< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

Category:City council elections in the United Kingdom

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. Peterkingiron suggests "split and merge back per nom" but the contents appear to have been added to this category, not moved from existing categories. It does form part of the worldwide category Category:City council elections and the UK hierarchy Category:City councils in the United Kingdom, which should be discussed if this is re-nominated. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:City council elections in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a meaningless grouping of articles – councils in the England are either county councils, district councils or unitary authorities, whilst in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales there is only one type of council, effectively unitary authorities. If a settlement has the right to call itself a city, usually the local borough or unitary council is renamed to reflect this, but there is no such thing as a "city council" as a form of local government. The same goes for boroughs, and we do not have a borough council elections category for this reason. The current contents are a mix of different forms of local government united only by their name. If not already also in those categories, the contents should be put back into either Category:District council elections in England, Category:Unitary authority elections in England, Category:Council elections in Scotland, Category:Council elections in Northern Ireland or Category:Council elections in Wales as appropriate. Number 5 7 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to support deletion because this category aids navigation for people without a detailed knowledge of the current local elections set-up. While it is true that cities are largely, if not all operating as unitary authorities the elections are still taking place within the commonly understood city boundaries. On top of that, we have articles for elections that genuinely were city council elections (and took place prior to the set-up of unitary authorities etc.).

Maybe a solution would be to rename the category Category:Council elections in the United Kingdom by city? Sionk (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a better option if you think this category has any purpose. However, I'm still not sure how grouping them like that is useful given the randomness of city status – it's not like its a particular measure of anything. Number 5 7 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge back per nom -- The distinction in England between a city, a borough, and a district is largely historic. The councils have the same functions, either as a unitary authority, or as a district council within a two-tier system. Wales and Scotland now have single-tier systems, so that the target should (save perhaps in some historic cases be Category:Council elections in Scotland, etc. In England, they should be in Category:District council elections in England, Category:Unitary authority elections in England, and we should also have Category:County Council elections in England. For those who get lost in the system, we probably need a "See also" dablink, or merely to make the unitaries sub-cats both of District and County categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: There is already Category:County council elections in England. Number 57 16:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought there ought to be, but I got the capitalisation wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2015 (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.

footballers in Italy by competition

The result of the discussion was: merge Lega Pro. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lega Pro Prima Divisione players and Category:Lega Pro Seconda Divisione players to ~~Category:Lega Pro footballers~~

to Category:Lega Pro players

~~:*Propose renaming Category:Serie A players to Category:Serie A footballers~~ Withdrew by Nominator ~~:*Propose renaming Category:Serie B players to Category:Serie B footballers~~ Withdrew by Nominator

Nominator's rationale: Since Lega Pro did not have two division anymore, however the current "Divisione Unica" was not the same as old Prima Divisione (more teams), instead of creating yet another category for 2014 onwards (Category:Lega Pro Divisione Unica players?!), i proposed mirroring English Football League, which just have one category Category:The Football League players for the three divisions.

For the Serie A and B, there is basketball Serie A in Italy, and it was discussed on 2009 May 5, however the move was not proper started in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. At least i saw due to the issue of the sports club, exception was applied in Spanish clubs, which prefer footballers than players. Matthew_hk t c 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew_hk t c 10:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Italian footballers. We should not be splitting them by league, because it will be necessary to amend everything as soon as clubs are promoted or relegated or a player changes club. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: - but not all footballers in Italy are Italian footballers. For association football we traditionally include categories for leagues that players have played in, e.g. Category:Premier League players and Category:The Football League players. Giant Snowman 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lega Pro; oppose Serie A/B - regarding the Lega Pro categories it is agreed that we do not need this separation between divisions in the same league system. Regarding the Serie A/B categories, the football leagues are clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (relevant articles located at Serie A and Serie B) and so keeping them at 'players' rather than 'footballers' is preferred. If the nominator disagrees he should propose a WP:RM and then propose a CFD if and when that is successful. Giant Snowman 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then the discussion actually merged to Category:Lega Pro players, right? Matthew_hk t c 20:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, they should be merged to Category:Lega Pro players per standard naming conventions. Giant Snowman 11:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging Lega Pro and renaming Serie A/B per nominator's sound analysis. Cavarrone 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the discussion should be closed for Lega Pro; Serie A/B should be started elsewhere (I knew Deletion Review but what is the equivalent for Categories for discussion?) Matthew_hk tc 06:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Matthew hk: WP:DRV does cover "appeals" from CfD. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Die Hard scenario films

