September 16
Category:Mockbusters
- 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) 21:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Mockbusters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was discussed in May, but was closed as "no consensus". The discussion was 5–3 in favour of deletion, but one in favour of keeping was probably a stacked-vote and the nominator in favour of deletion was a sock of a banned user so ... it's probably best to just do it again. The main problem with this category as I see it is that it's essentially a subjective call as to whether or not something will be called a "mockbuster". The definition in mockbuster states that it is a "film created with the apparent intention of piggy-backing on the publicity of a major film with a similar title or theme and are often made with a low budget." This defintion leads to problems, because we are left with having to figure out what the "apparent intention" of the creator is, what a "major film" is, what a "similar title or theme" would be, and what constitutes a "low budget". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It seems like it's usually straightforward enough to determine if something is a mockbuster and it seems like this is a genre of film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that it is usually straightforward. It's not immediately clear why something like What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? is in the category. The text of the article doesn't even mention it being a "mockbuster". Maybe I'm just dense or not well-versed enough, but it seems to me that if there is a category it should be a bit more obvious, or at least something that would be mentioned in the article or not reliant on original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it depends on how you define "usually". There are obvious (and pretty funny) cases such as Terminator II (1990 film) and Alien 2 (Italian film) but many others are puzzling (I Saw What You Did, Warlords of the 21st Century, Village of the Giants). However, the most problematic are those where there's good reason to suspect that producers had dishonest motives but where this can't be objectively established (for instance Message from Space or Orca (film)). Deletion is probably the most reasonable option but I confess I find this sad since the category has pretty high entertainment value. Pichpich (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true—some of these are quite funny. At a more fundamental level, I actually have my doubts that some of these are even notable, though the notability standard for films in general appears to be extremely low. If decent references are available—and there may be some—creation of a sourced list could probably be a compromise solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I suppose I'm of a "weak keep" sort because--as implied by this discussion--you can cite a source that says "X Film is a mockbuster" or "X Film was made to cash in on Y Film" and certainly that is a defining feature of the film (it wouldn't exist otherwise!) Does that make sense...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that makes sense. I suppose if kept, the category could use some work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Because there's no consensus here (the only "keep" is a weak one and the only "delete" is the nominator) on a discussion that was problematic the first time, I've opted to relist this one for further discussion rather than simply closing it. For what it's worth, I'm personally more inclined to the delete side, as I don't really see how in most cases this could ever be anything but an WP:NPOV violation. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Categories are supposed to be things that can quickly be said "yes" or "no". When it is open to debate it is not a good thing. I can just imagine someone claiming a film was a mockbuster, but the creators insisting that they were not trying to piggyback, that a film staring an ant is not the same theme as a film starring a catapillar or a film about a teenaged majician going to a different realm is not the same theme as a film about a teenaged majician going to a boarding school. This is to convoluted and debatable of a definition to be easily categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 18 September 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:Car and truck bombings
- 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. A separate wagon-bomb category seems overkill.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Car and truck bombings to Category:Car, truck and wagon bombings
- Nominator's rationale: Wall Street bombing (1920) is included in that category (in United States child) but it was a bomb that was carried in a... horse-drawn wagon, not an automobile. Either we need a new category for wagon bombs, or we need to consider this category for renaming. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about Category:Vehicle bombings? --GW… 18:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A lone fall beyond the realm of the definition is not a good reason to rename. Sometimes terms are used prodly in a title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wagon has other vehicle related meanings. So, the change as proposed may mean something very different in the British speaking world. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 18 September 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:Cosmos satellites
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Cosmos satellites to Category:Kosmos satellites
- Nominator's rationale: Kosmos is the correct spelling under the standard transliteration scheme, and is the spelling used by virtually all of the articles present on Wikipedia that relate to this series of spacecraft, so it would make sense to use the same spelling for the category name as well. GW… 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed; no-brainer.--Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to the move on any grounds, but I have to point out that "all the other articles use Kosmos" is not an argument. The category says "Cosmos satellites" because many of the other articles were "Cosmos X"; they have since been moved, en masse, to "Kosmos X". It is not as if the category were arbitrarily created with "Cosmos" just to be funny. As for the argument, it would have been just as justifiable to use the argument "all of the other articles use Cosmos" to block the first change of Cosmos > Kosmos; it's not intellectually consistent to use an argument from quantity now. I may also point out that "Cosmos" is still being used in news releases, e.g. here. RandomCritic (talk) 13:52, 17 September 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:Sputnik programme
- 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) 14:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Sputnik programme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: As established in a discussion on the former "Sputnik program" talk page, the Sputnik "program(me)" did not actually exist. The article has already been merged, and I don't think we really need a category for it either. GW… 15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge contents into Category:Soviet space program. This category groups together things that have little in common except similarity of name.--Kotniski (talk) 15:37, 16 September 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:Manchurians
- 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) 14:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Manchurians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ill-defined and redundant category. Previously nominated for deletion in October 2005, but that debate did not attract enough participation to gain consensus. However the objection raised there has since been addressed:
- Thanks, cab (call) 11:34, 16 September 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:Sallekhana
- 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Sallekhana to Category:Santhara
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 16 September 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.