< November 24 November 26 >

November 25

Category:Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy alumni

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 26#Category:Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy alumni. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for alumni of a voice acting education program, whose article contains no reliable sourcing to suggest that it's notable at all. People are not defined by being alumni of non-notable schools. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep stuff just because better sources might exist than are present in the article. To consider it notable, someone who can read Japanese would have to show the evidence that any actual reliable sources do exist, rather than it necessarily being my job to prove that they don't — nothing would ever be deletable at all if "well, maybe some real sources might actually exist somewhere" were all it took to make it keep an article keepable, and the article's existed for seven years without having a single source added to it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 27 November 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.

People by city and occupation

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. The compromise outlined in this discussion would require a separate proposal, as it would affect all "people by city and occupation" categories. ℯxplicit 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two-part location names require a comma after the second element, per Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Punctuation. This was originally listed at WP:CFD/S by User:HandsomeFella, but opposed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion at CFDS
    • Oppose all speedy location rename. I don't like the the extra comma. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:C5DB:BC3E:974F:E670 (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Haha, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      It's obvious that this IP's objection doesn't count. If no valid objections arise, maybe we can process this as unopposed after the regular 48 hours. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      No, do not process it, take it for a full CFD. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:58D7:8DE3:356D:407D (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have a valid reason to object this renaming proposal, by all means don't hold back until there's a CFD. Now that you've had two chances to explain, you might miss out on that opportunity. Not liking it does not count as a valid reason. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The valid reason the is "adding a second comma for it's location would ruin the sentence" for the "by occupation" sentence. Could you still take that proposal to the full CFD? Also User:Bearcat will decide to support speedy or oppose speedy rename for the proposal on the extra comma. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:45E0:D560:2C77:BA57 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you read WP:Copyedit#Punctuation? And yes, I saw that you WP:CANVASSed Bearcat. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want to read the Copyedit for punctuation guidelines for "by occupation" categories. You don't need the extra comma for the "by occupation" categories. Adding the city-province next to the comma and "by occupation" categories would ruin the sentence. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:45E0:D560:2C77:BA57 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it wouldn't. On the contrary, without the comma, the "by occupation" part would seem to be related to [State] only:
      1) People from Tulsa
      2) Oklahoma by occupation
      Considering this goes against the manual of style, and the most other such categories include the comma (see the parent categories), don't hold your breath. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's not true, don't you see all categories for the "by occupation" title would have been used as "Category:People from Tulsa, Oklahoma by occupation". the comma only used "once" between the city and province or state. The "by occupations" stays perfect without the second comma next to the by occupation. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:45E0:D560:2C77:BA57 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      See Category:American people by city and occupation. Most two-part names are followed by the comma. Those that aren't are included in this discussion. And that's still contravening WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to postulate that that "by the contrary" fails WP:COMMONSENSE. Any reasonable person won't read it as two seperate things. I'm not going to object simply on the grounds of I know a losing battle when I see one, but seriously this perincious picayuneness on "but *grammar*", especially in categories, is just another thing for people to point and laugh at Wikipedia about. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I have seen a trend in media – online and on paper – towards adding the second comma. So I guess people will have more to laugh at. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
chit-chat
  • If you want to talk about the second comma next to by location. Why don't you talk to User:Bearcat about the second comma next to by location. The strong administrator will figure out to review the proposal. Thanks. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I being summoned, exactly? What gives me any special insight into this? Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bearcat, Could you review the "by occupation" categories for proposal for adding the second comma next to by occupation. I already "oppose" the proposal for adding the second comma next to by location. There are some Canadian location categories by occupation to be included. Is it possible for the Canadian location categories by occupation without the second comma for an example "Category:People from Windsor, Ontario by occupation" is it because of possibly the Canadian grammar. To find out talk to User:Black Falcon. Thanks. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what makes you think I have any special insight into whether a comma would be warranted in that context or not? I already saw this discussion earlier (you might find it fascinating to notice who the nominator was in the discussions both directly above and directly below this one!), and would have contributed to it already if I had anything to contribute. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about the Canadian location categories by occupation. I know you're professional at Canadian related articles and you are a helpful admin. The single comma for city-comma-province next to by occupation can be used once. Is it the "Canadian grammar" that I'm asking as a question? We won't talk about it until tomorrow. A lot of users are expected to review. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that I have a really hard time understanding what you're getting at, like, a lot of the time that you approach me about a lot of things, right? Bearcat (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're tired and I'm tired too. Don't be exhausted just give it a rest and review the categories if you can support or oppose. We'll talk about it until tomorrow and think about it. Thanks. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:30F8:6AF3:D1E:C547 (talk) 07:38, 26 November 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:Sam Nujoma

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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misguided eponymous category that's serving as a compilation of several different overcategorization errors: it contains three of his family members and three organizations he was associated with (both violating WP:OCASSOC), two things that were merely named after him (violating WP:SHAREDNAME), one community whose only connection to him is that he once inaugurated a memorial shrine in the community (violating WP:DEFINING), and one book he wrote. All of which means that if this were purged of everything that shouldn't be categorized this way, all that would be left is the eponym and the book — so it would also fail WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 25 November 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:Book of Revelation art

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. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, only one subcategory currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the paintings subcat is already in Category:Paintings depicting New Testament themes‎ . Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 26 November 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:Paintings depicting the Massacre of the Innocents

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 29#Category:Paintings depicting the Massacre of the Innocents. ℯxplicit 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in here, and there is not even a parent Category:Massacre of the Innocents. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes three articles about paintings, because one of the articles is about two paintings. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 26 November 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:Dzau district

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per C2D, the article is Dzau District. The category was nominated for speedy move, but the move was opposed. Note that the name of the article is contested (it is Java District in Georgian, and arguments could be made whether Ossetian or Georgian name is primary), but in any case this should be discussed at the article talk page first, this nomination is solely about the capitalization of the district.Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 25 November 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:ABS-CBN telenovelas

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 to Category:Philippine telenovelas and Category:ABS-CBN shows. The Philippine category is not a network category, so that should be dealt with separately if desired. ℯxplicit 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have looked for sources that indicate that ABS-CBN produces telenovelas, but I have not found anything, they all indicate that they are TV series. Well, I do not know how they agreed to create this category. but it is totally different from the "Category:Televisa telenovelas" and others. Philip J Fry / talk 04:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to say is that ABS-CBN does not produce telenovelas, as it happens in Latin America and Brazil. Then because there must be a category that says ABS-CBN telenovelas. For example, in these pages [1], [2], it shows how TV genres are classified in Televisa. What I want to say is that for this to be telenovelas, at least there should be reliable sources so that they can be included in the telenovela category. And then, I do not see any source that indicates that these series are telenovelas.--Philip J Fry / talk 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I've got a better sense of what the issue is here now, so I'm ready to express an opinion below. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: I think his proposal seems more reasonable, but what would happen then with Category:Philippine telenovelas.--Philip J Fry / talk 23:29, 25 November 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:Palestinian billionaires

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's only one article in this category. SMALLCAT.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:46, 25 November 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.
More