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Die Hard scenario films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Massively WP:OR and subjective categorisation of films (a lot of films!) as borrowing heavily from Die Hard. These seem to include anything with either Bruce Willis, an explosion, or an exploding Bruce Willis. Even Home Alone and Grumpy Cat's Worst Christmas Ever. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No rationale. BollyJeff | talk 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here because I saw it had been added to My Name Is Modesty, which is nonsense and supports the view that this is subjective. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely arbitrary and incorrect in most instances, even if you assume there is such a thing as a "Die Hard scenario film". —Xezbeth (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rename and narrow focus so that it's only applied in cases where the film was specifically compared to Die Hard. Current usage is overly-broad and, as noted above, appears to be utilizing original research. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all of these films have all been cited as being inspired by Die Hard (yes, even Home Alone and Grumpy Cat) if you read how the films were pitched as well as any reviews for these films. This is to help anyone find any film that borrows from the formula or any of it's more popular clones (Broken Arrow, Executive Decision, Air Force One) as well as any movie that borrows various scenes from any of these films. Ny Name is Modesty movie has been compared to Die Hard due to a similarly intense bank heist.Justbecause5 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Justbecause5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

((cn))

If there is an RS-defined category of "Die Hard scenario films" and if each entry of this category is cited for its membership, then we might have a category. As a bare (and OR) definition, this would have to be something like, "Maverick LEO is socially and organisationally isolated, but finds himself accidentally inside the bad guy's cordon. Only he can (and obviously does) save the day." That includes Die Hard, it includes Under Siege and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, it includes a few others too. It does not include the 300+ listed here. It is very questionable whether it would pass WP:SMALLCAT. And it would need RS for both its existence as a genre, and for each film's membership. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there is a gulf between 'A has been compared to B' and 'B is a defining characteristic of A'. Oculi (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – dont see how some of these films even remotely qualify to the topic. List is completely arbitrary and pure WP:OR--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ill-defined. This category was added to Panic Room despite no reliably sourced connection. Looking at the other examples, it seems like connections are originally researched. Not to mention that even if sources were available, the category is hardly explanatory for layperson readers, as opposed to something like "Films featuring hostage situations". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is no quantifiable way to have this be a category — any additions to it are purely POV. And it's silly, besides. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all of these have been compared to either Die Hard or inspired by clones of Die Hard regardless of what you guys have or have not heard. It's no more silly than listing movies based on what's contained within them such as the Films with Navy SEALs or Prison movies. And there's no reason to assume, it is a type of film (not a genre though obviously). Justbecause5 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Justbecause5, WP:CAT#Articles says, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." I've created a few list articles for this reason, to be referenced. I think it would be possible for you to create a list article and reference the connection with each film with reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO, just having been compared to "Die Hard" is not a defining characteristic as categories are intended. So many movies are each compared to so many other (multiple) movies, that categorizing movies based on such a comparison having been made will produce an unmaintainable web of cross-referencing that adds no value, and much clutter, to the articles. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category depends too much on original research. We already have Category:films about terrorism and Category:action thriller films, so I'm not really sure that this is needed. When a subgenre is formally recognized – for example, slasher films in the wake of Halloween, or splatter films after Blood Feast – that would be warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can find multiple pop culture references which directly acknowledge the "die hard rip-off" subgenre, it's a legitimate cultural movement and, I think, a suitable subject for a distinct category (if only barely). The problem is that the page, as defined now, is woefully vague about what the category actually entails. As I suggested in the talk page, we need cited sources which at least offer a broad definition of what specifically the category includes. Then, the nearly 400-strong list needs to be pared down to only films which fit that narrow category. That should probably include some variation on the idea of a lone hero trapped in an isolated area fighting a well-organized group of villains. That would be quantifiable and would probably not require individual citations for every film included. It would NOT include things which are merely INFLUENCED by Die Hard in one way or another, i.e. Justbecause5's point about My Name is Modesty having a similar heist scene. If "Die Hard Scenario" has any utility as a category, its in reference to a particular narrative scenario structure, not just superficial similarities. Mr Subtlety (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Influenced by" and "Inspired by" aren't a stretch but yes we can cite various sources for future reference. Overall, any movie that's post-Die Hard