Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for films based on who released the film on DVD in the United States. Tantamount to an advert. Valiantis 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement. No encyclopedic value. Choalbaton 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.The Criterion Collection is generally considered to produce the highest-quality DVDs and many collectors wait for their releases; they are the most highly regarded DVD production company. There's also the Category:Films by studio. If we have one I don't see why not having the other.--ThreeAnswers 05:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Historically - and to an extent still today - the studio is part of the creation process of a film. In the 30's and 40's different studios were noted for different styles of picture (etc.). Criterion are noted for the quality of their DVD releases but they are essentially a publisher of other people's work - there is no real link at the creative level between one of their releases and another. Valiantis 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When the Criterion Collection starts producing and financing films (independantly of other studios) then they can be listed under Films by studio. I've never heard of them and I imagine anyone outside of the United States wouldn't of either -- čĥàñľōŕď 05:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, never having heard of somethign isn't a good reason to delete things. I'm outside of the United States and I've heard of them, what does that prove? However, 2 million google hits for "Criterion collection" (around the same as what "RKO", "New Line Cinema" and "United Artists" get, all of which have listings in Category:Films by studio) would seem to indicate more than passing notability. - Bobet 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a great DVD series, and perhaps appropriate as a list article, but a lousy category. We might as well categorize movies by what premium cable channels have shown them. Postdlf 07:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Criterion Collection is notable, and this information is legitimate and encyclopedic. However, it would be better to create a list. That would allow us to include articles which haven't been created yet.
  Bhumiya 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment, there is a list (List of Criterion Collection releases), and all of them do have articles, so this category is pretty complete, at least as far as DVD (not laserdisc) releases are concerned. - Bobet 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of a list is in itself arguably a reason not to have a category. Valiantis 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, big and notable enough DVD distributor to make this a valid category. And per my replies above. - Bobet 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (full disclosure: I created the category), the Criterion collection is well-known by cineastes internationally, and includes many Region 0 releases. The company invented almost every major special feature now found on DVDs back in the laserdisc era. Enough people follow the release schedule that the decision to release an obscure title on the label often creates a resurgence of interest in the film. They may be US-based, but many people outside the US do pay attention to what they release. They're not your normal DVD label. IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, what in
    WP:NOT is being violated here? It's no more advertisement than Category:Apple software is - a list of products made for a niche market that is avidly followed by many in the applicable field. I think you'd be hard pressed to find DVD connossieurs who regard Criterion as just another company. Girolamo Savonarola 18:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No specific policy that I am aware of is being breached. However, this category is trivial. It lumps together otherwise unrelated films on the basis that one version of the film as a DVD is available from one particular "software" publisher.
      Plato's Republic and Crime and Punishment into a category called "Penguin paperbacks" - Penguin didn't create these works, it didn't even originally publish them; it has re-published them in a new format. I have nothing against Criterion (or against Penguin Books!) and I'm very glad there's an article about the company and a list of films it has re-released on DVD. Nonetheless, it is not a useful way of categorising films, as which company re-released a film on DVD is not central to any film's notability (no matter how good the extras!). Valiantis 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete Being big doesn't mean this isn't advertising. Osomec 19:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Girolamo Savonarola. What Valiantis says ("as which company re-released a film on DVD is not central to any film's notability (no matter how good the extras!)." ) could not be farther from the truth - take examples such as the breakthrough editions by Criterion of Carnival of Souls, or The Red Shoes for instance, or the Japanese Samurai movies. My impression is that entry into Criterion collection is similar to selection in Oprah's Book Club - by the way there is a Category:Oprah's Book Club - for a book or entry in Bibliothèque de la Pléiade for an author.
  Besides most of these movies articles use the Criterion DVD cover for illustration.Hektor 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confusing notability with being well-known. The Red Shoes, for example, is notable for being the work of a major director, for successfully combining ballet and film, and for inspiring several other artistic works (among other things); the fact that it might be better known as the result of a DVD release is not the same as it being notable. (Also, it was a Best Picture Oscar nominees and, according to the article, is one of the highest earning British films of all time, so I would question if it was unknown prior to one specific DVD release). Similarly, Japan's Samurai films have always been very well-known in Japan; they may have been less well-known in the West. However, Wikipedia aspires to be international, so its standard of notability should be how notable a film is as a work of art, cultural product etc. from a worldwide perspective, not how well-known it is by the American DVD-buying public. This is why I state that being released in the Criterion Collection is not central to any film's notability. In writing an introductory paragraph to an article, you have to ask the question "How would I describe this thing in one sentence?" In general, anything that is central to its notability should come in this sentence and be a suitable topic to categorise the thing by. So, in the case of The Red Shoes, it is a British musical film with ballet created by Powell and Pressburger; Category:British films, Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger and Category:Musical films are all suitable categories. If you would include in this initial defining sentence "40 years after it was released it was re-released on DVD by Criterion" then this suggests a strange sense of priorities. In fact, the article on The Red Shoes (quite rightly) makes no reference to the Criterion Collection. If something is not even noteworthy enough to include in an article, it certainly shouldn't be a category into which the article is placed. Valiantis 03:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stay by my comments, and by the way I am in Europe.Hektor 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be at the cusp of notability. Whether it is kept or not, I'm hoping there can be discussion about the criteria that would make a category such as this notable enough or not to have a category. I have three basic criteria for whether a category should exist. The first is if it is useful, and I think this category isn't more useful than a list. The second is if the topic is academically studied. I don't think this is the case here either. There have been books written about MGM musicals or the history of UA. The third is whether the category fits into the overall categorization scheme. It doesn't belong in its parent category and I don't think we want to start having categories of DVD's by publisher. We don't have
  Samuel Wantman 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, systemic bias. Radiant_>|< 13:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. CalJW 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per CalJW supra. Joe 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The team is not called "

