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 on any merging proposal. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I cannot understand their difference.
CN1 (
talk) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The new proposal is the same as the first proposal above, just worded differently--I chose to do so, based on advice from admin
Fayenatic, because it might help to understand the proposal better.
What is important, is, that in the final outcome, only one category remains, and its name is notCategory:Science fiction by genre, but instead
Category:Science fiction genres. I think his way; not exactly because of the name of
Category:Fantasy genres, but because I believe -- as principle -- that its beneficial to avoid "by X" in the naming, wherever possible.
CN1 (
talk) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"
Category:Science fiction by genre should contain the stories themselves" Wishful thinking--at this point in time the category does not do, what you described you want it to do. Both contain the same: science fiction genres.
You are envisioning something like
Category:Science fiction works by genre. Subcategories would need to have the general form of--for example--
Category:Science fantasy works. But the science fiction subgenres do not have subcategoris which group all their works together, so it would a bad decision to build a category branch like this, in my opinion.
EDIT:The aforementioned contains only articles about subgenres of fantasy and their corresponding categories. 02:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
165.91.13.63 (
talk)
The anon editor's comment should now be taken in support of the revised nomination. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge subcategories, because with the subcategories included there is not too much difference between the two categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: please comment again, now that the nomination has been revised. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Changing to neutral, the two categories don't have to be merged, but this is definitely the better way of merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (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:Kelly Wearstler
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. While there was little participation in the discussion, the argument made is convincing enough to close it. (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category for a person without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. Even the eponym itself hasn't actually been filed here -- the only content this actually has is a "Books by Kelly Wearstler" subcategory. As always, every author of books does not automatically get an eponymous category just to parent her "Books by" category -- it would be fine if there were a substantial number of other articles to file here, but not if the only other thing that could be added to it is her BLP.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:28, 27 November 2017 (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:Anthozoa of Algeria
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.
Support -- biota should not be split by country, except where they are unique (indigenous) to a country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:35, 3 December 2017 (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:David (Michelangelo)
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Cross linking in the articles should suffice.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
delete per nom: a classic case of
WP:SMALLCAT over an artwork.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:09, 7 December 2017 (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:Arthropods of the United Kingdom
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.
Merge – fully agree with nom.
Oculi (
talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support -- The biota of UK are fewer than continental Europe, because the country is colder, but few species are indigenous. Unfortunately, there are no robust definitions for Western, Central, and Eastern Europe.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:37, 3 December 2017 (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:Star Wars people
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:PERFCAT. This contains lots of actors etc (e.g.
Samuel L. Jackson) who have appeared in many films. Listing the films in the text of the actor's article and listing the main cast of each film in the film's article is the way to do things - we don't need categories like this as well (the people are well categorized by
Category:20th-century American male actors etc). DexDor(talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PERFCAT. We do not categorize people by individual film (or even film franchise) that they happened to appear in — that would lead to extreme category bloat, as actors appear in many films throughout their lifetime. Samuel L. Jackson is a particularly fine example of a guy who's famous for acting in far, far too many films to be
defined solely or even primarily by the fact that a few of them were Star Wars films — but that applies to many other people here too. And we doubly don't mix the actors willy-nilly in a "franchise people" category that also includes the directors and producers and writers and special effects technicians.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The title could also be referring to
Category:Star Wars characters as well, though there are nonhuman characters in that category. Being a human character in that franchise is not really a defining trait—it’s
science fiction set in some fictional galaxy.
165.91.13.63 (
talk) 02:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Since when does "people" translate to "humans" as a species?
Dimadick (
talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Since The Eleventh Hour. "Am I people? Do I even look like people?"[1] –
FayenaticLondon 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Classic example of a performer category. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 02:07, 7 December 2017 (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 banned from entering China
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: For the people in this category (e.g.
Justin Bieber,
Harrison Ford) being banned from China is
WP:NON-DEFINING. A list (which could also explain the background of each persons banning) may be appropriate. Other subcats of
Category:Excluded people also look dubious - e.g.
