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. MER-C 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films about women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is way too indiscriminate. It's pretty hard to find any films that don't involve women in leading roles (maybe South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). As was noted in a discussion about this, there's no Category:Films about men. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral as the creator of the category. I don't remember creating it but there I am, in the edit history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why you vote neutral because you didn't really state a reason, just that you created the category? Jackninja5 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to signal I'm certainly not going to mount a defense for it. But having slept on it, I think I remember why I created it. I'm also the creator of Category:Women in film (and a couple of other Women in the arts sibling categories). I worked a lot in doc categorization, where @Bearcat:'s Category:Documentary films about women has existed for a quite a number of years and I think my goal was to find a way to fit films about women somewhere within women in film. That was my thinking anyway, if that's of any help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator, although Kyle's mother did have quite a leading role in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut for her "Blame Canada" movement. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Films with female leads are still a minority and an interesting subject in themselves. There are entire genres like action films where they are under-represented. Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussion. If the entire Alien franchise , Tinker Bell, Bonnie & Clyde‎ and mermaids films are films about women, as they currently are in this category, then every film is about women, and we already have a category for every film, it is just Category:Films. Place Clichy (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly surprised to see how this category has ballooned with 60+ subcats and agree that if kept, some pruning is in order, with a clear description that only works where women are the central characters/primary focus are to be added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, commenting because pinged. I certainly understand the argument that there are just too many potential entries for this category to be valuable, but there is also an important distinction that I think some people are missing: it's not a category for all films that have women in them at all (a criterion which would indeed include nearly every film in existence), but for films where a woman or a group of women are the primary characters (a criterion which, as ridiculous as it may be, considerably less than half of all films in the real world actually meet.) Now, there's still a lot of WP:OC#ARBITRARY involved in that — would romantic comedies which are about women in relationships with men belong here? Room, which is at least as much about the woman's son as it is about her? The Force Awakens, in which the woman is certainly the kickassier of the two heroes but is still sharing the lead with a man? — but that's the criterion on which we should discuss how valuable this is or isn't, rather than WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because this wouldn't properly include all films that simply have women in them. That would obviously be ridiculous and unmaintainable — but even today, we are still in a time when the volume of pop culture content which is fundamentally about women still isn't even remotely comparable to the volume of pop culture content which is fundamentally about men. So it's still quite possibly deletable, sure, but it's not a category that could or would include all or even most films that exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the main reason why I'd stuck with the "documentary films about..." categories generally. Films there have to be more clearly and pertinently about women -- and why it may have been a mistake on my part to create this as a "bridging" category with the Women in film parent cat... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many good and valid points brought by @Bearcat:. But 1°) nowhere in the category does it state that it is for films about women in a primary role (and your comment about ARBITRARY applies) 2°) pop culture is not divided into content fundamentally about women and content fundamentally about men, while the existence of this category implies that it is (where would Bonnie & Clyde go?) and 3°) there would still be people who think that mermaids and Tinker Bell fit under a for women category, while they are, well, not women. For these reasons I think deletion is still the best option. Place Clichy (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Are these women main characters? Minor, but important characters? Or just that these films are "about women"? This category is just far too broad to be useful. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 12:17, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

We should delete this category simply for how broad it is.

