From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11

Category:English-language Canadian films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (Only the first one was tagged.) – Fayenatic London 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Long list
Nominator's rationale: Some of these are comically overlapping with just the plain "[Nationality] films"; others are just very small and dubious; and in most cases this is just WP:OVERCAT from an intersection - all of these films already have Category:English-language films and the relevant nationality. The mere fact of sharing a language and being produced in the same country is not really a pertinent combination, and most of these films are indeed very much unrelated to each other. So these categories fail the purpose of a category, which is to link related pages together, not be the equivalent of Wikidata about random characteristics of a film... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll be busy temporarily so if somebody wants to start adding the CFD template to all of these and they do so before I get back, you're welcome to do so. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Should probably add Category:English-language Nordic films to that group. The definition of that category, in which English is wholly or partially spoken, also leaves me afraid that the creator, who also populated these, likely didn't take WP:DEFCAT into account (as being "partially spoken" does not mean it is a defining characteristic...) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Keep -- This is a destructive nom. The language, which is spoken in a film, is necessarily a defining feature of it. I would expect there to be Category:French-language Canadian films, mainly made in Quebec; similarly Talagog-Language films in Phillipines and Hindi-Language films in India. English-language films made in England or in United States would certainly be a stupid category, because few will be made in any other one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not saying that "English-language films" should go (although, to be fair, it clearly is not achieving the purpose of a category, which is to link related items together, not function as some form of metadata), I'm saying that the intersection of "Nationality" and "language" is not a pertinent categorisation scheme. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the intersection of nationality and language seems an obvious categorisation for people interested in international films. Not seeing a valid reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep International coproductions are an important part of film history, especially the European English-language coproductions in the 1960s and early 1970s. And Canada? Canada has two official langages. 2003:DD:C738:4334:DC77:804F:B80A:500C ( talk) 20:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a whole, especially since English is usually not a common language for most of these countries, but I am open to having guidelines on when a category is appropriate or not. For example, would we really have Category:English-language American films? But Category:Spanish-language American films could make sense because the majority of films would tend to be in English (and assumed by readers to be the case). Similarly, Category:French-language French films would not be useful either, but French productions in non-French languages could be useful. In the case of Canada, if both English and French are official languages, maybe it makes sense to have categories for both. Perhaps there could be guidelines at MOS:FILM about this in general. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    To clarify, I say "as a whole" because I don't think this discussion should result in deleting all of them. However, I would be open to deleting a category that has only one or two entries. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be since some categories seem to have more than a few. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not sure how to vote because I feel like there is a good point made here about how some of these are ridiculous to have, i.e. English-language Canadian films, but others seem rather useful category, i.e. English-language South Korean films, but others are definitely violations of SMALLCAT or are those weird multi-country categories. There's a good point about how weird the film nationality categories are to begin with and how we might end up adding three or four of these to an article because of the way people apply nationalities to films. I simultaneously find this intersection to be worth something, but at the same time I also wonder if there is a better way to handle this. I don't know if that's restricting this intersection to specific circumstances, or structuring it via WikiData, or what. I wonder if this conversation is too big to be had at this venue at the moment. Would a procedural close to allow a broader discussion at the MOS (as suggested by Erik), then a re-nomination of all or any relevant categories after that be an option? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems a likely intersection that could support categories. Further Canada has many French language productions so it isn't "obvious" that it should be English, its more obvious it should be French, as they seem to be more notable as a percentage of notable ones, unless they are foreign coproductions. -- 15:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.142 ( talk)
  • Keep per Erik, and others. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With the fact that category intersection searches are possible (try "English-language films" and "Canadian films"), and with the fact that most of these films are really entirely unrelated beyond the mere fact of sharing a language, I don't see what navigational capability (i.e. the purpose of categories) would be lost by deleting these intersections... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2022 (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: delete. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NARROWCAT and probably WP:DEFCAT too (films may be notable for being about LGBT subjects; and they might be notable for having Christmas as their subject too; but the intersection of these too is a random, non-defining intersection - LGBT-related Christmas films is, correctly, not an actual article - and "related" is an awfully vague word). See also WP:NOT. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Same for the other one, on top of the fact that it contained only two films (and one of them seemed at best dubiously categorised, so I removed it). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:07, 11 February 2022 (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:Sex offenders

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: convert to container category. It would be helpful to start a fresh discussion for renaming of the national sub-categories, after which this could then be merged. Note the early precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_14#Category:American_sex_offenders (which ended with no consensus). – Fayenatic London 07:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear to me under what circumstances a person could be a sex offender without being convicted of a sex offense. I can't see why these shouldn't be merged. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 15:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
If they're known to be. For example, Jimmy Savile & Cyril Smith. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:31, 11 February 2022 (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:Granddaughters of Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia

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. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Being someone's grandchild/great-grandchild etc is not more defining than simply being a general descendant, and considering royal marriage paterns many people are probably descendants in different lines in different generations. The Category:House of Saud already covers a lot as well. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:03, 11 February 2022 (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:WikiProject SETI 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 result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The supposed WikiProject does not exist anymore. Geschichte ( talk) 10:30, 11 February 2022 (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:Chlamydiae

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Chlamydiae") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Chlamydiota). [1] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell ( talk) 04:00, 11 February 2022 (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.