but mainly influenced by other pre-Die Hard films like Assault on Precinct 13, Taking of Pelham 123, The Bullet Train and Rio Bravo tend to be labeled DHS as well.Justbecause5 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the key point that I'm making is that "influence" and "inspiration" aren't the issue; Die Hard was a huge hit, nearly EVERY action movie that follows it was probably influenced in some way. If this category has any meaning at all it's a shorthand description of a particular scenario structure. Thus a movie like Die Hard 3, despite being inarguably influenced by Die Hard, would not count, because it lacks the same structure of a lone hero trapped in an isolated area with many villains. Mr Subtlety (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This category would open a pandora's box of categorization madness that I don't think the creator fully understands. You think Die Hard influenced films? What about Star Wars as a recent example. Or the works of James Cameron. Really, any number of films -- and those are just recent examples. Cinema is an enormously imitative industry and always has been: every successful film -- they don't even have to be successful at the box office, just admired -- influences films that follow. We cannot categorize anything merely by influence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the history of police/action films did not start with Die Hard. I'm sure there are film buffs out there that can point to how Die Hard was influenced by films that came before. The category creator cites Taking of Pelham 123 above, but the original 1974 film preceded Die Hard, influencing it, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Obviously, "movies influenced by..." is a total Pandora's box, but there IS a distinct subgenre of action films which are so directly related to Die Hard that they're frequently referred to as a distinct category (hundreds of reviews use language to this effect). The difference is that it's not a matter of influence so much as a description of a discreet and specific scenario structure, as articulated by me and User:Andy Dingley above, i.e. "lone hero trapped in an isolated area fighting a well-organized group of villains." Mr Subtlety (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - But it's WP:RECENTISM. There are surely previous films that followed or helped set that structure, such as the enormously influential Stagecoach. Die Hard is not the beginning of the history of cinema. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I don't know about that. I mean, the 30 years since Die Hard have produced a lot of films, many of which were themselves quite influential. It's true that the subgenre we're discussing was most prominent during the 90's and early 2000s, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant from the standpoint of the evolution of action cinema. In fact, the idea that the trend has died out somewhat but is still being discussed should demonstrate that it has some staying power as a distinct definitional shorthand. Mr Subtlety (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, if this category is deleted, there's no reason why editors couldn't add examples and references to the main article's Legacy section, or if required, create a content fork and start an article on the influence, similar to, say, Cultural impact of Star Wars. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as so wrong in so many ways. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker Delete as being non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a Wiki-Inclusionist, it pains me to write that, but this category doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia.Donmike10 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke. This category is not indistinguishable from other action film categories. -Areaseven (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hideousness. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:DEFINING. It's fine to list a critic's opinion that a film was inspired by Die Hard in the article space but, in the end, that reliable source is just providing their opinion, not an objective characteristic. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All Unassessed-Class articles

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:All Unassessed-Class articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unused and would be an awful category to have by itself. All the articles are better served stored within Category:Unassessed-Class articles by WikiProject. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was made so that all Unassessed ones would be listed in whole - including ones not in the other categories and not just ones with an poor duplicate. The technical mechanic was never implemented - but the purpose was to be an aid similar to how every other backlog type can be searchable and processable. It is not duplicative it is administrative. The easy solution would be to implement it, but I am not an admin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not helpful to anyone (if implemented) as article assessment is done via WikiProjects. PC78 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nudity in film

The result of the discussion was: delete. The sub-cats have sufficient navigation links via the other parts of the hierarchy, and there is only one generic article which is not enough to justify keeping a topic category. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Nudity in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category just lists films which have some nudity in them, no matter how trivial. Too vast and not a defining characteristic of a film. No clearly defined criteria either. Given the trivial usage of nudity in films, this cateory serves no purpose. See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 2#Category:Films with nudity / Category:Nudity in film. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that it is not a defining trait of a film. The article on nudity in film points that entire genres of film like the nudie cuties and the nudist films revolve around it. Dimadick (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Dimadick (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. .

