Category:Chocolate para Mesa
[edit]Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television
[edit]
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: As part of the upcoming merger with the ABC Studios and Disney categories, its time to remove the word Domestic from the name since useing the name Domestic will make a distribution company. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:*Please rename. The category has to be renamed due to the merger with the Category:Television series by ABC Studios and Category:Television series by Disney categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment -- It sounds as if the merger was misconceived. The series may now be owned by the amalgamated company, but they were created by the two networks separately. College mergers commonly result in alumni categories being merged, but is this appropriate for literary works, in this case converted to a visual medium. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Lets hope the merger and rename is done, although created by separate divisions of Disney, all Disney shows must be in one category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. No, Wikipedia does not have any rule that categories in this tree must always be merged together following an ownership change. There are certainly some circumstances where a corporate merger should result in a category merger, but that's not always true and this is one of the situations where it's not — in most cases, a "television series by production company" category should be retained, and should simply be filed as a subcategory of a new category for the merged company. And the series should be kept in whichever category matches the name that was on the production shingle at the time, and not shuffled out to or double-filed in the new merged company category. This is a case where the corporate history, not the company's current status, is the salient characteristic of the category — the defining characteristic of a television series, when it comes to the production company, is the name the company had at the time the series was in production, not who owned that company five or ten or twenty or fifty years after that series ended production. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- We all know that, but this merger will only happen for The Disney TV categorys, the Disney film categorys will remain the same, Why do i want the categorys merged, well it is because of the info on the DADT category says, Television shows owned, produced and/or distributed by The Walt Disney Company, including Disney–ABC Domestic Television, ABC Studios/Touchstone Television, Walt Disney Television and Disney Television Animation, Freeform Original Productions, ABC (including network-produced shows prior to its sale to Worldvision in 1973 with a few exceptions) and produced programs (1973–1996), ABC News, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, some programs originally produced by Jim Henson Productions, and Saban Entertainment, this is why i want Category:Television series by ABC Studios, Category:Television series by Disney, and Category:Television series by Lucasfilm categorys merged into Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television, Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Television after the merger is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – CfDs by the same nominator with similar rationales are underway at the following locations, and may be relevant to this one:
- Oppose, for reasons stated by Bearcat. Trivialist (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No more oppose votes, the category being renamed is because of the merger that will have ABC Studios, Lucasfilm, Disney, and DADT shows in one category, television series by categorys has to have shows, produced by a active production company, the shows they distribute, and shows from production companys it acquired over the years, the series ended production years before, the current owner, may produce a spin-off, or licence clips from the series, The 4 Disney category merger makes the DADT category better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely missing the point for the opposes, which simply put is the factually correct view. Series are categorized by who produced them, not who buys them years later. And your proposal ignores that different units of the company may have absolutely nothing to do with each others' day-to-day operations; at no point is DADT's name attached to Star Wars Rebels, meaning that the category is simply incorrect, period. You don't get to order others not to !vote in opposition, unilaterally tell people how things should be categorized, or otherwise try to force things against consensus. Being there has been no supporting votes by anyone except yourself (and I've struck out your redundant !vote in addition to the obvious sock), this entire mess you've cause between these category merger proposals should be closed immediately, and you should not touch a single category until you learn how they work here and to respect WP:CONSENSUS. oknazevad (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Bearcat. oknazevad (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2016 (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:Historical school of economics
[edit]
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: no article. no explanation of what this category is supposed to be about. Editor2020, Talk 03:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While there is an Historical school of economics article, it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of the contents of the category. Alternatives: either rename to Category:History of economic thought in Germany, or else merge to Category:History of economic thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- With the main article identified, the prime reason for this CFD disappears. The article gives Prussian Historical School as an alternative name. At the end there is an attempt to define and English school, but that has the feel of WP:OR to me. Though I am an economic historian, I have not studied the history of economic thought, so that I do not feel qualified to say whether or not this is nonsense, but my feeling is that the German core is not. If so we can have a category, but it may need a new name or a disambiguator to prevent it picking up material on the History of economic thought or economiuc history generally: possibly, Category:Prussian Historical School of economics (note adjusted capitalisation). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the German core is defining, that's why I came up with Category:History of economic thought in Germany. I'm a bit hesitant about "Prussian" because the category also covers the period of the second German empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no logic to that last objection. Prussia is a geographical as well as a political unit. See the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Prussian Historical School of economics per Peterkingiron. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the Main article has been identified my nomination is withdrawn. Editor2020, Talk 02:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem remains that the relationship of the articles in the category with the topic of the category is often vague and this particular school doesn't seem to be defining. That's why I think a category rename to Germany as a country seems to cover the contents better. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this should be withdrawn. If you think that some pages in the category do not belong, that's fine, just make that case in the talk page. That's a different question than should the category exists. As Editor2020 says, there is a home article that should help explain this. And yes, it's often called the 'German Historical School' or 'Prussian Historical School,' but it's also often shortened to just the 'Historical School.' I encourage people to read up on the school of thought outside of Wikipedia, for example: http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/image/marshallvshistschl.pdf; https://www.britannica.com/topic/historical-school-of-economics; http://coin.wne.uw.edu.pl/mbrzezinski/teaching/HETlecture/presentation10_2007.pdf; etc. Danke schoen. Institutionalist (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (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:Awards with restrictions on nationality
[edit]
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Awards with restrictions on nationality
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OVERLAPCAT
- Many (most?) military and cultural awards are by country (although they may define "nationality" and handle immigration differently) so this seems too common to be defining. We already have a very large Category:Awards by country tree. I realize that country and nationality can be different, but this category is much less concrete than the other subcategories of Category:Awards by type of recipient. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Notified SoSivr as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Awards and prizes. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom too indiscriminate. Also it's called an award "criteria" not "restriction" which sounds like a government regulation, eg. Awards with citizenship criteria. In that light it would probably encompass a large percentage of all awards requiring a major new category tree. -- GreenC 02:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Renaming the category in question to a name which will include the word "criteria" in lieu of the word "restriction", e.g. Awards with nationality criteria or Awards with citizenship criteria (GreenC). Regarding @RevelationDirect:'s mentioning of Category:Awards by country I think that maybe the latter category could become subcategory of the category which is discussed.(category creator)SoSivr (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- @RevelationDirect: not a container category. It would have articles too.___Also I would like to emphasize that there are differences between the category in question and the Category:Awards by country. For example De Morgan Medal is a British award but it has residency criteria (or restrictions on residency) rather than nationality criteria!!
- Comment many government-bestowed awards have these sorts of restrictions so they're not notable; private-entity awards with these restrictions are much fewer and are probably notable for those restrictions - it also cheapens to some extent the award like records of pre-integration baseball when all the MLB players never had to face a Negro League opponent - we'll never know whether they'd have done as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A lot of awards in a lot of domains have specific nationality criteria (the vast majority of literary awards, for example, are restricted to literature from a specific country, with only a very select few being crossnational), so this is non-WP:DEFINING and effectively unmaintainable. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I would suggest that awards with a limitation by residence, nationality or similar criteria are far too common to merit a category. A British KBE (Knight of the British Empire) can only be awarded to a British subject. When awards are made to others, they are technically honorary awards, though it the awardee becomes naturalised, it will be converted into a knighthood. This happened in the case of Sir George Solti, the conductor. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2016 (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:Darwin Awards
[edit]
- 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) 03:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Darwin Awards
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
- There are only two legitimate articles in this category: the namesake web site and film. (There is a third article in the category but it doesn't even mention the award.) There is little growth potential because the award is unlikekly to be defining for biography articles. No objection to recreating if it can get up to 5+ legitimate articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The creator, Wisdomtenacityfocus, is blocked indefinitely but this discussion has been included in WikiProject Awards and prizes. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- Support Too few for maintaining a separate category. -- GreenC 02:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. This isn't an award that can make its winners notable enough for their own separate articles on the basis of the award itself, so there's no real prospect of padding it out with the biographies of past awardees — which is the only way it would even be possible to make this any larger than the existing three articles. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The subject is not an award, as such. It is about a form of self-imposed eugenics. There is n o indication why Adelir Antônio de Carli belongs here. As a Catholic priest he was presumably celibate, but that is not what the article is about. We are thus left with a main article and a film about it. The usual navigation aid in such cases is a "see also" or other capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2016 (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.