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. – FayenaticLondon 16:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While these categories group people by nationality, current wording is way too ambiguous. Do these refer to fooians who are explorers or to explorers of foo?
Oppose: Is this more of problem than, say, Category:French scientists? Personally I think the ambiguities will always be there. If you set off from Portugal, are you an "Explorer from Portugal" even if you have French nationality and German ancestry? At some point we need to accept that categorisation of any sort cannot be 100% precise. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have French nationality and German ancestry – are you still a Category:Portuguese explorer? A bit less, maybe, than an Category:Explorer from Portugal, but still, it depends. A problem we can't easily overcome – related but not central for our current question here. --PanchoS (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. While I agree that we can't prevent every possible ambiguity, the remedy in this case is easy enough, I don't see a reason not to do this. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis that American, French, Italian etc. are adjectives that describe nationalities. United States, France, Italy etc. are nouns that describe places. I don't see the ambiguity. Sionk (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sionk above. Fooians who do xyz are referred to here as Fooian xyzers. The only conundrum is that certain folks of nationality X sailed/explored/fought for nationality Y, but we're defining the person, and an Englishman exploring for a Dutch company is still an Englishman and English explorere. As for Brigade Piron's comment; it's yet another reason to get rid of ancestry categories as being non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see no reason to abandon demonyms where these are clear. The New Zealand case may need change as it might refer to people who exported New Zealand. The change to the Venetian category was perhaps misconceived, but I have not considered its detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we should make it clear that the people are categorized not by what they are exploring but by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – These are people categories and as such should follow the people category above, so it should be Belgian, American, and Swiss explorers. gidonb (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – these are indeed people categories and should certainly follow the naming convention of the parent category. I would not say that Livingstone was an African explorer and I would not expect a Scottish explorer to be exploring Scotland. Oculi (talk) 02:25, 17 July 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:Philippine films based on Wattpad
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 deletingCategory:Philippine films based on Wattpad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I think this works best as a list and it so happens that we do have a list: List of Philippine films based on Wattpad stories. I don't think that this is a sufficiently defining characteristic to use for classification. If kept, it should at least be renamed to something like Category:Philippine films based on Wattpad stories or Category:Philippine films based on Wattpad novels. Pichpich (talk) 22:02, 18 June 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:10,000 Lakes Festival 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.
@Earflaps: Note that I added a few more discontinued festivals with a limited period of existence. I think even in Category:Music festivals by year, we don't want dozens of subcategories per individual event. IMHO, we should rather ensure the articles about the individual year are correctly and sufficiently categorized. But neither is it "end of world" for me, if these are not merged back into the festival's main category. :) Let's just see how others weigh in. --PanchoS (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content is the successive festivals, mostly list articles of performers. The festivals operated over several years, which is probably enough for a category. Merging to year categories (which the articles should be in anyway) merely destroys data. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, or alternatively reverse merge (then remove categorization from main article). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The main category can cover all the articles involved. In general if you can only create one sub-cat there is no reason to do so, with the exception probably being splitting off biographical articles. In the 10,000 lakes case, there is nothing gained from the split since only 1 article is in the parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all since too much detail. PanchoS, thank you for cleaning up! gidonb (talk) 16:47, 2 July 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:Funimation 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.
Nominator's rationale: Seems a rather arbitary topic to base a category off of, with a completely arbitrary set of rules for what qualifies someone as a "Funimation voice actor." Have seen no evidence that such people are ever referred to in the press and wider world as "Funimation voice actors." Brustopher (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funimation does not have an in-house voice acting staff. Practically all of the voice actors are contractors, as with others in the voice acting community. In Japan, the voice actors can be categorized by their talent agency but they are not categorized with certain production companies. On the flip side, producers and staff could be grouped with their production companies. Voice directors and writers are a gray area as it's not clear whether they are full-fledged employees or contractors by project. This also raised a lot of problems with actors that were not based in Funimation creeping onto the list because of their mere association on less than a handful of licensed or acquired shows, even though their dub recording company was not Funimation. A lot of those actors would not qualify per WP:CATDEF which says it should be a defining characteristic of the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Instead of outright deleting the category, I think it should be renamed to "Actors who have worked for Funimation", due to this fact being essential for the majority of their careers. However, the criteria is very arbitrary, and thus should be removed, meaning the previous actors who were listed as examples for actors that had not yet been deemed Funimation voice actors under the criteria will be included in the category.Mumbai0618 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT per AngusWOOF. I was typing the exact same thing in different words until I read his comment, and since Funimation does have licenses from ADV and Geneon, which were both major distributors, the category is unmaintainable without keeping a close eye on product licensing. MSJapan (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This looks like a performance by performer category to me, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 25 June 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:2008 awards in the United States
