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.
Nominator's rationale: I'm starting with the top category and will then see if the underlying structure can be renamed and merged together afterwards. Bollywood is merely a nickname that came about in the 1970s for the Hindi-language film industry in Mumbai (even though the article pages go back to 1920 and probably include significant number of films not in Mumbai itself). We should use the more neutral name of "Hindu-language films" (we have Category:Lists of American films not Category:Lists of Hollywood films). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A daunting and probably unnecessary task. Before thinking about changing from "Bollywood" to "Hindi-language" in the category names (which is not technically incorrect) please discuss in the WT:IND. Of course you provide good rationale, but Bollywood has become a common and recognizable term world-wide, used in scholarly publications as well as popular culture. Just changing a category name (that too such a huge category) might leave unmanageable repercussions downstream.I suggest to discuss this in WT:IND or Wikiproject Film noticeboard.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has just 3 entries and there is only one other United States city- New York- which has five entries .Plus this category combines both zoos and aquariums. Aquariums are categorized separately from zoos. If the category is categorized as per the norm here, it would be zoos in Dallas and only have two entries. If the category is kept it should be renamed Zoos in Dallas, Texas....William18:48, 31 July 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This category collates together at least five different competitions (the Scottish League Cup, Scottish Premiership, Scottish Championship, Scottish League One and Scottish League Two) into one category. It isn't a defining characteristic of a player that they are an "SPFL medal winner". There is perhaps an argument for having separate categories for each, but even then it would sometimes be difficult to source that a player had actually won a medal (rules can restrict them from being issued if the player is on the team, but doesn't play often). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is most articles that use that Cat do not source that a medal was handed-out to the individual. There are many rules as to who gets a medal. Yes we can say that someone was in a winning team but less often do we know who got the medals.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I specifically only gave it to players that had played over 10 games that season, but like you say it's not an easy to source criteria. I know Andy Barrowman rejected his League One medal last year as he didn't feel he deserved it. Rename it to title winners or something like that, as that is at least quantifiable.Salty1984 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (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.
Keep While it is based on how the games are available on one specific service, 1) this service sells the majority of games on the platforms 2) it is not just that the games are available on multiple services but that they a purchase-once, play-on-all type thing, which is a novelty in terms of the common sale of video games. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every single game available on more than one operating system and on Steam is listed as SteamPlay. There are over 1700 SteamPlay games (a significant amount of which have Wikipedia articles) and less than 40 are in this category. Barely any Wikipedia articles even mention SteamPlay and no reliable sources cover the feature past its announcement because it is now a common and standard practice on PC that if you own a game on Windows, you also own it on Mac and Linux, regardless of where you bought it from. You could create a corresponding category for any other store (like GOG, Origin, etc) that sells PC games for multiple platforms because they all offer the same feature as SteamPlay. Clearly WP:NONDEF. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2015 (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.
Keep Collectors editions usually include additional unique merch that others cannot get. Identifying the games that get these makes sense. And there's lists and categories can co-exist. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't making it a defining characteristic. No decent video game article will cover collector's editions in the lead of article. It's is so common nowadays for video games to get released in "collector's editions" or "limited editions" with additional content. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (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 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." Each of these categories only contains one article, the biography of the artist, and a sub-category of their works. The headers in each of the subcategories link to the artist so no navigation will be lost. I created Category:Mark Rothko so I certainly have no objection to recreating these later should more directly related content appear.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because we have a paintings cat for someone does not require a parent cat. Although this nomination shows a debate bewteen those who see categories as useful things that do not need fully trees and those who see it as a form of taxonomy where you need to have every possible parent layer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately the issue may be whether or not the connections of articles should be built in the cateogry system, or whether we should use a multitude of approaches choosing the one that is most logical. The latter seems to be the current consensus, although there are clear indications that some favor the former.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2015 (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.
Comment Since there are a great many articles in 2014 and 2015 and almost none before, I'm wondering if this is just a matter of @Arnav19: populating the older categories. (If this is really all there is, then I support upmerging all.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That and I imagine a slight systemic bias towards the creation of articles on newer series, it's not likely you're find much information on some 1990s Tamil television series, if any existed (plus I don't think there were a lot of Tamil series around earlier, making less likely to have endings around earlier). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- India is a subcontinent with a number of major languagues. I suspect (though I am not sure) that the target categories are in fact for Hindi (perhaps also English language series), whereas I presume that the subjects are all Tamil language ones. In Europe we would not merge, English, French, and Spanish language series inot a single category. I do not think we should in India, either. I have another problem with all the categories. The articles that I sampled seemed to be about the whole series, not their endings. Should they be Category:Tamil television series ending in 2000 etc. with the parent Category:Tamil television series by year of ending? If so, the targets need renaming to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what European country would the possibility of merging English, French and Spanish language series ever even exist? And why would it be a bad thing to mix them if such a country did actually exist, given that language isn't the point in this particular tree? We don't, for instance, split Category:American television series endings into separate subcategories for English and Spanish language series, or Category:Canadian television series endings into separate subcategories for English and French ones — the fact that they're American or Canadian, not the language they're in, is the salient detail in this particular spot. There's more than enough room for language to be relevant and reflected elsewhere in the Category:Indian television series tree, without needing every Indian television category in existence to always be comprehensively subcatted by language. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least putting these under the Indian television series category. These categories are by nation of creation. That category maybe should be sub-divided by language, but if that is done, all languages should be in subcats, not one assumed to be predominant and others in subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At second instance, I think this format change isn't that important. The alternative is clearer but if there is a standard in place let's stick to it. More importantly, let's keep the Tamil branch but upmerge a number of the smaller year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. Country of origin, not language, is the salient factor in the "television series endings" tree. There are plenty of places for language to be relevant and reflected in Indian television categories; this particular spot doesn't need to be one of them, because the language a television series happens to be in has no special or WP:DEFINING relevance to the series' year of ending. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least don't upmerge 2013-2015 per WP:SMALLCAT because these categories are big enough. Furthermore I disagree that language is not defining, I would say it is very defining for any television topic, simply because the content of television largely consists of spoken language. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are already plenty of places where the language that a television series is in can be and is already reflected. YMMV, but I don't see any particularly compelling reason why the "year of television series ending" tree needs to be one of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2015 (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.
