October 31
Category:BBC America shows
- 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. Timrollpickering 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:BBC America shows to Category:BBC America series
- Nominator's rationale: I believe we call these "series", not "shows". Sandstein 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Based on the contents of the parent category Category:American television series by network, looks like "shows" is used. But it happens that all of the contents of this category are series, as opposed to just shows (or programs), so the renaming is justified. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:BBC America series as standard. Orientls (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2018 (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.
Government agencies of Barbados
- 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 rename to Category:Government agencies of Barbados. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Both have 3 identical mother categories (Government agencies by country, Government of Barbados, Organisations based in Barbados) and part of the content is found in both categories, such as Barbados Coast Guard. I suggest merging them into a name following the structure of Government agencies by country. Note that Category:Government ministries of Barbados are found elsewhere, so there is no need in keeping ministries in the name. Place Clichy (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Distribute contents then delete The shipping association is probably not a government body and should not be here, but in organisations. The Coast guard (and its one member category) can go into Category:Government of Barbados , which for example contains their police. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: Good pick, the Shipping Association of Barbados does seem to be government-linked, I removed it from the category. However, much of the content seems to fit the usual description of a government agency: Barbados Civil Aviation Department, Barbados Transport Board, Barbados Water Authority, Corporate Affairs and Intellectual Property Office, several Statutory boards of the Barbadian Government etc. I therefore believe that a category within the well-established tree of Government agencies by country is in order. Place Clichy (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2018 (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:WrestleMania themes
- 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. Timrollpickering 00:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Songs were not written specifically for WrestleMania. --woodensuperman 15:42, 31 October 2018 (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:Soldier characters in video games
Category:Landlocked U.S. 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: Delete - jc37 01:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Technically correct, but seems to be an unnecessary sub-categorization of Category:States of the United States, and isn't a defining attribute. Michigan doesn't border the ocean but does border lakes, and many other inland states border major rivers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Direct access to the ocean (and lack thereof) is a defining characteristic of a state, and although major rivers may provide access, the economy and demographics of landlocked states can be very different from ones with direct ocean access.--AirportExpert (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per AirportExpert. JDDJS (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or redefine in a way that is meaningful. Each of the Great Lakes States has ocean access via the St. Lawrence Seaway - you can pilot a boat from Chicago to any port in the world - and it contradicts common sense to categorize those states as "landlocked" in any but some hypertechnical sense. This category does not aid readers in understanding but instead, confuses them. JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnInDC. Michigan is hardly landlocked, as noted above, and other states that might be hyertechnically considered landlocked are not in a practical sense, i.e. Pennsylvania and the Port of Philadelphia. Given the level of confusion at work here, this category as applied does not assist our readers. Imzadi 1979 → 13:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a report about a lawsuit challenging a Michigan law requiring oceangoing vessels to obtain a state permit before they can use Michigan ports. A "landlocked state" would have no use for such a law. I'm not sure who the "Great Lakes Seaway Partnership" is, but they note as a matter of simple passing fact, that "Steel products from Europe, South America and Asia are off-loaded from ocean-going vessels in Detroit for use by local manufacturers." JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnInDC and Imzadi1979. —JJBers 14:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohninDC. I am also confused as to the definition of 'landlocked'. Many of the states that border the Great Lakes have access to the ocean through the St. Lawrence Seaway. The port of Duluth, Minnesota is one of the top ten ports in the United States in terms of tonnage moved including tonnage from the Atlantic ocean. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Join the club! In the course of trying to make sense of this Category, I stumbled across List of landlocked U.S. states, a single (and questionably) sourced list of US States said to be "landlocked". I've repeated several observations here, at the Talk page there, in anticipation of a possible AfD. Additional comments are welcome there - JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a follow up note I have AfD the list article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_landlocked_U.S._states. Just as a reminder to all there is also a mainspace article at landlocked. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having a list is good enough. And even then... Place Clichy (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What if we were to define "landlocked" as states that do not border an ocean or the Great Lakes? would that clarify things? I just edited the category to no longer define states that border the Great Lakes as "landlocked".--AirportExpert (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
- Well, "we" don't define anything. Reliable sources do. And there aren't any for this concept as far as I can see. The whole notion is sketchy at best, and I think we're better off without it at all. JohnInDC (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Category:Landlocked countries exists and there is an eponymous article. Seems reasonable therefore to have this category too. --Bsherr (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bsherr -- Whats new?(talk) 20:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete best handled in a list. I draw a distinction between states and countries, as people and businesses in Nevada has as free access to the Pacific Ocean as folks in California. It's not like someone needs to pay duties, show their passports, yield national sovereignty to do so. Unlike, e.g., folks in Mongolia. Next, we'll have Category:Landlocked counties, Category:Landlocked municipalities, etc. all of which are as defining as US States, but equally defective for the same reasons I set forth above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think that this is distinct from landlocked countries, as discussed by several editors above. The freedom of interstate commerce essentially renders the fact of a state being landlocked a very minor detail, and not especially "defining" for that state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Notable U.S. Geography category. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't too many occasions when you get to say something "begs the question" in the classic, and correct, sense, but this is one of them. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (upmerge if necessary) as there's no need to categorize US states in anything more detailed than Category:States of the United States and (with the exception of landlocked countries) we don't usually categorize places by what they do or do not border (e.g. U.S. states bordering Canada). DexDor (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per the arguments of Carlossuarez46 and others. Being land-locked for a state is not defining. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2018 (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:Directors
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This and all of it direct sub categories should be renamed to clarify exactly what type of director it is for, so it;s not to be confused with other types of directors. JDDJS (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also supporting alternative (equally less ambiguous) renames per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Prefer Category:Directors of the performing arts - Peter Hall and Peter Brook do not do "entertainment". Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is really the primary topic. The category page itself adequately disambiguates other uses. Also, Category:Producers is arguably just as ambiguous. If it is renamed, I think you have issues choosing between "performing arts" (is directing reality TV, or a news program, or a sporting event broadcast, a performing art?), "entertainment" (per Johnbod above), or either for that matter (is a director of television commercials directing performing arts or entertainment?). Your best bet is probably something like "Directors (arts and media occupation)", and that hardly seems better to me. --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as nominated. This is a good idea in principle. The intended scope is clearly artistic, but the unqualified word "director" includes company directors, and the ambiguity invites miscategorisation. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concept referred to by @Bsherr works well in article space, but not in categories, which need greater precision.
- I am not satisfied that the proposed title includes all the relevant types, which include both arts and entertainment and other media roles (e.g. directors of documentary films are not really either entertainers or artists). I think that @Johnbod's suggestion of "Directors of the performing arts" is the best so far, but I am not sure that it would includes Category:Video game directors or documentary film directors. "Creative directors" is tempting in principle, but that term has a specific meaning in advertising. Even so, I think it is the best fit, and the article creative director supports the broad usage.
- This nomination includes only the parent category of a large tree. There is no point in doing this unless the subcats are also renamed, and there are lots of them: Category:Directors by genre or type, Category:Directors by nationality (plus 116 subcats e.g. Category:Albanian directors), Category:LGBT directors, Category:Fictional directors, Category:Women directors. They should all be listed and tagged, so that editors interested in those categories are aware of this discussion.
- I hope something can be agreed here, because there is a problem to be resolved. But I strongky oppose renaming the parent without renaming the subcats, or renaming the subcats unless they are listed and tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to something like Category:Directors in the performing arts. In UK the usual meaning of "director" is a company director, so that the present name is ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2018 (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.