyright, so we have to put every film in Category:Public domain films in Nepal. Also, what about Category:Films made as public domain works. What happens when films produced for YouTube become notable? The nightmare goes on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Am I the only one who finds this category in horribly bad taste? Notability is an internal Wikipedia concept, and grouping people on the basis that they wouldn't have mattered enough to have Wikipedia articles if they hadn't died horribly just feels really wrong to me. This is on top of the fact that this category couldn't exist outside Wikipedia because it's entirely based on our internal notion of notability. It is also unverifiable because the only way it could be demonstrated is by reference to Wikipedia discussions where the community found that person to be otherwise not notable (and only in those cases where such a discussion happened). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as inappropriate WP:SELFREF. postdlf ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – the nom covers the difficulties. Oculi ( talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and my general sense that death is wildly overcategorized across the board in Wikipedia. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - because people are not notable by their deaths on Wikipedia - the event might be, the person is not. WP:ONEEVENT. Giant Snowman 07:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment most of these people are
WP:ONEEVENT folks, and the arguments above are really arguments to delete the articles.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're not. They're arguments to delete the category for a) being in bad taste, b) failing Wikipedia's notability policies, and c) failing Wikipedia's verifiability policies. The names that I recognise in this category would pass AfD to the point of being WP:SNOW keeps. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: manual merge. I will only implement this as a merge where the contents are not already within specific sub-categories of fiction set in the relevant period; in most cases for C22, the pages are already so categorised and therefore no merger is required, so the categories can simply be deleted. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:2105 to Category:22nd century
also includes a number of other categories, some to be upmerged to other categories
and a weaker argument for
- Propose merging Category:2100 to Category:21st century
- Propose merging Category:2100s to Category:22nd century
- Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Base article does not and should not yet exist. The argument for 2100 is weaker because we would first need to deal with
Category:2100 in science, and its two articles which should also probably be deleted. But that's a separate issue. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
09:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support nominations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment A few individual articles in
Category:2100 have also been classified in
Category:22nd century in fiction. I think this should become
Category:21st century in fiction.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Resolved. All the articles in
Category:2100 are now in
Category:21st century in fiction. We would still have to deal with
Category:2100 in science. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: See this link for articles on future solar eclipses. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Resolved. All the articles in
Category:2100 are now in
Category:21st century in fiction. We would still have to deal with
Category:2100 in science. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Since the year after 1 BC was 1 AD (without year zero), 2100 is the last year of 21st century. I am not in favour of categories on remote future periods (or splitting everything by year in remote past periods). It will be at least 60 years before we need a decade category for 2100s, possibly 80. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)*:Although I agree with Peterkingiron's conclusion, I take issue with the timing required. We have Category:2090s now, and I believe we should have Category:2050s. This suggests that it might be only 50 years before Category:2100s is opened, rather than the 60 to 80 he suggests. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)- Oppose as a group nomination. All of the 21xx series of categories exist so there is no reason to remove a single category due to an incorrect parent which has been fixed. As for the 22xx series, many of these exist for media or other purposes and are a part of a series so it is unclear if they should be deleted. For the periods after that maybe support to by century/millennium.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Vegaswikian:All the categories were recently (my recollection is less than a week before the nomination, but certainly less than a month) created, most, having exactly one article, which is on a solar eclipse. I question whether the articles should exist, rather than being merged to single-line entries in
list of 22nd century solar eclipses, or some such, but, even so, that is no reason for the categories to exist. I see no reason why a future year category could be justified without a lead article being appropriate. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If we have an issue with the articles, then that needs to be addressed first. If someone is creating articles for all solar eclipses in the 22nd century, then we would have a strong case for by year categories.
