The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are varying definitions as to what composes the Tampa Bay area. How can we then have a Occupation from a undefined area. ...William23:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that most of the articles in this category don't have a corresponding by city category they could fit into and even if one were made it would be too small to warrant being a category. —dainomite01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with no rationale given and no meaning obvious. Categorisation of c 10 articles now reverted as category gave no added value to content, having no obvious meaning. Category now empty. VelellaVelella Talk 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary layer of categorization of albums with this eponymous category. Plenty of precedent in CfD that eponymous categories need much more content than a subcatategory already with an established scheme. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me17:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name better fits the usual "Films about..." convention, and avoids ambiguity. "Apartheid films" could describe films made under apartheid, for example. BDD (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:DEADLINE, and the "fix" agreed here may not seem so appropriate when subjected to wider scrutiny. Why waste time having lots of little fragmented discussions? Much better to spend our energies on a comprehensive solution. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG, but would want to discuss a threshold question on what reliable sources tell us that the film is of the genre or about the topic being categorized. Is "Titanic" about a boy-meets-girl scenario, or a boat sinking, or about the quest for sunken treasure on the wreck? Who says it's about what. And if a film can be analyzed to be "about" more than one thing, is it really "about" anything? Like adding fauna of Fooland categories to rat, people, or pigeon articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above, Carlos. All those aspects are merely plot devices in a story about hubris ;)
Seriously, tho, you are right. Critics and academics earn a living partly through arguing what works of fiction are "about", and great fiction is often "about" several themes. I have argued before against this form of categforisation, usually to no avail.
However, I think that the broad question of "aboutness" is one which should be considered in a broader discussion, i.e. an RFC. Any local consensus in this CFD should not override the presumed existing consensus tat this form of category is acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hubris? yes... And I thought it was how a music group sticks together through thick and thin - a kind of Spinal Tap period piece with a Welsh hymn music genre. :) Any how, there's little doubt my tilting at windmills will not stop these categories' proliferation, but we really ought to think these through at a higher level to see if they are encyclopedic or movie fanclubisms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category. Play, Ruby, Play was somehow erroneously credited to Brent, but was actually written by Troy Seals and Tony Brown (record producer). Brent Mason is primarily a session musician, and the vast majority of his entries on BMI are either a.) non-notable album cuts, b.) music bumpers for TV shows, or c.) cuts from the two solo instrumental albums he did, neither of which has an article. In short, WP:OCAT#SMALL for a person whose bread-and-butter is not songwriting. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the nom has it backwards. We are categorising the song, not the person, and the writer is a defining characteristic of a song. (This said, I'm not entirely sure that a song co-written by 3 or more writers such as Hurry Sundown should be categorised by all the writers.) Oculi (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support current name is highly ambiguous. Is it a spy for the Soviets, a spy who is a Soviet, a spy for the Soviets who is a Soviet, etc. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single entry populating the category. Appears too narrow. I think that simply using Category:Novels set in New York City would be fine. Sven ManguardWha?01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We categorize novels by city or larger place they are set in, not by what specific transportation network they occur in. Anyway, a bunch more novels could be included if we allowed for any scenes on the subway, but that would be categorization by trivial characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2013 (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.
