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: This was argued to no consensus some years back, and while it has a lot of text at the top identifying suitable members, the problem now, as it was before, is that these are as far as I can tell all general-purpose exhibition halls in which I presume some sort of snooker competition was held. It is a perfect example of WP:OCVENUE. Seyasirt (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was actually argued to a snow keep some years back at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_25#Category:Snooker_venues. However, this result wasn't good enough for some editors so they they re-ran the debate a few months later at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Category:Snooker_venues, this time resulting in no consensus. So we've had this discussion twice already and on both occasions there was no consensus to delete it. I appreciate consensus can change, but sometimes consensus doesn't have to change, and I see no reason why the arguments for deleting will be different this time. The nominating rationale that "these are as far as I can tell all general-purpose exhibition halls in which I presume some sort of snooker competition was held" is actually the exact same argument put forward last time around, and was shown to be invalid. So let's recap what this category includes, or rather is intended to include:
Venues that host regular notable snooker events. This would include venues such as the Crucible Theatre which has hosted the World Championship annually since 1977, the Wembley Conference Centre which became synonymous with the Masters event between 1975 and 2006 (when it was finally demolished) and the English Institute of Sport, Sheffield, which is regularly used as a snooker venue for hosting the smaller PTC events and the qualifiers for some of the international events, including the world championship.
Both of these types of use are consistent with WP:OCVENUE. First off, the guideline does not apply to purpose-built or dedicated facilities, and in the case of the second it actually makes an exception for venues that are regularly used in a specific and notable way for some of the year. The most prominent example of this would be the Crucible Theatre because the snooker world championship is the only world class event it regularly hosts. The most ridiculous argument put forward in the last discussion was that "snooker can be played anywhere". This is true to a degree, but darts are also played in every pub up and down the country, and basketball is played at every leisure centre and school up and down the country as well, but we don't argue that Category:Darts venues and Category:Basketball venues should be deleted. The intended use for this category follows the exact same format as those two categories i.e. to house dedicated venues and venues that host regular, notable—and by this we generally mean the professional international tour—snooker events. Whoever closes this discussion should also take the time to read through the very comprehensive argument offered by SMcCandlish at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Category:Snooker_venues, which covers all the main points and defuncts the nomination. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. I would add that the the idea behind this, that something like the Crucible Theatre shouldn't be categorized as as snooker venue because it has been used for other things, belies an ignorance of the sport itself. The World Snooker Championship is itself called "the Crucible" because the tie between the venue and the event is so tight they have become synonymous to snooker players and fans. "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." There's nothing broken here. I'm not sure what it is about cue sports that drives non-participants/non-fans to keep trying to delete categories and templates relating to it, but that needs to be given a permanent rest. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge any for which snooker is not defining. WP:OCVENUE did not apply in 2013 and still doesn't apply. (And tempting SMcCandlish into a lengthy refutation should be a blockable offence.) Oculi (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment SMcCandlish can rein in his own posting, thankyouverymuch. So here's the question: what's going to happen when this gets closed and I start purging? I've looked at the darts category, and it has the same problem: the entries all appear to be general-purpose venues. The basketball case is not parallel since every entry was built specifically to host basketball, albeit with other sports as well. If I purge it down, and there's not enough left, the usual defenders are going to accuse me of gaming things. People are not going to follow the guideline, because they already are not following the guideline, even assuming that it is acceptable. Seyasirt (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, venues like Thurston's Hall and Burroughes Hall were dedicated billiards/snooker venues and surely can be regarded as snooker venues. Trim the list if required. Nigej (talk)
Either Delete or heavily purge to leave nothing but venues that host nothing else. We do not normally allow venues to be categorised by the performances they host, except (as football stadia) that is their main function. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (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 was deleted before because the members were not notable as welders per se, and the membership of the recreated category has the same problem. One or two are famous as inventors of welding techniques, and the rest are mostly notable in labor history, not because they were welders. Seyasirt (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That last discussion said that the category consisted of sports figures and politicians who were only incidentally welders perhaps in their youth. That is not the case with the current group: they are known for welding (women's activists who broke into the profession, labor activists, and inventors) in a way that seems defining to me. The category is certainly vulnerable to having the same articles added it did before. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things are better than before, but I count two people whose fame is specifically derived from welding. Everyone else is some kind of labor activist or pioneer who happened to be a welder. Seyasirt (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would see people unionizing welders or breaking barriers to get into welding defined by welding. (An Olympic athlete that went into welding or a politician who used to weld would be non-defining for me.) I can see your viewpoint though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2016 (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: I'm not sure as to what this category was created for, but surely there are more categories better suited for gaming screenshots than this NordicNightfury15:15, 29 November 2016 (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: "Coming-of-age" and "slice-of-life" are not genres of television series, but merely subjective phrases that can be used to describe a television show's style. Besides the creator's similar new creations for South Korea which have also been CFDed already, we have no other "coming-of-age television series" or "slice-of-life television series" categories for any other country, and neither South Korea nor China gets to make up its own unique genre categories outside the standard genre categorization system. Also worth noting, both of these categories are filed solely as subcategories of the other one, forming a recursive loop with no outside parentage. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete per nom. "Coming-of-age films" is a subjective category too, similar to "films about" type categories; how much about coming-of-age (what age? or what denotes one is "coming of" it?) must a film be, and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Purely subjective as evidenced by the fact that only 30-odd films have been so categorized in the 11+ years this supposed defining category has been around. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2016 (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: Somebody seems to have undertaken a recent campaign of excessive overcategorization of South Korean television series (there are at least two others, created by the same user at the same time as these two, that are already up for CFD on November 22, and I fear a spelunking expedition is in the cards to see if there are still others). These are not consistent with the way Wikipedia categorizes television series — there are no other "workplace drama" or "coming-of-age television series" categories on Wikipedia for any other country, and there's no reason why South Korea should get to make up its own sui generis genre categories for itself outside of the standard ones. Bearcat (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly non-defining, too prone to subjectivity (anybody could add any series that depicts a main character's workplace at all), and therefore unmaintainable. It would be far too close to categorizing songs by general lyrical themes, a thing that gets routinely deleted at AFD when people try it. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge per my comments on the prior CFD. TV shows set in workplaces would be nearly anything, with nothing to do with one another - nearly every TV show has a "workplace" from StarTrek to the Flintstones to the obvious The Office. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2016 (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: I'm not sure there's much substantive reason to subcategorize Category:Prequel films by individual nationality. There's no WP:DEFINING relationship between nationality and prequel status per se, and the parent category is not actually large enough to require geography-related subcatting for size management purposes. It's simply not a useful or needed category. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of the prequel films that we have articles on are American. Prequel films have become more common in the US in recent years. The number of articles in the cat will obviously increase, so it makes no sense to delete it on the basis of it being underpopulated. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If 95 per cent of the articles in a category tree are or should be sitting in one specific subcategory, with only a negligible number of articles actually left outside of that one subcategory, then that in and of itself is another reason why the subcategory is not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near 95% are American, but well over half are. A category is seen as valid if an article could be written about its topic, and an article about American prequel films and their increase in popularity could be be written. Jim Michael (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is there are just not that many prequels to justify this level of refinement. We are not helping readers/editors by diffusing this sub-set of films to lots of non-defining low-populated sub-categories, and even then nationality is not a good diffusion criteria: if a film is an international co-production it would have to be added to two sub-categories or even more, which is why the film project diffuses by decade. Since all American films are added to Category:American films regardless, then Category:American prequel films is actually redundant anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2016 (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: I saw the discussion at the 2016 OSU attacks. Isn't this category unnecessary? Islamic Terrorism is already a category so this seems a bit extra. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was never anything in it. Someone wanted to create the category, was informed not to, but then created the category anyway. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have categories on this. They're called "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic terrorist incidents", "Islamic terrorism by country", etc., etc. Parsley Man (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Empty categories don't actually have to come to CFD for seven days of discussion if they weren't improperly emptied out of process, but rather can simply be speedy deleted per criterion C1. Consider the deed done. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2016 (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.
