Category:Films originally rejected by the censors in Britain
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.
Yes, but expand the acronym; per
MOS:ABBR and
WP:PRECISE (though at the cost of some
WP:CONCISE, I would rather see the full name of the organization, since the acronym is meaningless to almost everyone outside the UK. I agree with nom that the current title is vague. It's kind of amateurish. Reminds of when people blame "the government". :-) —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This is essentially a category for films banned in X country, but worded differently. A
previous discussion was delete. Films are banned/censored in many different countries, and this would create category-clutter if applied to each and every country. Also, this seems to be
WP:NONDEF to most, it not all, of the articles currently in the category. Several I've looked at (The Wandering Jew, La Grande Bouffe, Minnie the Moocher, etc), don't even mention the BBFC, let alone refer to it in the article's lead. LugnutsFire Walk with Me10:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename as suggested by Dimadick. Oppose deletion. Yes, some members fail
WP:CATDEF/
WP:CATVER, but for others, being banned in Britain seems to be a significant aspect of their history, and is supported by RS:
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre § Release,
Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom § Censorship,
The Wild One § Reception. There's something to Lugnuts' concern of category clutter if we categorized widely-banned films according to every country in which they were banned, but use of these categories should always be limited according to
WP:CATDEF, as determined by reliable sources. It would be surprising if a film were commonly and consistently described by secondary RS as being banned in Britain, and as banned in Russia, and as banned in Liechtenstein, and etc. If there does end up being consensus against keeping this cat, I think it should at least be selectively upmerged to
Category:Censored films, though I prefer the specificity of having country-specific subcats where appropriate. Being banned in Britain and being banned in the UAE have very different significations.
Colin M (
talk)
21:40, 2 November 2019 (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.
University of California, Los Angeles xxxx
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.
I recently – on October 24 – proposed renaming these awkward two-part category names by recasting their names, because they currently violate
WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. The comma kind of separates "Los Angeles" from "University of California", while the lack of a closing comma rather appears to tie "Los Angeles" closer to the last part of the category name. This is odd, because the whole expression "University of California, Los Angeles" is the modifier.
That proposal was opposed, which leaves us with this alternative.
HandsomeFella (
talk)
14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose -
MOS:GEOCOMMA supports the existing comma for the geographic location. But
MOS:COMMA does not support adding an unnecessary extra comma. There is no confusion over the title continuing after the geographic reference which needed one comma.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It is always interesting when people cite something which undermines their position:
MOS:COMMA says "Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands." (This is a parenthetical comma.)
Oculi (
talk)
20:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That is not the same usage. The example was quoted out of context where it allowed for a parenthetical grouping of commas. But I'll add an additional reason to oppose over inconsistency - drill down from
Category:University of California and you'll find no other UC campus uses such extraneous commas.
Ikluft (
talk)
00:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: the consistency can be fixed later. You cannot possibly demand that I tag hundreds of categories in a CFR that might fail. If it goes through though, I will tag them too of course.
HandsomeFella (
talk)
09:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem that shows this renaming is unnecessary is that it's trying to fix a personal style readability issue which is fine without the change. But considering the hypothetical case if it had been the right change to make, then dozens (probably not hundreds) of categories would be included. If it had been the right thing to do, then for consistency it would have to cover all the relevant categories. I'm not making this up - I was the nom for a
76-category CfR in 2009 which passed.
Ikluft (
talk)
18:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose on consistency grounds. And, as one of the longest-term "surviving" MoS regulars, I can say that this isn't a case that MOS:COMMA really addresses; it's essentially the same kind of case as the one recently brought up at WT:MOS, about commas inside titles of works (e.g. Girl, Interrupted). The comma in this case is part of a literal string (a proper name) and is not serving a bracketing-or-parenthetical-commas function within the structure of the sentence. By contrast, the commas in "Portland, Oregon, police officers" would be such an instance (the ", Oregon," sub-string is a clarifying identifier, a form of disambiguation – in everyday English, not just in WP page titling). But this is not the case with "University of California, Los Angeles" (which would more sensibly, less confusingly have been "University of California at Los Angeles", which is probably why more universities seem to use the "U of X at Y" pattern). The university's name is simply the university's name. The sentence (well, phrase) structure is "Organization staff", not "Organization, City, staff"; if the organization changed its name to
Del Valle University, the string would read "Del Valle University staff", not "Del Valle University, Los Angeles, staff". —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: regarding a similar construction, but in an article name, please see the move discussion
here, in particular the last "Support" point, commented by me as "good one". It was a similar problem, but the solution was different. The problem is that in the flow of reading, we use the commas as cues to what belongs together as a unit, so to speak (which is the very purpose of punctuation), and without the commas, the reading becomes awkward, regardless of whether this is (as you state) what MOS:COMMA addresses.
