< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

Category:Fictional European people

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. If we ignore the comments of the blocked sockpuppet (the nominator), all we are left with is two users whose opinions seem pretty much at odds with each others'. This is without prejudice to an immediate or later nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Renaming
  1. Category:Fictional Baltic peoples to Category:Fictional Baltic people
  2. Category:Fictional Gypsies to Category:Fictional Romani people
Nominator's rationale:
  1. Likely a naming error?
  2. Consistent with Category:Fictional representations of Romani people parent category
--Tranquility of Soul (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this nomination is by a sock puppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe. While not commenting on the original discussion it should be noted that WP:DENY might be taken into account. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 27 May 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:Albums by voice actors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary diffuson of the albums and songs categories by profession. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:23, 17 May 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:Television series by technology

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Television series by technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Television series shot in 35 mm
  • Propose deleting Category:Television series shot in high-definition video
  • Propose deleting Category:Television series shot in Super 16
Nominator's rationale: The technology that was used to film a TV series may be of interest to some readers, but it's not something that's usually considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the lead of an article (if it's mentioned at all in the article text) and in that sense it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For info: See similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Films_shot_in.... For info: Of the thousands of wp articles about TV series's only 8 articles are currently in this category tree. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 16 May 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:Commonwealth Games tennis players by year

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow structure within parent Category:Commonwealth Games competitors by sport where year cats are in the parent player category (content is minimal in these categories otherwise). SFB 20:04, 16 May 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:Aborted albums

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While the main article for the category is named Aborted, it seems the category as named is more ambiguous - as an album that was planned but aborted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:05, 16 May 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:Epic 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The epic films category should just go. Look at the epic film article and its warnings templates saying how impossible it is to objectively tell whether a movie is "epic". This can never become anything more than an argument and a headache. CapnZapp (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought "epic" was a "clearly defined genre" I would not have nominated the category for deletion. CapnZapp (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because Gravity (film) was added to the category. When I visit its page on AFI, the only genre it is listed as is "science fiction" (a huge can of worms in itself). I can undo the addition but instead of having to defend my action (why Gravity is or isn't epic) I would MUCH rather not have such a fuzzy genre category at all... CapnZapp (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly irrelevant comment: That seems flawed to me - just by finding one good source a film could then be included in a particular category. But what about the possibility that it isn't included in nine other equally good sources? CapnZapp (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Genre classification is subjective by nature, so it is inconsistent to retain some widely identifiable genre categories and drop others. For instance, no-one disputes science-fiction as a genre, but there is widely varying opinion about whether Brazil (1985 film) comes under its scope. This is true of every genre and the "epic" is no exception in regard. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no significant dispute about what constitutes an SF film, but three is sometimes disagreement over whether a particular film, but in the case of epics I'm seeing basic disagreements over how the category is constituted. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some definitions are broader than others but I have yet to come across any source covering the topic dispute that something like DeMille's The Ten Commandments is an epic. Sources on the whole are pretty consistent in regards to biblical/historical epics: there is a clear group of films that are epics. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are talking about some other genre and definition than what is present on Wikipedia, Betty. First off, just because you can find an archetype doesn't mean a category is needed. Second, if you were to propose a narrowing down of the genre definition I could support that, but only if coupled with a name change. "Epic" in itself is repeatedly interpreted as much more than what you are saying. Like it or not, people are NOT using the word "epic" as you might. It simply means much more in contemporary usage than before. A category called "Historical epic" or "Epic (literary genre)" would be MUCH more workable, though I will say I understand any sentiment thinking such to be cumbersome. CapnZapp (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrably not the case: AFI top 10 epic (American Film Institute), The Epic Film in World Culture (written by Professor and Chair of Film Studies at the University of St Andrews), The Encyclopedia of Epic Films (written by professors and lecturers in film studies), The Epic Film: Myth and History (written by senior editor for Variety), The Epic in Film: From Myth to Blockbuster (written by professor emeritus), Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters (a lecturer and professor); the "epic" has been the subject of widespread study and analysis within academia and film writing and is widely accepted as an explicit style of film-making unlike "hits" and "flops". Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos - this isn't Epic as in "cool", but epic as in the film variety of Category:Epic poetry. SFB 08:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, you make a compelling case why the genre should exist. But since we're discussing a category, we're discussing something subtly different. If we could agree to ONLY place films used by those sagacious sources in the category, then there would be no problem. CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have successfully shot down your own straw man argument. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to head over to the Epic film page and help out improving that page. CapnZapp (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you could have that apply to any category. Which of course, would be ridiculous. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:48, 19 May 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:Ratchet (music genre)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As indicated here, category represents a false genre. Should be deleted as there is not enough coverage from reliable third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:08, 16 May 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:Left-handed people

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 and salt; early close per WP:SNOW and G4, since as noted below this has been discussed and deleted a number of times. (The salting might not be that effective in permanently fixing the issue because even after salting a user could create Category:Left handed people or Category:People who are left handed as well as a dozen other variations.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic if the vast majority of these people (if not all) and also WP:BLP issues. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the vast majority what? Are you calling left-handed people "these people"? And also BLP issues? Please consider writing in complete and coherent sentences. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 07:36, 19 May 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:Icelandic people of Australian descent

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. I find the arguments for keeping this category stronger. It's clear some editors who advocated deletion are unhappy with the whole "descent" structure, but these has been no compelling evidence presented as to why just this one should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. whilst this category contains other categories it contains no actual people. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's a very good reason for deletion too. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you've provided zero reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 17 May 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.
More