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:Villages in Jowayin County
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.
Propose renaming Category:Villages in Jowayin County to Category:Populated places in Jowayin County
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Cat was emptied then deleted as empty. We don't make distinctions between villages and towns and cities in these sorts of cats, see its sister categories this one is the outlier. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Populated places is the more usual and inclusive form. SFB 20:32, 8 September 2014 (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:2nd-century Christian female saints
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:Dual upmerge to Category:nnn-century Christian saints and (Category:period Christian female saints or Category:Christian female saints of the period. The complete list is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full upmerge including to Category:Christian female saints or a subcartegory by period (such as Ante-Nicean), otherwise we lose the fact that they were women. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (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:On-Media television networks
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:withdrawn by nominator. After further research, while On-Media has been acquired by CJ E&M, as far as I can discern, On-Media is still operating separately. I am not entirely sure, but until somebody can say for sure, I will go ahead and withdraw this. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another editor placed a CSD tag suggesting these media had merged. I declined CSD, since a merge discussion is warranted instead. Safiel (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since no case made to change. The main article is On-Media so there is no reason to change. Now, if that is changed then fine to start a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (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:Japanese family law
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. As noted originally by Black Falcon, here we have a conflict between C2C and C2D. Per C2C, FOOian law is still the standard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy - I think that the name of this type of category ought to be dictated more by C2.C than C2.D. In this case, Category:Family law by country supports the Family law in Foo convention but Category:Japanese law seems to favor the Fooian law format. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The discussion mentioned by Black Falcon had been closed as do not rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nominate the other national family law categories instead to follow the parent national law categories, following the July 2 close. – FayenaticLondon 16:04, 25 August 2014 (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:Cuban film stubs
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; upmerge contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Cuban films and then delete. There's only 60-odd Cuban films on WP in total, so unless there's a sudden creation spurge of new ones, it's unlikely to be populated anytime soon. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:07, 21 August 2014 (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:Mid-Ohio Valley geography stubs
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: Current name seems to imply that the category refers to part of Ohio. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(creator) Good point, but the proposed name is long and potentially awkward. What about adding a hyphen, Mid-Ohio-Valley? Nobody would understand that as referring to locations in Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case you were wondering about the name — when we split the WV geostubs, we used regional divisions from a map by the WV Department of Transportation, and "Mid-Ohio Valley" was one of them. As a result, I would oppose any changes to this name, except of course for minor things (e.g. my proposed hyphen or your proposed ", West Virginia") meant to clarify ambiguity. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since this is a stub type hidden category, I see not reason why it should not become Category:Mid-Ohio Valley, WV geography stubs. I assume that there are other stub types for other parts of WV. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2014 (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:Films set in a fictional country
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. – FayenaticLondon 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining attribute of the film itself, and setting films in fictional locales does not seem notable in and of itself. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason to delete this category. Film settings are a useful tool for research. If one were to write a screenplay and wanted to find other films which used fictionalized countries as settings as examples, they should be able to go to Wikipedia and find it. Donmike10 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why it's specifically important that it's a country? Perhaps "Films set in fictional locales" would be a better generalized category... DonIago (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get where you're coming from on this, but it's the specificity which is necessary. A locale could mean a lot of places, from a city to a neighborhood, to a fictionalized valley, etc., etc., etc. I work with a lot of writers in Hollywood (although choose to remain anonymous on Wikipedia), and one of the major keys to success is research on what's been done before. If you wanted to write a film about a fictionalized South American dictatorship, it would help to go to that category and see that films like "Death and the Maiden" or "Bananas". This subcategory needs the parent category of Films set in a fictional country. Donmike10 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I see what you're getting at, but still have concerns regarding the appropriateness of the category itself; we'll see what other editors think. I'll note that this category came to my attention after I observed a similar category "Films set in a fictional region", which I similarly brought to CFD due to concerns about whether that's a distinguishing feature, but also because the term "region" is, IMO, inappropriately vague for a category. DonIago (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DonIago! I totally do get where you're coming from. We're all really on the same side here!. Donmike10 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this motivation is a bit odd. Specialists shouldn't consult Wikipedia as it being a secondary source, they'd better contribute to Wikipedia based on the knowledge of primary sources that they already (should) have. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone simply contributed to it and didn't use it to learn from, what would be the point of it? Donmike10 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marco didn't say "everyone"; he said "specialists". Aristophanes68(talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although intuitively it seems to me like this is a bit strange category, I can't think of a valid reason to delete it either. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; and WP is not a useless collection of cruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's part of Category:Films by country of setting, providing a category for all films that clearly aren't set in a real country. If you were to nominate the entire series of categories, I wouldn't have an opinion, but getting rid of a single chunk of this series wouldn't make sense. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the category you mention is itself a defining characteristic of a given film may be a topic worth pondering, but I don't think I want to take that one on myself. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So how is this one any different from the ones set in real countries, i.e. why should it be treated differently? As I see it, your arguments apply equally to all the others. Trash them all, or keep them all, but don't get rid of just one. Nyttend (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the page is Categories for Discussion. We're discussing. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but you proposed deletion, so I was responding to that. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm certainly open to other options, including doing nothing, but the category was enough of a concern to me that I felt it should be brought here (perhaps stating the obvious). Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the United Federation of Planets, or any member thereof a "fictional country", are polities on other planets or in outerspace "fictional countries" - since most films are set somewhere, and it seems pretty useless to categorize the Oz films with Gulliver films, unless Munchkinland is near Lilliput. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This could possibly be addressed with some instructions on the category page. There are subcats for, for instance, fictional African countries versus Alice in Wonderland, but it should probably be made more clear what this category's intended usage is. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Conceptually, this sounds weak to me. But, I went through the some of the current articles in the category and at least its current usage seems defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This merges together multiple unlike things. We would have on one hand sci-fi and fantasy films set in fictional places outside what we know. On the other hand there are film like The Beautician and the Beast set in fictional countries that are loosely based on real ones, but for reasons of allowing some wiggle room and avoiding liability suits, a fake name is chosen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2014 (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:Bible paraphrases
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, leaving a redirect. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No distinction, or if there is one I need help writing a description. Since we have an article on biblical paraphrases we should stick with that one. Maybe a soft redirect? JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Don't delete "Bible" — it's a valid name for the concept, so people are likely to use this name; as a result, a ((category redirect)) would be far more helpful. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2014 (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:Mayors of Kirkland Lake
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, upmerge contents as nominated. (As for the delay—there is a distinct lack of admins closing CFDs right now, and there has been for several months now.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Kirkland Lake (pop. 8K) is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL, with the result that two of the four articles that were here failed recent AFDs and got canned — meaning that this is now a WP:SMALLCAT, more or less permanently stalled out at two articles with no realistic prospect for expansion. Delete and upmerge entries to Category:Mayors of places in Ontario and Category:People from Kirkland Lake. No prejudice against future recreation if we ever actually have something like five or six articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 10:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. The place is clearly too small to need such a specific category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as these categories "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (WP:SMALLCAT). DexDor (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they aren't. A "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" would be if every municipality in Ontario had its own separate subcategory for its mayors — "some larger places do while smaller places don't" does not satisfy that criterion. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mayors of places in Ontario currently has subcats for 42 other places - it looks like a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" to me. However, the 2 articles currently in the category don't indicate that the people are notable because of being mayors/reeves (they are notable as MPs) so per WP:COP#N the mayors cat tag could be removed from those articles and hence the category deleted as empty. I've struck my keep !vote. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would somebody please close this already? It's been open for two and a half months and I'm not seeing a credible reason why it needs to stay that way anymore. Bearcat (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2014 (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.