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, without prejudice to a re-nomination to rename it, as proposed in mid-discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category exists only for one year (2008) and the contents should be included in existing category series such as Category:2008 film awards and Category:2008 in American cinema. NB: the category was created by a blocked user. Hugo999 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sufficiently filled category that may be easily expanded to a reasonable categorization scheme. In fact, there should be even more content for later years. --PanchoS (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not really seeing the navigational benefits of this double intersection of year and country for awards. As long as the presence of this category doesn't grant an automatic WP:SMALLCAT exemption for Category:2008 awards in Portugal and the like, I can live it with though. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The intersection is just as valid as awards per year and subject, and often more helpful than that one. Quite a number of awards aren't confined to literature, music, film, television, theater, or performing arts, but embrace a number of these. The category is also helpful to find out about some of the more relevant cultural events that year in the country. RevelationDirect, we seriously can't complain categories per year and location don't contain anything but sports events, and then deny other fields any kind of categorization per year and location. Not saying this will ever go down below country-level – given our current coverage of these, we would start with per-continent categories, and would only create per-country categories if there's enough content, or (for countries on two continents) at least some substantial content. All in all, we really need to strengthen our categorization per year and location in order to strengthen our international coverage of events beyond sports and a limited number of other well-established areas. That's at least my humble perspective on this. --PanchoS (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meanwhile we have subsequent categories for 2009 and later, so this category is no longer a single outlier, and I don't see any strong reasons to object to an intersection like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this legitimate category. Also, please keep expanding to other years. Combining cats in a logical and organized structure assists navigation and control. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 2 July 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:2014 in Southern California
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:upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT, it's over the top to split the year categories of California each in two subcats. (By the way, we might also upmerge to Category:History of Southern California but I'm not sure if we really want to have general history categories populated by sports articles.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There might possibly be better ways subdividing the U.S. state, an alternative being the metropolitan areas. But the nominated ones are clearly no WP:NARROWCATs, just see Category:2015 in Southern California or Category:2016 in Southern California. --PanchoS (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not sure if a category that consists of LA sports seasons, San Diego sports seasons, and Hollywood award shows is a category that readers will find useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's essentially what "X year in X state" categories are about anyways--Prisencolin (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The problem is not with the categories, but with the content. I mean, it's nice that our coverage in sports, television, horror films and video games is almost complete, but it's a shame we don't even have an equal number of articles on other aspects of culture, politics and society. --PanchoS (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more, actually! I see the burden as on this sub-state category though since the California year categories don't seem too large to navigate. What's the benefit of a Southern California or Upstate New York or UP year category? (That's a sincere question.)RevelationDirect (talk)
@RevelationDirect: Indeed I'm not sure dividing a state into exactly two regions is the best approach. But counties are too small, and metropolitan areas categories have been recently deleted, so Northern and Southern California is all we have. At least, Southern California includes the whole LA metropolitan area, and Northern California the whole San Francisco Bay Area, so we have a scope that doesn't tear apart major cities from their metropolitan area. Why do we need a subdivision, if Category:California isn't too large to navigate? Counterquestion: Since when do we only subdivide if the situation is intolerable? People relate to their city, and then they relate to their region. California is large, actually larger than quite some countries of the world. Now if someone wants to know what happened in 2015 around LA, then they don't want to know what happened in SF or Northern Sacramento. Of course, people have different approaches and interests, so all too fine-grained categories are just as well problematic. But we can support different approaches, with regional subdivisions and subdivisions by topic, such as Category:2015 sports events in California, thereby saving all other topics from being overwhelmed by sporting events. Both is fine, and can coexist. --PanchoS (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is more beneficial to divide the history of a state by topic instead of by a further geographical divide. "People relate to their city, and then they relate to their region" isn't always the case, and especially unlikely in a case like this in which there is no administrative region involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving in, having already said that I'm not 100% convinced of this division. I'm gonna focus on the division by topic, as there seems to be consensus on that approach. --PanchoS (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why even subdivide by the state level at all then when we could just have every event of each year in the whole country can be contained in the Category:2016 in the United States? The point that at the very least, Southern and Northern California are relevant geographic divisions that are commonly discussed as such.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we divide history by political entities (and subentities), while southern California is not such.GreyShark (dibra) 18:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with perhaps sports by year subcategories for a few states, not all) - I think of Hollywood as in California not Southern California Hugo999 (talk) 10:33, 26 June 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:Republican 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.
