Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16[edit]

Category:Astroblemes[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 Category:Astroblemes to Category:Craters on Earth. --Xdamrtalk 11:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Astroblemes to Category:Craters on Earth
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Now that Cat:Craters on Earth has been more clearly defined to include only impact craters and exclude origins by volcano or explosives, Cat:Astroblemes is now redundant. Both cats had a nearly-disjoint set of craters which have now been sorted into the mutual subcats Category:Earth Impact Database (for confirmed craters) and Category:Possible craters (for notable suspected craters or those confirmed but awaiting EID listing). Ikluft (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. Ikluft (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Especially since Astrobleme redirects to Impact structure. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This makes no sense, since the universe is not composed soley of the Earth. AFAIK, astrobleme does not refer specifically to the Earth. To merge the two together would promote systematic bias. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • There is also a Category:Craters for the wider context - so Category:Astroblemes is still redundant either way. Cat:Craters was also clarified months ago as being defined for impacts, and does not include volcanic or other non-impact craters. Category:Astroblemes was very clearly being used just for impact structures and craters on Earth even before I began sorting articles between subcats for confirmed and possible. I respected that and didn't change the way the category was being used. But the category is now redundant, (effectively) empty and unneeded. Ikluft (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have a problem with the current naming scheme... why "craters on Earth" instead of "impact craters on Earth"? Since there are obvious volcanic confusions and maintenance problems therein. Also "possible craters" has nothing to indicate that it is Earthly craters only, or that it's about impact craters. The description in "possible craters" is biased towards only Earthly phenomena, there are "possible craters" that have not been defined as impact craters on objects other than Earth. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other categories clearly did have to deal with that, and at least for now solved the confusion by setting the definition with instructions in the text. It isn't a bad idea to put the clarification in the category name. But those are separate discussion topics to take over to those categories. (I posted your suggestion on Category talk:Craters on Earth. We'll see if consensus is easy or difficult. But that should not be a condition for this CFD.) Ikluft (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-reading that, I should take a different approach. I should ask whether it will help reach consensus on this discussion if a CFD also begins about renaming of "Craters" and "Craters on Earth/etc" to "Impact craters" and "Impact craters on Earth", and so on with the rest of that tree of categories. Although this point may be moot since anonymous comments don't count on CFDs. If it matters, log in and let us know if that would help. Ikluft (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (struck out comment on anonymous user comments - misread WP:CFD.) Ikluft (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing admin: If we don't hear from 76.66.192.144 or others saying otherwise then this appears to have answered the questions for this CFD per WP:SILENCE. Ikluft (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are being addressed with a wholesale rename of the crater categories to a clearer "impact crater" naming system, and adding "Earth" to ambiguous titles. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2009 (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:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport[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: listified to User:Erik9/List of towns and cities with zero-fare transport. The list should be moved to the main namespace when all entries are verified, incorrect listings are removed, and appropriate sources added. Erik9 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport to something
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not limited to settlements since other levels of government can also provide this service as well as private companies and government entities. For example, the National Park Service provides free shuttle buses that service Springdale, Utah and Zion National Park and they operate a free route in Grand Canyon National Park. I would not be opposed to deletion either since this category opens a entire class of problems. Who has to operate the buses? How many routes need to be free. How about seasonal service? Another option would be to upmerge to Category:Zero-fare transport services and maybe review the entire structure? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward delete - per my comments in the 8/15 discussion of the sub-cat, I'm not convinced that providing some level of free transport is defining of a municipality and it's definitely not defining of a private corporation shuttling its employees. May I suggest closing the 8/15 discussion and combining it with this one? It would be absurd if that CFD resulted in merge and this one got the merge target deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - Interesting subject, but not suitable for a category imo. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a category like this is useful, but perhaps it makes more sense to place into that category articles about the transport systems in question (e.g. King County Metro), rather than about cities themselves? On the other hand, a list could work as well - it could be done as a table with 3 columns, one for the city/county/whatever-place name, one for the transport system, and one (if applicable) for the link to a section about that particular ride free area, e.g. King_County_Metro#Ride_Free_Area. Vmenkov (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify (changing opinion as nominator). Based on the discussion it appears that there is support for retaining the information and improving how it is presented. The format suggested by Vmenkov seems to be a good way to start the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (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:Verona[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: Not rename. Mondalor (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: disambiguation from Category:Province of Verona and its sub-cats Mayumashu (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_18#Category:Treviso for an identical proposal by same editor. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to help a WP user who does not happen to know that this is the case Mayumashu (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Futhermore, why change the name of the category from the name of the main article. No, bad idea. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. WP needs to be as foolproof as possible, to discourage mis-categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Debresser - just add a note to the cats. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per debreser, and because the parent article is just Verona. The category tree should follow. Resolute 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Debresser above. The city is primary topic here. Jafeluv (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2009 (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:Film industries[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Film industries to Category:Cinema by country
