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.
Delete we ought not be categorizing companies based on who their famous connections are. Companies associated with the Space Shuttle, Companies associated with World War II, Companies associated with the Ebola outbreak, Companies associated with labor strife, Companies associated with global warming, etc. all these should never exist, and neither should this.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete The category system is not for grouping topics that have merely been touched by a topic rather than defined by it. The definition of how "associated" you need to be is too subjective. Truly linked companies, such as
Apple Corps, can be upmerged to the main Beatles category, while
Parlophone (a company founded in a different country nearly twenty years before John Lennon's mother was born) can safely be categorised elsewhere.
SFB22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Categorization by "association" is problematic at best, and overly subjective when the "association" or "affiliation" is not a formal one. To what extent must a company be associated or affiliated with The Beatles in order to merit categorization here? As SFB notes, truly linked companies can be placed directly in
Category:The Beatles. --
Black Falcon(
talk)06:51, 22 November 2014 (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:People executed by Jihadi John
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: words like "executed" imply legality while words like "murdered" imply illegality. Killed is factual and NPOV.
Gregkaye✍♪13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete; there is currently no conclusive (or even somewhat of a) proof that these people were actually killed by John himself. John is involved in their execution and making the videos, but whether he's the actual killer is not clear. --
Nlu (
talk)
16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete who kills you are probably not defining for these (I will grant that the articles on Jack the Ripper's victims are defined by their victimhood, but rare will be the case that this is so, and this isn't the rare case).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:18, 17 November 2014 (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:Baseball people from Aichi Prefecture
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.
As per previous CFDs
[1] and this one
[2] and this one in particular
[3] dealing with other Tennis players by prefecture, we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is.
...William12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge but I disagree with the rationale – there is wide usage of categorising by sport and the top level national sub-division (e.g.
Category:Chinese footballers by province and note my footballer nominations dated 18 November). The better reason to upmerge is that these small categories do not appear to be currently warranted within the structure. No opposition to recreation should sufficient articles be found to maintain a sizeable prefecture-based category.
SFB22:54, 18 November 2014 (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:Mexican female telenovela actress
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.
Comment:So because there is this other category?, I ask, because if you can there be a category for men, and not women?. Is that a case of soap opera Mexican actresses don't matter?. Then if the use of this category is forbidden, also should be prohibited the use of categories for men. Because as they say that they are unnecessary.--McVeigh / talk13:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think it is wrong that deleted this category, If so, should also be deleted are:
[4],
[5]. Since they are redundant, as they already exist: "Category:Spanish telenovela actors" and "Category:Mexican telenovela actors".--McVeigh / talk14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge and leave as redirect, as this may be confused again in future. No issue with a move to "female actors"/"male actors" nomenclature if so desired (as opposed to "male actors"/"actresses").
SFB22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I do not think a redirect is warranted, in light of the two errors in the current title: the redundancy of "female actress" and the singular form of "actress" rather than the plural "actresses". --
Black Falcon(
talk)06:21, 19 November 2014 (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:The Sugarhill Gang members
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 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:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since the only options being considered at this time are "in Thailand" and "outside Thailand", this is basically a "miscellaneous" category. There is no need to have two subcategories of
Category:Thai Buddhist temples, since temples outside Thailand can be placed directly in
Category:Thai Buddhist temples and those in Thailand can continue to be subcategorized. (Category creator not notified because: inactive) --
Black Falcon(
talk)05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Black Falcon, I don't think there's a firm definition. To me, the term "Thai Buddhist temple" doesn't seem very useful in describing the traditions of temples located inside Thailand. "Thai" could refer to a traditional architectural style, as well as other things. For overseas temples, it's more their cultural ties that give them their Thai identity. Official registers list Buddhist temples in Thailand as belonging to one of four recognised sub-denominations, Mahanikaya and Dhammayut belonging to Theravada school, and Chinese and Vietnamese belonging to the Mahayana school. It's most likely that all temples described as "Thai" would be Theravada Buddhist temples. (Conversely, not all Theravada temples in Thailand can be described as Thai in tradition or architectural style.)
I'd prefer keeping/renaming, but if consensus is to merge, I'd prefer it be done per nom, with Category:Thai Buddhist temples being retained as a target. Too much information is lost by merging directly to Category:Theravada Buddhist temples, which gives no implication of their cultural ties. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Let's first get clear about the question whether Thai Buddhist temples exist at all - as a tradition. From the previous discussions I understand that this is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
As mentioned above, I think "Thai Buddhist temple" is a poor description of tradition, especially when referring to temples in Thailand. However, overseas Thai Buddhist temples are a culturally distinct group, and could be a category of their own, even without a Thai Buddhist temples parent category.
