Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 3



Category:Neo-Shu'ubiyya nationalists

 * 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) 23:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting neo-shu'ubiyya nationalists


 * Nominator's rationale: It's parent category was deleted in a previous discussion. There's no reason for this category to exist anymore. Charles Essie (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Child categories are already in the tree of Category:Nationalism in the Arab world, so they won't become orphaned while deleting this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (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:Cambodia Tribunal

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed renaming Category:Cambodia Tribunal to Category:Khmer Rouge Tribunal
 * Nominator's rationale C2D per Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Charles Essie (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename for Now It looks like the article name has stabilized in the RM discussion. No objection to changing the category later if the consensus in the article space changes once again. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2015 (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.

Provinces of Prussia

 * 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: no consensus, perhaps surprisingly, given precedents such as the one quoted in the nomination and Szatmár_County. The categories should not now be purged without further discussion, but this close is no bar to an early re-nomination along revised lines. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Brandenburg
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Hanover
 * Propose deleting Category:Hesse-Nassau
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Hohenzollern
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Lower Silesia
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Pomerania (1815–1945)
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Posen
 * Propose deleting Category:Posen-West Prussia
 * Propose deleting Category:Rhine Province
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Saxony
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Silesia
 * Propose deleting Category:Province of Upper Silesia
 * Propose purging Category:East Prussia
 * Propose purging Category:West Prussia
 * Nominator's rationale: delete/purge, these seemingly historical categories only contain geography articles about current (not former) towns and cities. Only the East and West Prussia categories also contain some history articles (though they also contain many current towns and cities that should be purged). No objection against reestablishment of these categories but only if they would contain articles about the respective former Prussian provinces. See also this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I think it is useful to have categories for places by former provincial affiliation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I quite agree with Peterkingiron. Lekoren (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - agree with nominator. These categories should be limited on categorizing historical stuff relevant to their periods (e.g. people born in those provinces), but any modern geographical stuff does not belong. If someone wants to create lists of towns, etc. in the former provinces, I guess that would be ok. But categorizing towns by former provinces is ridiculous. Each town would have ten categories of its administrative history. Renata (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete these would be useful if they were containers having people who were governors of, or laws of, or flags of, type contents and subcats, but alas they are no more than places by former administrative subdivision, which given the various swappings of territory in the area would cause category sprawl and just think how many categories some of these places would be in (perhaps 3 from each partition of Poland, 2 or 3 revisions by World Wars (Interbellum Poland followed by USSR followed by Generalgouvernment, followed by provisional Poland, followed by People's Republic of Poland, 2 revisions following such World Wars, and the People's Republic of Poland restructured its administrative subdivisions several times as well.) No thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT What about renaming all to "History of Foo"? That would get rid of the lists of people and only permit truly historical stuff to remain? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem with that, if only there were articles. There is some content about the last two provinces, but not about the others. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I stand by my vote above. The content of articles on existing places is very variable.  Some have a substantial history section.  It is going to be useful to historians to know what province, princely state, etc. a place was in.  However, many will have not much of a history section (at least, not yet).  It is not going to work well to have to apply a "history of" category to a town.  On the other hand, the fact that a German town was conquered in a war, but then reverted to its previous prince under the subsequent peace treaty is probably not a useful basis for a category, because it would generally be too ephemeral.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a useful tool for sorting & categorizing the places in question. Plus, nearly all of the articles about the "current" cities (actually, in nearly all cases, it's the same city!) contain a "history of" section, so the notion that there's nothing in the articles that would link them with the categories is not really accurate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep some as parent categories for "People from … " who regarded themselves as German at the time. Also parents for historical election items in Category:Elections in the Weimar Republic for elections in East Prussia, Lower Silesia etc. Not sure whether they should all have "Province of " in title eg "Province of East Prussia" or "East Prussia"? Or else have all the articles in a category Category:History of former German provinces (although some were provinces of Prussia not Germany). (Hope someone can get a consensus from all the above!) ) Hugo999 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as I note that meanwhile a little history content has been added to few of these provinces (mainly concentration camps in WW II) I'm willing to change the nomination into containerization of all these categories - thus at least removing all the articles about contemporary cities and towns. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (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.

See also talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by Morgan Freeman

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting films directed by morgan freeman


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category JDDJS (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:FILMCAT which states "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." The director of the film is a defninig attribute to the article. This is a long-standing consensus with the Film Project. Compare with albums by artists.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While I grant that not all of the possible categories have actually been created yet, is a tree that's meant to be inclusive of all films. It is not restricted to films directed by directors who happen to have directed any specific minimum number of films, but is at least in theory meant to have a subcategory for every director who ever directed even one film (as long as (a) the director has a biographical article, and (b) at least one film has an article about it so that the category isn't sitting there empty). Accordingly, it's exempt from SMALLCAT on the "overall accepted subcategorization" scheme — even if Morgan Freeman never directs another film (which he still could, since he's not dead yet), one-item categories are allowed to exist in this particular tree. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – the director is a defining characteristic of a film. Oculi (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons explained by Lugnuts. Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2015 (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:Purple Moon games

 * 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) 23:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting purple moon games


 * Nominator's rationale: The Purple Moon company is long defunct and none of its individual games are notable. The only targets populating this category are the company itself and the creator of the company. This category has no present utility and no future utility. Safiel (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete While I am not sure that the games are non-notable, we don't currently have articles on them. First we create articles, then categories. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:12, 6 October 2015 (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.