Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 10

< May 9	May 11 >

May 10

Category:Mockbusters

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 25. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Mockbuster appears to be a neologism, rarely appearing even in the sources cited in the article. Inclusion seems arbitrary given that the definition of the term as given in the article is subjective ("...created with the apparent intention...") I did not check every single article but the ones that I did check had no sourcing that indicate that they were created with the apparent intention of piggy-backing off another recent or soon-to-be-released film. Several of them are flat out not mockbusters or derivative works at all but I'll leave them in the category pending this discussion. The overall nebulous nature of the concept and the original research that leads to the films' being categorized here argue for its deletion. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term gets 46,000 ghits, at least one (in Screen Enemies of the American Way: Political Paranoia about Nazis ... By Fraser A. Sherman) from a proper book. For things like Orca (film) and Snakes on a Train it is highly defining, I would think, though I can see some arguments about what to include. Mockbuster is quite long, if not, er, heavily linked, & should be linked to these. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Harley Hudson points out, the term is subjective, so there is no way of objectively determining what articles should be placed in the category. Johnbod's reasons fail to address the reasons given for deletion. No matter how commonly used the term is, the subjectivism remains, and Harley Hudson is quite right in saying that the categorisation has to amount to original research.
Keep The term is not subjective. There are criteria. Just read the article Mockbuster. Perhaps there are some articles in this category that are not sourced to be Mockbusters. Then just remove these films from the category but do not delete the whole category. --Bothary (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term is subjective. The article on mockbusters says "Though the words are often used interchangeably, the term mockbuster implies a spoof or parody of the original film's premise, while knockbuster implies a more derivative (or knock-off) use of a successful film in the same genre." Johnbod's managing to find 1, yes one, book that uses the term hardly establishes that it has widespread use. That is only one of the issues, and really only relevent to having the article. The issues with the category is that there is no universally agreed on difference between a mockbuster and a knockbuster, so that the requirement that a categorization of something has to be something not debatable will not be met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mockbuster article is not perfect yet. Nevertheless there are other sources for a definition: "Mockbuster. It refers to the low-cost film which mocks similar title of large tracts. Large tract is “blockbuster”" [1] A shorter but somewhat more clear definition. Or just "mockbuster (blockbuster knockoff)" in the book The Rough Guide to Cult Movies from Paul Simpson and Rough Guides and the book There's a Word for It: The Explosion of the American Language Since 1900 Sol Steinmetz --Bothary (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (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:Racism by country or region

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: Split. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Racism by country or region to Category:Racism by country and Category:Racism by region

Nominator's rationale: They are two defined areas and there are sufficient articles to justify the split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:52, 10 May 2011 (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:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings

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: administrative close. Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings was manually emptied and replaced with Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings, with the emptied category being nominated for speedy deletion as "empty". If this move is thought to be desired, the appropriate action is to nominate Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings for renaming to Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings, not to perform the rename unilaterally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings to Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings

Nominator's rationale: Merge. POV fork of China – Hong Kong border crossings. 119.236.251.39 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The template is also up for moving at this discussion. 22:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose HK is part of China. This makes no sense. It's like saying the United States-Utah border crossings. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator (thanks for notifying me!). This was created as the most NPOV way of defining these border crossings as geographical end points instead of political endpoints so it did not look like bi-lateral state-to-state borders. There is currently some discussion about whether there is a better way, but for now, this should stand. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete POV and duplicate Martinoei (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (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:Guangdong – Macau border crossings

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: administrative close. Category:China–Macau border crossings was manually emptied and replaced with Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings, with the emptied category being nominated for speedy deletion as "empty". If this change is thought to be desired, the appropriate action is to nominate Category:China–Macau border crossings for renaming to Category:Guangdong–Macau border crossings, not to perform the rename unilaterally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings to Category:China–Macau border crossings

Nominator's rationale: Merge. POV fork of Category:China–Macau border crossings. 119.236.251.39 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The template is also up for moving at this discussion. 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Macau is part of China. This makes no sense. It's like saying the United States-Utah border crossings. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator (thanks for notifying me!). This was created as the most NPOV way of defining these border crossings as geographical end points instead of political endpoints so it did not look like bi-lateral state-to-state borders. There is currently some discussion about whether there is a better way, but for now, this should stand. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
'Delete POV and duplicate. Martinoei (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (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:Organizations attacking one or more religions