- @
Vegaswikian:All the categories were recently (my recollection is less than a week before the nomination, but certainly less than a month) created, most, having exactly one article, which is on a solar eclipse. I question whether the articles should exist, rather than being merged to single-line entries in
list of 22nd century solar eclipses, or some such, but, even so, that is no reason for the categories to exist. I see no reason why a future year category could be justified without a lead article being appropriate. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge but not as nom -- My sample of a few items indicated that the articles were mostly fictional works. On reflection I am changfing my vote. Whether a work is set in 2110 or 2115 seems almost random, but possibly we might allow decade categories for the 22nd century, but only century categories beyond it. I offer this as a compromise, because I am not sure that my previous vote was wrong. However, I would agree with
Arthur Rubin on the period of 50 years.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I generally don't see a need for decade categories. As already pointed out, the last year in a century generally gets included in the wrong century. This frequently happens, as I recall, from using the by decade navigation templates. I fail to see how having 10 categories with 10 subcategories is an improvement over 1 category with 100 subcategories. Both display well on most displays. So why add an extra unneeded navigation level? Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge It is far too early for such precision in categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:2073 in fiction to Category:2070s in fiction
- Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. There's no article or category for 2073, nor should there be. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge I have to question the usefulness of such categories considering
Category:2001 in fiction can cover everything from
2001 a Space Odyssey to fictionalized works about the
World Trade Center Bombing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with the latter. For encyclopedic use it should be sufficient to categorize Historical events in [year][decade][century] as a topic in fiction. That would, however, require a major revision of the tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one page (that is in other template categories) (and has no parents). DexDor ( talk) 06:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given it a category - it will fill up in time, don't worry. Wik idea 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- To my mind the one item is not a caselist: it is a list of treaties. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: split. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Split - the current category is oversized. Splitting it according to the following should deal with that:
- Category:Heart of Appalachia, Virginia geography stubs - the orange area on the map - which includes Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell and Wise counties, and the independant city of Norton - 131 stubs
- Category:Blue Ridge Highlands, Virginia geography stubs - the blue area on the map - which includes Bland, Carroll, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Smyth, Washington and Wythe counties, and the independant cities of Bristol, Galax and Radford - 174 stubs
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category contains one (sort of eponymous) article (that is in plenty of other cats) and has no parents. DexDor ( talk) 05:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 02:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education. This is one of the articles and looks as if it ought to be the main article. My proposal is thus to expand the abbreviation. The rest seem to be local research institutes, which are presumably members of it or such like. An alternative might be Category:Forestry research institutes in India, cognate with the precedent that we have not liked categorisation of universities by association membership. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I found the following comment on another CFD page and am copying it here.
- Indian council of forestry research and education (Icfre) is the largest organisation based in india to carry out forestry research and forestry education in India. ICFRE has institutes at national level as well as regional centres at different states. ICFRE is putting efforts to increase forest cover in India and to encourage agroforestry, silviculture, horticulture, forest protection and forest education in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editinf ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- That actually supports the principle of what I said above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Rename and Keep, per User:Peterkingiron. Taking it at face value, this seems to be an important, high-level forestry agency in India, with a number of related suborganizations and units. It makes sense to keep it. I've tried to recategorize it in a way that I hope is helpful and accurate. This said, there is at the same time some overenthusiastic, overinclusion of articles within this category by its creator, a new contributor to Wikipedia; some friendly educational efforts may be helpful in that regard. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 10:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Miami Sharks players to Category:Miami Freedom players
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – which bit of WP:OVERCAT is transgressed? It seems to me a neat way of categorising Teofilo Cubillas whose article does not mention Miami Freedom - categorise him as a Shark, and subcat Sharks under Freedom to denote historical links. Oculi ( talk) 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge/delete - traditionally one franchise/team has one category, plenty of CFD consensus for this. Giant Snowman 07:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge Miami Sharks is a redirect to Miami Freedom, so that I take this to be a rename of a now long defunct club. My rule on this is "one franchise: one category" - despite renames, relcoations, changes of league, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge clearly the same club. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
13:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Paganism in the United Kingdom to Category:Neopaganism in the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename Consistent naming with rest of the category tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2C/C2D. kennethaw88 • talk 03:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: upmerge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Hungarian Neopaganism to Category:Neopaganism by country
