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 merge based on nominators rationale.—John Cline (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it can expedite this proposed merge, and is otherwise not improper, consider it as if I had merged the single entry to the populated category and added {{db-g7}} to this one and close this speedily.—John Cline (talk) 16:22, 18 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 roles filled in these films will vary with gender. Plus the awards those involved in these films will be eligible for will also vary by gender. Gender division cuts deeply through acting, and we should reflect this in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actors are not limited by the genre of films in which they can appear and so categorizing them by genre will lead to category clutter. Categorize them by their profession, not by the genre. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am neutral on deleting. Ursula Andress is listed in the article on this film-sub-genre, yet she is most notable for appearing in a James Bond film and also appearing in another spy movie, which is not this genre at all. On the other had, we have Category:Male Spaghetti Western actors and Category:Spaghetti Western actresses, so this is not the only case of splitting actors by genre. For what it is worth though, since all actors are already in by nationality categories, and these categories are not nationality specific, they will always increase the number of categories these people are in. I believe in the guidelines to the general Category:Western (genre) film actors category it suggests people so categorized need to have a strong connection to such films, and that merely having appeared in a minor role in one film does not cut it, but I am not sure that has been applied in the actual building of the category. Even an actor like John Wayne who is very heavily known for appearing in Westerns, had multiple leading roles in films (such as The Quiet Man) that were not at all westerns. Maureen O'Hara was in even more films that were not Westerns, but since both had leading roles in major westerns, would the category be complete without them?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at Category:Films by genre should be enough to convince that categorizing actors by the genre of film in which they appear is a bad idea. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JPL - IMO "most notable" is not how categorization should work - e.g. Cherie Blair may be most notable as a wife, but is also notable as a lawyer. If an article meets the inclusion criteria of a category it shouldn't be removed from the category (but, of course, the existence of the category can be questioned). DexDor (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the header of the Western (genere) films actors says "This category attempts to categorize the actors which appeared almost entirely in Western films or are strongly and not loosely associated with this genre throughout their career having appeared in several notable westerns. It should not attempt to list every actor who has ever appeared in a western film, particularly those who have worked across a range of genres." What is clear is what we are going for is complex, and with the rate at which actors work across genres, this would create a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support split per nom, sounds reasonable to me. Cavarrone 18:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by genre is bad; the Western one ought to go because it does have cross-over actors. If an actor is so tied to a particular genre, it should be reasonable to expect not to see the actor in any parent categories since those would be superfluous. Well, that's not the case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason that that does not work, is that we have not split the genre by nationality. The two exceptions to this may be Telenovela actors and Soap Opera Actors, but I am not sure "genre" is exactly what we have there. Many people in Category:American male soap opera actors are not in Category:American male television actors, although many are. I generally try to say "if someone had notable roles in non-soap operas they go in both". The problem is how could we exclude Eddie Albert from the American male television actors cat, when his most famous role is from Green Acres?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that Poliziotteschi lists the men and women all as actors. However, I would have thought that acting in a particular genre was still WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 21 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.
Delete It is unclear what the inclusion criteria is at all, subjective or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete no inclusion criteria, and the creator of the category put themselves in it, which tells me all I need to know about this cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I take "inclusion criteria" to mean what can be gleaned from the category title and the parent categories as well as the category text. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on subjective criteria. Cavarrone 06:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary, non-defining and -- most offensively -- the fact that I am not included. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 18 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: Clarity - these categories are for articles about Olympic Games, not for articles about countries. DexDor (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename per nom; proposed name is more clear. John Vandenberg(chat) 05:00, 21 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 result of the discussion was:delete. By headcount, there was only a marginal preference for deletion rather than keeping, but WP:NOTVOTE ... and both the editors who supported keeping the category did so with some reservations, so I weigh this as a consensus to delete. As the nominator noted, the table at Land speed record#Records includes the location of each record. That table could be used as a starting point for a list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a place (e.g. Southport) has ever been a venue for a land speed record is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of that place. For info: The table at Land_speed_record#Records includes the location of each record. DexDor (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose it is defining for the Bonneville Salt Flats, even after records set their have fallen. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (perhaps purging). A number of these places are notable for little else. Pendine Sands (not Pendine), a UK beach used for this is known for the record attempts, but only locally notable otherwise. I expect the target should be Southport beach, not the town. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally categorize geography articles (articles about beaches, towns etc) by what events have happened there (i.e. how the place has been used) (exampleCFDs). It may be true that Pendine Sands is notable for little else than land speed records (note: it currently isn't actually mentioned in the lead of the article, but it could be). However, there are many places that are (currently) best known (outside the local area) for an event (e.g. Lockerbie, Sandy Hook), but that's not how an article about the place should be categorized. DexDor (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Your comment "I expect the target should be..." suggests trying to find an article to put into a category to form a complete list. However, my understanding of WP categorization is that each article should be categorized by the defining characteristics (of its topic) rather than by any "need" to populate the category - that's a difference between a category and a list. DexDor (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale above. Locations-by-event is an extremely poor basis for categorization in most cases. It is inevitable that there will be cases that the location is known mostly for the event (e.g., this category for Bonneville Salt Flats, Category:Mass shooting locations for Columbine, Colorado), but as a whole the category will reflect a non-defining characteristic. A list of locations already exists in the main article, and so there is no need to listify. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorizing beaches by use is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 8 December 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.
