- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The category violates WP:CAT/EGRS as subjects' irreligiosity is not relevant to their socialism. This is distinct from, e.g., Category:Christian socialists as that category is for subjects who are in the Christian socialist tradition (a particular type of socialism), not just for anyone who is both Christian and socialistic. 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 22:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- comment I am inclined to support this; however it seems to me that Category:Jewish socialists is probabloy more egregious, along the same lines. Mangoe ( talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The various Jewish categories are a problem from the point of view of categorisation by religion, because they are also categorisation by ethnicity - as such they tend to stay in circumstances such as this. Grutness... wha? 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
Mangoe: I'm afraid that I'm not familiar enough with Jewish socialism (see
Jewish left) to have a fully formed opinion as to whether Jewish socialism can be viewed as a variety of socialism in the same way that
Christian socialism is, but if not, surely that's a separate discussion, no? (Though if it is,
Category:Jewish socialists probably oughtn't include just anyone who is both a Jew and a socialist.)
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not that there is such a thing, indeed the point is that there isn't; but there is a trope of "international Jewish conspiracy" talk which specifically manifests itself in
Jewish Bolshevism— blaming the communists on the Jews. I'm wary of a category which says "see how many Jews are involved in this?"
Mangoe (
talk)
15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
Mangoe: Fair argument (though bear in mind that socialism does not necessarily equal communism), but how is that pertinent to what should be done with
Category:Atheist socialists? Is it fair to say that you support the proposal?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
20:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, delete this. Mangoe ( talk) 17:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
Mangoe: Fair argument (though bear in mind that socialism does not necessarily equal communism), but how is that pertinent to what should be done with
Category:Atheist socialists? Is it fair to say that you support the proposal?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
20:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not that there is such a thing, indeed the point is that there isn't; but there is a trope of "international Jewish conspiracy" talk which specifically manifests itself in
Jewish Bolshevism— blaming the communists on the Jews. I'm wary of a category which says "see how many Jews are involved in this?"
Mangoe (
talk)
15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete One's religious and political beliefs do not necessarily align, and I see little relevance between atheism and socialism. Dimadick ( talk) 11:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural Delete - as it is yet another category created by a sockpuppet of User:JP8077. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
KeepI think a hierarchy like this can work. Is it bad, if I want to search for persons of a certain religious position and a certain political orientation? Why should I not be able to use categories for that matter, thats one of their purposes. CN1 ( talk) 10:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
CreativeName1: Bearing in mind that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", how is what you are describing in compliance with the central consensus described by
WP:CAT/EGRS?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- "In almost all cases, gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories should be non-diffusing".
- I am OK with the category being non-diffusing--no controversy here.
- "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.
- I do believe, that a persons religion is in fact relevant to their political beliefs and behaviour. I don't have any papers to back that up, but who would deny that this is true for many people? Politics are guidelines that are created according to ones personal philosophy/principles/morals or those of that persons community. Religion is very similar in that regard.
-
CN1 (
talk)
14:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- See this link, [ Christians can be found everywhere in politics], about many Christians participating in a non-religious political party, and even more, in all sorts of non-religious political parties. The link is in Dutch unfortunately but can be easily translated by Google translate and I can't see any reason why this wouldn't equally apply to most countries. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about this, but consider my vote withdrawn. CN1 ( talk) 22:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- "In almost all cases, gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories should be non-diffusing".