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category, serves no navigational purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support with no objection to recreating if additional articles are created. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Editor2020 17:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge This would remove an unneeded layer of category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Former fire stations in Canada to Category:Defunct fire stations in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Former fire stations to Category:Defunct fire stations
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Former is used to describe buildings that no longer exist. Defunct is used for re-purposed buildings like the ones included here. This rename would title the subcategories in the same way. For the parent category, the introduction specifically says Buildings once used as fire stations, but no longer active for that purpose. The parent categories all reflect a building where the use was changed as opposed to a demolished building. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment that's a very ambiguous naming method for destroyed buildings. I suggest the entire category tree for buildings that no longer exist be changed. --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there is
Category:Demolished buildings and structures which I thinks covers destroyed buildings.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to
Category:Former buildings and structures it is for those that no longer exist, accoring to
Category:Demolished buildings and structures it is for those deliberately demolished. So, that still leaves "former" as being a highly ambiguous descriptor for destroyed buildings. (Note: destroyed does not imply deliberate demolishing, earthquakes can destroy buildings, floods, etc) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think your issues should delay this rename. They probably do need discussion to see if there is a way to do this without the ambiguity and without creating too many category trees. Maybe at the WP:CAT talk page? Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- According to
Category:Former buildings and structures it is for those that no longer exist, accoring to
Category:Demolished buildings and structures it is for those deliberately demolished. So, that still leaves "former" as being a highly ambiguous descriptor for destroyed buildings. (Note: destroyed does not imply deliberate demolishing, earthquakes can destroy buildings, floods, etc) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there is
Category:Demolished buildings and structures which I thinks covers destroyed buildings.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support per category naming method for buildings no longer having the same use as previously. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rename Defunct is broad enough to cover all things once fire stations and not such at present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to
Category:American Wiccans.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Adherents of Celtic neopaganism to Category:American Wiccans
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article here, no navigational purpose to categorize.
I'm not entirely sure if Wiccan priestesses is the right category to merge to, so I'm open to other suggestions.Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SMALLCAT RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Wiccans. Editor2020 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Oppose upmerge that removes the American category. If that parenting is incorrect it should be corrected in the article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded small cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Dianic Wicca
- Nominator's rationale: The category contains only two articles and they already refer to each other immediately in the body text, so categorizing them does not serve any navigational purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to
Category:Wicca. Editor2020 17:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are in Category:American Wiccans already, so that has been taken care of. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded small cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If this category will be deleted, its parent Category:Goddess monotheism will become empty and can then also be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
08:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Canadian Wiccans to Category:Canadian neopagans
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Canadian neopagans only contains Category:Canadian Wiccans so one of the two categories is redundant for sure. Neopagans is the more established category name, so I would propose to keep Category:Canadian neopagans as the one category to be kept here. But I'm also open to a reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as part of a series. Category:Wiccans by nationality makes sense since that tree extends above there. I'd rather delete the Category:Fooian neopagans categories when the Wicca category is the only content. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that would be a reverse merge, that's fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge to Category:Wiccans. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to
Category:Wiccans. Editor2020 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the latter two suggestions with the alternative merge are based on
WP:SMALLCAT, I wouldn't mind this either.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- At second thought I imagine there's nothing against upmerging to Category:Wiccans and to Category:Canadian neopagans, is there? Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the latter two suggestions with the alternative merge are based on
WP:SMALLCAT, I wouldn't mind this either.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think either can be said to be necessarily redundant when both are constituent parts of a category tree: Category:Neopagans by nationality and Category:Wiccans by nationality. I've added some more articles, including one to Category:Canadian neopagans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Meaningless outside the context of a particular country's copyright law, as terms of protection vary presently and have varied over time. Previously deleted in 2009 per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 27#Category:Public domain films; all the reasons given there still apply. postdlf ( talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete You can't go around tagging films as being in the "public domain" without providing the scope of the PD status. At the very least the category would have to be sub-divided into "Films in the public domain in the United States" etc. I am not advocating such categories should exist, but if they do they need to exist at country level to reflect the copyright jurisdictions.