• Rename --Mais oui! 12:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although the team includes athletes from the whole of the United Kingdom it certainly appears to specifically be called "Great Britain" only. See the British Olympic Association website, for evidence of this. They refer generally to "Great Britain" or "Team GB" - there's no reference to "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The IOC website also refers to "Great Britain". This is not a comment on the ethical rightness of the name, by the way, merely on the correct usage in reference to the British olympic team. I notice that the cat definition previously stated (correctly as far as I am aware): - The United Kingdom competes as Great Britain at the Olympics even though this term is inaccurate as it excludes Northern Ireland and sportspeople from Northern Ireland are eligible for the team. but that this has been changed to the apparently incorrect: - The United Kingdom currently competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics. and thence to: - The United Kingdom competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics, and prior to Irish independence competed as Great Britain and Ireland - which I believe is wrong on both counts. Obviously if there are sound sources to support the suggestion then I will withdraw my opposition. Valiantis 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just some more evidence. It appears that both the British Olympic Association and the Olympic Committee for Ireland claim territorial responsibility for Northern Ireland [1] and that there is an agreement that athletes from Northern Ireland may compete for either team [2]. This is at least partly because some of the individual sports that are part of the Olympics are organised in Northern Ireland as part of a UK body and some as part of an All-Ireland body (as per 1st source). Technically the Olympic team does not represent a political state, it represents a place's Olympic Association/Committee; as the Irish committee claim to represent the whole of Ireland this may be why Northern Ireland is avoided in the GB team name. Valiantis 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Valiantis Choalbaton 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Mais Qui is incorrect. Jooler 02:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Valiantis -- Arwel (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you might want to check List of IOC country codes (which indicates "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - but might need validation). Djegan 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Their appears to be ample evidence that "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the official term used, so go with it. Djegan 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spotted that several pages on WP state the official name is "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". None of them appear to quote sources. Valiantis 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the official name is GB&NI, the commonly used form is GB. People born in Northern Ireland have citizenship in both the UK and in (the republic of) Ireland. For some sources on the Olympics name, see -