- @
CreativeName1: Bearing in mind that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", how is what you are describing in compliance with the central consensus described by
WP:CAT/EGRS?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete While there are probably forms of socialism that draw specifically on rejecting the existence of God, the way this category is named will tend too much to just become a catchall for any socialist who happened to be an atheist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - The existence of the category causes no harm and aids readers in the ability to find topics related to the categories. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:01, 28 December 2017 (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, without prejudice to an immediate further nomination to discuss deletion or merger. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Gross and blatant grammatical error. However, the parent is Category:Works set in fictional locations while one subcategory is called Category:Films set in a fictional country. Which one is the right name, and would this require any more nominations? 165.91.12.97 ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into its parent. The "...in fiction locations" names are more inclusive and make more sense. Grutness... wha? 23:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment this tree should be heavily purged, the setting in "any" fictional location is not a defining characteristic of a film and "any" fictional places in different films have nothing in common with each other. Real places in films are defining, while fictional places is a matter of WP:OCMISC unless multiple films are set in the same fictional location. In the end only Category:Middle-earth films, Category:Films set in Atlantis, Category:Treasure Island films, and perhaps one or two other subcats, may be kept together in a container category. Other subcategories like Category:Films set in a fictional African country should simply be merged to Category:Films set in Africa. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Films set in fictional locations; this is a valid intersection of Category:Films by geographic setting and Category:Works set in fictional locations, and useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I think this category assumes the line between fictional/real locations is easy to define. It is not. If a place is set in a fictional place (Smallville), in a real state (Kansas), is this fictional, or laziness? What about a film set half in Washington, DC or New York City, and the other half in a fictional small locality in Europe. I can think of five such films (although two in San Francisco), without even thinking very hard. Is it really defining if a few scenes of a film happen in a fictional small eastern European country, when most of the film is set in a real city in the US. Also, I challenge this as a logical way to group things. It ends up colliding films that are set in intended places, that get renamed to avoid too much offence (To Kill a Mocking Bird), films set in fictional places to avoid being too specific (Smallville, Kansas in Superman films), films set in made up places clearly in our earth, films set in made up places in earth with lots of fictitious elements, and films set in fictional planets, fantasy universes, etc. The problem is that we end up splitting up Superhero films, with some in here and some not, and in theory splitting a film like Avengers:Age of Ultron into here, while excluding Spiderman or Captain America Civil War, only because in AAOU they use a fictional name for an unspecificed eastern European country, and in Spiderman:Homecoming all the action happens in Queens, New York. It gets even more fun, a film like The Hitman's Bodyguard does not go here, because they were daring enough to name Belarus as the location of the main bad guy, but if they had decided to instead use a fictious, indistict Eastern European Country, changing the setting of about 3 minutes of a two hour film, it would be able to be put in this category. This just does not make any sense at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rename and then take a look at the whole films-set-in categorization. We shouldn't categorize films for locations that are only a small part of the film as it can result in a large number of non-defining category tags on articles. If this categorization was restricted to where at least half the film was set then it would be more reasonable.
DexDor
(talk)
07:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you still avoid the more complex issue of non-defining nature of "fictional location". This leads to the bizarreness that something set in Smallville, Kansas qualifies because they gave a fictional name for the location, but something set in a never defined part of Kansas does not qualify. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:49, 5 January 2018 (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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:People banned from entering the European Union (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering the United Kingdom
- Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering the United States
- Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering Ukraine
- Propose deleting Category:People denied entry to Israel
- Propose deleting
Category:People banned from entering the European Union (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING - e.g. that Steve Rosenberg was banned from Ukraine for 1 day. Note: Lists may be appropriate (e.g. List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom). Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_27#Category:People_banned_from_entering_China DexDor (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and I had noted the confusions and undecided criteria of these categories. @ Mangoe: who had participated on China's CFD. Capitals00 ( talk) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- delete all as non-defining. Mangoe ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the articles I checked barely mentioned this in the body of the article, let alone the lead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete a lot of people who were banned from entering the United States, such as Narendra Modi and Tariq Ramadan not only have had their ban lifted but have visited the states multiple times since. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is an ephemeral non-defining issue, related to the refusal of one visa application or being turned away at the border. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not defining to the people, since some people in these categories have not even tired to enter the countries in question, they have just been declared banned for various political reasons. On the other hand, at some times this will amount to turning down a visa request, which does not mean it will always be denied in the future. Even if in theory the exclusion was declared a permanent ban, it is altogether possible that due to changes in government, political allignment, and other issues the ban will be overturned at some point in the future. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment In fact on the Ukraine page it says "This page contains people either specifically banned from entering Ukraine, or who have been refused entry at some point. Need not be permanent, and often can be remedied." Somehow I think refusal of a visa for any number of known reasons, and being "banned" are just not the same thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:33, 26 December 2017 (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: WP:SOFTDELETE. I considered adding "see also" links between the pages, but the The Water Engine does not seem to be about perpetual motion; the article Cox (novel) does not mention it either, although the linked non-fiction article Cox's timepiece does. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A very uncommon element in the fictional multiverse. Having only two articles, fails WP:SMALLCAT. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Orgone energy to Category:Orgonomy
- Propose merging Category:Sex economy to Category:Orgonomy
- Nominator's rationale: These topics are a wee bit too close to their parent. The latter sounds more like something about the adult industry. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 03:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support merging both. — Paleo Neonate – 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support should be one category instead of several. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Fictional_characters_with_precognition. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As explicitly stated in the category description, it is not limited specifically to precognition–rather, it encompasses “ Fictional characters who possess [any form of] extrasensory perception”. Specific types of ESP, several of which are named in the catdesc, could be redirected, though. 165.91.13.236 ( talk) 02:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep, according to the article Extrasensory perception, precognition is not one particular form of extrasensory perception next to other forms, but it is the 'consequence' (in my own words) of all forms of extrasensory perception. So there is no urgent need for the rename and precognition is slightly preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2017 (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 to Category:Former health regions of Saskatchewan. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is obsolete. As all health regions have been replaced by a single Saskatchewan Health Authority, there would only be one entry in the category. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – The fact that separate regional health authorities no longer exist in Saskatchewan does not inherently mean there should no longer be articles about the defunct authorities. The category should be kept unless it is decided that the other articles should be merged into Saskatchewan Health Authority. 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support These three articles would be better in Category:Health in Saskatchewan. Its not a crowded category. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming to Category:Former Health Regions of Saskatchewan if all but the provincial authority are defunct. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – per the IP !vote, just because the health regions are defunct doesn't mean that the articles will cease to exists. Inter&anthro ( talk) 17:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming to Category:Former Health Regions of Saskatchewan per Peterkingiron Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:12, 9 December 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The category violates WP:CAT/EGRS as subjects' irreligiosity is not relevant to their socialism. This is distinct from, e.g., Category:Christian socialists as that category is for subjects who are in the Christian socialist tradition (a particular type of socialism), not just for anyone who is both Christian and socialistic. 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 22:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- comment I am inclined to support this; however it seems to me that Category:Jewish socialists is probabloy more egregious, along the same lines. Mangoe ( talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The various Jewish categories are a problem from the point of view of categorisation by religion, because they are also categorisation by ethnicity - as such they tend to stay in circumstances such as this. Grutness... wha? 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
Mangoe: I'm afraid that I'm not familiar enough with Jewish socialism (see
Jewish left) to have a fully formed opinion as to whether Jewish socialism can be viewed as a variety of socialism in the same way that
Christian socialism is, but if not, surely that's a separate discussion, no? (Though if it is,
Category:Jewish socialists probably oughtn't include just anyone who is both a Jew and a socialist.)
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not that there is such a thing, indeed the point is that there isn't; but there is a trope of "international Jewish conspiracy" talk which specifically manifests itself in
Jewish Bolshevism— blaming the communists on the Jews. I'm wary of a category which says "see how many Jews are involved in this?"
Mangoe (
talk)
15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
Mangoe: Fair argument (though bear in mind that socialism does not necessarily equal communism), but how is that pertinent to what should be done with
Category:Atheist socialists? Is it fair to say that you support the proposal?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
20:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, delete this. Mangoe ( talk) 17:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
Mangoe: Fair argument (though bear in mind that socialism does not necessarily equal communism), but how is that pertinent to what should be done with
Category:Atheist socialists? Is it fair to say that you support the proposal?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
20:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not that there is such a thing, indeed the point is that there isn't; but there is a trope of "international Jewish conspiracy" talk which specifically manifests itself in
Jewish Bolshevism— blaming the communists on the Jews. I'm wary of a category which says "see how many Jews are involved in this?"