Delete—none of the people in this category were raised to sainthood because they were married. In other words, this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid categorizing by married status in almost all cases. There are a lot more who should be here, especially since by its definition this should include Anglican Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This intersection is not defining. We could also have divorced saints, saints who dated but never settled down, saints with kids, etc, but there's no point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note the creator of the cat protests at Category_talk:Married_saints. It is a brand new category, which would explain why many potential members are missing. I suspect being married is rare in the league of saints, which would mean this is a useful category, and sources might draw specific attention to this.(I havent looked, but that might be a way to contest this deletion) John Vandenberg(chat) 05:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- being married to far too common. Not all saints were celibate priests or nuns,nor should hthye be in the majority! Peterkingiron (talk) 11:08, 21 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.
Category:Grain receival points of Western Australia[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.
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles in this category are not about grain receival points - they are articles about towns (in which there is currently a grain receival point). There may be some towns for which being a grain receival point is currently so important that it might be considered a WP:DEFINING characteristic. However, it's not a permanent characteristic (for a town that may exist for centuries). Also, if a "towns containing <industry>" category tree was allowed to flourish ("Towns with a brewery" etc) then large towns could be in dozens of such categories and cities could be in hundreds. These articles about towns shouldn't be under a category about grain any more than they should be under a category about sheep, about iron ore or whatever other product(s) the town has had an involvement with. The two articles that are about grain receival points (CBH_grain_receival_points and Grain_storage_structures_in_Western_Australia) can be upmerged. For info: This is a follow-up to a previous discussion about renaming this category. DexDor (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness this is a second attempt at deletion, and not a followup. If indeed the nominators habitat was wheatbelt western australia most of the rationale provided falls completely flat. I have already explained at the previous nomination, and the nominator is in fact repeating refuted items from earlier nomination. The wheatbelt towns are not centuries old, and the defining feature is the grain industry. Try showing how canadian editors work with their their silo dominated towns and we might get somewhere - in all WP:AGF just reapeting an earlier deletion request and calling this one a followup with repeated info seems a non-learning situation. How do the canadian or russian grain growing areas deal with similar issues? I do not agree with commenting about upmerging other articles in the same space - separate issue and needs to go to the appropriate space. satusuro 05:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see my comments in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_9#Category:Grain_receival_points_of_Western_Australia which closed less than a month ago, no new issues raised here, while consensus can change its disengenious to editors damaging to productive contributions to perpetually expect editors to return every three weeks for the same reasons. Grain recieval points are a defining characteristic for most towns in the wheatbelt region of WA, both as their creation is where communities developed, prospered and their closure with one exception in the last 100years has seen those towns vanish as well. While it may not be a defining characteristic for places elsewhere in the world yet it is significant for this region. Gnangarra 07:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth explicitly stating in CBH grain receival points that many towns started and/or grew primarily to support the receival point (if that is the case). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Those mining/fishing/timber towns/communities categories aren't as bad - at least it's clear that they are for articles about communities. This category could be renamed to something like "Grain_handling_communities_of_Western_Australia" (removing those articles that don't fit the new title) - or a subcat created. The category could then be placed under Category:Communities by industry. However, there's still a problem that the category text currently says "...places where grain has been stored ..." - if the intent of the category is to be just for communities whose raison d'etre is grain handling then it needs more restrictive inclusion criteria - and articles like Northampton probably shouldn't be in such a category. DexDor (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The closing admin ("no consensus") instead of relisting suggested a deletion discussion. I was skeptical (I think) on the previous CFD (which was about "receival" or "receiving"), but if the primary function of a settlement is grain receival, I see no objection to the category. If it is a minor factor, it would be in the nature of a performance category. My guess is that the towns received grain, which put money into the farmers' hands, which they then spent in the shops of a market town. Accordingly the grain was central to the town's existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate and applaud the nominators attempt to be consensual (so rare in Xfd territory) and finding some common ground in the face of an ignorant creator such as self. The thing for me is having been through so many of the rural communities on the project these last 3 months, the physical domination of the communities by the grain silos and receival points - in most cases, the grain structures presence are so dominant - [1] and [2] are related to all this but there are some very good photos on commons that illustrate the sheer size in relation to the ocmmunities.. satusuro 12:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Grain handling communities in Western Australia, per DexDor's suggestion. The current title suggests that the category contains articles about grain receival points (i.e., silos), rather than about towns that contain other buildings and structures. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Black Falcon. I was going to say "delete" because there aren't enough articles on the structures themselves to warrant a category, but categorising the grain-receiving communities would be more helpful. Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 18 December 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.
Delete. Transient and non-defining. The list does the job better. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 17 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.