Betty Logan (
talk)
21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given that there are over 200 sovereign states in the world, subdividing by nation wouldn't make for a good category system either. postdlf ( talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. This can be easily rescued by redefining it as films that are public domain in all countries, which is what I intended when I created it. Subcategories can be created for important subclasses such as PD in the US; we already have
Category:Images in the public domain in the United States so what's wrong with creating
Category:Films in the public domain in the United States? Otherwise if we want to delete this we should also delete
Category:Public domain books,
Category:Public domain music and a number of other categories found in
Category:Public domain. In fact, this nomination should be a mass CfD nomination for all related categories. We cannot make a decision here without discussion all other related categories. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
04:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Images in the public domain in the United States is a maintenance category for organizing files for Wikipedia use. It's not a content category like this one. Are any of the included articles actually verifiable as "public domain in all countries"? I don't know that I've ever seen a source make such a broad statement before instead of just saying "public domain in the U.S." or elsewhere. Show me, please. postdlf ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I think the public domain books category is even worse than this one, seeing as how film has only been around since the late 1800s, but we're talking about thousands of years for books. postdlf ( talk) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- subcategorize Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin , Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions , Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States ; that should deal with the ambiguity. This should be kept as a container category holding only categories. As the US is the IP jurisdiction that Wikipedia is concerned with, a Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States should also exist. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as being non-defining. Most of the articles don't even mention the fact, they just have the category slapped onto the page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not a defining aspect of the works. We shouldn't categorise by copyright status as the contents will largely not have much in common and will have reached this status in different ways and for different reasons. In the long-term this will be as sprawling and unmaintainable as if we tried Category:Copyrighted films. SFB 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Copyright status is a defining characteristic for many readers, including but not limited to lawyers, film students, manufacturers, distributors, presenters, and the media industry at large. A good number of people come here first when they're trying to find this information. The list does need editing for international differences, but as a topic it's clearly encyclopedic. SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- @ SteveStrummer: Given the wide differences in what constitutes "public domain" surely lists (by country?) would be a much better way of gathering this information? SFB 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous. In addition to the question of which country, the images of
It's a Wonderful Life are in public domain, but some aspect of it is still covered by copyright law. According to my recollection, it was the synchronization copyright covering the soundtrack. According to Wikipedia, its showings are restricted under copyright law because the
The Greatest Gift is in copyright through (i believe) 2054, and It's a Wonderful Life is a
derivative work of The Greatest Gift. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
00:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment can't we just specify "films partially in the public domain" and "films fully in the public domain" by my suggested subcategories scheme, as subcategories ? --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Category:Films kinda sorta in the public domain and
Category:Films like totally in the public domain?
postdlf (
talk)
17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- By my earlier suggestion, which that is not. That doesn't even look similar to what I wrote immediately above your reply. -->
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Foreign films partially in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films partially in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films completely in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films completely in the public domain in the United States --- NOTE: There is no by country breakdown, it only deals with country of origin and the United States (US because that is the IP-jurisdiction that Wikipedia is legally concerned with) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- But content-wise, there's no justification for limiting article categorization in this area to the U.S. We do that with files for maintenance purposes because we use those files here and editors need to know the laws affecting those files' usage. We do not use a film by having an article on it, so when categorizing such articles it doesn't matter what WP is "legally concerned with". Which means that this awkward array of hair-splitting and often vague ("partially") categories you propose, bad enough as it is, would also proliferate for other countries.
postdlf (
talk)
13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then we can drop that, and just do it for "domestic" without dividing by country. --
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin (subcategories:
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ) ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then we're still stuck with unworkably vague category names like "partially". You'd be hardpressed to find any film that doesn't have any elements in the public domain, whether because those elements are uncopyrightable (...somewhere), or because those elements are adaptations, quotes, or samples from other works that are in the public domain (...somewhere). This is simply too complicated and context-specific to be handled through the clumsy category system. postdlf ( talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then we can drop that, and just do it for "domestic" without dividing by country. --
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin (subcategories:
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ) ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- But content-wise, there's no justification for limiting article categorization in this area to the U.S. We do that with files for maintenance purposes because we use those files here and editors need to know the laws affecting those files' usage. We do not use a film by having an article on it, so when categorizing such articles it doesn't matter what WP is "legally concerned with". Which means that this awkward array of hair-splitting and often vague ("partially") categories you propose, bad enough as it is, would also proliferate for other countries.