Thinking further on the issue, though, we do have an article on Wat, which covers Laos and Cambodia in addition to Thailand. Perhaps that would be a better scope for a category under the tradition tree. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge It is atypical to split a category into a "X in country Y" and "X outside of country Y" binary. An easier solution is as proposed – using the parent category to show the non-Thailand temples, separate from the in Thailand ones.
SFB20:37, 27 December 2014 (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:Cities in Taoyuan County, Taiwan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete and upmerge to
Category:Populated places in Taoyuan County, Taiwan. Taoyuan County will be converted to a special municipality on December 25. (See
Talk:Taoyuan County, Taiwan for details.) At that time, all current cities and townships in Taoyuan County will be converted to districts of the municipality. While the vast majority of article moves/category renaming should not occur until at least December 25, these two can/should be done now because the parent category is already an appropriate category for these articles/subcategories pending the eventual further movement - possibly to
Category:Districts of Taoyuan City. Again, there will be a lot of work to be done to move everything appropriately at that time; these are two we can do right now without being inaccurate and premature. --
Nlu (
talk)
04:32, 17 November 2014 (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:Children's 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.
Nominator's rationale: Something has to be done about this category. The lead currently states "devoted to films, both animated and live-action, created exclusively for young audiences". However, I would argue that many films (Lilo & Stitch, just to name one) in this cat are not made exclusively for kids at all. They are made to be appropriate for kids, but they are really made for the whole family to be able to enjoy.
So something has to be done about this. At the very least, the lead needs to be rewritten, but, personally, I don't fell that is enough. Family films is what they are usually referred to as, and it's more accurate. If this is changed, all of the subs should be changed as well.
JDDJS (
talk)
03:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Split films designed for a family audience are different from films designed for children, as those designed for a family audience will try to keep adults entertained, while those designed for children won't care about those adults. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
05:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment from nominator I weakly support split. There can be a distinction between "children's" and "family" films, sometimes it's hard to tell, but that can be also said about a lot of genres such as "thriller" and "horror". But the biggest problem with a split is that there are literally a ton of films in the cat and sub cats and it would take a very long time to sort through them. I would be fine with
Category:Children's and family films. About the main article being
Children's film, I think that should change as well. The article is self states that family films and children films are different. Apparently, it was going to be titled
Children's and family films after the merge, but two editors decided Children's film would be better, and nobody opposed it. Two editors is very week for consensus, so that can easily be changed.
JDDJS (
talk)
03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am not particularly invested in either term, but there is a naming convention at play here. As well as the category we also have
Children's film and
List of children's films and I don't think mixing the terminology would do us any favors. At
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_45#Rewrite_of_article_and_move_and_merge I proposed having
Children's film at that title simply because this was the terminology adopted by "Historical Dictionary of American Cinema", where they have the main entry at "
Children's film" and the entry at "
Family film" simply refers the reader to "Children's film". The
Allmovie catalog, like the Historical Dictionary of American Cinema, acknowledges the different terminology too but also treats the labels synonymously. Even if other sources introduce a distinction I am not sure how it could work in a practical sense since I suspect most films would fall under both categories anyway.
Betty Logan (
talk)
07:51, 19 November 2014 (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:Chub
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category is grouping multiple species of fish, so it should pluralized.
Chub is ambiguous, so category should be disambiguated to make clear it is about fish. There is no "main article" as such.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Chub covers a number of species of fish. The other uses as incidental. Is chubs really the correct plural? I thought that the same word was singular or plural.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
My dictionary says "chub" is normally used as plural when referring to multiple individual fishes, and "chubs" is normally used when referring to multiple species of this type of fish. This pluralization is of the latter kind.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:29, 25 November 2014 (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:Water and Mars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of this category is the topic of "
water on Mars", and not just the intersection or relationship between the independent topics of "water" and "Mars". All four articles with titles containing the words "water" and "Mars" connect them with "on" instead of "and". (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk)00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
That's a possibility. "Martian water" sounds a bit odd to my ears, as if suggesting that Martian water is different from other water, but it would be an entirely accurate title. I think, however, that "water on Mars" does encompass all of the above, much like "life on Earth" encompasses life on, above, and below the surface of the Earth. Ultimately, my preference is to mirror the article titles. --
Black Falcon(
talk)04:47, 18 November 2014 (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:Cronus-Saturn
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 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.