"Devolution provides the single greatest challenge to the sustained success of British sport because under the Olympic Charter until such time, and only if we move from the devolution to independence, we are required to compete as a combined team from Great Britain and Northern Ireland." - Olympics.org press release

The team is undoubtedly from GB & NI - this is not in dispute. This, however, does not mean its official name is "GB & NI" and there is nothing in that sentence to suggest the official name is GB & NI. Valiantis 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The British Olympic Association is the National Olympic Committee in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is charged with taking Team GB to, and representing Team GB, at Olympic and Olympic Winter Games." - English Institute of Sport

As per my previously quoted source, the Olympic Committee of Ireland also claims to represent Northern Ireland and both claims are recognised by the IOC. Again, the fact that the team is from GB & NI is not in dispute, it is the name of the team that is in dispute and this source refers specifically to "Team GB". Valiantis 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you were from Belfast you could compete for the UK in either type of competition as Great Britain is a misnomer - in these competitions we should use the Olympic team name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", commonly abbreviated to GBNI." - Guardian FAQ

The Guardian's "Notes and Queries" is not a reliable source as it is composed of answers sent in by readers to other readers' questions. It is not subject to any kind of editorial fact-checking and often the answer from one reader contradicts the answer from another. This is the case with this particular question as the other answer on the same web page says the Olympic team name is Great Britain. The two contradictory answers are posted by "Antony, Norwich, UK" and "Gary Dunion, Edinburgh, UK" - I am not aware that either is an authoritative source!

"For the sake of uniformity I have used the phrase 'United Kingdom' to describe the British competitors throughout this Report. But it is right to say that by arrangement between the A.A.A., the Scottish A.A.A., and the Irish A.A.A., they were entered in the official athletic programme as "Great Britain and Ireland." - 1908 Official Report