postdlf (
talk)
13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- By my earlier suggestion, which that is not. That doesn't even look similar to what I wrote immediately above your reply. -->
Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films partially in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Foreign films partially in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films partially in the public domain in the United States ;;
Category:Films completely in the public domain in their country of origin ,
Category:Films completely in the public domain in all jurisdictions ,
Category:Foreign films completely in the public domain in the United States,
Category:Domestic films completely in the public domain in the United States --- NOTE: There is no by country breakdown, it only deals with country of origin and the United States (US because that is the IP-jurisdiction that Wikipedia is legally concerned with) --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Category:Films kinda sorta in the public domain and
Category:Films like totally in the public domain?
postdlf (
talk)
17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment can't we just specify "films partially in the public domain" and "films fully in the public domain" by my suggested subcategories scheme, as subcategories ? --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not country specific so likely to be untrue, moreover, certainly not defining. What's next books? Looks like the banned books category metastasized. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is a nightmare waiting to happen. It just invites Nepal to officially declare no film copyright, so we have to put every film in Category:Public domain films in Nepal. Also, what about Category:Films made as public domain works. What happens when films produced for YouTube become notable? The nightmare goes on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Am I the only one who finds this category in horribly bad taste? Notability is an internal Wikipedia concept, and grouping people on the basis that they wouldn't have mattered enough to have Wikipedia articles if they hadn't died horribly just feels really wrong to me. This is on top of the fact that this category couldn't exist outside Wikipedia because it's entirely based on our internal notion of notability. It is also unverifiable because the only way it could be demonstrated is by reference to Wikipedia discussions where the community found that person to be otherwise not notable (and only in those cases where such a discussion happened). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as inappropriate WP:SELFREF. postdlf ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – the nom covers the difficulties. Oculi ( talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and my general sense that death is wildly overcategorized across the board in Wikipedia. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - because people are not notable by their deaths on Wikipedia - the event might be, the person is not. WP:ONEEVENT. Giant Snowman 07:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment most of these people are
WP:ONEEVENT folks, and the arguments above are really arguments to delete the articles.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're not. They're arguments to delete the category for a) being in bad taste, b) failing Wikipedia's notability policies, and c) failing Wikipedia's verifiability policies. The names that I recognise in this category would pass AfD to the point of being WP:SNOW keeps. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: manual merge. I will only implement this as a merge where the contents are not already within specific sub-categories of fiction set in the relevant period; in most cases for C22, the pages are already so categorised and therefore no merger is required, so the categories can simply be deleted. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:2105 to Category:22nd century
also includes a number of other categories, some to be upmerged to other categories
and a weaker argument for
- Propose merging Category:2100 to Category:21st century
- Propose merging Category:2100s to Category:22nd century
- Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Base article does not and should not yet exist. The argument for 2100 is weaker because we would first need to deal with
Category:2100 in science, and its two articles which should also probably be deleted. But that's a separate issue. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
09:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support nominations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment A few individual articles in
Category:2100 have also been classified in
Category:22nd century in fiction. I think this should become
Category:21st century in fiction.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Resolved. All the articles in
Category:2100 are now in
Category:21st century in fiction. We would still have to deal with
Category:2100 in science. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: See this link for articles on future solar eclipses. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Resolved. All the articles in
Category:2100 are now in
Category:21st century in fiction. We would still have to deal with
Category:2100 in science. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Since the year after 1 BC was 1 AD (without year zero), 2100 is the last year of 21st century. I am not in favour of categories on remote future periods (or splitting everything by year in remote past periods). It will be at least 60 years before we need a decade category for 2100s, possibly 80. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)*:Although I agree with Peterkingiron's conclusion, I take issue with the timing required. We have Category:2090s now, and I believe we should have Category:2050s. This suggests that it might be only 50 years before Category:2100s is opened, rather than the 60 to 80 he suggests. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)- Oppose as a group nomination. All of the 21xx series of categories exist so there is no reason to remove a single category due to an incorrect parent which has been fixed. As for the 22xx series, many of these exist for media or other purposes and are a part of a series so it is unclear if they should be deleted. For the periods after that maybe support to by century/millennium.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Vegaswikian:All the categories were recently (my recollection is less than a week before the nomination, but certainly less than a month) created, most, having exactly one article, which is on a solar eclipse. I question whether the articles should exist, rather than being merged to single-line entries in
list of 22nd century solar eclipses, or some such, but, even so, that is no reason for the categories to exist. I see no reason why a future year category could be justified without a lead article being appropriate. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If we have an issue with the articles, then that needs to be addressed first. If someone is creating articles for all solar eclipses in the 22nd century, then we would have a strong case for by year categories.
