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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cultural depictions of people associated with the Dutch East India Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, too vague, in the tree of Category:Cultural depictions of people this is the only subcategory not dedicated to a single person. No need to merge, the articles are already in parent Category:Works relating to the Dutch East India Company. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I fully agree. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 23 April 2017 (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: no consensus . The article on the town lists five notable residents with citations, so the category appears to pass WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Andover, New Jersey to Category:People from Sussex County, New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. One county community with a population of less than 700 with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found two more entries that were added with trivial effort by looking through links to the page for the municipality and I've written another article, bringing the total to five entries. Is this enough or do the demands for some arbitrary minimum keep on changing from nomination to nomination? Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A case of creative categorizing One of those additions is unreferenced. The other two, one says 'Near Andover'. Near Foo isn't Foo. The other was an article about a firearms company based in Andover, not a people article. The category was removed from the last two pages. An argument will be made for all three. I'll let the closing administrator decide but they should clearly note the actions you're taking....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached out multiple times to WilliamJE, including several times on his talk, page, only to be ignored each time. Simultaneous with this CFD, WilliamJE began four speedy deletion nominations of categories, all of which were rejected, based on the argument that the categories had been expanded well beyond the minimums cited based on the WP:SMALLCAT argument. The same case has been made here; all of the articles where WilliamJE removed categories were addressed and his misrepresentations regarding the articles included have been rebutted. I have asked him to withdraw this nomination as a show of good faith. I'll let the closing administrator decide but the lack of good faith effort by the nominator to acknowledge that the issues have been addressed raises serious concerns here. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Again I have to start an ANI case against you. Your multiple personal attacks by accusing me of bad faith which are DEAD WRONG when in your case you make a bogus edit[1] here to mislead a CFD. It is a company , not a biography about a person. The article makes it clear. A people category doesn't belong there and any experienced editor at categorizing would know that. Which means their is another motivation for that edit. Tell me where you've categorized another New Jersey company People from? I don't expect an answer. Your 'I spent some time trying to find the underlying for sources for Howe, but they're in books not available (and verifiable) online is HOGWASH. AGF isn't a suicide pact and your editing speaks for itself....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WilliamJE, your repeated bad faith allegations are undermining any legitimate claim you might have had. 1) The number of articles in the category has been expanded beyond your arbitrary minimum; 2) The sources where you raised issues have been replaces with ones that meet any objective standard of reliable and verifiable sourcing; 3) Your actions and allegations are not only false, but appear to be your entire justification for deletion; and 4) You have refused to engage in discussion to address whatever concerns and, instead, doubled down on the shrill rants and made further threats. It's time to head to the roof and stop this abuse of process; either raise legitimate concerns with the articles in the category or their sources, or just simply acknowledge that the issues have been addressed, which would undo so much of your bad faith actions here. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. There are only 142,522 people in the whole county (140 or so articles) so I don't see any point in these endless small subcats. Oculi (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (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/rescope to Category:Baseball in Dayton, Ohio. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Minor league baseball in Dayton, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to the two Ohio-related categories and diffuse into all appropriate subcategories of Category:minor league baseball. Needlessly narrow--although there are several teams related to Dayton, there is no scheme of Category:Minor league baseball by city in the United States/. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I would suggest it be renamed to Category:Baseball in Dayton, Ohio. Jb45424 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Jb45424. The category belongs in the Category:Baseball in the United States by city tree. - Eureka Lott 14:38, 17 April 2017 (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. I have started a List of film auteurs as there is scope for it to be a useful complement to Auteur. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Film auteurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a legit concept in film criticism, but to make it a Wikipedia category about is too subjective. From what I can tell, it's mostly used to puff up biographies of editors' favorite directors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term is not purely subjective. It has pretentious connotations, but it is only meant to refer to directors who exert a sort of "ultimate creative control" in contrast to the more egalitarian Hollywood studio system approach. Most articles state in Wikipedia's voice "X is an auteur" or "X is recognized as an auteur". A similar example is Category:Innovators.