This is indeed evidence that in the 1908 Olympics the team name was "Great Britain and Ireland" so you appear to be correct on this point. It is not evidence as to the team name after the creation of an independent Irish state. Valiantis 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by above discussion, of course, "Great Britain" and "Team GB" are by far the most common uses (a quick and inoptimal Google search says on the order of 1.6 million hits to 50 thousand). -- Jonel | Speak 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • A contemporary (2002) IOC source citing "Great Britain" as the national committee: [3]. --Kwekubo 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Valiantis. --Kwekubo 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • All the articles in the category are of the form
    Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the 1972 Summer Olympics
    . Presumably all these will be changed if the cat title is kept?!
    • Note That page (and presumably all of the others) - was moved to that location from Great Britain at the 1972 Summer Olympics less than two weeks ago, so a move back is no great shakes. Jooler 13:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went to check
    Joestynes 09:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment - Hong Kong has been the name of the team 10 times (1952 to 1996, excluding 1964 and 1980 when they did not compete), while it has Hong Kong, China twice (2000 and 2004). As for the RoC, it's been entitled China, Republic of China, and Chinese Taipei at various times, making choosing a category name somewhat difficult. -- Jonel | Speak 10:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename aside from my asides, the evidence appears to be that GBNI is official. IMO [official + unambiguous] trumps [common + convenient]
    Joestynes 17:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Agree. Great Britain or Team GB might be the more commonly used name, but the official name is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Stu 09:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment offical name of the nation yes, but not of the Olympic team, Note - People born in Northern Ireland can compete for either GB or Rep of Ireland.
    • Comment Just because the United Kingdoms three letter ISO code is GBR doesn't change the fact the teams name is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Team GB or Great Britain are the most often used in the Media, that doesn't change the name of the team as used on TV graphics etc. Full GB & NI line-up for Helsinki, Radcliffe to run for GB in Japan, sorry both are BBC reports, but 'twas a quick search. - Keith Greer 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of the sources you posted refer to the Olympics. One refers to the athletics World Championships, the other to a marathon in Japan. I am quite happy to accept that the UK's athletics team competes outside the Olympics as GB & NI. The question is what name does the country's Olympic team compete under. Valiantis 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The fact that people from NI can compete for GB or Ireland makes no difference to the team's official name, which remains Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Stu 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And your source is?? Valiantis 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per Stu - Keith Greer 12:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But do you have any IOC/BOA sources outside of Wikipedia that confirm that "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the official name? The only Google result I've found for that phrase on the IOC web site itself (http://olympic.org) is as part of the name of the country "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is listed as a signitory to a UN resolution on sport. [4]. (By the way, there's no results for the version with an ampersand either [5].) Similarly, nothing comes up for GBNI, GB & NI or other variants at that site. Compare with Great Britain. Apparently it is those media sources et al. that use "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" who are not using the team's official name. --Kwekubo 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have emailed the BOA via their website to ask about the team's official name and will post their response (if one is forthcoming). (I have asked in the email if they will confirm they are happy for any response to be quoted from on Wikipedia, in case anyone has qualms about email etiquette). Valiantis 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - You are right, all of the sources I could find for the inclusion of (Northern) Ireland in the name of the team were weak and not quite relevant. I look forward to the result of your e-mail. I was convinced of the officialness of the GB&NI formulation (and by that initialism, I mean the full names with and in place of the ampersand, but don't like typing it out more often that necessary ;)) by being pointed to a few official reports that used it, especially the 1908 one which is the only place that really speaks to the official name as different from common. Having seen nothing else that indicates a change in the formulation of official name, I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that it remained similar throughout. I have also found the GB&NI usage in the 1956 report ([6] under "Invitations"), but am disinclined to use that too heavily because it appreviates U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. (though I find it exceedingly odd that an official report would appreviate two countries' names but use a longer than necessary form of a third's...). Regardless, I have no qualms about moving all the pages back to GB (heck, even 1908, as GB is the common usage) and changing all tables to GB (it would make them look nicer, too!). If the BOA responds that GB is the official name, great (but ask when it changed!). If it responds that GB&NI is official, that could be noted in the article but doesn't really need to be in titles, categories, tables, or whatever. -- Jonel | Speak 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If BOA say "Great Britain" is official you can reverse my vote to "Keep" accordingly.
    Joestynes 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - I'm going to refrain from the vote due to my bias (i.e. those from the North should compete for Ireland ;), but it should be determined on the basis of the official name of the team, not the state. I have only ever heard it referred to as Great Britain - always thought it was a bit mean on the North though! Mind you, having "GB" as a country code (e.g. on numberplates) is stupid too - they should go with UK just like the .uk TLD. Haven't seen GB used on NI numberplates yet mind you! zoney ♣ talk 13:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have received a response to my email to the British Olympic Association but as the respondent has not given specific consent for me to quote from the email then I won't be doing so at this time. They have suggested I discuss a possible contribution with them further and I will be doing so and will post further if and when this moves forward (perhaps to the cat talk page rather than CFD?). (I am a little concerned this may have shaded into
  original research). I think that it would not be breaching email privacy to state at this time that there is not a straightforward answer to the question "Is the team called "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?" Valiantis 23:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose If there isn't a clear cut official answer then we should retain the common name. Osomec 19:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is presently a random collection of names, very few of which have known or recognised items named after them. It is doubtful if those applying the category clearly understand what an eponym is. Even if, for true eponyms, the objects involved were listed alongside their names, (which might just have some rationale) it is impossible to see what genuine encyclopaedic purpose the category would serve - Smerus 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We have several lists for that, which are better than this inaptly-named cat. Delete. Radiant_>|< 01:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  List of eponyms sufficiently covers this topic without the need for what would be an absolutely gigantic category. čĥàñľōŕď 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete category clutter. Arniep 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My own vote is to delete, of course. - Smerus 13:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Brilliant idea, and complements List of eponymns nicely SP-KP 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:English language films to Category:Films in English
• Category:Esperanto films to Category:Films in Esperanto
• Category:French language films to Category:Films in French
• Category:Hindi films to Category:Films in Hindi
• Category:Malayalam films to Category:Films in Malayalam
• Category:Russian language films to Category:Films in Russian
• Category:Tamil films to Category:Films in Tamil
• Category:Telugu films to Category:Films in Telugu
• Category:Welsh-language films to Category:Films in Welsh