Mangoe (
talk)
15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete One's religious and political beliefs do not necessarily align, and I see little relevance between atheism and socialism. Dimadick ( talk) 11:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural Delete - as it is yet another category created by a sockpuppet of User:JP8077. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
KeepI think a hierarchy like this can work. Is it bad, if I want to search for persons of a certain religious position and a certain political orientation? Why should I not be able to use categories for that matter, thats one of their purposes. CN1 ( talk) 10:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @
CreativeName1: Bearing in mind that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", how is what you are describing in compliance with the central consensus described by
WP:CAT/EGRS?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- "In almost all cases, gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories should be non-diffusing".
- I am OK with the category being non-diffusing--no controversy here.
- "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.
- I do believe, that a persons religion is in fact relevant to their political beliefs and behaviour. I don't have any papers to back that up, but who would deny that this is true for many people? Politics are guidelines that are created according to ones personal philosophy/principles/morals or those of that persons community. Religion is very similar in that regard.
-
CN1 (
talk)
14:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- See this link, [ Christians can be found everywhere in politics], about many Christians participating in a non-religious political party, and even more, in all sorts of non-religious political parties. The link is in Dutch unfortunately but can be easily translated by Google translate and I can't see any reason why this wouldn't equally apply to most countries. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about this, but consider my vote withdrawn. CN1 ( talk) 22:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- "In almost all cases, gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories should be non-diffusing".
- @
CreativeName1: Bearing in mind that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", how is what you are describing in compliance with the central consensus described by
WP:CAT/EGRS?
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete While there are probably forms of socialism that draw specifically on rejecting the existence of God, the way this category is named will tend too much to just become a catchall for any socialist who happened to be an atheist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - The existence of the category causes no harm and aids readers in the ability to find topics related to the categories. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:01, 28 December 2017 (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, without prejudice to an immediate further nomination to discuss deletion or merger. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Gross and blatant grammatical error. However, the parent is Category:Works set in fictional locations while one subcategory is called Category:Films set in a fictional country. Which one is the right name, and would this require any more nominations? 165.91.12.97 ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into its parent. The "...in fiction locations" names are more inclusive and make more sense. Grutness... wha? 23:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment this tree should be heavily purged, the setting in "any" fictional location is not a defining characteristic of a film and "any" fictional places in different films have nothing in common with each other. Real places in films are defining, while fictional places is a matter of WP:OCMISC unless multiple films are set in the same fictional location. In the end only Category:Middle-earth films, Category:Films set in Atlantis, Category:Treasure Island films, and perhaps one or two other subcats, may be kept together in a container category. Other subcategories like Category:Films set in a fictional African country should simply be merged to Category:Films set in Africa. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Films set in fictional locations; this is a valid intersection of Category:Films by geographic setting and Category:Works set in fictional locations, and useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I think this category assumes the line between fictional/real locations is easy to define. It is not. If a place is set in a fictional place (Smallville), in a real state (Kansas), is this fictional, or laziness? What about a film set half in Washington, DC or New York City, and the other half in a fictional small locality in Europe. I can think of five such films (although two in San Francisco), without even thinking very hard. Is it really defining if a few scenes of a film happen in a fictional small eastern European country, when most of the film is set in a real city in the US. Also, I challenge this as a logical way to group things. It ends up colliding films that are set in intended places, that get renamed to avoid too much offence (To Kill a Mocking Bird), films set in fictional places to avoid being too specific (Smallville, Kansas in Superman films), films set in made up places clearly in our earth, films set in made up places in earth with lots of fictitious elements, and films set in fictional planets, fantasy universes, etc. The problem is that we end up splitting up Superhero films, with some in here and some not, and in theory splitting a film like Avengers:Age of Ultron into here, while excluding Spiderman or Captain America Civil War, only because in AAOU they use a fictional name for an unspecificed eastern European country, and in Spiderman:Homecoming all the action happens in Queens, New York. It gets even more fun, a film like The Hitman's Bodyguard does not go here, because they were daring enough to name Belarus as the location of the main bad guy, but if they had decided to instead use a fictious, indistict Eastern European Country, changing the setting of about 3 minutes of a two hour film, it would be able to be put in this category. This just does not make any sense at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rename and then take a look at the whole films-set-in categorization. We shouldn't categorize films for locations that are only a small part of the film as it can result in a large number of non-defining category tags on articles. If this categorization was restricted to where at least half the film was set then it would be more reasonable.