  I noticed that many of the lesser-known names were not supported by citations, so I removed some of them from the category and added a note to the category page. @Jack Cox: added many of those unsourced entries.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The use of the term is certainly subjective, but so long as we hew to citing the subjective appellation by reliable sources then this strikes me as fine. Like any category it's down to the editors of an individual article to track whether inclusion is warranted by the sources used. GRAPPLE ^X 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Fails WP:CATDEF. While I don't dispute the label as applied to certain film directors it is non-defining. If you look at some of the articles in this catgeory this is what you have:

• Heywood "Woody" Allen[1] (born Allan Stewart Konigsberg; December 1, 1935)[2] is an American director, writer, actor, comedian, playwright, and musician whose career spans more than six decades.
• Pedro Almodóvar Caballero (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈpeðɾo almoˈðoβar kaβaˈʝeɾo]; born 25 September 1949)[1] is a Spanish film director, screenwriter, producer and former actor.
• Robert Bernard Altman (/ˈɔːltmən/; February 20, 1925 – November 20, 2006) was an American film director, screenwriter, and film producer.
• Paul Thomas Anderson (born June 26, 1970) also known as P.T. Anderson, is an American filmmaker.
• Wesley Wales "Wes" Anderson (born May 1, 1969) is an American film director, film producer, screenwriter, and actor.

It is not used as a primary descriptor in a single one of these articles. If you were asked about what kind of director Woody Allen is you would probably say a comedy-director or something; I doubt the term "auteur" would be principally used to describe any of the above film-makers. I think there is a huge grey area as well which could prove to be problematic: could somebody like Spielberg be described as an "auteur"? He has spent most of his career making mainstream genre films but has definitely displayed auteur tendencies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Betty. The term auteur can be sourced for most of the people in the category, but it's not defining. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Maybe there's a value in linking to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_19#Category:Literary_fiction. To me, there are echoes of the same arguments as with literary fiction, in that otherwise ordinary filmmakers can be critically assessed as "auteurs", but it isn't anything intrinsic? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that it is subjective and subject to abuse, but I don't have a strong opinion either way right now. However I do think we should also draw our attention to Category:Auteurs by medium and the subcategories therein. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure subjective, as even the "keep" commentators admit... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF, they are filmmakers (defining characteristic) who happened to have been referred to as a film auteur (not defining) by someone. Sourcing of the latter is important for having it mentioned in the article at all, but it does not automatically guarantee categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2017 (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: option A. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Rationale: These categories all have te same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. And there's certainly no reason to have both spellings for the "Defunct" categoiries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B – the local parent category has been Category:Organizations based in Poland for many years (Category:Organisations based in Poland is a recent redirect) and so the subcats should follow this established spelling. Oculi (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A -- As Poland is a member of EU, one of whose official languages is English, the ENGVAR will be that used in official documents, which is inevitably British English. This is likely to remain the case despite Brexit, because Ireland is staying in EU. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Organization' is perfectly acceptable in British English: see Oxford spelling, where it is preferred. CERN (https://home.cern/about) seem to be unaware of this 'rule'. Oculi (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, per my comments on the Greek organizations/organisations nomination. European countries without significant native English use will typically follow UK usage. We can always rename "Organizations based in Greece" while we're at it. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, children and adults in Poland are taught British English, not American English so I imagine that would be the more appropirate one. Although I do have a conflict of interest given that I live in England. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source to support your assertion? AusLondonder (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Nothing that can be referenced here :) All I can say is that the majority of textbooks used by schools in Poland are issued by either Longman, Oxford University Press or independent Polish publishers, and that I have a number of WP:SECONDARY sources in the form of children that actually have compulsory English lessons at school. When I attended school in Poland (for a brief amount of time) I was also taught British English. I'm trying to find an e-textbook of the ones they use in Poland to reference, but this is not going very well. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 08:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A per the arguments already aired that British English is more likely in the EU. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Per WP:RETAIN to match the existing usage at the parent category; Category:Organizations based in Poland. WP:TIES explicitly do not apply here as Poland is not an English-speaking country. WP:TIES relates to "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". AusLondonder (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2017 (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: Speedy merge as supported by creater. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Animal user templates to Category:Pet user templates

Nominator's rationale: Origin contains two pages; destination is similarly named and contains 132 pages. Waz⁸:T-C-E 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Only commenting here since I was notified as page creator. Honestly, I don't even remember creating this and given its two members are indeed about pets a merge seems logical. Recommend just moving forward if you like. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure did -- on 19 December 2015! I've completed the merger. Waz⁸:T-C-E 04:00, 16 April 2017 (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.