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but leave better-defined sub-categories where women are clearly underrepresented, such as Category:Documentary films about women‎. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps the wording is just too vague? How about a rename to "Films featuring female protagonists"? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Most films have women in them. Even renamed, to something where the lead part was a female one, I still think there would be too many for a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The number of current members doesn't seem to be anywhere close to being out of control. Besides, subcategories effectively split it up to some degree. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there can be a way to rename it to not be ambiguous (which I cannot think of a way) as per Bearcat's comments. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Way too broad of a category, and even if it could be simplified to just films where a woman is the main character, there are far too many films that fit that criteria. JDDJS (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A category akin to this makes sense and wouldn't include a crazy amount of entries, I would imagine, but I recommend a start-over. Find a name that is more specific about how women are featured in the film (e.g., "protagonists", "leads", "central characters", etc.) and populate the category very carefully. Note that this delete is about how vague the naming and inclusion (potentially) is. Any arguments here about the size are rubbish, IMHO. Be bold and try again. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm here because I ran across a film that, apparently, is "about women" because there are women in it. I'm not sure if that fits the category or not, because there is no definition for the category. Are there also films "about men"? Do most heterosexual rom-coms belong in both categories? If they have a dog, is it a film about animals? There certainly are films that are about women and' that being "about women" is WP:DEFINING, but the frontier between those films and the vast majority of films is hopelessly nebulous. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Category:Films that pass the Bechdel test?" That would keep Shawn busy for a while. Only about 50%... Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_5#Category:Films_that_pass_the_Bechdel_test. DexDor ^(talk) 07:41, 4 February 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.

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) 01:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Web application frameworks to Category:Web frameworks
• Propose renaming Category:Python web application frameworks to Category:Python web frameworks

Nominator's rationale: I tried to get Category:Web application frameworks renamed to Category:Web frameworks via C2D per Web framework but it was pointed out that apparently that article was somewhat recently renamed so I am bringing this to general discussion and expanding it to include a subcategory. Besides C2D style rationale (which this would qualify for if not for the time period), a significant portion of the articles within these categories (and programming language based subcategories) have disambiguation in their title as "(web framework)" and have for a very long time. Not a single one has had "(web application framework)" in the article name in any recent history. Examples include: Django (web framework), Lift (web framework), Padrino (web framework), Silex (web framework), Snap (web framework), Yesod (web framework). And many in subcategories: Category:Rich Internet application frameworks and Category:Python web application frameworks (which I have expanded this general discussion to include renaming at well). Also "web framework" seems to be the more general and more notable name. The term "web application framework" seems restricted to "web applications" and seems to exclude commonalities (which the lead article and many of the articles in the categories seem to also cover) when creating "web services", "web APIs", etc. 15.65.244.11 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 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.

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. MER-C 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People with speech impediments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NONDEF, WP:TRIVIALCAT, and possibly WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Speech impediment is a non-defining characteristic of people. While, yes some celebrities have unique vocal or speech patterns, lisps, stutters, these may or may not be relevant to their professional career, and even if verifiable (e.g. a celebrity in an interview says "I stuttered as a kid"), this is a trivial, non-defining category. Several people in this category merely stuttered as a child (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson, Nicole Kidman), others have vague vocal mannerisms: are Truman Capote's "distinctive, high-pitched voice and odd vocal mannerisms" really speech impediments? James Stewart's drawl? Since speech impediments include a diverse range of conditions, and is prone to subjectivity as Stewart and Capote suggest, I'd also like to preemptively squelch efforts to "fix" this category by splitting into "People who stutter", "People with lisps", etc. Specific non-defining categories are no better than general non-defining categories. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom unless there are actually any people notable for having a speech impediment (which is different from being an advocate for the rights of people with speech impediments) in which case the category should have text explaining this and be purged of people for whom this is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. WP:DNWAUC. DexDor ^(talk) 07:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most people on the list are unfamiliar to me, but some immediately stood out (George VI and Gareth Gates) as their speech impediments being a significant part of their life story, and their struggle to overcome their speech impediments an important part of what made them admired and who they were. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things may be a significant part of a persons life story (getting married, having children...). George and Gareth are in the encyclopedia because of being a king and a singer respectively - not because of having a speech impediment. WP:DNWAUC. DexDor ^(talk) 23:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "associated with" could mean anything from researching on it, commenting on it, advocating about it, or having one - given the number of his characters that displayed speech impediments, it could also include Friz Freleng (who created Porky Pig, Sylvester and Tweety Bird, among others). Meaningless and purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stuttering was a well-known problem for George VI, Emperor Claudius and others on the list of stutterers, and rhotacism for Barbara Walters (for which she's been spoofed). It may need cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. The people in here are notable for other things, and by the way also had a speech impediment of some sort; none of them are notable because speech impediment. It doesn't constitute a substantive point of commonality between Barbara Walters and George IV, because for just one example they didn't have the same speech impediment as each other — each person should certainly be discussed in the article about the particular speech impediment they happened to have, but it's not a good basis for a category that places them next to each other. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. This is better handled in article text and Wikidata rather than a category. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not defining in the ordinary case. Better handled by lists (we indeed have list of stutterers, and a properly sourced list of people with a lisp, etc. would be fine as well) Neutrality^talk 18:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would prefer to see this split into several categories for different speech impediments. Stuttering is I think only one kind of impediment. However, speech difficulties can be quite disabling, so that I do not think we should delete out of hand, but it may need weeding of people who had an impediment as a child and wholly overcame it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frida Kahlo was hit by a bus, which was also quite disabling and had an impact on her life and art, but although it is an important aspect of her life, it is not a noteworthy or defining characteristic for people in general, and so we don't have Category:People hit by buses. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a valuable wp:cat - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I do not find this term particularly defining as it is very near trying to categorize people by their accent. Even if a person has trouble making certain sounds it might impede them in certain languages more than others and can change over time. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 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.