Is nudity really a defining characteristic of (for example) Schindler's List, Titanic (1997 film), or Starship Troopers (film), all of which are included in this category? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If individual films do not contain nudity verified by reliable sources, they can be removed. Re. those three, Senator Tom Coburn's comments on the nudity in Schindler's List were widely reported in the newspapers, and mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on the film and Tom Coburn. Kate Winslet recently talked about being asked to sign nude stills from Titanic, and this story was widely reported in the news. The wikipedia article on Starship Troopers mentions the nudity. Dongord (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing whether they do or do not have nudity, or whether it is mentioned on the article, the point is that the nudity is a non-WP:DEFINING characteristic. As someone else said elsewhere, you may as well have Category:Clothes in film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial an non-defining. Man with a Movie Camera, The Simpsons Movie and Planet of the Apes (1968 film) all defined by nudity?! The correct answer is no. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the way it is now, it's non-defining, I agree. The categories in this category are also adequately grouped elsewhere. I don't know how one could prune the category to some agreed-upon non-trivial level of nudity, and frankly the whole thing seems a little prurient to me. Are we going to have Category:Violence in film, too? Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial and non-defining, a boob, butt or other naughty bits on screen does not define a film; few, if any films, would be any more or less with or without the peek and sometimes the peek is removed when the film is distributed in some countries, but our articles make no note of that and are quick to aggregate box office with and without the "bits" because it makes no difference, rather than creating a separate article for the film with or without the "bits" as removing something defining would necessarily create something different worth mentioning or notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the film itself it about nudity it could be useful, but if it would be used in trivial manners it would be not be a relevant category. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been many books written on nudity in film and/or nudist films, and it is often mentioned in film reviews or reported in the news. References to nudity are often present in the wikipedia articles themselves, or could be provided from reliable sources such as Roger Ebert, Allmovie, books by Bernard, Hosoda, Jones, Stewart, etc. I've been relabelling some of the films that fit into other categories, but there doesn't appear to be a category for nudity in non-erotic non-pornographic films on wikipedia at present. Dongord (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but apply far more sparingly. The category is worth keeping for those articles that deal with the subject of nudity in film; not necessarily every damn film that includes nudity. Obviously, the article Nudity in film is within scope, but I do not think it should be on any articles for films themselves, unless the article significantly deals with the issue of nudity in that film. For example, I would keep it on Schindler's List, a substantial portion of which deals with NBC's controversial airing of the film on broadcast television, including the nudity. But Planet of the Apes (1968 film)? No. Just because a film has nudity in it is not a sufficient characteristic for it to be so categorized. To me the criterion should be something along the lines of whether there is material in this article that could be helpful to someone researching the topic of nudity in film. Including every film that includes nudity is pretty silly.

(I realize that this is a function that's sometimes met by the "See also" section, but considering the number of potential films, and the fact that hopefully most of the content in each of those individual articles do not deal with the nudity -- there's hopefully a lot more to the movie than its nudity -- this is too heavy a burden to ask the "See also" section to carry.)

I also think it's a mistake to have the categories Category:Erotic films‎, Category:Films about sexuality‎, Category:Pornographic films‎, Category:Sex comedy films‎ and Category:Sexploitation films‎. Nudity and sex are related, but neither is a subset of the other.

