Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 25: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:24, 3 September 2012 editBrickchairbrickchair (talk | contribs)5 edits →Category:Terrorism fuelled by Pakistan← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 3 September 2012 edit undoThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators157,919 edits ....hmmmm...Next edit →
Line 135: Line 135:
*'''Comment''' The category is a vague collection of events and incidents that have not even the remotest connection to Pakistan, apart from the fact that they are ''alleged'' by India to be connected to Pakistan. Heck, even those allegations have not been proven or verified. This category is clearly problematic because it is being used to push and advance one particular point of view. It should be deleted as a pure case of ]-pushing. ''']''' (]) 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC) *'''Comment''' The category is a vague collection of events and incidents that have not even the remotest connection to Pakistan, apart from the fact that they are ''alleged'' by India to be connected to Pakistan. Heck, even those allegations have not been proven or verified. This category is clearly problematic because it is being used to push and advance one particular point of view. It should be deleted as a pure case of ]-pushing. ''']''' (]) 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::Then de-categorize the articles with appropriate edit summary, instead of pushing its deletion altogether. ]] ] {{plain link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&preload=User_talk%3AMrt3366%2Fnew_section&editintro=&preloadtitle=&section=new&title=User_talk%3AMrt3366&create=Post+a+new+comment+on+my+talk+page <font color="green"><sup>(New section?)</sup></font>}} 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ::Then de-categorize the articles with appropriate edit summary, instead of pushing its deletion altogether. ]] ] {{plain link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&preload=User_talk%3AMrt3366%2Fnew_section&editintro=&preloadtitle=&section=new&title=User_talk%3AMrt3366&create=Post+a+new+comment+on+my+talk+page <font color="green"><sup>(New section?)</sup></font>}} 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
v This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC) * '''Delete''' per ]. This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::] is talking about an article. ''Come on!'' If you cite pov-title then I also can site ]. ]] ] {{plain link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&preload=User_talk%3AMrt3366%2Fnew_section&editintro=&preloadtitle=&section=new&title=User_talk%3AMrt3366&create=Post+a+new+comment+on+my+talk+page <font color="green"><sup>(New section?)</sup></font>}} 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC) ::] is talking about an article. ''Come on!'' If you cite pov-title then I also can site ]. ]] ] {{plain link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&preload=User_talk%3AMrt3366%2Fnew_section&editintro=&preloadtitle=&section=new&title=User_talk%3AMrt3366&create=Post+a+new+comment+on+my+talk+page <font color="green"><sup>(New section?)</sup></font>}} 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::] on Categories too. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC) :::] on Categories too. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 146: Line 146:
*'''Delete''' the title has many POV issues, and opens up even more controversial categories.It should be remembered that we avoid "alleged" categories, so throwing that word in the title will make the category name even more porblematic.] (]) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' the title has many POV issues, and opens up even more controversial categories.It should be remembered that we avoid "alleged" categories, so throwing that word in the title will make the category name even more porblematic.] (]) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:*{{!xt|"we avoid "alleged" categories"}} — Mostly yeah, but there are categories as well as articles with the word "alleged" in one form or the other. <br>Since ] to categories too, see ]. <br>By the way, the word "allegation" is not inherently avoided as long as it's explicitly backed by the ]. It's my understanding that[REDACTED] rules/guidelines are to be applied with ''']''', without that they can be misused and ] loss of perspective. ]] ] {{plain link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&preload=User_talk%3AMrt3366%2Fnew_section&editintro=&preloadtitle=&section=new&title=User_talk%3AMrt3366&create=Post+a+new+comment+on+my+talk+page <font color="green"><sup>(New section?)</sup></font>}} 10:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) :*{{!xt|"we avoid "alleged" categories"}} — Mostly yeah, but there are categories as well as articles with the word "alleged" in one form or the other. <br>Since ] to categories too, see ]. <br>By the way, the word "allegation" is not inherently avoided as long as it's explicitly backed by the ]. It's my understanding that[REDACTED] rules/guidelines are to be applied with ''']''', without that they can be misused and ] loss of perspective. ]] ] {{plain link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&preload=User_talk%3AMrt3366%2Fnew_section&editintro=&preloadtitle=&section=new&title=User_talk%3AMrt3366&create=Post+a+new+comment+on+my+talk+page <font color="green"><sup>(New section?)</sup></font>}} 10:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per ]. ] (]) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC) - <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

* '''Delete''' per ]. ] (]) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


==== Category:Basketball players from Istanbul ==== ==== Category:Basketball players from Istanbul ====

Revision as of 21:32, 3 September 2012

< August 24 August 26 >

August 25

Category:Fellows of the British-American Project

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Essentially this is categorisation by membership of an organisation, and I don't think being a fellow of the British-American Project is sufficiently defining to be worth a category. Becoming a fellow mainly involves attending a conference, and apparently there are around 600 of them. Robofish (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
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.

