< December 9	December 11 >

December 10

Category:Children's films about death

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is the most offensive category title I've ever seen. Georgia guy (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's rationale is nonsense, but the inclusion criteria are very vague - is a film where someone dies (incl. a villain) a "film about death"? Doesn't seem like it should be, but that seems to be the only way most of the current contents could make it in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would expect this category to contain films that help explain death to children, an extremely sensitive subject where taking offence would be particularly counterproductive. I'm not qualified to comment on whether the members of this category are especially suitable for such use but it would probably be better handled in a carefully written article than a blunt category. wp:EXPERT? --Northernhenge (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the creator of the category tagged The Princess and the Frog with this (replacing one good category for a bad one)[1], I noticed that a search for the words "dies", "death", and "dead" are absent in the article except for "dead link" and this obviously misused new category. We don't need this category when it's already shown to be improperly used. Doc talk 17:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except if we deleted every improperly used category, would we have any left? Anything that shouldn't be there should be removed through normal editing of the incorrectly assigned article. I think the bigger problem with this category is that it's not a suitable topic for categorising. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've just persuaded myself that this should be an article, not a category (but I certainly won't be creating it) --Northernhenge (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep - I do agree that this category has been appended to too many films. However, that doesn't mean there isn't something to this. Instead of simply adding it to films where characters die (such as Pinocchio and The Princess and the Frog), it should be on films where a significant part of the plot is driven by the death of a character. Some good examples would be Bambi, Finding Nemo and others. It just needs to be refined instead of outright removed. --McDoob AU 93 00:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the category's creator, I wanted to add other Disney films like for example, The Fox and the Hound, The Lion King, and Brother Bear, but these pages are protected against vandalism. I was planning on waiting until I can edit them after four days like the policy says, but if someone else wants to add them please do. With that in mind, maybe some of the others can be removed if they don't fit. In the shining light (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can vote (referring to your edit summary). I'm seriously leaning on changing my vote after some of the comments. Just one question: did you intend to replace the category "Disney films" with the edit I referred to on The Princess and the Frog? If it was a mistake, I can certainly understand. But that category doesn't belong for that particular film, and I agree that any ones that are questionable should be removed. Doc talk 00:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason I removed Disney films is because there's already the category for Disney animated features canon (which also covers Category:Animated films and Category:Disney animated films). I still have two more days to reach autoconfirmed. If I wasn't the creator of the category I would vote keep but I thought that was considered to be a conflict of interest. Also, a similar category named Children's books about death is what inspired this category (because that category includes books like Charlotte's Web which was adapted for three children's films, one of them a sequel to the story, which cover the same theme.) In the shining light (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the ever-present "about" problem; how much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us that it is at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:42, 12 December 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:Parroty Interactive

The result of the discussion was: Delete. May be recreated if more articles are added. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains three articles. As the company is now defunct, it is quite unlikely there will be room for expansion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must all categories have potential for expansion, and is three articles not a sufficient number for having a category? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep as category creator; company was notable in the era during which it was active; they published MORE than just 3 titles; articles about the other games/software they created/released might reasonably be added at some point (also agree with the above commentor about 3 articles being sufficient to justify a category).

i do not see what objective the nominator has in de-categorizing this? do they feel that it will somehow improve wikipedia to have these articles less organized-&-integrated into the database? o__0

Lx 121 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three articles for two categories is excessive. Navigation is ample without the category based on the links and list in the main article. This is not about notability which is an article issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early videotape recordings

The result of the discussion was: delete. The intention is laudable, but there is just so much that could go in this category, and so little of it is known for this quality. No prejudice against a different style of category or list to catalogue this concept.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Early videotape recordings