Delete we ought not be categorizing companies based on who their famous connections are. Companies associated with the Space Shuttle, Companies associated with World War II, Companies associated with the Ebola outbreak, Companies associated with labor strife, Companies associated with global warming, etc. all these should never exist, and neither should this.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete The category system is not for grouping topics that have merely been touched by a topic rather than defined by it. The definition of how "associated" you need to be is too subjective. Truly linked companies, such as
Apple Corps, can be upmerged to the main Beatles category, while
Parlophone (a company founded in a different country nearly twenty years before John Lennon's mother was born) can safely be categorised elsewhere.
SFB22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Categorization by "association" is problematic at best, and overly subjective when the "association" or "affiliation" is not a formal one. To what extent must a company be associated or affiliated with The Beatles in order to merit categorization here? As SFB notes, truly linked companies can be placed directly in
Category:The Beatles. --
Black Falcon(
talk)06:51, 22 November 2014 (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:People executed by Jihadi John
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: words like "executed" imply legality while words like "murdered" imply illegality. Killed is factual and NPOV.
Gregkaye✍♪13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete; there is currently no conclusive (or even somewhat of a) proof that these people were actually killed by John himself. John is involved in their execution and making the videos, but whether he's the actual killer is not clear. --
Nlu (
talk)
16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete who kills you are probably not defining for these (I will grant that the articles on Jack the Ripper's victims are defined by their victimhood, but rare will be the case that this is so, and this isn't the rare case).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:18, 17 November 2014 (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:Baseball people from Aichi Prefecture
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.
As per previous CFDs
[1] and this one
[2] and this one in particular
[3] dealing with other Tennis players by prefecture, we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is.
...William12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge but I disagree with the rationale – there is wide usage of categorising by sport and the top level national sub-division (e.g.
Category:Chinese footballers by province and note my footballer nominations dated 18 November). The better reason to upmerge is that these small categories do not appear to be currently warranted within the structure. No opposition to recreation should sufficient articles be found to maintain a sizeable prefecture-based category.
SFB22:54, 18 November 2014 (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:Mexican female telenovela actress
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.
Comment:So because there is this other category?, I ask, because if you can there be a category for men, and not women?. Is that a case of soap opera Mexican actresses don't matter?. Then if the use of this category is forbidden, also should be prohibited the use of categories for men. Because as they say that they are unnecessary.--McVeigh / talk13:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think it is wrong that deleted this category, If so, should also be deleted are:
[4],
[5]. Since they are redundant, as they already exist: "Category:Spanish telenovela actors" and "Category:Mexican telenovela actors".--McVeigh / talk14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge and leave as redirect, as this may be confused again in future. No issue with a move to "female actors"/"male actors" nomenclature if so desired (as opposed to "male actors"/"actresses").
SFB22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I do not think a redirect is warranted, in light of the two errors in the current title: the redundancy of "female actress" and the singular form of "actress" rather than the plural "actresses". --
Black Falcon(
talk)06:21, 19 November 2014 (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:The Sugarhill Gang members
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 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:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since the only options being considered at this time are "in Thailand" and "outside Thailand", this is basically a "miscellaneous" category. There is no need to have two subcategories of
Category:Thai Buddhist temples, since temples outside Thailand can be placed directly in
Category:Thai Buddhist temples and those in Thailand can continue to be subcategorized. (Category creator not notified because: inactive) --
Black Falcon(
talk)05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Black Falcon, I don't think there's a firm definition. To me, the term "Thai Buddhist temple" doesn't seem very useful in describing the traditions of temples located inside Thailand. "Thai" could refer to a traditional architectural style, as well as other things. For overseas temples, it's more their cultural ties that give them their Thai identity. Official registers list Buddhist temples in Thailand as belonging to one of four recognised sub-denominations, Mahanikaya and Dhammayut belonging to Theravada school, and Chinese and Vietnamese belonging to the Mahayana school. It's most likely that all temples described as "Thai" would be Theravada Buddhist temples. (Conversely, not all Theravada temples in Thailand can be described as Thai in tradition or architectural style.)
I'd prefer keeping/renaming, but if consensus is to merge, I'd prefer it be done per nom, with Category:Thai Buddhist temples being retained as a target. Too much information is lost by merging directly to Category:Theravada Buddhist temples, which gives no implication of their cultural ties. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Let's first get clear about the question whether Thai Buddhist temples exist at all - as a tradition. From the previous discussions I understand that this is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
As mentioned above, I think "Thai Buddhist temple" is a poor description of tradition, especially when referring to temples in Thailand. However, overseas Thai Buddhist temples are a culturally distinct group, and could be a category of their own, even without a Thai Buddhist temples parent category.