Nominator's rationale: Merge - appears to be covering the same material and the target is much more expansive and consistently organized. I've done some clean-up and reorganization in the industries category and there are a few articles that don't fit quite right in the target but overall the industries category is redundant. Otto4711 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (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:Performance artists by country[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: rename. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Performance artists by country to Category:Performance artists by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories that group subcategories by country should be X by nationality, not X by country. Since these categories contain people, 'nationality' is more appropriate. Also see Category:Installation artists by nationality and Category:Artists by nationality. Clubmarx (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What? I distinctly seem to remember lots of "per country" subcategories for occupations. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2009 (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:Artisans of Japan[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: rename. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Artisans of Japan to Category:Japanese artisans
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This should be renamed following the convention of country/term for people of a country then type of artist like Category:Indian artisans or Category:Japanese artists. Clubmarx (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above; nothing else much is really to be said on the matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:00, 17 August 2009 (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:Tollywood Bangla[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: delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tollywood Bangla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Tollywood Bangla is a redirect to Cinema of West Bengal. The only article that might possibly be appropriately categorized at the "Cinema" level, List of silent Bengali films, is already appropriately categorized with the Indian films structure. Otto4711 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (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:Kannada film industry[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 Category:Kannada film industry to Category:Cinema of Karnataka. --Xdamrtalk 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kannada film industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the lead article, Kannada film industry, is a redirect to Cinema of Karnataka and Category:Cinema of Karnataka already exists. The category should not be merged because the contents are already appropriately categorized within various more appropriate film-related categories and should not be categorized at the "Cinema of Foo" level. Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest manually adding the single article rather than dumping several inappropriate articles into the target. Otto4711 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most if not all seem to need merging. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random articles for actors, singers and the like ought not be categorized in such an upper-level cat. Otto4711 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there are no lower level categories, so it is appropriate. Where the target category has appropriate sub-cats, they should of course be merged there. What I wonder does "random" mean exactly here? Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2009 (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.

WikiProject Haystacks categories[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Haystack articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Essentials-boxes not yet in use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete These categories are associated with WikiProject Haystacks which no longer exists. Only content is a single template which is listed at TfD. PC78 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (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:Cinemas of the Soviet Union[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cinemas of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The creator of Category:Cinema, nominated below, has also created this. Its sole content to date is the main article Cinema of the Soviet Union, which is not the same thing at all, and is the main article for the parent category Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union. If retained, it could serve, I guess, as a grouping of all cinemas by country categories of former Soviet republics, including that of the Baltic States. But problem with that is that many articles will be for movie theatres built after the fall of the USSR, and so would have nothing to do with the former state. So I guess it can only be safely applied to specific theatres or theatre chains built or active during the days of the USSR: but I would question whether that's a defining characteristic for those theatres today. If a cinema happened to get built in Riga in the 1980s, because the Latvians wanted to built it, does it make it a "cinema of the Soviet Union"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2009 (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:Cinema[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: Convert to redirect to Category:Film. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cinema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category creator appears to be building a new, poorly thought out category tree for Cinema, especially that of the Soviet Union, unaware that Category:Film exists, and with the nominated category as a sub-cat of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (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:Bosnian War (1992. - 1996.)[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: Upmerge to Category:Bosnian War. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bosnian War (1992. - 1996.) to Category:Bosnian War by year