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. A look at the category's mixed bag of contents -- grouping the CBS Evening News and various video tape recorders, etc. -- demonstrates how subjective and nebulous this is. As does the description that this is for "early videotape recordings of technical or historic interest." Is British television Apollo 11 coverage "early" TV? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that the 70's isn't early for studio videotape, but it was during the transition from film stock to purely magnetic tape. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge If there was some kind of definable criterion for this within the literature about this topic, then this would be a different story. Otherwise, this appears to be an arbitrary piece of guesswork. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like "History of videotape". Category has spread beyond early idea of uniting the first few videotape recordings (The Edsel Show, An Evening with Fred Astaire, Douglas Edwards and the News, etc.) and some entries don't make a lot of sense with the category title at present, though this also argues for their removal from the category, not its deletion. Note that there are plenty of analogous "Early x" categories. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: ProhibitOnions (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... something like Category:Early computers has a very clear criteria, and co-exists with Category:History of computing. Videotape doesn't have the long and rich history that computing has, imo, when one includes the early work of Babbage, etc. What do you see in a History of videotape category that is already not in Category:History of television? Category:Video storage does list a number of obsolete formats and I suppose they could be moved to such a new category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It ought to be possible to define the category better, thus providing objective criteria for inclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have been a little trigger happy with Twinkle. But I'm still not sure what History of video might look like, because the examples that the creator gives above -- The Edsel Show and the like -- are television shows, which have their own history category. It would have to be an offshoot category for early/defunct videotape formats. That's the only way I see it possibly working, for now. Thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Videotape was invented in 1956, and pretty much the only format in use until the late 1960s was quadruplex, which every TV studio is still able to play back, so it's not about forgotten formats. Prior to videotape, there was no way to record television other than to point a film camera at a screen, so the earliest videotapes are the first documentation of what TV was actually like. However, as it was both expensive and reusable, very few early videotapes still exist (see Wiping), generally those of technical or historical merit (the Edsel Show, Eisenhower opening NBC's Washington studio, the Kitchen Debate, Kennedy vs Nixon, the shooting of Oswald). We have a substantial category for lost television episodes, and articles such as Doctor Who missing episodes suggest that a category about the historical tapes that aren't missing is also germane. The fact that the category has been overstretched or misapplied doesn't argue against it. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to videotape, there was a way to record television with the commonly used Kinescope. Anyway, please suggest a concise description and role for this category, and feel free to add articles to it, if you can. I'm still not sure what this category is now actually supposed to contain, in your view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinescope = a film camera pointed at a TV monitor, as described above. If you have the chance to watch old kines vs. videotape, you'll see what I mean. The category was supposed to contain early videotape recordings - we know exactly which ones from the first couple of years of this technology still exist, and there aren't very many of them; most are notable shows by themselves (the Fred Astaire specials, the Edsel Show, etc.) If more specific criteria (notable videotape recordings from the first 10 years of the technology, etc.) would be helpful, that might be an idea. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd support retaining this category if it's to be populated with TV shows that happened to have been transfered to videotape, as I don't believe that's defining for the TV shows in question. If Good Olfactory happens to see this he can verify, or not, but we have often not kept categories for creative works based on the type of physical media they've been stored on. It's not considered sufficiently defining for the works themselves. But I can see your argument: at some time in the past, videotape was not ubiquitous, and in this "early" period the video transfer would have been notable. I get it, I think, but don't agree with it as a category structure...Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Videotape was a transformational technology, one that completely changed how television was made, probably more so than even color or high definition did. It allowed shows to be prerecorded for rebroadcast and syndication without loss of quality, all but eliminating live entertainment; news and sports events could be captured and replayed immediately. Programming was specifically designed around the new medium; it wasn't simply a matter of "happening to be stored on videotape", and the use of VT was indeed defining, at least when it was a new technology. It's perhaps not surprising that VT became ubiquitous, and that people came to take it for granted. But at first it was also extremely expensive, and very few programs were saved in the first years videotape was available - literally just a handful of recordings exist from the first three years or so, and the number only gradually improves after that. This category was meant to group these very early exponents of this important technology. I've gone through the category and removed articles that weren't early videotape recordings or something very closely related to them, to refocus it on the original intent. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On balance, I'm leaning towards a "delete" vote. It seems to me that the articles included are works that are notable for reasons other than being one of the first ones recorded on videotape. It does seem like what Shawn says—a category for creative works by storage media. I'm not aware of any other similar categories (though we have deleted categories that categorize the negative storage medium like "albums never on CD" and "movies not available on DVD"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings destroyed during World War II in the United Kingdom