The subcats of Category:Films by language are inconsistent in terms of name, as can be seen above. When this was discussed with reference to Category:Films in Chinese, that elegant solution was proposed in preference to "Chinese language films" or "Chinese-language films" and a consensus was achieved (see here). I propose extending this to the other existing subcats as part of my attempt to tidy up this hierarchy. (Currently some language cats are filed as subcats of "films by country" and vice-versa, whilst others (e.g. the Russian language cat) attempt to impose inelegant distinctions between Russian films (filmed in Russia) and Russian language films (filmed outside Russia). The country and language sub-hierarchies should be separate and complementary). Valiantis 19:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as per Valiantis Choalbaton 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to be the oddball but I do think "X language films" sounds more professional. I could never see "Media in English" as opposed to Category:English-language media, for example. --Vizcarra 00:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be "X-language" films - the hyphen is important (and is of course used in the cat you quote as an example). "Russian language films" (no hyphen) may mean "films about language from Russia" (or various other oddities) - it is inherently ambiguous and lousy English. Even if you prefer the format "X-language" then almost all the cats require renaming. By the way, "Media in English" is a perfectly acceptable wording IMO - I'm not quite sure what you mean by the existing name sounding "more professional". Valiantis 01:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, I don't care about a hyphen or lack of one. "more professional" = "more" + "professional", quite clear. --Vizcarra 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I'm particularly confused. What profession is it that you are referring to? I'm going to assume by "more professional" that you mean "more like a professionally produced encyclopedia". In which case, shouldn't one care about the correct punctuation of category names? Valiantis 03:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your confusion when I wrote "I don't care about a hyphen or lack of one" I meant that I am more concerned with the order of the words than a hyphen or lack of one. Therefore I prefer Category:French language films OR Category:French-language films over Films in French. This is the way I have seen it more often in publications produced by professional (writers). --Vizcarra 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "X language films" is far better sounding than "Films in X". As per Vizcarra, how often do you see usage like "movies in German" as opposed to "German movie"? If one were to say "I watched a German language movie" the meaning would be completely unambiguous, while if one says, "I watched a movie in German", one could also find other meanings, such as watching a German-dubbed version of the movie, ie "I watched Friends in English, German, French, and Spanish". --Yuje 14:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "X language films" remains ungrammatical - see my previous comments re: hyphenation. "German movie" means movie from Germany, not movie with German dialogue (one of the most notable German films of the last few years - Head-On - is partly in Turkish). "I watched a German language movie" is not unambiguous because it is incorrectly punctuated. As previously stated, this could mean "I watched a film about language from Germany". "I watched a German-language movie" (with hyphen) is, admittedly, not especially unambiguous (though it could conceivably mean a film dubbed into German), but this usage means we need a triple standard: - "X-language films", where the name of the language is also a national adjective; "X films", where the name of the language is not a nationality adjective (e.g. Hindi); and "Films in X" where there is debate as to whether the language is a language or several languages (etc.), which is why we have Category:Films in Chinese (I've already linked to the discussion on this issue above). The only format which avoids these problems is "Films in X". You are correct in saying "I watched a film in German" might be construed by someone to mean "I watched a film dubbed into German", but the category name would not be "I watched a film in German", it would be Category:Films in German so the point you are making seems irrelevant. Valiantis 05:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Rename all as category:Fooian-language films. — Instantnood 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged. The NeveR SLeePiNG 19:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, can't merge like this since not all books are novels. And not all novels are books. Merging them into Category:Films based on literary sources (or something) would just get rid of a more specific definition, which wouldn't help since the categories are already big enough as they are. - Bobet 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Duplicate cats in so far as many of the books in Category:Films based on books are novels. Ideally then subcats should be created (presumably into fiction and non-fiction), but this can't be done by a simple rename as the "books" cat is currently a mix of fiction and non-fiction. BTW, all novels are books, surely? Valiantis 19:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But it should be renamed as it is very confusing. That is why there are so many novels in Category:Films based on books. The NeveR SLeePiNG 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct on your last point (I blame that on language issues). However, it's still probably better to just make films based on novels a subcat of films based on books, because it adds some specific information and Category:Films based on novels is big enough as it is without merging it into another category. Someone adding a film based on a novel to 'films based on books' isn't a huge issue in my opinion, since it's not wrong, and someone who wants to can always categorize an article further. - Bobet 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Category:Films based on novels is now a subcategory of Category:Films based on books. - EurekaLott 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably sufficient, in fact, though ideally someone should recategorise some of the novels in Category:Films based on books into the more precise subcat. (I am not volunteering :-) ). I withdraw my previous vote. Valiantis 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm volunteering! See my comment below. Her Pegship 02:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should i remove the {{cfm}} from Category:Films_based_on_books? The NeveR SLeePiNG 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anyway. The distinction between "book" and "novel" is somewhat nebulous, and with respect to basing a film upon either, entirely irrelevant. Radiant_>|< 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge. Immediate examples that leap to mind of films based on books that are by no means novels are Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex and Guide for the Married Man (directed by Gene Kelly, Starring Walter Matthau, and we don't have an article on it). Also, book-based biopics such as Nicholas and Alexandra (1971). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: is such category of any value? Very large percentage of of films is based on a novel (or book) so this category has a huge growth potential. Futhermore, what else would the films in such categoyr have in common than this low relevancy trait? Finally: information about original book/novel belongs only to an article itself - categories should not serve as an article digest. Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. Per the first comment, not all books are novels. Now that
  List of fiction works made into feature films. Her Pegship 23:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I took it upon myself to create a sub-cat,