Steve Rosenberg was banned from entering Ukraine for 1 day - is that really defining? DexDor(talk) 06:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
delete In two cases (Ford and Gere) it's simply derivative of some sort of support for the Dalai Lama; one suspects that some similar political expression is the cause for the other two. I have my doubts that "holders of political opinions disliked by the PRC" is a reasonable categorization, but in any case, that's not what we have here.
Mangoe (
talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, and categorization should only be for permanent characteristics (not for current status). DexDor(talk) 06:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Refusals tend to relate to particular visa applications in particular circumstances. Some bans will be the result of criminal convictions; others of expressed opinions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (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:Songs written by D.O.E.
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.
Oppose. Nominator mistakes the different purposes of an article and a category. An article contains text relating to something that is notable. A category groups together items by significant similarities. The songwriters of a song would be a significant similarity, whether the songwriter is notable or not. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 11:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support renaming as per Starcheer below. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename to
Category:Songs written by John Maultsby since D.O.E. isn't notable enough for an article and the person mentioned in these articles is a songwriter named John Maultsby. Should Maultsby be notable enough for an article someday and the article is called D.O.E. per
WP:COMMONNAME, the category can be renamed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, don't rename, since John Maultsby was merely one of many co-writers of the songs.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 04:49, 27 November 2017 (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:Epic science fiction 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: No clear criteria for inclusion. Not likely to be one, since "epic" doesn't have a crisp definition.
Mikeblas (
talk) 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
leaning oppose but the whole
Category:Epic films structure is problematic, not because
epic film isn't something of a genre (or at least style) of film-making, but because the word is used so sloppily in advertising and the like. Surely there are SF films that fit into the genre; perhaps the category would vanish per
WP:SMALLCAT were it pruned, but I'm not convinced that the imprecise boundary is reason for deletion.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete "Epic science-fiction" is not a well defined cross-genre set, unlike "biblical epics" or "epic fantasy" (aka high fantasy), which are cohesive and distinct sub-genres of the epic.
Betty Logan (
talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Betty Logan's reasoning and nominator's point that there is no clear definition of "epic sci fi films" –
Joeyconnick (
talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete small genre with no definition, so how does it help people out?
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 16:06, 28 November 2017 (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:Galaxy Express 999
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: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (
WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (
t |
c) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: The category now contains 5 articles, not sure though if the fifth article belongs there. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Black Falcon: It looks like with your previous comment you are supporting the nomination without explicitly saying so. Is that a correct interpretation?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The fifth article is indeed not relevant. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (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.
Military physicians
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 all. No consensus on merging at this time, that may need to be dealt with on its own. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale doctor is a more common word than physician. When paired iwth "military" it is not at all ambiguous, there is no other meaining. If we combine "Army doctor" and "Army medical doctor" for example, they have twice as much occurance in google searching as Army physcian, and army surgeon comes in at half the rare of army medical doctor. Add to these issues that in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka of the coutries listed above British uage applies, and physician is a more limited term, which rarely describes doctors in the army. Some suggest using "medical officer", but at least in the case of the Polish andCroatian cats and maybe some others some of the people involved were part of irregular resistence forces during WWII, so it is not clear they were officers. I also have a sense that physician was a more common term in the past, but in general usage is becoming even less common now, but I have not been able to analyize sources enough to suggest this.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose the upmerge of
Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina military physicians since it only has one entry. We may well find more entries. And I don't see why this should be the only category with a single entry which is to be abolished. There are many entries in national catorisation of all kinds which only have one entry. Given the history of Bosnia it is actually quite likely that there are more military physicians to be added to this category.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom and also rename the Bosnian one. No problem with having a small subcat in a 'by nationality' scheme.
Oculi (
talk) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename most - Possibly not the American one, as physician seems to be local usage. Removing small categories (by upmerging) may need to be a separate exercise.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Even in the USA I don't see much use of the term Military physician. Military surgeon is more common there, and in some other places, but the scope of military medicine has changed. Not so much surgery but more psychiatry. I'm happy for these all to be renamed military doctors.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus on any merging proposal. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I cannot understand their difference.
