The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Monster movies
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: As far as I can tell, this was nominated for speedy renaming, but never processed. I don't think it's speedy-worthy, but I do agree with the rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Agree with renameChange to Neutral (for the time being based on Andrzejbanas note) based on previous discussion Keep old name It was four or five years ago that using the word film was deemed preferable that movie. This category must have slipped through the cracks and there may be others out there. Thanks for catching this one MS. The arguments in the old conversation make sense as to why an exception should be allowed in this instance.
MarnetteD |
Talk 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Just a note, I was the around when it suggested for a rename. We kept it "Monster Movies" because that's the term most often used opposed to "Monster Films". In a similar case, we aren't chaning "Road Movies" to "Road films" are we? Just something to consider.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 21:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your post. Is there any chance that you can provide a link to that past conversation. If it was too long ago and/or would take up too much time to dig back please don't worry about it. One odd thing though my memory is that I have usually seen the Hope/Crosby gems as "Road Films" Oh well - I think I need to wait and see what others post before making a final decision.
MarnetteD |
Talk 00:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the archeological dig hope the dust and cobwebs didn't make you cough too much. I grew up with a TV station that had a Friday night twin bill of horror/monster films that they called "Creature Features". I don't think that would fly as a cat name though. Thanks again to Mike for his efforts in this too.
MarnetteD |
Talk 01:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
keep as is I still find the arguments from the 2006 debate convincing and relevant to today's situation.
Pichpich (
talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
'Sad keep One of a handful of exceptions where "movie" is used instead of "film". Road-movie, B-movie being the others. Lugnuts (
talk) 06:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, I'm certainly not arguing for "B-films," though I could imagine "Road films." Is "monster movie" trying to be something more limiting than "film with a monster in it"? I guess that if so, the genre name makes sense. If not, I'm still happier with "Monster films."--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (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:Gemini Woman
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: Recently created category with single entry. Do we really need to drill down to such detail? It is something else that will need monitoring across, for example, umpteen showbiz BLPs where d.o.b. is often warred over.
Sitush (
talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
DELETE: This is not Orkut. No reason to have it as maintenance category too. -
Animeshkulkarni (
talk) 15:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Not sure what this is, but if it's about the intersection of someone's sex and astrological sign, then it's definitely not appropriate. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete This is completely useless since I only date Capricorns. (That and it's not a defining characteristic of people)
Pichpich (
talk) 21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete this is so vague it is useless. And as above
Curb Chain (
talk) 04:46, 11 October 2011 (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:June 9 Birthday
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. C1, G4,
WP:SNOW.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with single entry. Do we really need to drill down to such detail? It is something else that will need monitoring across, for example, umpteen showbiz BLPs where d.o.b. is often warred over.
Sitush (
talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
DELETE: This is not Orkut. Cant have 365 categories of this type. -
Animeshkulkarni (
talk) 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete mounds of precedent
Curb Chain (
talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (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:Duplicate
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: In its current state, the name of this category gives no indication as to its status as a maintenance category. —
Train2104 (
talk •
contribs •
count) 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename Maintenance categories need to be unambiguous. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename obviously but is this category still in use?
Pichpich (
talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment isn't this populated by template? You'd need to change the template code as well. The template name itself {{
duplicate}} is bad, since at first you'd think it was for duplicate articles.
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
And now I'm thinking: Why do we have {{
duplicate}}? Can't we just have users tag duplicates with {{
db-f1}} and the admin review them? —
Train2104 (
talk •
contribs •
count) 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that {{
duplicate}} is what you use when you find the duplicate but don't want to or don't know how to perform the cleanup task of updating the links.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:47, 12 October 2011 (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 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:Monster movies
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: As far as I can tell, this was nominated for speedy renaming, but never processed. I don't think it's speedy-worthy, but I do agree with the rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Agree with renameChange to Neutral (for the time being based on Andrzejbanas note) based on previous discussion Keep old name It was four or five years ago that using the word film was deemed preferable that movie. This category must have slipped through the cracks and there may be others out there. Thanks for catching this one MS. The arguments in the old conversation make sense as to why an exception should be allowed in this instance.
MarnetteD |
Talk 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Just a note, I was the around when it suggested for a rename. We kept it "Monster Movies" because that's the term most often used opposed to "Monster Films". In a similar case, we aren't chaning "Road Movies" to "Road films" are we? Just something to consider.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 21:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your post. Is there any chance that you can provide a link to that past conversation. If it was too long ago and/or would take up too much time to dig back please don't worry about it. One odd thing though my memory is that I have usually seen the Hope/Crosby gems as "Road Films" Oh well - I think I need to wait and see what others post before making a final decision.
MarnetteD |
Talk 00:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the archeological dig hope the dust and cobwebs didn't make you cough too much. I grew up with a TV station that had a Friday night twin bill of horror/monster films that they called "Creature Features". I don't think that would fly as a cat name though. Thanks again to Mike for his efforts in this too.
MarnetteD |
Talk 01:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
keep as is I still find the arguments from the 2006 debate convincing and relevant to today's situation.
Pichpich (
talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
'Sad keep One of a handful of exceptions where "movie" is used instead of "film". Road-movie, B-movie being the others. Lugnuts (
talk) 06:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, I'm certainly not arguing for "B-films," though I could imagine "Road films." Is "monster movie" trying to be something more limiting than "film with a monster in it"? I guess that if so, the genre name makes sense. If not, I'm still happier with "Monster films."--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (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:Gemini Woman
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: Recently created category with single entry. Do we really need to drill down to such detail? It is something else that will need monitoring across, for example, umpteen showbiz BLPs where d.o.b. is often warred over.
Sitush (
talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
DELETE: This is not Orkut. No reason to have it as maintenance category too. -
Animeshkulkarni (
talk) 15:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Not sure what this is, but if it's about the intersection of someone's sex and astrological sign, then it's definitely not appropriate. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete This is completely useless since I only date Capricorns. (That and it's not a defining characteristic of people)
Pichpich (
talk) 21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete this is so vague it is useless. And as above
Curb Chain (
talk) 04:46, 11 October 2011 (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:June 9 Birthday
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. C1, G4,
WP:SNOW.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with single entry. Do we really need to drill down to such detail? It is something else that will need monitoring across, for example, umpteen showbiz BLPs where d.o.b. is often warred over.
Sitush (
talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
DELETE: This is not Orkut. Cant have 365 categories of this type. -
Animeshkulkarni (
talk) 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete mounds of precedent
Curb Chain (
talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (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:Duplicate
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: In its current state, the name of this category gives no indication as to its status as a maintenance category. —
Train2104 (
talk •
contribs •
count) 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename Maintenance categories need to be unambiguous. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename obviously but is this category still in use?
Pichpich (
talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment isn't this populated by template? You'd need to change the template code as well. The template name itself {{
duplicate}} is bad, since at first you'd think it was for duplicate articles.
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
And now I'm thinking: Why do we have {{
duplicate}}? Can't we just have users tag duplicates with {{
db-f1}} and the admin review them? —
Train2104 (
talk •
contribs •
count) 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that {{
duplicate}} is what you use when you find the duplicate but don't want to or don't know how to perform the cleanup task of updating the links.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:47, 12 October 2011 (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.