American animated films

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 and sort out contents afterwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This nomination is split into two parts, as there's two 'source' category name sets. One deviates more than the other - and could, in fact, almost be speedied - while the second contains categories, while not in the wrong naming format like the first set, would look odd in their primary trees after the renaming of the first set, if not also renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Set 1: 'Animated features released by Foo' to 'Foo animated films'. For consistency with the parent categories in Category:Films by studio, all of which use the 'Foo films' format.
Set 2: 'Foo films' to 'Foo animated films', for consistency with the above in Category:American animated films after Set 1's renaming.
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:Competency Assesment

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) 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:FAKEARTICLE - and a rather spammy one at that - with a few random, nebulously-associated articles 'categorised' as a fig leaf and as a see-also section. The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Why should this category not be deletedI am not a professional copywriter or an editor or a lexicographer...I am just an amateur with an interest and competency in competency assessment. Since Misplaced Pages is about all contributing, I thought I shall contribute to create this category. Competency Assessment is the key for success of any organisation's growth and therefore it deserves a special category.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.144.169 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
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:Woolworth companies

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by shared name. The sub-cats are unrelated entities, and "see also" links would be better than a hierarchical structure. Also, all the direct members of the category and other companies sharing this name are listed in List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. (Note: at the end, the sub-cats should be members of Category:Misplaced Pages categories named after retailers.) – Fayenatic London 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Woolworth

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article F. W. Woolworth Company. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ships

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the current names of the cities of Elbląg and Szczecin. - Darwinek (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum. Please note that the renaming of the actual cities is not the objective here. We can say instead: "Elbing shipyard", or "Stettin shipyard" (similar to Battle of Stalingrad as oppose to Battle of Volgograd because the city Volgograd is not called Stalingrad anymore). Conversely, the names Elbing and Stettin are not "Prussian"... They are contemporary names in the German language. Poeticbent talk 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism fuelled by Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Pure POV. Needs either renaming or deletion Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Creator's rationale: I wasn't trying to be mean or anything. I simply figured that since there is an article about Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism / Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden with plenty of verifiable or justifiable content in them, it would not be POV to create a category on such basis. Nevertheless, I could have chosen the name more prudently. Misplaced Pages is not a vote, by the way. Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · count) 09:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: There is was a proposal to speedy-rename this category by the author but it was quickly declined because of the existence of this full CfD thread by The Bushranger. Feel free to suggest new names here if you want it to be renamed. Mrt3366 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"Textbook definition of WP:POV and WP:SOAP" - really? I didn't know that.

"the placing of the articles within the category is also a sorry case of WP:SYNTHESIS" - that doesn't mean the category itself should be deleted.