Nominator's rationale: I feel that the proposed name covers the content better than the current name. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2009 (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:Assemblage[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: Rename Category:Assemblage to Category:Assemblage artists. --Xdamrtalk 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Assemblage to Category:Assemblage artists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category contains people and is part of a people-centric category: Category:Artists by medium. Clubmarx (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - and populate. The category is currently very scanty and of little value: just two entries, missing prime exponents such as Joseph Cornell, Bruce Conner, etc. AllyD (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2009 (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:Artist redirects[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Artist redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no clear reason for this category. The two members of the category don't illustrate the intent of the category. Tracking redirects does not seem to be a reason to keep the category. Clubmarx (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories of redirects are without any value whatsoever. They may even prevent the redirect functioning as it should. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I oppose any category that is not a Wikipedia maintenance category, that should consist solely of redirects. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary categorization. I suggest the same treatment to Category:Arts redirects and its many child categories, all by the same creator. Jafeluv (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (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:Appointees to a national government[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: poorly named attempt at starting a category page for central or federal government politicians who are appointed (as opposed to elected). (Was wrongly thinking that all 'politicians' are elected, but obviously this is untrue.) And that there may not be many such politicians, perhaps it should simply be Category:Appointed politicians Mayumashu (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Category:Appointees to a national government by century as unneeded. It has no contents, but would still be unneeded if it ever did containt 6 or 8 categories of the sort one would expect from the name. Carlaude:Talk 06:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is relevant to us is the function a politician has within a government, not whether someone was elected or appointed. Gerald Ford was president, that's what he should be categorized as, not as an unelected president. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerald Ford was not appointed either. But since this category has so little contents, it is hard to say if Category:Appointees to a national government would be useful.Carlaude:Talk 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always thought Ford was appointed vice president by the Senate and was then constitutionally appointed president after the resignation of Nixon? But regardless, that confusion is another reason not to have this category: when is a politician appointed and when elected? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether Ford was "appointed" to either office depends on how one interprets the wording of the 25th Amendment. Technically, he was "nominated" to the Vice-Presidency by Nixon and "confirmed" by Congress, then when Nixon resigned Ford "became" President. The word "appointed" does not appear in the amendment in regards to filling either office, but our article itself describes Ford as "appointed". Anyway, regarding the categories, I'm inclined to delete both of them for now and then open a discussion somewhere as to whether categorizing politicians by dint of being appointed is worthwhile. At least in the United States, I believe the majority of federal political offices are filled by appointment (all federal judgeships, all Cabinet posts and many sub-Cabinet positions, all ambassadorships, federal commissioners, etc.). If retained, this would likely be a container category only since I would guess that by definition a politician appointed to a federal post is going to be categorized by that position and not simply as an appointed official. The by century category should go regardless at this point and, if retained, the former should probably be renamed to something like Category:Appointed federal office-holders which mirrors Category:Political office-holders by country, the closest model I could find. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this is so vague as to be useless. Yes, Justices of US Supreme Court are appointed, but they do not govern. US Cabinet officers (not in cat) are appointed by the President, but is it useful to categorise them like this? Gerald Ford's appointment was by the senate, but could we not regard that as an election? UK Life peers (not in cat) are like Candian Senantors (in cat) appointed, but they are legislators, rather than part of the government: some will be in opposition to the government. Since the current contents are only categories, the "by century" category must certainly be deleted, even if the other is kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too general to be usefull for categorisation. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2009 (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:21st-century by journalists[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 - WP:CSD#G7 author request. ---Xdamrtalk 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:21st-century by journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: non-sensical page erroneously started by nominator Mayumashu (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2009 (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:Filmmakers[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: } Rename Category:Filmmakers to Category:Filmmaking occupations. --Xdamrtalk 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Filmmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and possibly a handful of Cat:Filmmakers by nationality sub cats that have not been tagged)
Nominator's rationale: nominator at this point neutral on deleting or not. Would like, rather, to see what contibutors think, as according to film director a 'filmmaker' is not just one involved in any way to the making of a film but, rather, just a film director or, for some, a film producer as well. The nominated category page however is being use to hold anyone involved such as actors, screenwriters, etc. Does the article page need to be corrected or this category and its subcats deleted? Mayumashu (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Perhaps it should be renamed to 'Cinema occupations' or 'Film occupations' which would house all the subcategories of directors, actors, etc. The articles in this category will need to be disbursed. 'Filmmakers' seems synonymous with 'Film directors' to me. There are lots of other categories that have an occupations category. Also, the nationality categories just need to be grouped under 'Filmmakers by nationality'. Clubmarx (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Filmmaking occupations, I suggest, per the parent category Category:Arts occupations and other similar categories therein. But then we'd also need to create Category:Cinema occupations Category:Film industry people, I believe, as an intermediate category between Filmmaking and the top-level Arts grouping, to include film professions beyond film creation, especially in the distribution and exhibition end of the business, where frankly I think there is a lot of work still to do in category and article creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sucker as I am for your film references, I don't think it's quite right to call distributors and such Filmmaking occupations. I work in the biz and I sense a very vivid distinction between filmmaking and the rest of the industry. That said, if everyone else is okay with this, let's just go with it as the top-level cat.