DexDor
(talk)
07:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you still avoid the more complex issue of non-defining nature of "fictional location". This leads to the bizarreness that something set in Smallville, Kansas qualifies because they gave a fictional name for the location, but something set in a never defined part of Kansas does not qualify. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:49, 5 January 2018 (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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:People banned from entering the European Union (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering the United Kingdom
- Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering the United States
- Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering Ukraine
- Propose deleting Category:People denied entry to Israel
- Propose deleting
Category:People banned from entering the European Union (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING - e.g. that Steve Rosenberg was banned from Ukraine for 1 day. Note: Lists may be appropriate (e.g. List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom). Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_27#Category:People_banned_from_entering_China DexDor (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and I had noted the confusions and undecided criteria of these categories. @ Mangoe: who had participated on China's CFD. Capitals00 ( talk) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- delete all as non-defining. Mangoe ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the articles I checked barely mentioned this in the body of the article, let alone the lead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete a lot of people who were banned from entering the United States, such as Narendra Modi and Tariq Ramadan not only have had their ban lifted but have visited the states multiple times since. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is an ephemeral non-defining issue, related to the refusal of one visa application or being turned away at the border. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not defining to the people, since some people in these categories have not even tired to enter the countries in question, they have just been declared banned for various political reasons. On the other hand, at some times this will amount to turning down a visa request, which does not mean it will always be denied in the future. Even if in theory the exclusion was declared a permanent ban, it is altogether possible that due to changes in government, political allignment, and other issues the ban will be overturned at some point in the future. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment In fact on the Ukraine page it says "This page contains people either specifically banned from entering Ukraine, or who have been refused entry at some point. Need not be permanent, and often can be remedied." Somehow I think refusal of a visa for any number of known reasons, and being "banned" are just not the same thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:33, 26 December 2017 (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: WP:SOFTDELETE. I considered adding "see also" links between the pages, but the The Water Engine does not seem to be about perpetual motion; the article Cox (novel) does not mention it either, although the linked non-fiction article Cox's timepiece does. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A very uncommon element in the fictional multiverse. Having only two articles, fails WP:SMALLCAT. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Orgone energy to Category:Orgonomy
- Propose merging Category:Sex economy to Category:Orgonomy
- Nominator's rationale: These topics are a wee bit too close to their parent. The latter sounds more like something about the adult industry. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 03:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support merging both. — Paleo Neonate – 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support should be one category instead of several. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Fictional_characters_with_precognition. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As explicitly stated in the category description, it is not limited specifically to precognition–rather, it encompasses “ Fictional characters who possess [any form of] extrasensory perception”. Specific types of ESP, several of which are named in the catdesc, could be redirected, though. 165.91.13.236 ( talk) 02:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep, according to the article Extrasensory perception, precognition is not one particular form of extrasensory perception next to other forms, but it is the 'consequence' (in my own words) of all forms of extrasensory perception. So there is no urgent need for the rename and precognition is slightly preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2017 (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 to Category:Former health regions of Saskatchewan. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is obsolete. As all health regions have been replaced by a single Saskatchewan Health Authority, there would only be one entry in the category. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – The fact that separate regional health authorities no longer exist in Saskatchewan does not inherently mean there should no longer be articles about the defunct authorities. The category should be kept unless it is decided that the other articles should be merged into Saskatchewan Health Authority. 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support These three articles would be better in Category:Health in Saskatchewan. Its not a crowded category. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming to Category:Former Health Regions of Saskatchewan if all but the provincial authority are defunct. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – per the IP !vote, just because the health regions are defunct doesn't mean that the articles will cease to exists. Inter&anthro ( talk) 17:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming to Category:Former Health Regions of Saskatchewan per Peterkingiron Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:12, 9 December 2017 (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.