I propose a renaming of the category. If there can be categories like Category:Islamic terrorism by country or Category:Islamic terrorism in India with good reason, there could also be a category titled, Category:Alleged Pakistan-sponsored terrorism or Category:Terrorism alleged to have been sponsored by Pakistani organizations or something in those lines. Mrt3366 16:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy-rename. Mrt3366 16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This should be fully discussed, then renamed, if kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But it has been nominated precisely because of the name, I think your argument kind of collapses on itself. Mrt3366 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"I don't think there's a neutral and objective way of wording this" - If by "neutral way" you mean a censored or sanitized way, then you're right and that's because the blatant truth is so against Pakistan. Mrt3366 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been asked whether this was a 'delete' or a 'rename' comment. It could be a 'Rename', except that I think this category is trying to cover too much at the moment: both acts of terrorism by independent Pakistani organisations and alleged acts of terrorism by the Pakistani government. Those don't really belong in the same category, that's what I meant by 'too broad and vague'. I'd support a renamed version of this category only if it was narrowed down to something more specific with clear inclusion criteria. Robofish (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"I think this category is trying to cover too much at the moment" — Well that's not insurmountable, is it?
So you think it could be a rename, provided that the articles are categorized cautiously? Mrt3366 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The category is a vague collection of events and incidents that have not even the remotest connection to Pakistan, apart from the fact that they are alleged by India to be connected to Pakistan. Heck, even those allegations have not been proven or verified. This category is clearly problematic because it is being used to push and advance one particular point of view. It should be deleted as a pure case of POV-pushing. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Then de-categorize the articles with appropriate edit summary, instead of pushing its deletion altogether. Mrt3366 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:POVTITLE is talking about an article. Come on! If you cite pov-title then I also can site WP:SUBPOV. Mrt3366 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"Standard article naming conventions apply" on Categories too. --SMS 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
So be it then, as evidenced through usages in significant majority of reliable sources, let us follow the sources, as WP:POVTITLE tells us, and use a new more suitable name (as suggested by me and others in this thread) as the category title. This is what I have been saying all along that the name is the problem as opposed to the existence of this category. Mrt3366 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appallingly POV category. And now we seem to have this Category, which is being slapped onto/includes the same pages. While I can buy the argument that it is a more neutral - if cumbersome - title, in a way it's worse, since as currently constituted it suggests that only Pakistan - of all the countries in the world - is, or faces allegations of being, a state sponsor of terrorism. And ultimately, isn't the new proposed category ultimately fairly meaningless and just as open to POV manipulation, albeit on a wider scale, since pretty much every country has faced allegations of sponsoring terrorism? As noted above, the POV pushing in this area, often from established and prolific editors, debases Misplaced Pages. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The category I created does not just contain allegation against Pakistan. And given it was just created perhaps you would help populate it? This category can be used on all articles which contain allegations of SST, I am of the opinion it is a useful and needed cat. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Key word and biggest problem: "allegation". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename -- There is probably the basis for a legitimate category here. There is widespread suspicion that emanations of the Pakistani state are involved in terrorism in Afganistan. However the Pakistan state denies this. It is not clear if the perpetrators are independent organisations that the Pakistani authorities have infiltrated, but failed to suppress or control, or whether the authorities are dissembling in their denials. Category:Terrorism allegedly fuelled by Pakistan might fit the bill or Category:Allegations of Pakistan-fuelled terrorism. That Pakistan is guilty of what is alleged is a view widely held by independent journalists and foreign governments. We need a non-POV title, but should keep the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete the title has many POV issues, and opens up even more controversial categories.It should be remembered that we avoid "alleged" categories, so throwing that word in the title will make the category name even more porblematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players from Istanbul

Nominator's rationale: Merge per this discussion and this discussion and per WP:OVERCAT. TM 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Japanese in California

Nominator's rationale: The proposed category names more accurately reflects the topics being categorizedMyasuda (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Japanese Americans are not Japanese. The other category names in similar sub-categories should also be changed. This is just the first one to be nominated. — Myasuda (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Should it not be 'People of Japanese descent in Foo'? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That would work for me. — Myasuda (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • read the category articles As with similar categories I mentioned above, the content is not bio articles. It is aricles on Japanese culture and history in the US. These renames are perfectly not applicable and do nothing but confuse everything here. Hmains (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename -- "Japanese culture and settlement in foo". The content is not bio-articles, which according to the international standard (not applied in US would be 'People of Japanese descent in Foo', but the content covers neighborhoods with a high Japanese population and Japanese gardens (inspired by Japanese culture). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Foos in Bar is the most common naming format in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by state; see for example Category:Ethnic groups in New York or Category:Ethnic groups in Louisiana. Any change should be done systematically.- choster (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep in this case Japanese is being used as an ethnic, not a nationality, designator. There are Texas Germans and there are Japanese Hawaiians, not Texas German-Americans or Japanese-American Hawaiians, well there are the later, but they would be a different ethnic group. These categories are about the history of these ethnic groups in the place. It is ethnicity, not mere descent, that is being tracked. Thus the original culture is playing the controlling role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Portrait by Hans Holbein the younger

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains the subjects of the portraits e.g. Henry VIII of England, not articles about individual portraits. The paintings are in Category:Paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger. This would work better as a list to avoid overcategorisation, and it already exists at List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger. Tim! (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Nearly identical to Category:People important in Tudor England, it's clearly non-defining. I cannot imagine we've categorized people by who painted them. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Retain As the nominator for deletion notices, it is a category for articles about people depicted by Holbein, not the paintings themselves. Holbein also painted religious and allegorical subjects. As Holbein was latterly in royal employment, there are political diplomatic reasons why he painted non-English sitters, as he did. The category, as is clearly stated, also includes sitters whose portraits are not known to exist, who were painted for diplomatic reasons which were recorded, and these people would not appear in a list of paintings. (I suppose you might think of it like a category "Subject of biopic film" or "On Senator McCarthy Blacklist" if these had any merits) Unoquha (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete a) not defining for the known sitters; b) category names should be plural; c) there are very few paintings in the list that Tim! links to that are not portraits. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Listify by merging into List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger: I suspect that there is more in the category than the list. This category is a misuse of category-space, since it is categorising people painted by Holbein. That is a performance by performer category (albeit not quite the usual kind). REname, if kept to Category:People painted by Hans Holbein the younger. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Idol groups