Thinking further on the issue, though, we do have an article on Wat, which covers Laos and Cambodia in addition to Thailand. Perhaps that would be a better scope for a category under the tradition tree. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge It is atypical to split a category into a "X in country Y" and "X outside of country Y" binary. An easier solution is as proposed – using the parent category to show the non-Thailand temples, separate from the in Thailand ones.
SFB20:37, 27 December 2014 (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:Cities in Taoyuan County, Taiwan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete and upmerge to
Category:Populated places in Taoyuan County, Taiwan. Taoyuan County will be converted to a special municipality on December 25. (See
Talk:Taoyuan County, Taiwan for details.) At that time, all current cities and townships in Taoyuan County will be converted to districts of the municipality. While the vast majority of article moves/category renaming should not occur until at least December 25, these two can/should be done now because the parent category is already an appropriate category for these articles/subcategories pending the eventual further movement - possibly to
Category:Districts of Taoyuan City. Again, there will be a lot of work to be done to move everything appropriately at that time; these are two we can do right now without being inaccurate and premature. --
Nlu (
talk)
04:32, 17 November 2014 (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:Children's 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.
Nominator's rationale: Something has to be done about this category. The lead currently states "devoted to films, both animated and live-action, created exclusively for young audiences". However, I would argue that many films (Lilo & Stitch, just to name one) in this cat are not made exclusively for kids at all. They are made to be appropriate for kids, but they are really made for the whole family to be able to enjoy.
So something has to be done about this. At the very least, the lead needs to be rewritten, but, personally, I don't fell that is enough. Family films is what they are usually referred to as, and it's more accurate. If this is changed, all of the subs should be changed as well.
JDDJS (
talk)
03:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Split films designed for a family audience are different from films designed for children, as those designed for a family audience will try to keep adults entertained, while those designed for children won't care about those adults. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
05:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment from nominator I weakly support split. There can be a distinction between "children's" and "family" films, sometimes it's hard to tell, but that can be also said about a lot of genres such as "thriller" and "horror". But the biggest problem with a split is that there are literally a ton of films in the cat and sub cats and it would take a very long time to sort through them. I would be fine with
Category:Children's and family films. About the main article being
Children's film, I think that should change as well. The article is self states that family films and children films are different. Apparently, it was going to be titled
Children's and family films after the merge, but two editors decided Children's film would be better, and nobody opposed it. Two editors is very week for consensus, so that can easily be changed.
JDDJS (
talk)
03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am not particularly invested in either term, but there is a naming convention at play here. As well as the category we also have
Children's film and
List of children's films and I don't think mixing the terminology would do us any favors. At
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_45#Rewrite_of_article_and_move_and_merge I proposed having
Children's film at that title simply because this was the terminology adopted by "Historical Dictionary of American Cinema", where they have the main entry at "
Children's film" and the entry at "
Family film" simply refers the reader to "Children's film". The
Allmovie catalog, like the Historical Dictionary of American Cinema, acknowledges the different terminology too but also treats the labels synonymously. Even if other sources introduce a distinction I am not sure how it could work in a practical sense since I suspect most films would fall under both categories anyway.
Betty Logan (
talk)
07:51, 19 November 2014 (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:Chub
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category is grouping multiple species of fish, so it should pluralized.
Chub is ambiguous, so category should be disambiguated to make clear it is about fish. There is no "main article" as such.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Chub covers a number of species of fish. The other uses as incidental. Is chubs really the correct plural? I thought that the same word was singular or plural.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
My dictionary says "chub" is normally used as plural when referring to multiple individual fishes, and "chubs" is normally used when referring to multiple species of this type of fish. This pluralization is of the latter kind.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:29, 25 November 2014 (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:Water and Mars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of this category is the topic of "
water on Mars", and not just the intersection or relationship between the independent topics of "water" and "Mars". All four articles with titles containing the words "water" and "Mars" connect them with "on" instead of "and". (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk)00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)reply
That's a possibility. "Martian water" sounds a bit odd to my ears, as if suggesting that Martian water is different from other water, but it would be an entirely accurate title. I think, however, that "water on Mars" does encompass all of the above, much like "life on Earth" encompasses life on, above, and below the surface of the Earth. Ultimately, my preference is to mirror the article titles. --
Black Falcon(
talk)04:47, 18 November 2014 (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:Cronus-Saturn
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 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.