Cat in the Hat, which is based on a children's book, therefore fiction, but not a novel? Hmm, maybe Category:Films based on novels should be renamed Category:Films based on fiction works?? Please comment. Her Pegship 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Both the novels and non-fiction categories can be subcategories of the books category. Works based on children's books, short stories, etc. can remain in the parent category until there are enough films to justify creating more categories. - EurekaLott 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Not all books are novels. --Vizcarra 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per EurekaLott's comment, I will hold off on creating any further sub-cats for now. Thanks all - Her Pegship 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match its siblings. The other irregular one, Category:Florida sports venues, was nominated a couple of days ago and looks like going through. CalJW 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. - Bobet 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. The rest of the GG awards categories follow the award's breakout of film/TV. - TexasAndroid 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete per nom. - Bobet 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as below. There is no single GG Best Picture award, and all the separate such awards already have categories. - TexasAndroid 17:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Bobet 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. The GG awards break down by drama/comedy and tv/film, and there are already categories for all the possible combinations. There is no single Best Actor award, and does not need to be such a category. - TexasAndroid 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Bobet 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three categories, Category:Super Mario 64, Category:Super Mario Sunshine and Category:Mario games. The category Mario games had a single game, Mario's Picross. The first two categories could only have one game in as much (or a few more if there are some Super Mario Sunshine sequels). The third category exists in Wikipedia and is named Category:Mario Bros. games. And since it has no articles, there is nothing to merge. -- ReyBrujo 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Ze miguel 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Naval ships of the United Provinces to Category:Naval ships of the Dutch Republic
• Category:Age of Sail naval ships of the United Provinces to Category:Age of Sail naval ships of the Dutch Republic
• Category:Ships of the line of the United Provinces to Category:Ships of the line of the Dutch Republic

United Provinces is ambiguous, so the unambiguous name should be used. Kusma (討論) 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:United Provinces for why United Provinces does not redirect to Dutch Republic. Kusma (討論) 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Dutch Republic is more precise. Josh 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary category, as Category:Electronic sports teams already exists (and "clans" are deemed non-notable).