I think the problem here stems from the resolution of the CFD for Category:Films with nudity as "Merge Category:Films with nudity to Category:Nudity in film". They're really very different subjects. As a result of that merge, as the nom says, the cat "just lists films which have some nudity in them, no matter how trivial." But I think the resolution is to agree on criteria, document it on the category talk page, apply it more appropriately. TJRC (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a couple of sentences regarding a television broadcast makes nudity a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Schindler's List. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, nondefining, can be address appropriately in the nudity in film article and the individual film articles. Neutrality^talk 04:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge if Kept I'm not that familiar with film theory or whatever to know if this is a worthwhile category. But the category is clearly being applied to widely to films where it fails WP:DEFINING. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would only keep it as a topic category, not as a set category. But at the moment there's not enough content yet for a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In most cases the presence of nudity in the film is trivial and not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't categorize performers by having appeared nude (WP:OC#PERF). So following that, we don't categorise productions which had performers who appeared nude. Another way to put it, this is performance by performer by venue. Nice triple intersection - all of which is counter to WP:OC. - jc37 03:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the potential for this to be kept as a topic category for articles about the topic of nudity in film, but agree that it should not be added to every individual film that happens to have a nude scene in it (this is not a WP:DEFINING point of commonality between otherwise unrelated films like Schindler's List and The Hangover, for instance.) Purge of individual films, but keep as a topic category for articles about nudity in film and not as a set category for films with nudity in them. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, but the closer better make it very clear that consensus was only to keep about the topic and to delete the individual film inclusions or, if kept, this will be an endless merry-go-round of nominations and also make it difficult for editors to maintain the cat and any subcats. - jc37 03:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a nude scene is not defining. And what counts as nudity is also not clear. If a character appears nude but nothing is visible, does that count? Does being shirtless count? JDDJS (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares in Macedonia

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Squares in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Squares in the Republic of Macedonia. No need to merge, as all of the articles in the nominated category are in subcategories of the other. - Eureka Lott 03:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete Clearly redundant. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This assumes that none of them are in the adjacent Greek province of Macedonia; if any are, they should be purged into a suitable Greece category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom. All five articles are in the Republic of Macedonia, not in the Greek province. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"x-importance articles" categories

The result of the discussion was: Snow keep. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Top-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:High-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Mid-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Low-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Bottom-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:NA-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Unknown-importance articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Each one of these categories is supposed to include pages with a certain importance, but each lacks countless of these and is also filled with countless pages with an importance different than that indicated by their category. In fact, the previous sentence is misleading since countless pages are elements of more than one of these categories. For example, Talk:Pikachu is an element of Category:Top-importance articles via Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles, but also of Category:High-importance articles via - for example - Category:High-importance television articles.

The issue of excessive elements and contradictory categorizations can be solved quite simply, by removing x-importance y articles from x-importance articles. Unfortunately, that would leave the problematic categories almost(?) or completely empty. Therefore, it would be best to either find a proper name for these categories or to delete them. Renaming the categories to "x-importance article categories" or "Articles which were rated x-importance by a WikiProject" would solve the problems, but looks like overcategorization to me. It seems against SUBJECTIVECAT and I hardly see use cases for such categories.

I believe that actual "x-importance articles" categories would be useful enough, but we unfortunately do not have actual page importance ratings. In my humble opinion, even though these categories could be useful if we ever get such ratings, we would better recreate them eventually, since a basic estimation suggests they would not be useful for the next 14 years... Furthermore, if we design an infrastructure to rate general importance, there are good chances the scale used will be different, perhaps not even discrete. Chealer (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - Editor is actively trying to disrupt Wikipedia. No action should be taken till Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Requesting topic ban from all Wikipedia-related pages for Chealer has been completed. -- Moxy (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I just looked into the first category that the editor suggested be deleted (Category:Top-importance articles) and it contains 1,764 subcategories and thousands of articles. This is the advocating the removal of a fundamental organizing structure that impacts all WikiProjects. You might make some valid points, Chealer, but it's a proposal that should occur at WP:Village pump, not at a simple CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep and close ASAP. Nomination appears purely disruptive, given recent behaviour, and the above-linked ANI discussion. Begoon ^talk 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/Snowball Keep - Bad faith request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously, but if I understand the nominator's concerns correctly, then renaming these categories to something like "Articles rated top-importance by WikiProjects" may be acceptable to other editors. (Although whether it would be worthwhile and solves an actual problem is debatable. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But would we then also rename, for example, Category:Mid-importance Abkhazia articles‎ to Category:Articles rated mid-importance by WikiProject Abkhazia ? DexDor^(talk) 21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]