August 16
Category:Filmmakers from Kavajë
- 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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one director, from a small city of just 40K. While we permit "filmmakers from individual city" for a very narrow selection of major filmmaking centres where a lot of filmmakers work, we don't automatically create one of these for every small place that has one fillmaker from there. What's important and WP:DEFINING in conjunction with filmmaking is where they do the work, not where they were born. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to both parents; as we usually do for such over-specific categories, housing one or two articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 20 August 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.
Category:American women film 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: rename. ℯxplicit 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Current names are redundantly redundant: are we somehow trying to distinguish women who are people from women who are not people? Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport – per Category:Women in film. Oculi (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- support Bearcat has a point. It's a wonder how they got their names like that in the first page. The garmine (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – The current names are abominations. They are not only redundant: with two nouns ("women" and "film") modifying a third noun ("people"), they make no sense grammatically. Madalibi (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a means of avoiding tautology. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above. Neutralitytalk 22:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The proposed title makes it sound like it is a category for articles on the representation of women in film, as opposed to the current name which makes it clear that it is a category that is for articles on people involved in film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What the current names also do is imply that some women are people and some women are not people. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 28 August 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.
Category:Cultural depictions of John Wayne
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Of the seven items in the category, two are trivial parodies (the Simpsons episodes), one is a faux interview with the actor (The God & Devil Show) and one is simply a name check (the Gaga song). The remaining items are not enough to require a category. The non-trivial things can be included in John Wayne's article and the trivia can be ignored. Crewman Capote (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No objection to grouping items defined by depicting John Wayne but, in practice, everything in this group either references John Wayne among many other references or is just a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. There is a potential list article here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crewman Capote: You haven't tagged the category with a CfD template, see How to use CfD. I'll do that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 31 August 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.
Category:1384 establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- 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 and delete as nominated. ℯxplicit 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:1384 establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1380s establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1386 establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1380s establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1407 establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1400s establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1425 establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1420s establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1444 establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1440s establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1384 in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1380s in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1386 in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1380s in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1407 in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1400s in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1425 in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1420s in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1444 in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1440s in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose merging Category:1464 in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:1460s in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose redirecting Category:Years of the 15th century in the Burgundian Netherlands to Category:15th century in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands by year
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands by millennium
- Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands
- Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow categories, unlikely to ever contain more than one article each, and container categories for these. Suggest merging and deleting as listed above. —swpbT 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and also merge to year (establishments) in either the Holy Roman Empire or Europe as a second merge target. No objection against going a step further and merging to century categories in the Burgundian Netherlands instead of decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- weak support - in case there is little chance to populate the annual cats in the near future. In any case oppose to Marcopelle's suggestion to merge further to centuries.GreyShark (dibra) 11:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Burgundian Netherlands existed as a personal union of fiefs from 1382, some being French and some Imperial. As such we need to treat this as a separate country not a subsidiary of either France or Holy Roman Empire. Some of these need upmerging to "14xx in Europe" too so that we do not lose them from the relevant year category, but I think one Category:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands should be adequate without needing a decade split; we currently have a total of 5 articles, which will make one modest category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter is something that I can support too (again with double upmerge), five articles isn't too much for a single category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 20 August 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.
Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians
- 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. ℯxplicit 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is the fourth followup recreation of a category previously deleted at CFD -- however, as the original discussion was conducted a full decade ago, I felt it better to relist for a new discussion rather than simply speedying it. The standard consensus around userspace categories is they exist to facilitate collaboration, and not to simply announce any random fact about a person that they want advertised on their userpage -- for example, even "LGBT Wikipedians" does not contain all or even most Wikipedia contributors who identify as LGBT, but contains Wikipedians who are actively involved in working on LGBT-related topics. But being heterosexual does not communicate any particular collaborative interest in any particular subject area -- it simply advertises a fact about the person, but has nothing to do with the process of building an encyclopedia through collaboration. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. At the same time it could be an option to rename Category:LGBT Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT topics in order to clarify the category's purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport nom and further support Marcocapelle's proposal. —swpbT 20:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- this is too common to be a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not useful for colaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 27 August 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.
Category:Major Third Party Candidates
- 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. ℯxplicit 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Major Third Party Candidates to Category:Third-party candidates in United States presidential elections
- Nominator's rationale: Subjective ("major") and ambiguous title. (It is also miscapitalized and misses the hyphen in the compound modifier.) HandsomeFella (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support "Major" means notable, and is assumed; the context of "third-party" needs to be set in the USA. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per below. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Category:Candidates for President of the United States already contains numerous subcategories for presidential candidates grouped by the specific party they were candidates for, and any party that doesn't have one yet could certainly have one created — but we don't need a cross-party grouping of third-party presidential candidates, based on an arbitrary popular vote cutoff, to exist alongside the existing categorization scheme. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bearcat. —swpbT 20:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Allright, I can buy delete. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I asked for this discussion after noticing that a fairly new SPA editor proposed this through AFC and it was passed through without any real scrutiny. The way in which that editor initially populated the category left a pattern of ambiguity as to its purpose, namely in that "major" appears to imply certain offices or certain periods in time without actually specifying any of that, plus the inclusion of John B. Anderson and others further confuses the fact that "Independent" is not a political party but rather expressly denotes the absence of such. The introductory text added by that editor on the category page implies that this was really intended to be a list, but lists in this vein are already found at Category:Election results by party in the United States. A category of this type could possibly fit within the structure of Category:American political candidates, but as of right now that category is subdivided strictly by office or by year. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite what's said above, 5% is a crucial number for US presidential candidates. See [1] and [2] — it's the legal cutoff for a candidate's eligibility to participate in the federal campaign fund. This is how the federal government discriminates between major and not-major candidacies. Maybe the terminology could be improved (i.e. a rename), but the concept itself is quite reasonable for a category. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unnecessary and non-defining. I don't find the 5% thing to be a defining feature. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These are not all presidential candidates.Whomyl (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whomyl: What? Should we keep it as some kind of generic category for every person who has once been a third-party candidate to just any kind of post? Would the PTA count? Please clarify. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:10, 30 August 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.
Category:Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
- 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. ℯxplicit 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: merge, the scope of this category is the same as the scope of the parent category, namely 6 islands in the Caribbean that are (in different ways) part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. More information in Dutch Caribbean. (If merged, please add the parents of the nominated category as parents of Category:Dutch Caribbean as well.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the cats look the same to me.GreyShark (dibra) 11:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- It is the same thing and short category names are usually better, avoiding clutter at the bottom of pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — agree with Peterkingiron that "short category names are usually better, avoiding clutter at the bottom of pages." — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 25 August 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.