CN1 (
talk) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The new proposal is the same as the first proposal above, just worded differently--I chose to do so, based on advice from admin
Fayenatic, because it might help to understand the proposal better.
What is important, is, that in the final outcome, only one category remains, and its name is notCategory:Science fiction by genre, but instead
Category:Science fiction genres. I think his way; not exactly because of the name of
Category:Fantasy genres, but because I believe -- as principle -- that its beneficial to avoid "by X" in the naming, wherever possible.
CN1 (
talk) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"
Category:Science fiction by genre should contain the stories themselves" Wishful thinking--at this point in time the category does not do, what you described you want it to do. Both contain the same: science fiction genres.
You are envisioning something like
Category:Science fiction works by genre. Subcategories would need to have the general form of--for example--
Category:Science fantasy works. But the science fiction subgenres do not have subcategoris which group all their works together, so it would a bad decision to build a category branch like this, in my opinion.
EDIT:The aforementioned contains only articles about subgenres of fantasy and their corresponding categories. 02:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
165.91.13.63 (
talk)
The anon editor's comment should now be taken in support of the revised nomination. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge subcategories, because with the subcategories included there is not too much difference between the two categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: please comment again, now that the nomination has been revised. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Changing to neutral, the two categories don't have to be merged, but this is definitely the better way of merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (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:Kelly Wearstler
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. While there was little participation in the discussion, the argument made is convincing enough to close it. (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category for a person without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. Even the eponym itself hasn't actually been filed here -- the only content this actually has is a "Books by Kelly Wearstler" subcategory. As always, every author of books does not automatically get an eponymous category just to parent her "Books by" category -- it would be fine if there were a substantial number of other articles to file here, but not if the only other thing that could be added to it is her BLP.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:28, 27 November 2017 (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:Anthozoa of Algeria
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.
Support -- biota should not be split by country, except where they are unique (indigenous) to a country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:35, 3 December 2017 (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:David (Michelangelo)
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Cross linking in the articles should suffice.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
delete per nom: a classic case of
WP:SMALLCAT over an artwork.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:09, 7 December 2017 (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:Arthropods of the United Kingdom
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.
Merge – fully agree with nom.
Oculi (
talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support -- The biota of UK are fewer than continental Europe, because the country is colder, but few species are indigenous. Unfortunately, there are no robust definitions for Western, Central, and Eastern Europe.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:37, 3 December 2017 (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:Star Wars people
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:PERFCAT. This contains lots of actors etc (e.g.
Samuel L. Jackson) who have appeared in many films. Listing the films in the text of the actor's article and listing the main cast of each film in the film's article is the way to do things - we don't need categories like this as well (the people are well categorized by
Category:20th-century American male actors etc). DexDor(talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PERFCAT. We do not categorize people by individual film (or even film franchise) that they happened to appear in — that would lead to extreme category bloat, as actors appear in many films throughout their lifetime. Samuel L. Jackson is a particularly fine example of a guy who's famous for acting in far, far too many films to be
defined solely or even primarily by the fact that a few of them were Star Wars films — but that applies to many other people here too. And we doubly don't mix the actors willy-nilly in a "franchise people" category that also includes the directors and producers and writers and special effects technicians.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The title could also be referring to
Category:Star Wars characters as well, though there are nonhuman characters in that category. Being a human character in that franchise is not really a defining trait—it’s
science fiction set in some fictional galaxy.
165.91.13.63 (
talk) 02:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Since when does "people" translate to "humans" as a species?
Dimadick (
talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Since The Eleventh Hour. "Am I people? Do I even look like people?"[1] –
FayenaticLondon 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Classic example of a performer category. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 02:07, 7 December 2017 (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 banned from entering China
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: For the people in this category (e.g.
Justin Bieber,
Harrison Ford) being banned from China is
WP:NON-DEFINING. A list (which could also explain the background of each persons banning) may be appropriate. Other subcats of
Category:Excluded people also look dubious - e.g.