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant intersection between occupation and political allegiance. If kept, it should be renamed to clarify that this relates to members or supporters of the USA's Republican Party, rather than to anti-monarchists or Irish Republicans or any of the many other meanings of the phrase "Republican politician". BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant category. Their party affiliations have nothing to do with their acting careers. Dimadick (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Schwarzenegger or Stallone are particularly famed personalities because of their acting careers, and if this fame leverages their political weight, their party affiliation is not irrelevant at all. While Reagan was no big star, he still was a prominent actor before entering politics. Something like Category:Republican Party (United States) actor-politicians would clearly work. Then again, it would be unreasonably narrow. How about Category:Republican Party (United States) supporters in entertainment, which could be contrasted with Category:Democratic Party (United States) supporters in entertainment, even though the latter should constitute a large majority? --PanchoS (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They also use their fame to advocate for charities, heavy cocaine use, and designer jeans since their celebrity status automatically brings them attention. I'm not sure if political advocacy is any different. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy cocaine use, LOL… OK, you got me. If the decision is not used as a precedent for a similar, but better conceived category, that someone might come up with in the future, then I'm okay with deletion. --PanchoS (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason to not include them in the subcategories of Category:Republicans (United States) by state? It currently has 55 subcategories and the criterion is association with the Party, not being elected as a party representative. It seems inclusive enough. Dimadick (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that we generally only allow active politicians in political party categories. If that's the case indeed, then we should remove the header of Category:Republicans (United States) by state. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If an actor's political affiliation is noteworthy (i.e. if they're politically active in some capacity, as with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan or Clint Eastwood), then they can certainly be filed in the appropriate existing subcategories of Category:Republicans (United States) — but the intersection of political party affiliation with non-political primary career is not an appropriate basis for a standalone category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another case of an intersection that could be solved by better search functionality, but Republicans by occupation or Actors by party are just category trees we do not need. Best to nip it in the bud. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection. Also would not explain actors who change parties. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 27 June 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:Alaska Airlines
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: Alaska Airlines is merely a subsidiary of the larger conglomerate organization, the Alaska Air Group, which includes several airlines, such as Horizon Air. As it stands, there are hardly enough relevant pages to include under the category of Alaska Airlines. If we change the name to reflect the larger corporation, we can include the aforementioned airlines, and soon enough, Virgin America. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more on the account of Alaska Airlines accidents and incidents. In the case that we get pages for Horizon or Virgin America accidents and incidents, we can have them categorized under this new renamed category. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 05:46, 19 June 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:Canadian Medical Hall of Fame
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 Canadian Medical Hall of Fame consists of a web site and an exhibit in the lobby of a building in downtown London, Ontario (source). It's hard to see how people who died in 1919, in 1940 and in 1976 are defined by an award created in 1994. Even for people who lived to see it, the award receives only a passing reference in the articles. These recipients are already in the Category:Canadian physicians or similar categories and the list of winners is located here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 18 June 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.
Berlin International Film Festival winners
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.
Keep the Golden Bear as that is defining for the film that wins that award. Along with Cannes and Venice, Berlin is one of the big three film festivals each year. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: 1.) We're not too far off: out of the hundreds of festivals in Category:Film festivals in Europe you think we should categorize by three and I think one. 2) There are some awards that are notable enough for an article but not defining for individual biography articles and, in that case, a list is the best outcome. I'm not claiming the presence of a list means the category should be deleted. 3.) The Golden Globe award category is problematic for different reasons: it's categorizing films based on awards won by people not the film. // We still disagree here but hopefully that makes my perspective clearer! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category for film festivals in Europe is a bit of a red-herring. The Berlin IFF is one of the top level of film festivals and is accredited by the governing body of film festivals to award prizes in its competition section. In other words, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other festivals that aren't on the FIAPF's list, and I would agree that categories for them would be non-defining. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I checked a sample of the articles in the Golden Bear category and the only mention of this award was in a list of awards received (i.e. not in the lead of the article). DexDor(talk) 06:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree here. I checked four (films) at random; Larks on a String, Child's Pose, Taxi and Honey. All of them mention the film won the Golden Bear in the lead. For the films that don't mention it, these can easily be fixed through normal editing (which I'm happy to do), as this is one of the premier film festival awards. I'm indifferent to the awards given to individuals. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just looked at the 3 "M" films and only one mentioned it in the lead. I don't think copying facts into the leads of articles to bolster an argument at CFD is a good idea. Even if it is argued that having the award is defining for/some all of the films I still think that the lists are sufficient and the films are in plenty of categories that form comprehensive categorization schemes. It may be "one of the premier film festival awards", but this discussion is not about deleting an article about the festival/award; it's about the most appropriate way to categorize films. DexDor(talk) 20:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just fixed the 3 "M" films so they mention it in the lead. I think copying facts into the leads of articles bolsters an argument at CfD. The lists are not sufficient, as they go hand-in-hand with categories. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a balance to be struck with award categories, even though we disagree on this particular one. Here is an extreme example. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Prestigious awards seem defining. If they are not mentioned in the lede of the articles, that does not suggest a problem with the categories. It suggests problematic ledes. Dimadick (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS frustration is getting weaker as one non-defining award category after another is being deleted through CFD discussions. (That reply is directed at only part of your comment; that obviously wasn't your only argument.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per Lugnuts and Dimadick's reasoning and arguments as a significant film award. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all more cases of categories that are not defining to the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I checked a number of articles and it seems like it is a non-defining characteristic for English-spoken films, but defining for non-English spoken films. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed pattern again, varying from a mere listing within a long table of awards (in case of the most famous actors), to being the primary reason for notability (in stub articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 5 July 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:Chowder
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. – FayenaticLondon 12:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy if Kept Per WP:C2D, Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 18 June 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.