• Delete per nom Zzzzz 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conformity with other "United States" articles. —Markles 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article is called American Civil War. Stay consistent with that. Kusma (討論) 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The war is known as the American Civil War. CalJW 18:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. United States is OK except in this one instance. Herostratus 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we get Category:United States Football now? :) Keep as is, proper noun. Radiant_>|< 11:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. American Civil War is common used term. - Darwinek 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Category:War between the Confderate States of America and the United States of America ? 132.205.45.110 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's known worldwide as the American Civil War. This isn't a US English/UK English thing. We make exceptions for things like American football, since it's the name of the sport (United States football would be confusingly ambiguous), and a similar exception can surely be made here. In any case, it would be wrong, since the United States was only one of the two sides in the war (as the anon above points out). It would be like calling the English Civil War the "Cavaliers Civil War". Grutness...wha? 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Postdlf 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Fine, I can take a hint. —Markles 11:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anybody uses this particular form of maintenance. It only contains a bunch of very old redirects from "User:Foo/old" to "User:Foo". Radiant_>|< 14:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed. Ze miguel 09:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the political affiliation of the mayor is that important to put the city in a certain category. bogdan 14:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly create a list or something. Radiant_>|< 14:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The mayor's affiliation in 2006 does not seem to categorize cities all that much. Kusma (討論) 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cache hasn't been purged, it is supposed to work someday. As for the first argument, it should be appear that political affiliations are distributed geographically in Romania. I thought it will be easier for the system to maintain the category than for me to keep the list.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a major characteristic of a city. Harder to maintain than a list and there will be no knowing at any given time whether it is up to date or not - unless you already know all the affiliations off the top of your head, in which case you don't need to be told. CalJW 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be happy to see it deleted. If not, the
  Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania should not be characterized as "Hungarians' ethnic alliance". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

CalJW, you'de be surprised to see how many of the Romanian cities have the same mayor since 1990 (fall of Communism), or even before. Also there are geographical patterns, and in some areas the vote will go to the candidate, no matter who is actually the candidate (e.g., in

Braila

, right never won). It makes it a red or an orange city, which is more important than who is actually the mayor.