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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant category already covered by Category:Opposition to religion and its sub-categories. Words like "attack" in category names like this should probably be avoided. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is unnecessary to have two duplicate categories, and Category:Opposition to religion is both more neutral and more widely used, so that is the one to keep. I have moved the former subcategories of Category:Organizations attacking one or more religions to Category:Opposition to religion, so the former is now completely unused. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (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:Water resources administrations of China

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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Water resources administrations of China to Category:Water resources management in China

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match all other articles and categories and to fix the poor grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Water resources management in China Hugo999 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2011 (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:Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department to Category:Scottish Government Enterprise and Environment Directorate

Likewise Category:Scottish Executive Education Department to Category:Scottish Government Learning and Justice Directorate

Nominator's rationale: The Scottish Executive was replaced by the nomenclature Scottish Government in 2007 and is unlikely to be changed back under the new administration. The "departments" have been re-organised twice since then and are now "directorates". The new meta-directorates are as noted here and the proposed targets seem to be the closest analogues. The latest re-vamp took place in December 2010, and although all the details of the responsibilities do not yet seem to be published they are similar enough to allow for the move. Ben Mac Dui 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any thing that is solely related to the education or the environment department, and has no relation at all with the succeeding directorates? Peter Geatings (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until SG come out with something more definitive (or it can be found, if it's available somewhere) it is hard to be certain. In 2007 they produced this pdf of the "Scottish Government Senior Management Structure", but I have seen no update. Having said that I think it is unlikely that anything in Environment and Rural Affairs has not been carried forward to Enterprise and Environment. It is harder to be sure about Education, but it seems likely that it has been subsumed under the "learning" part of the Learning and Justice Directorate. What is certain is that neither the "Scottish Executive" nor any "departments" exist under current terminology. Ben Mac Dui 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further digging - VisitScotland should move to Enterprise and Environment not Education. Happy to do that manually, post any move. I can't see any obvious post-move location for Scottish Screen. Ben Mac Dui 18:48, 13 May 2011 (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:Roman chefs

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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman chefs to Category:Ancient Roman chefs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the remaining categories in the hierarchy of Category:Ancient Romans by occupation. All the people in the cat are "ancient". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match hierarchy per nom. LeSnail (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2011 (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:Wikipedians of German descent

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 per G4. This was previously deleted here with no deletion review overturning this decision. VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Completely pointless category, with only one member. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be the only cat of its type as well. Let's not set a precedent for this specific degree of categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:15, 10 May 2011 (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:Armoured personnel carriers of the United States

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: Rename to the US spelling. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A page related to American military vehicles is using Commonwealth spelling. KentuckyFriedRamen (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking here it would seem many use British English. NickCT (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct to assume that the nominator wants to rename this category to Category:Armored personnel carriers of the United States instead of deleting it? - Eureka Lott 20:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The current spelling is inappropriate, but not sufficient reason for deletion. (The spelling used in other similar categories for other countries is irrelevant: for non-English speaking countries there is no reason to prefer one spelling over the other.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The spelling needs to be changed as per WP:Ties. Pyro721 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2011 (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:Opposition to Islam

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an awkward category, that doesn't have equivalent pages for Christianity/Judaism. As such, it could represent systemic bias. NickCT (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a useful category; presumably each religion opposes all others so "Opposition to Fooism" basically equals "All religions/groups/philosophies not wholly in agreement with Fooism". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a proper sub-category of Category:Opposition to religion (which contains the anti-Christianity and anti-Judiasm categories the nominator wondered about) and as a proper parent to its own sub-categories. It's the only one that's named "opposition to" instead of "Anti-something". We have Category:Anti-Islam sentiment so maybe these should be merged unless there's some difference between opposing Islam and being anti-Islamic? Harley Hudson (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Harley Hudson's comment, I wouldn't mind if we renamed to Category:Anti-Islam then merged Category:Anti-Islam sentiment into Category:Anti-Islam. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep since "opposition" is a less loaded word than "anti-". If kept we should create equivalent sub-categories for all the other anti-FooReligion categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2011 (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.