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. MER-C 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Castroist parties in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. 'Castroism' (unlike, say Trotskyism) isn't a well-defined ideological tendency. Many Latin American left groups are described as 'Castroist' (often as a slur) but there is no coherent movement or community of 'Castroist' parties. In the case of the US SWP (the sole article in the category), this party isn't 'Castroist' strictly speaking, it's a Trotskyist group that became supportive of the Cuban revolution. Soman (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, also per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge, the one article is in the Marxist tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the arguments given by Soman and Marcocapelle. I'll be nominating a few more of the countless underpopulated and often questionable categories AHC300 created on 24 and 25 January. --PanchoS (talk) 21:44, 1 February 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.

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 & rename to Category:litigation by party. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Litigation by company to Category:Case law by party
• Note: Category:Case law by party was subsequently tagged for possible renaming. -RD

Nominator's rationale: There's a lot of overlap here, but the target category is broader (includes non-corporate bodies) and much older. The nominated category was recently created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Since these are legal articles, it makes sense to use legal terms in the category naming. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (See support for merge/alternate rename below.) -RD[reply]
• Oppose Litigation is not the same as case law. Please read the introduction before claiming overlap. offtopic:Why is User:Good Olfactory nominating categories I created for deletion without notifying me? This is not supposed to be a race to delete, but a way to reach consensus that makes sense. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Yeah, and ham is not the same thing as bacon, but that doesn't necessarily mean the distinction is necessarily worth drawing in categorization. Most of the subcategories named "litigation" are populated with articles about case law. As for notification, by my count, this is the fourth time you have asked me why I don't notify category creators of CFD nominations. Are you not paying attention to my answer, are you forgetting what it is, or do you just not like it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose most litigation is not case law - rarely does the run-of-the-mill suing create binding precedents (which are case law). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would favor one category tree for all court cases. Right now we have litigation, case law, and lawsuits. Certainly there are distinctions on a conceptual basis but that becomes murkier when you get into categorizing the individual articles. Sometimes you have binding case law (lower courts are required to follow it) but you also have cases that influence judges less formally, and that's also case law which makes it harder to define. This is obviously a broader discussion though. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, in practical terms for Wikipedia categorization, we don't really need three separate schemes for litigation/case law/lawsuits. Most of the subcategories named "litigation" are really populated with articles about case law, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging anyway, because of the overlap of the categories. Neutral about name of merged category, I wonder if Category:Litigation by party might be an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be open to that merge/alternative rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Litigation by party sounds better to me than either of the existing categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 28 January 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.