Jmabel, I did my best to shorten the name. I don't think ruled by Hungarians sounds better. I think DUHR is an ethnic alliance (it says it on its Wikipedia page, on the first phrase). I know it sounds Kosovo-like, but it is a Kosovo-like party. On the other hand, if you have a better name, you should rename it, not delete it.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   08:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useless and unmaintainable due to everch changing state. Please no more quickly obsoleted and useless lists. Pavel Vozenilek 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, how frequently the mayors are usually changed? And if I said some of them are still there since 1989, it means I might have to edit them once again in 2020. At this moment the standard infobox for Romanian cities contains this data for all cities over 70,000 inh. and it will be soon implemented on the rest of them. Unfortunately, I have to work out not only the party, but the coordinates etc, it's a whole infobox. The next elections will be in 2008 and I cross my heart I'll have the data on every village by then.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   06:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are also some mayors since 1989 that have changed parties several times... bogdan 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO such detailed information belongs to Romanian Wiki, not here. Only minimum of people here will be able and villing to verify it and such ones are typically busy enough with more useful work. Futhermore: there are dozens and dozens of more important things to say about Arad than political affiliation of current mayor. These categories bring negligeable value to an article. Just because they are currently correct and that they took lot of work doesn't change it. Pavel Vozenilek 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see this information is presented twice in the articles: as category and inside city infobox. Please delete the categories as redundant and reconsired the item in the box. The articles will be better. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep first of all it's been a lot of work put up to find all these infos and I don't think it was fair to mark these categories as Cfd without firstly trying to discuss the matter with the main contribuitors to them. Also, because I don't either apreciate the lists, I think Categories are better. Secondly, in more than 90% of the cases the mayor, if he changes, changes once in four years in Romania, so most of these cats will be up to date up until then. Also the period of local election in Romania is full of events and it could not go unnoticed for an average romanian, and then a new list of mayors is generaly easily accesible so they can easily be replaced if changes. Regarding the name for the category of cities ruled by UDMR mayor's I think a rename should be apropriate, mabye to "Romanian cities ruled by Hungarians' alliance". Mihai -^talk 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many countries have many communities which have been governed or represented by the same party since 1990. This definitely isn't something that should be rolled out on a global basis. Osomec 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct legal term used in Canada for these type of cases is "freedom of expression" not "free speech". And anyway, this Constitutional right protects more than just speech. --PullUpYourSocks 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, perhaps the same change should apply to Category:Free speech case law as well. "Freedom of expression" is definitely more inclusive than "Free speech". --PullUpYourSocks 04:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using "places" instead of "location" seems to be non-standard (see Category:Computer and video game locations, and most of the articles within the category use "location," as well. – Seancdaug 04:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom -- čĥàñľōŕď 08:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- Hibana 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom -- Joshtek 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Deckiller 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Argentine television stations → Category:Argentine television networks
• Category:El Salvador television networks → Category:Salvadoran television networks
• Category:Television networks in Japan → Category:Japanese television networks
• Category:Television networks in Mexico → Category:Mexican television networks (merge)
• Category:Television networks in New Zealand → Category:New Zealand television networks
• Category:Television networks in the Philippines → Category:Philippine television networks
• Category:Television channels in Singapore → Category:Singapore television networks
• Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom → Category:British television networks
• Category:Television networks of the United States and Category:United States television networks → Category:American television networks (merge two into one new cat.)

Rename all subcats of

• Rename all: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Since this is to the standard, is this a speedy? Vegaswikian 04:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speedy because the convention says "Television", not "Television networks" but I figured the inference is clear enough that it belonged here at least. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some, move some. Not all Argentine television stations are networks, most are just stations. Some of them syndicate, some broadcast globally. I would do it in a case by case basis. Argentina's should stay, the rest should depend on their country. Furthermore, I oppose the word "American" on the basis that the US is not the whole continent. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 05:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American has already been covered at

cfru}}. (I'll do another one to fix all the categories under Category:Television stations which is a real mess.) —Wknight94 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, now that you bring up station/channel vs. network, now I see an even bigger mess. A bunch of the subcategories of Category:Television networks by country shouldn't be there and have identical counterparts under Category:Television stations. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd apply the following provisos:

1. Create the Argentine category as proposed, but don't replace "television stations"; normally television stations and television networks are two different things which should be categorized separately from each other.
2. Past discussion on the British category has favoured the use of "channels" rather than "networks". Keep the wording as "channels", but otherwise change the word order as proposed. (Also do this for Singapore if "channels" is considered the more appropriate term in that context — I really don't know if that's the case or not.)

Otherwise, support proposals per standard. Bearcat 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the "channels" and "stations" nominees above and I'll move those out of the network category to be under the channel category. I'll start a separate cfru for the channel categories since those are also a naming mess. Hopefully this is proper protocol. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Radiant_>|< 14:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/partial object with the adjustments now made, in particular, the word "networks" should not be imposed on the British category. CalJW 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I thought there was a standardization in category names that descriptors such as "American" and "Mexican" were only used for people, and everything else would be "in Mexico' or "of Mexico". However, I see that I am wrong. So I am turning to
  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)
  . It says that companies are listed as "of country". I think television networks qualify as companies. -- Reinyday, 01:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, companies own networks. Vegaswikian 01:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Rename to "X in country" instead. --Vizcarra 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.