- @
Vegaswikian:All the categories were recently (my recollection is less than a week before the nomination, but certainly less than a month) created, most, having exactly one article, which is on a solar eclipse. I question whether the articles should exist, rather than being merged to single-line entries in
list of 22nd century solar eclipses, or some such, but, even so, that is no reason for the categories to exist. I see no reason why a future year category could be justified without a lead article being appropriate. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge but not as nom -- My sample of a few items indicated that the articles were mostly fictional works. On reflection I am changfing my vote. Whether a work is set in 2110 or 2115 seems almost random, but possibly we might allow decade categories for the 22nd century, but only century categories beyond it. I offer this as a compromise, because I am not sure that my previous vote was wrong. However, I would agree with
Arthur Rubin on the period of 50 years.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I generally don't see a need for decade categories. As already pointed out, the last year in a century generally gets included in the wrong century. This frequently happens, as I recall, from using the by decade navigation templates. I fail to see how having 10 categories with 10 subcategories is an improvement over 1 category with 100 subcategories. Both display well on most displays. So why add an extra unneeded navigation level? Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge It is far too early for such precision in categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:2073 in fiction to Category:2070s in fiction
- Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. There's no article or category for 2073, nor should there be. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge I have to question the usefulness of such categories considering
Category:2001 in fiction can cover everything from
2001 a Space Odyssey to fictionalized works about the
World Trade Center Bombing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with the latter. For encyclopedic use it should be sufficient to categorize Historical events in [year][decade][century] as a topic in fiction. That would, however, require a major revision of the tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one page (that is in other template categories) (and has no parents). DexDor ( talk) 06:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given it a category - it will fill up in time, don't worry. Wik idea 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- To my mind the one item is not a caselist: it is a list of treaties. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: split. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Split - the current category is oversized. Splitting it according to the following should deal with that:
- Category:Heart of Appalachia, Virginia geography stubs - the orange area on the map - which includes Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell and Wise counties, and the independant city of Norton - 131 stubs
- Category:Blue Ridge Highlands, Virginia geography stubs - the blue area on the map - which includes Bland, Carroll, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Smyth, Washington and Wythe counties, and the independant cities of Bristol, Galax and Radford - 174 stubs
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category contains one (sort of eponymous) article (that is in plenty of other cats) and has no parents. DexDor ( talk) 05:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 02:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education. This is one of the articles and looks as if it ought to be the main article. My proposal is thus to expand the abbreviation. The rest seem to be local research institutes, which are presumably members of it or such like. An alternative might be Category:Forestry research institutes in India, cognate with the precedent that we have not liked categorisation of universities by association membership. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I found the following comment on another CFD page and am copying it here.
- Indian council of forestry research and education (Icfre) is the largest organisation based in india to carry out forestry research and forestry education in India. ICFRE has institutes at national level as well as regional centres at different states. ICFRE is putting efforts to increase forest cover in India and to encourage agroforestry, silviculture, horticulture, forest protection and forest education in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editinf ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- That actually supports the principle of what I said above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Rename and Keep, per User:Peterkingiron. Taking it at face value, this seems to be an important, high-level forestry agency in India, with a number of related suborganizations and units. It makes sense to keep it. I've tried to recategorize it in a way that I hope is helpful and accurate. This said, there is at the same time some overenthusiastic, overinclusion of articles within this category by its creator, a new contributor to Wikipedia; some friendly educational efforts may be helpful in that regard. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 10:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.