Steve Rosenberg was banned from entering Ukraine for 1 day - is that really defining? DexDor(talk) 06:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
delete In two cases (Ford and Gere) it's simply derivative of some sort of support for the Dalai Lama; one suspects that some similar political expression is the cause for the other two. I have my doubts that "holders of political opinions disliked by the PRC" is a reasonable categorization, but in any case, that's not what we have here.
Mangoe (
talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, and categorization should only be for permanent characteristics (not for current status). DexDor(talk) 06:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Refusals tend to relate to particular visa applications in particular circumstances. Some bans will be the result of criminal convictions; others of expressed opinions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (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:Songs written by D.O.E.
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.
Oppose. Nominator mistakes the different purposes of an article and a category. An article contains text relating to something that is notable. A category groups together items by significant similarities. The songwriters of a song would be a significant similarity, whether the songwriter is notable or not. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 11:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support renaming as per Starcheer below. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename to
Category:Songs written by John Maultsby since D.O.E. isn't notable enough for an article and the person mentioned in these articles is a songwriter named John Maultsby. Should Maultsby be notable enough for an article someday and the article is called D.O.E. per
WP:COMMONNAME, the category can be renamed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, don't rename, since John Maultsby was merely one of many co-writers of the songs.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 04:49, 27 November 2017 (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:Epic science fiction 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: No clear criteria for inclusion. Not likely to be one, since "epic" doesn't have a crisp definition.
Mikeblas (
talk) 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
leaning oppose but the whole
Category:Epic films structure is problematic, not because
epic film isn't something of a genre (or at least style) of film-making, but because the word is used so sloppily in advertising and the like. Surely there are SF films that fit into the genre; perhaps the category would vanish per
WP:SMALLCAT were it pruned, but I'm not convinced that the imprecise boundary is reason for deletion.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete "Epic science-fiction" is not a well defined cross-genre set, unlike "biblical epics" or "epic fantasy" (aka high fantasy), which are cohesive and distinct sub-genres of the epic.
Betty Logan (
talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Betty Logan's reasoning and nominator's point that there is no clear definition of "epic sci fi films" –
Joeyconnick (
talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete small genre with no definition, so how does it help people out?
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 16:06, 28 November 2017 (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:Galaxy Express 999
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: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (
WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (
t |
c) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: The category now contains 5 articles, not sure though if the fifth article belongs there. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Black Falcon: It looks like with your previous comment you are supporting the nomination without explicitly saying so. Is that a correct interpretation?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The fifth article is indeed not relevant. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (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.
Military physicians
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 all. No consensus on merging at this time, that may need to be dealt with on its own. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale doctor is a more common word than physician. When paired iwth "military" it is not at all ambiguous, there is no other meaining. If we combine "Army doctor" and "Army medical doctor" for example, they have twice as much occurance in google searching as Army physcian, and army surgeon comes in at half the rare of army medical doctor. Add to these issues that in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka of the coutries listed above British uage applies, and physician is a more limited term, which rarely describes doctors in the army. Some suggest using "medical officer", but at least in the case of the Polish andCroatian cats and maybe some others some of the people involved were part of irregular resistence forces during WWII, so it is not clear they were officers. I also have a sense that physician was a more common term in the past, but in general usage is becoming even less common now, but I have not been able to analyize sources enough to suggest this.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose the upmerge of
Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina military physicians since it only has one entry. We may well find more entries. And I don't see why this should be the only category with a single entry which is to be abolished. There are many entries in national catorisation of all kinds which only have one entry. Given the history of Bosnia it is actually quite likely that there are more military physicians to be added to this category.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom and also rename the Bosnian one. No problem with having a small subcat in a 'by nationality' scheme.
Oculi (
talk) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename most - Possibly not the American one, as physician seems to be local usage. Removing small categories (by upmerging) may need to be a separate exercise.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Even in the USA I don't see much use of the term Military physician. Military surgeon is more common there, and in some other places, but the scope of military medicine has changed. Not so much surgery but more psychiatry. I'm happy for these all to be renamed military doctors.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:53, 5 December 2017 (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.