Underpopulated Stub Categories

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. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 15 March 2022 (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:Epsilonproteobacteria

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Epsilonproteobacteria") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Campylobacterota). [2] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell ( talk) 01:49, 11 February 2022 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11

Category:English-language Canadian films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (Only the first one was tagged.) – Fayenatic London 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Long list
Nominator's rationale: Some of these are comically overlapping with just the plain "[Nationality] films"; others are just very small and dubious; and in most cases this is just WP:OVERCAT from an intersection - all of these films already have Category:English-language films and the relevant nationality. The mere fact of sharing a language and being produced in the same country is not really a pertinent combination, and most of these films are indeed very much unrelated to each other. So these categories fail the purpose of a category, which is to link related pages together, not be the equivalent of Wikidata about random characteristics of a film... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll be busy temporarily so if somebody wants to start adding the CFD template to all of these and they do so before I get back, you're welcome to do so. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Should probably add Category:English-language Nordic films to that group. The definition of that category, in which English is wholly or partially spoken, also leaves me afraid that the creator, who also populated these, likely didn't take WP:DEFCAT into account (as being "partially spoken" does not mean it is a defining characteristic...) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) Keep -- This is a destructive nom. The language, which is spoken in a film, is necessarily a defining feature of it. I would expect there to be Category:French-language Canadian films, mainly made in Quebec; similarly Talagog-Language films in Phillipines and Hindi-Language films in India. English-language films made in England or in United States would certainly be a stupid category, because few will be made in any other one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not saying that "English-language films" should go (although, to be fair, it clearly is not achieving the purpose of a category, which is to link related items together, not function as some form of metadata), I'm saying that the intersection of "Nationality" and "language" is not a pertinent categorisation scheme. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the intersection of nationality and language seems an obvious categorisation for people interested in international films. Not seeing a valid reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep International coproductions are an important part of film history, especially the European English-language coproductions in the 1960s and early 1970s. And Canada? Canada has two official langages. 2003:DD:C738:4334:DC77:804F:B80A:500C ( talk) 20:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a whole, especially since English is usually not a common language for most of these countries, but I am open to having guidelines on when a category is appropriate or not. For example, would we really have Category:English-language American films? But Category:Spanish-language American films could make sense because the majority of films would tend to be in English (and assumed by readers to be the case). Similarly, Category:French-language French films would not be useful either, but French productions in non-French languages could be useful. In the case of Canada, if both English and French are official languages, maybe it makes sense to have categories for both. Perhaps there could be guidelines at MOS:FILM about this in general. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    To clarify, I say "as a whole" because I don't think this discussion should result in deleting all of them. However, I would be open to deleting a category that has only one or two entries. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be since some categories seem to have more than a few. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not sure how to vote because I feel like there is a good point made here about how some of these are ridiculous to have, i.e. English-language Canadian films, but others seem rather useful category, i.e. English-language South Korean films, but others are definitely violations of SMALLCAT or are those weird multi-country categories. There's a good point about how weird the film nationality categories are to begin with and how we might end up adding three or four of these to an article because of the way people apply nationalities to films. I simultaneously find this intersection to be worth something, but at the same time I also wonder if there is a better way to handle this. I don't know if that's restricting this intersection to specific circumstances, or structuring it via WikiData, or what. I wonder if this conversation is too big to be had at this venue at the moment. Would a procedural close to allow a broader discussion at the MOS (as suggested by Erik), then a re-nomination of all or any relevant categories after that be an option? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems a likely intersection that could support categories. Further Canada has many French language productions so it isn't "obvious" that it should be English, its more obvious it should be French, as they seem to be more notable as a percentage of notable ones, unless they are foreign coproductions. -- 15:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.142 ( talk)
  • Keep per Erik, and others. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With the fact that category intersection searches are possible (try "English-language films" and "Canadian films"), and with the fact that most of these films are really entirely unrelated beyond the mere fact of sharing a language, I don't see what navigational capability (i.e. the purpose of categories) would be lost by deleting these intersections... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2022 (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: delete. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NARROWCAT and probably WP:DEFCAT too (films may be notable for being about LGBT subjects; and they might be notable for having Christmas as their subject too; but the intersection of these too is a random, non-defining intersection - LGBT-related Christmas films is, correctly, not an actual article - and "related" is an awfully vague word). See also WP:NOT. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Same for the other one, on top of the fact that it contained only two films (and one of them seemed at best dubiously categorised, so I removed it). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:07, 11 February 2022 (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:Sex offenders

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: convert to container category. It would be helpful to start a fresh discussion for renaming of the national sub-categories, after which this could then be merged. Note the early precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_14#Category:American_sex_offenders (which ended with no consensus). – Fayenatic London 07:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear to me under what circumstances a person could be a sex offender without being convicted of a sex offense. I can't see why these shouldn't be merged. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 15:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
If they're known to be. For example, Jimmy Savile & Cyril Smith. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:31, 11 February 2022 (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:Granddaughters of Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia

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. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Being someone's grandchild/great-grandchild etc is not more defining than simply being a general descendant, and considering royal marriage paterns many people are probably descendants in different lines in different generations. The Category:House of Saud already covers a lot as well. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:03, 11 February 2022 (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:WikiProject SETI 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 result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The supposed WikiProject does not exist anymore. Geschichte ( talk) 10:30, 11 February 2022 (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:Chlamydiae

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Chlamydiae") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Chlamydiota). [1] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell ( talk) 04:00, 11 February 2022 (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.

Underpopulated Stub Categories

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. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 15 March 2022 (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:Epsilonproteobacteria

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Epsilonproteobacteria") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Campylobacterota). [2] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell ( talk) 01:49, 11 February 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook