Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 20



Category:TCB Band members

 * 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 * The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. This is why we link the parent article from the category! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * tcb band members


 * Nominator's rationale: No corresponding article for band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – try TCB Band. Occuli (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Apostolic Nuncios to Belorus

 * 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) 11:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Apostolic Nuncios to Belorus to Category:Apostolic Nuncios to Belarus
 * Nominator's rationale: to correct spelling of belarus Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Household Division

 * 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) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Household Division to Category:Household Division (British Army) Category:Household Division (United Kingdom)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not about what is covered under the article Household Division, it is only about the British version of it, so the name of the category is ambiguous. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Household Division (United Kingdom). The disambiguator is should be territorial for British Army units, for example Category:Territorial Army (United Kingdom), 1st Cavalry Division (United Kingdom) Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. (I am the originator of the initial request) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Box Office flops

 * 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) 11:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion: box office flops


 * Nominator's rationale: Inherently POV/subjective category. We have previously deleted this at least 3 times under other titles, as recently as last month: see, , and . Falls under WP:OC. IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete With the lack of inclusion criteria and history of similar nominations, the List of biggest box office bombs seems to be an adequate 'substitute'. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, subjective and relative term. Smetanahue (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous deletes. Occuli (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Something like this would be much better done as a list where the criteria can be clearly laid out. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems rare that we have a reliable source stating "flop" to use in articles (meaning we usually just present the numbers and let the readers draw the conclusions). So having a category that is defined by that same information seems counter-intuitive. Millahnna (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the obvious reasons. I'd also like to note the not-so-great attempt at creating an objective criterion. "a film is a box office flop when its profits do not exceed its budget". Allow me to chuckle. By that standard (which is always hard to measure anyways because of secrecy around the actual budget), every film produced in a small country (Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Quebec, and so on) is a box-office flop since even modestly successful films would be catastrophic financial failures if they were not funded by public institutions. Pichpich (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quebec isn't a country.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, let's not quibble about details. :-) As far as public funding for films, it's pretty much on its own though and the situation is fairly similar to the one in smallish European countries. Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I really don't see the problem with the category. It demonstrates what films weren't financially successful. I don't add foriegn films since they aren't supposed to gross their budget. That and several of them do not have Wikipedia pages. This category is actually useful. What if Uncle John makes another Bathroom reader and he adds a list of films that didn't match their budgets? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:26 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't understand half this argument. "I don't add foriegn films since they aren't supposed to gross their budget" — What commercial film isn't expected to recoup its production costs? That's nonsense. I think you're confusing foreign films with art films. "What if Uncle John makes another Bathroom reader and he adds a list of films that didn't match their budgets?" — Who is Uncle John? And so what if he makes bathroom readers? What has that got to do with Wikipedia? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective and can also be misleading. There are films that were financial flops that were critical successes and vice versa. There have also been films that were flops when they were first released but became money makers years later. BTW the way you are misspelling "foreign" is making my spell check hurt :-) MarnetteD | Talk 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Financially unsuccessful is the aim for this category. Hence "box office". It wouldn't be misleading since there is a difference between financial and critical. If this category was devoted to critical failures, then it would be packed with over a thousand films. What i meant about foriegn was, since foriegn films are released in certain areas (it's own country, one or two) then they aren't counted since they aren't being viewed on a global scale. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:12 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Financial figures can be stated neutrally: a film had x budget and y gross, indicating that it either made or lost money. However, categorizing something as a "flop" is inherently not neutral: How much of a financial loss qualifies as a "flop"? Is it simply a dollar figure or a percentage of the film's budget? How much money does it have to make to not be a "flop"? A big-budget film that only makes $1,000 or so more than its budget certainly isn't a success. There's no metric for describing something as a "flop" at all (what makes it a "flop" as opposed to, say, just a financial disappointment or merely not a huge profit-maker?). The only neutral way to do so is to cite a reliable secondary source specifically using the term "flop" (or "bomb" or what-have-you), and to cite that source while putting it in context. This category is the equivalent of having a category for "worst basketball players"...inherently POV, and not the job of an encyclopedia.
 * Your statements about foreign (not foriegn) films are just wrong: "they are only released in certain areas"? Many foreign films are released in multiple countries/regions, and even in the US (example: most British and Australian films), while there are certainly plenty of American films that never see a wide release outside of English-speaking countries. The whole thing is inherently biased towards American films. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not biased about american films, jerk. What i meant was that, since they aren't released on a WIDE release scale, they weren't emceed to garnish a hugh profit, unless it proves to be a suprise hit (Slumdog Millionaire for example). A majority of these foreign (see, i can spell too) are released on a limited scale, meaning they aren't released in over a thousand theatres. Now for your attitude. I don't appreciate smartasses like you raining down on me because you are more experienced. So shut up and act your age, Mr. 30 year old. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:03 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said you were biased, I said the category is inherently biased if it excludes foreign films. I have no idea what you mean by "they weren't emceed to garnish a hugh profit" (I'm confused by your use of the word "emcee"...I don't think it means what you think it means). Budgets and gross figures for foreign films are verifiable just as American ones are, they just require a little more searching to find. You haven't addressed the subjectivity issue at all: It doesn't take years of experience to realize that a category like "box office flops" is inherently subjective. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Query: In retrospect, given the prior deletion discussions linked in the nomination, could I have just G4'd this thing instead of CfDing? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so, probably. It seems recent enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with IllaZilla; too subjective a term. Also not really encyclopedic. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This was just discussed and deleted a month and a half ago! Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Move . Why not move it to "Financial failures". Is that a fair compromise? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:26 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already !voted. If you'd like to amend your original !vote, feel free, but !voting twice makes it difficult to gauge consensus. And no, it wouldn't be a good compromise. Again, what constitutes a "financial failure" is subjective: A big-budget film that only grosses $10,000 more than its budget would most likely be considered a failure, but for an indie film with a budget in the tens of thousands, grossing $10,000 more than its budget would probably be a big success. And then of course there are art films, that aren't really intended or expected to make much money in the first place. This is just a not a good characteristic on which to base a category. It wasn't the previous 3 times it was deleted, and it isn't now. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.