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) 17:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#OVERLAPPING most of the groups in this category are also in boy bands or girl groups categories. Krystaleen 08:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
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:Hip Hop double albums

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessay diffusion of double albums by genre. All are categorized in artists whose parent categories are under hip hop and each of the albums are already in Category:Double albums, so no need to upmerge. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
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:Wikipedians who wish a lot of others would come back too, but who don't have the energy to categorize them all

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) 17:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Presumably in response to the absolute embarrassment to the user category system that was to keep this category, this is even less helpful- Two wrongs don't make a right. Does not support collaboration in the least. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly, I don’t understand the nomination. My first reaction is to note the lack of diligence by the nominator. I created, and that’s not hard to determine. I could have readily informed his presumption. It has nothing (directly) to do with Bish and Giano. In fact, I thought I was still seeing them around, although I cross paths with Giano very infrequently.

I don’t get the connection alluded with the linked CfD, although the references to heartlessness caused pain.

Why did I create this category? I came across the redlink and remembered the number of times I have read “What happens when a Wikipedian dies?” Dies or disappears “… He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care?” Some care.

What happens when a Wikipedian dies? Through natural causes, by others or by their own hand? He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care? To all those Wikipedians who may have died and been forgotten here, Thank you for your contributions and Rest in Peace.

Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians & Misplaced Pages:Missing_Wikipedians are good locations to go when you want to dwell on the memories of past acquaintances. But you go there unobserved. There is no evidence of others paying respects there.

Some choose to write on memorial pages. That’s no always appropriate. And less often is it appropriate to make idle conversation. Some choose to make lists of no-longer-active accounts. That’s a semi-private activity.

I miss quite a number of other editors who no longer seem to be around. Unrelated examples include W.marsh (I like to think still here under a pseudonym), Radiant! (regularly lurks), Badlydrawnjeff (dunno) and Abd (if only he could control his verbosity). There are many others, but I don’t want to list them publically, let alone rank or sort them.

What I’d like to do is know others who similar regret the absence of others. Having found someone already in such a category, I joined. I think the category suitable for this purpose. I think this purpose is worthwhile, as one important facet of any community. I don’t know that it is actually “productive” in any direct sense.

Regarding WP:USERCAT, I afraid that I have little respect for it. It’s supported rigidly by a few according to a very narrow idea of what is good for the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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:American cult films

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) 17:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not a genre as such. Difficult to define. Seems to be based on one user's personal choices. DrKiernan (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

:Weak delete: By that rationale French New Wave isn't a genre because it says French. You make a good argument on personal choices, though. Sort of. Read my edit summary. Lighthead...KILLS!! 06:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete The category for Cult films was deleted in a previous discussion. There is no real def. of a "cult film". Lugnuts 07:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Based on Lugnuts clarification. I have to admit, I glossed over DrKiernan's argument of difficult to define. Wholeheartedly support deletion. Lighthead...KILLS!! 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete limiting the scope to US films isn't going to fix the issues that led to the last deletion. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't I called it "Category:American cult films" because in the future, I was thinking of doing other categories of cult films from other countries. - FriscoKnight, 8:59, 25 August, 2012
  • Delete. Impossible to cite. Far too many films are titled cult films without citation or notation. Remove the category. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There also many categories like American drama films that have the same situation but that category is still around. So, what's the difference? - FriscoKnight
  • Weak keep (don't really know how this voting thing works but what the hell) – I think the cult film is an interesting phenomenon that would be of interest to be documented. It's a category that may require maintenance, sure. So do other categories – I cleaned out so many films like Child's Play, for example, from the slasher film category. I don't think this one will be any worse. I'd advocate immediate removal of the category from articles in which its status as a cult film is not established.
"There is no real definition of a cult film" – I'd say a film with a highly devoted/dedicated, but small, underground, fanbase. Troll 2, Pink Flamingos, Donnie Darko, The Room all have obsessive fanbases, but I reckon they're all still underground films, in that, for example, they wouldn't readily be shown on the same TV network that would air something like American Idol or The O.C. which the majority seem to watch.
There is no absolute necessity for a category like this, but I think if there's an article on cult films, it wouldn't hurt to have a category as well. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
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:Grain elevators in Alberta

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Like the city one below, this is the only by province/state category in the tree. I don't see a need at this point to break these out at this point. At this point, it may be wise to leave Category:Grain elevator museums in Alberta‎ alone. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Note. If this is merged, that would leave Category:Grain elevators in Canada by province empty and that would need deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Grain elevators in Buffalo, New York

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by city category in the tree and it contains only 3 articles. With Category:Grain elevators not over populated, I not sure that we need this category or if there is a need to break these out by city. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 25: Difference between revisions Add topic