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. If we ignore the comments of the blocked sockpuppet (the nominator), all we are left with is two users whose opinions seem pretty much at odds with each others'. This is without prejudice to an immediate or later nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Gypsy" requires WP:Original research. Fictional gypsies do not mean they are Romani. Fictional gypsies are widely varying in their backgrounds. If the source in fiction does not make it clear, they cannot be called Romani without original research on our part. Instead a separate subcategory for Romani should be created. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2014 (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:Delete. Unnecessary diffuson of the albums and songs categories by profession. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:46, 16 May 2014 (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: The technology that was used to film a TV series may be of interest to some readers, but it's not something that's usually considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the lead of an article (if it's mentioned at all in the article text) and in that sense it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For info: See similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Films_shot_in.... For info: Of the thousands of wp articles about TV series's only 8 articles are currently in this category tree. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2014 (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:Commonwealth Games tennis players by year
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:Rename. While the main article for the category is named Aborted, it seems the category as named is more ambiguous - as an album that was planned but aborted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me17:05, 16 May 2014 (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:Delete. The epic films category should just go. Look at the epic film article and its warnings templates saying how impossible it is to objectively tell whether a movie is "epic". This can never become anything more than an argument and a headache. CapnZapp (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the epic film article has just one tag, stating that it possibly contains original research. Not that it does, but it might. This is a clearly defined genre and individual edit wars at article level should be discussed on the talkpage of that article (just like any genre, for that matter). LugnutsDick Laurent is dead12:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An "epic" film is a sourcable concept. See The Encyclopedia of Epic Films for a start. Like many genre classifications there is a huge grey area and the category is often abused on Wikipedia, but that's an argument for more stringent application of our policies and guidelines rather than scrapping it altogether. If the "epic genre" is recognized by the American Film Institute then we should retain the category alongside our other genre categories. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because Gravity (film) was added to the category. When I visit its page on AFI, the only genre it is listed as is "science fiction" (a huge can of worms in itself). I can undo the addition but instead of having to defend my action (why Gravity is or isn't epic) I would MUCH rather not have such a fuzzy genre category at all... CapnZapp (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verifiable genre. Per WP:CAT#Articles, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." This is how we justify a particular categorization. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly irrelevant comment: That seems flawed to me - just by finding one good source a film could then be included in a particular category. But what about the possibility that it isn't included in nine other equally good sources? CapnZapp (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article on epic films itself says that the genre is ill-defined and that different authorities have wildly disparate notions of its scope. One person is quoted as saying that "Surely one of the hardest film genres to define is that of the 'epic' film[.]" I don't see how we can put a limit on what goes into it when the AFI criterion defines so much smaller a set than anyone else; once we decide that they are not the ultimate authority on this it's not going to be possible to decide who is, and we'll get what we have now: any film that anyone, anywhere, has acclaimed as "epic". Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Genre classification is subjective by nature, so it is inconsistent to retain some widely identifiable genre categories and drop others. For instance, no-one disputes science-fiction as a genre, but there is widely varying opinion about whether Brazil (1985 film) comes under its scope. This is true of every genre and the "epic" is no exception in regard. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no significant dispute about what constitutes an SF film, but three is sometimes disagreement over whether a particular film, but in the case of epics I'm seeing basic disagreements over how the category is constituted. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some definitions are broader than others but I have yet to come across any source covering the topic dispute that something like DeMille's The Ten Commandments is an epic. Sources on the whole are pretty consistent in regards to biblical/historical epics: there is a clear group of films that are epics. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are talking about some other genre and definition than what is present on Wikipedia, Betty. First off, just because you can find an archetype doesn't mean a category is needed. Second, if you were to propose a narrowing down of the genre definition I could support that, but only if coupled with a name change. "Epic" in itself is repeatedly interpreted as much more than what you are saying. Like it or not, people are NOT using the word "epic" as you might. It simply means much more in contemporary usage than before. A category called "Historical epic" or "Epic (literary genre)" would be MUCH more workable, though I will say I understand any sentiment thinking such to be cumbersome. CapnZapp (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Epic films are in the eye of the beholder, such as "breakout films", "hit films", "influential films", "film flops", "boring films", and nearly any other subjective adjective you'd like to apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, you make a compelling case why the genre should exist. But since we're discussing a category, we're discussing something subtly different. If we could agree to ONLY place films used by those sagacious sources in the category, then there would be no problem. CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Epic is not any more defined that any other genre, such as Category:Horror films. Delete arguments seem to call into question the whole practice of categorising by genre, which though imperfect in design is essential to any meaningful categorisation of art. SFB08:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lush and high budgeted films like Star Wars, LOTR and Cleopatra may be of completely different genres but their spectacle feel make them epic films and thus should be under that subgenre. User:Meganesia (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All genre classifications are subject to dispute (is a movie a drama or a thriller? an album country or bluegrass?) so that doesn't seem like reason enough to delete. If this is a recognized genre of films, with books written on it, it should be an acceptable category. LizRead!Talk!15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might add that had the Genre article been better maintained I could see a stronger point of keeping the category. As it is now, I feel people saying "Keep" is basing that on out-of-wiki knowledge. My proposal is based on that "Oh? An epic films category? I better head over to the main article to find out what that's all about" is currently a failing strategy. In short: my proposal could and perhaps should be seen as "delete until better grounded by its main article". CapnZapp (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2014 (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: As indicated here, category represents a false genre. Should be deleted as there is not enough coverage from reliable third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2014 (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.
If the vast majority what? Are you calling left-handed people "these people"? And also BLP issues? Please consider writing in complete and coherent sentences. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, categories provide encyclopaedic linking of people eg by occupation ir place of origin but being left handed (and not everyone on the category would definitely say they are left handed) is hardly an encyclopaedic categorisation. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I'm the creator of it btw, am I allowed to voice an opinion?) I think it's an interesting factor. Homosexuality is the most trivial thing on a person and yet it has its own categories (homosexuality doesn't define a person, but then it's characterized here). User:Meganesia (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt hasn't this been discussed? or at least it's probably listed as an example of things not to do, not defining in the slightest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for some people this is in fact defining. Left-handed pitchers and batters in baseball, for instance. For most people it is trivial though. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2014 (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 result of the discussion was:keep. I find the arguments for keeping this category stronger. It's clear some editors who advocated deletion are unhappy with the whole "descent" structure, but these has been no compelling evidence presented as to why just this one should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even begin to understand how these 'descent' categories are meant to work, but this one is ridiculous. How do we define 'descent' for these categories? It's also interesting how often there are no sources for such categories. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a standard type of category for the "of descent" category tree. While looking at it in isolation it might seem ridiculous, there are a lot of small, similar categories within this category tree. LizRead!Talk!15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As functionally empty. Until we can find someone who is actually Icelandic to fit in this cateogry. Australian expatriates are by definition not Icelandic, but Australian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian expatriates in Iceland are of course of Australian nationality but can also be of Icelandic nationality. "Nationality" does not equal "citizenship", and it's entirely possible (and in fact quite common) for a person to be a national of a country in which they do not hold citizenship. This situation is most common in the case of an expatriate living in a country that is different than their state of citizenship. The problem arises when users assume that nationality and citizenship are equivalents, which they are not. The entire categories structure is done by nationality, not by citizenship. So it's totally reasonable to place Category:Australian expatriates in Iceland as a subcategory of Category:Icelandic people of Australian descent. It's a convenient nesting of the category tree, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This may be a small category, but is part of a long-established class of category, with which we should not meddle save on a general basis. There must be several hundred (if not thousands of) such categories. We should not seek to be too precise as to what "Austtralian descent" means, as long as it is real. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2014 (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.