HandsomeFella (
talk)
09:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
We already discussed that one; see the nomination. It was opposed because the convention on Wikipedia is to use "Alumni of XXX" primarily for British and former-British-colony universities, and to use "XXX alumni" primarily for American universities. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:48, 8 November 2019 (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:Robotic pterosaurs
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: There is only one page in the entire category, and even that is a redirect. This category is needless. Delete this.
JIP |
Talk12:16, 1 November 2019 (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:Al-Nahda
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.
Superhero "film characters"
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: These characters are not from superhero films or film series. Wikipedia does not categorize comic book characters by having appeared in adaptations. It's a non-defining feature of all these characters.
★Trekker (
talk)
10:24, 1 November 2019 (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:Fictional characters with psychopathy personality disorder
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: "Psychopathy personality disorder" is not a thing that exists, it is not an existing disorder and the words "Psychopathy" and "Sociopathy" are not even used in psycology and never really has. There's also the issue that this category is just filled up with articles of "super eviiiiiil" characters, not characters that have actually been diagnosed with a disorder. It's completly non-defining.
★Trekker (
talk)
09:55, 1 November 2019 (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.
Support these dual upmerges, per nom. By why do two of the targets have inconsistent names? We know that "First Nations" is the preferred term in Canada, so "Indian reserves in Quebec" should probably be speedily CfRed. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:09, 2 November 2019 (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:Social discovery websites
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: These sites dont seem sufficiently different from all the others to merit a separate category. Social discovery shades off into dating, marketing, hospitality etc,
Rathfelder (
talk)
07:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom and Marcocapelle. This appears to have been misleading and verging on OR. (Categorization by personal misunderstanding of a website's operation and audience? I dunno.) —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:07, 2 November 2019 (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.
New Zealand association football clubs
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.
Propose deleting the following categories, all of which simply contain a player category and one key article. None of them are likely to expand beyond that level. The player categories can stay, but the club articles are unnecessary.
Grutness...wha?02:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support withdrawn, but not voting keep either. In general it may be useful to have something in place for managers and players subcategories that is similar to
Template:Songs category and
Template:Albums category, so that the two usual subcategories and the main article directly link to each other, without the need of a parent category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
If you can expand them to more than a couple of articles and a category, then fine. I checked the A-D section of the category tree you pointed out; of the 114 club categories in that selection, only five are of the same sort of level as the categories I've nominated, and only one (
Category:Darlington 1883) is smaller than
Category:Wellington Olympic AFC. In the case of
Category:Wanderers Special Club we're talking about a defunct Under-20s development team which only existed for five years. I have no objection to football club categories if there's a point, but when they're that sort of size there really isn't. The file and stadium article (where there is one) are already lined in the key article, and the players category can easily be linked that way too. Where there is also a viable managers category, that's fine (and I've withdrawn those to nominations), but the remaining categories are still irredeemably small.
Grutness...wha?03:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom (including nom's later rebuttals of opposition, above). This is basically a
WP:CONLEVEL matter. While the wikiproject might like to create pointless near-empty categories for every team in existence, the site-wide consensus against doing things like this trumps the one-topic in-crowd preference. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:05, 2 November 2019 (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.
Wikipedians contributing under Dual License
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: According to the
Terms of Use, all edits are automatically dual-licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. While editors do have the option of further
multi-licensing their edits, it should go without saying (and, therefore, it is unnecessary to specify) that these multi-licensed contributions are also (dual-)licensed according to the Terms of Use. Honestly, I struggle to see the utility of this entire category scheme; however, for now I am just proposing to clean up these unnecessary splits. --
Black Falcon(
talk)18:15, 19 October 2019 (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:Tango in Argentina
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.
Split per Marcocapelle, if there's enough content for an actual category on tango (of all styles) in Argentina. Nom is correct that
Argentine tango is a style (danced by more people outside Argentina than within it). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:01, 2 November 2019 (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:306 Records 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 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:Sierra Pelona Mountains
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.