The result of the discussion was: rename. Proposing a rename to specify "by enemy action" or similar could be done in a new nomination. For now a headnote will be added to the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings destroyed during World War II in the United Kingdom to Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom destroyed during World War II

Nominator's rationale: Include “and structures” as for the parent category; this category includes a memorial. Also is the order “in” followed by “during World War II” preferable? Hugo999 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom Proposal presents facts and seems reasonable. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but I wonder whether the category should not refer to "by enemy action". Perhaps a head note would be sufficient for the purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Like Peterkingiron says, I think there should be a note in the category head. This is not about building clearing for urban development during a war time, so make the note and set the precedent for including it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding a category note to explain re "by enemy action" is a good idea; category head notes should be more common. But is "Buildings destroyed during World War II" followed by "in the United Kingdom" the right order, as the new category I have added for Poland is in the same order; will transfer other articles on Poland if acceptable. Hugo999 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "destroyed by enemy military" should be specified. The normal process of construction and demolition continued during the war, with expansion of military bases and demolition of property to make way for them. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category Hiking Trails in Italy, Hong Kong & Trails in New Mexico

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Country trails in Hong Kong and Category:Walks and trails in Hong Kong into Category:Hiking trails in Hong Kong; rename Category:Footpaths in Italy to Category:Hiking trails in Italy; merge and purge Category:Trails in New Mexico to Category:Hiking trails in New Mexico and Category:Historic trails and roads in New Mexico. The distinction noted for Hong Kong is one of distance, something no other trails category attempts to distinguish, but since "hiking trails" has a distance meaning there, I've put a hatnote on that category to make it clear that the distance definition isn't being observed. No objection was raised against the Italy rename. The New Mexico "Trails" category contains some things that aren't trails at all, so those will be removed before the merge happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging

Category:Walks and trails in Hong Kong and Category:Country trails in Hong Kong into Category:Hiking trails in Hong Kong
Category:Footpaths in Italy to Category:Hiking trails in Italy
Category:Trails in New Mexico to either Category:Hiking trails in New Mexico or Category:Historic trails and roads in New Mexico (or both, if appropriate)

Nominator's rationale: “Hiking Trail” is the usual term for recreational trails (including Rail Trails) so the upmerging of additional (and unnecessary) categories is proposed. There are other national names in the category Category:Hiking trails by country though. Category:Trails in New Mexico is an orphan category; the already existing categories are both “by (US) state” and cover both current recreational trails and historic trails in New Mexico. The parent category (Category:Trails) does not contain any other categories for a geographic area. Hugo999 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge -- In my category (UK), the normal term is "public footpath". Since Italy is nearer UK than USA, "Footpaths" seems more appropriate. I do not know the usage in Hong Kong, but would suggest that the other two could conveniently be merged into Category:Walks and trails in Hong Kong. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have one category for Hong Kong and Italy, whatever is an acceptable local usage. Category:Footpaths in Italy seems to have been created in 2011 as a parent category for pedestrian bridges in Italy. I have added re Trails in New Mexico also. Hugo999 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: In Hong Kong, the official trails are roughly categorized into the following. So the parent category "Walks and trails in Hong Kong" is needed. minghong (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiking trail (from 50km to 100km, broken into 8 to 12 stages)
- Country trail (varies from 5km to 16km)
- Family walk (around 2km)
- Tree walk (around 2km, for educational purpose)
- Nature trail (varies 1km to 10km, for educational purpose)
- Geo trail (around 1km, for educational purpose)
- Orienteering trim course
- Fitness trail
- Jogging trail
Commment: Support merge/reverse merge to one category ie Category:Footpaths in Italy and Category:Walks and trails in Hong Kong plus upmerging Category:Trails in New Mexico. Hugo999 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]