< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

[edit]

Category:French Female tennis players

[edit]
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: speedy merge C2C. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category already exists as "French female tennis players" Wolbo (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (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:Snooker venues

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was argued to no consensus some years back, and while it has a lot of text at the top identifying suitable members, the problem now, as it was before, is that these are as far as I can tell all general-purpose exhibition halls in which I presume some sort of snooker competition was held. It is a perfect example of WP:OCVENUE. Seyasirt (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these types of use are consistent with WP:OCVENUE. First off, the guideline does not apply to purpose-built or dedicated facilities, and in the case of the second it actually makes an exception for venues that are regularly used in a specific and notable way for some of the year. The most prominent example of this would be the Crucible Theatre because the snooker world championship is the only world class event it regularly hosts. The most ridiculous argument put forward in the last discussion was that "snooker can be played anywhere". This is true to a degree, but darts are also played in every pub up and down the country, and basketball is played at every leisure centre and school up and down the country as well, but we don't argue that Category:Darts venues and Category:Basketball venues should be deleted. The intended use for this category follows the exact same format as those two categories i.e. to house dedicated venues and venues that host regular, notable—and by this we generally mean the professional international tour—snooker events. Whoever closes this discussion should also take the time to read through the very comprehensive argument offered by SMcCandlish at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Category:Snooker_venues, which covers all the main points and defuncts the nomination. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2016 (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:Welders

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was deleted before because the members were not notable as welders per se, and the membership of the recreated category has the same problem. One or two are famous as inventors of welding techniques, and the rest are mostly notable in labor history, not because they were welders. Seyasirt (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things are better than before, but I count two people whose fame is specifically derived from welding. Everyone else is some kind of labor activist or pioneer who happened to be a welder. Seyasirt (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would see people unionizing welders or breaking barriers to get into welding defined by welding. (An Olympic athlete that went into welding or a politician who used to weld would be non-defining for me.) I can see your viewpoint though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2016 (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:Screenshots of games

[edit]
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: speedy delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure as to what this category was created for, but surely there are more categories better suited for gaming screenshots than this Nordic Nightfury 15:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category was automatically added in the page so I just created it. ThanksSeniorStar (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2016 (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:Chinese coming-of-age television series

[edit]
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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Coming-of-age" and "slice-of-life" are not genres of television series, but merely subjective phrases that can be used to describe a television show's style. Besides the creator's similar new creations for South Korea which have also been CFDed already, we have no other "coming-of-age television series" or "slice-of-life television series" categories for any other country, and neither South Korea nor China gets to make up its own unique genre categories outside the standard genre categorization system. Also worth noting, both of these categories are filed solely as subcategories of the other one, forming a recursive loop with no outside parentage. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are well over 100 films in that cat, including its subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2016 (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:South Korean workplace drama

[edit]
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: } merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Somebody seems to have undertaken a recent campaign of excessive overcategorization of South Korean television series (there are at least two others, created by the same user at the same time as these two, that are already up for CFD on November 22, and I fear a spelunking expedition is in the cards to see if there are still others). These are not consistent with the way Wikipedia categorizes television series — there are no other "workplace drama" or "coming-of-age television series" categories on Wikipedia for any other country, and there's no reason why South Korea should get to make up its own sui generis genre categories for itself outside of the standard ones. Bearcat (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a wider category such as Category:Television shows set in workplaces could be useful. Jim Michael (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly non-defining, too prone to subjectivity (anybody could add any series that depicts a main character's workplace at all), and therefore unmaintainable. It would be far too close to categorizing songs by general lyrical themes, a thing that gets routinely deleted at AFD when people try it. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most aren't set solely or primarily in a workplace. Jim Michael (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2016 (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:American prequel films

[edit]
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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure there's much substantive reason to subcategorize Category:Prequel films by individual nationality. There's no WP:DEFINING relationship between nationality and prequel status per se, and the parent category is not actually large enough to require geography-related subcatting for size management purposes. It's simply not a useful or needed category. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If 95 per cent of the articles in a category tree are or should be sitting in one specific subcategory, with only a negligible number of articles actually left outside of that one subcategory, then that in and of itself is another reason why the subcategory is not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near 95% are American, but well over half are. A category is seen as valid if an article could be written about its topic, and an article about American prequel films and their increase in popularity could be be written. Jim Michael (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably be over 200 soon. Jim Michael (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is there are just not that many prequels to justify this level of refinement. We are not helping readers/editors by diffusing this sub-set of films to lots of non-defining low-populated sub-categories, and even then nationality is not a good diffusion criteria: if a film is an international co-production it would have to be added to two sub-categories or even more, which is why the film project diffuses by decade. Since all American films are added to Category:American films regardless, then Category:American prequel films is actually redundant anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2016 (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.
[edit]
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: speedy deleted C1. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I saw the discussion at the 2016 OSU attacks. Isn't this category unnecessary? Islamic Terrorism is already a category so this seems a bit extra. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was never anything in it. Someone wanted to create the category, was informed not to, but then created the category anyway. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the category appears to have been created seconds after the creator tried to include it in the 2016 Ohio State University attack article. Parsley Man (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2016 (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.
More