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Filmmaking occupations seems sufficient. This would contain 'Film directors' etc. Other Arts-related occupation categories do not start with 'People by'. The person-centric nature of the category is assumed with 'occupations.' Clubmarx (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. If the subcats were occupations and not people in them then they would be named Category:Film directing, Category:Acting, Category:Screenwriting, etc. which obviously they are not. What s an example of an art-related occupation category that does not start with people? I m curious. (And I m thinking now that Category:People in film occupations may be preferable to 'People by...') Mayumashu (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, these are all misnamed, to be linguistically technical, but I can see now how common usage does allow, for instance, 'artist' be both an occupation and person doing that occupation (as there is not term 'arting' to describe the activity). 'Actor' is the person in the occupation of 'acting' is straightforward example of the difference, but again common usage does allow, upon further consideration, both 'acting' and 'actor' to be the name of the occupation carried out by an actor. Given that there is this pre-existing list, I too will, for the time being, support Category:Film occupations Mayumashu (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The 'people by' is still not correct, see WP:COP (finally found it). Clubmarx (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - I'm fine with calling the parent cat Category:Film occupations as long as it's not deemed confusing with occupations relating to other meanings of the word "film", i.e. polymer chemists. Otto4711 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would challenge the original premise of the nominator. I find the idea that only a director or possibly producer can be a filmmaker is nonsense. Given the number of people who work on a film, for the director to claim it was all his own work is clearly not true unless he is some sort of jack of all trades. The parent category is Category:Film making, so the logical name for the category for those involved in the making of films is Category:Filmmakers. Cjc13 (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you point to any RS where a film actor or film score composer is referred to as a "filmmaker"? While I agree with your logic regarding the collective nature of film making, for our category names to be most useful, they need to reflect commonly used names for things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a dictionary which simply defines a filmmaker as one who makes motion pictures,[1] which allows for a broad range of people. In Wikipedia, Film making is defined as "the process of making a film, from an initial story idea or commission, through scriptwriting, shooting, editing and distribution to an audience", which allows for a broad range for filmmakers. Filmmaker is often used to describe a particular producer or director or often producer/director but that does not mean that the others are not filmmakers. Cjc13 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst not being against a rename, just because some directors are referred to as a filmmaker, it does not follow that filmmaker means the same as director. Some producers, such as Jerry Bruckheimer and Dino De Laurentiis say, are also referred to as a filmmaker for a start. Often filmmaker is a term used to describe someone who is involved thoroughout the process of the making of the film, so it would certainly be able include scriptwriters such as Charlie Kaufman and Richard Curtis. Usually the term filmmaker is used becuse the person does more than one job, eg writer/director or director/producer, because the term filmmaker is flexible enough to cover both jobs in one word. However this does not mean that other people who are involved in filmmaking are not filmmakers. If you can come up with a better term by all means use it. Cjc13 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we have actors & all sorts in the category - it is eccentric to call a pure actor a "filmmaker", & clarity is essential in category names. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be clarity and would support the creation of a new category, perhaps as you suggest Category:Filmmaking occupations or Category:Filmmaking professions for subcategories relating to a particular sector of filmmaking. Within the category though is Category:American filmmakers which seems to consist of people who have made small independent films, usually short films. They have usually done most of the work themselves, ie. been producer, director, scriptwriter, cameraman and editor. Filmmaker, or perhaps independent filmmaker, seems to be the way to sum up their work, although they usually go on to specialise in one job, such as producer or director. Cjc13 (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (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:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in Maine[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 Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in Maine to Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States. --Xdamrtalk 11:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in Maine to both parents
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Single entry category not likely to expand much. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's already doubled in size, and there appears to be no reason not to believe that it will expand further. Grouping the hundreds of aviation incidents in the U.S. by the individual states in which they occurred is a rather productive means of organizing the parent category, regardless of the paucity of incidents in any one state. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be better to group by airline. Also, that avoids the issue of crashes in multiple jurisdictions. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are only 176 articles in Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States. Does it really need to be split? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment surely an accident only happens in one state -- that where it lands. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't the two recent crashes on the Hudson river occur right on the border between New York state and New Jersey? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latest one from what I have read, while not a commercial flight, may have actually occurred over land and not the river. But I think all reports place the impact over NJ. Since the airplane drifted after impact, I'm not sure where the wreckage was actually found. In was in the main channel of the river. I'll also point out that is is possible for aircraft involved in an accident or incident to land or crash in two different states. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. See Wikipedia:OVERCAT#Intersection by location - since aviation (and particularly accident investigations by NTSB) is federally regulated in the US, there is no basis for categorization by state. Ikluft (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_16&oldid=1144513761"