Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 18
| < October 17 | October 19 > |
|---|
October 18
[edit]New Zealand university categories
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All but two of the New Zealand universities with separate categories simply have the form Category:Universityname. I propose renaming the two which currently have slightly more specific names, since the extra specialisation is unnecessary.
- Category:Colleges of the University of Otago → Category:University of Otago
- Category:Faculties of Victoria University of Wellington → Category:Victoria University of Wellington
In each case, the size of the categories is not going to shoot up dramatically (the larger of the two will move from five to seven existing articles), and , as I said, it will make these two consistent with the others. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. "Nine to seven!" "Seven to five!" siafu 21:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename in this case, but note that Unis like Oxbridge have Collegiate subcats. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that colleges at New Zealand universities are completely different to Oxbridge colleges. They are primarily dormitory units rather than separate teaching "mini-universities". For that reason, I doubt that separate college categories will be needed (yet, at least). Grutness...wha? 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nintendo Wars categories
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nintendo Wars characters and Category:Nintendo Wars villains
Delete, as the overcat is empty save for the subcat, and because the subcat has only four articles, three of which are in the process of being merged. These categories were depopulated by merges into List of Advance Wars COs, and any future additions would go in that list anyway. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I created the category, and agree that it should be deleted now. However, there is no need to rush. First merge all characters into the list, and they will be eligible for delete in 24 hours after becoming empty. -- ReyBrujo 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seeing as this won't be closed until 10/25, I don't think that a "rush" is a big concern here. siafu 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. «»Who?¿?meta 22:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty. Wrong capitalization. Category:Tennis players exists. Irmgard 20:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. «»Who?¿?meta 22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong cat name. Correct Category:User ko-N exists. Irmgard 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Used only for subpages of User:Jawr256, he had a header template on all his subpages that added them to this category. I userified the template and removed the category tag from it (I see his talk page remains, must be a manual category tag in there somewhere). Anyway I'm all for user-categories, but having a category for one users subpages is a bit exessive, so I think this should be deleted. --Sherool 20:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The creator can probably find their own pages ok! -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty. We have already Category:Lost submarines by country. Irmgard 20:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and pretty much the same as Category:Sunken U-boats Irmgard 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with Sunken over sunk, I have to wonder why this isn't Category:Lost U-boats as per the other subcats of Sub cats currently on cfd... Grutness...wha? 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The relevant categories for nations that use the term U-boat would not have this name, and would belong as children of Category:Lost submarines by country. siafu 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and redundant. Category:Lost submarines of the United States exists. Irmgard 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Plural. «»Who?¿?meta 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, wrong cat name. Category:Phosphate binders exists. Irmgard 19:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In line with Category:Liverpudlians, Category:Mancunians, Category:Chicagoans, Category:Atlantans etc. Unlike some of the city categories, "Londoners" is normal usage and won't confuse anyone. JW 19:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. "Natives of" could be seen as unduly restrictive to the born-and-raised set. I'm personally of the opinion that if a city is notable enough to have a substantial category full of its people, then it's notable enough to have its established adjectival form used in the category tree. -The Tom 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Mrsteviec 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename -Mayumashu 15:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename; same grounds as Category:Chicagoans. siafu
- Hrrrmmm. I'd prefer something like Category:People from London. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the only problem with the rename is that it is going to exponentially increase the number of people eligible: you will not need to have been actually born in the city to be included. Same problem with the recent Category:Edinburghers (manual!) rename, and the much older Category:Glaswegians; for example Adam Smith is Category:Natives of Fife, but he would also theoretically be eligible for Category:Glaswegians or Category:Londoners. Where do we stop? Is Sean Connery to be listed under Edinburghers, Bahamians, Malaga people, Londoners AND Los Angelenos (and perhaps even more for all I know). People were only born in one place: so lets keep "Natives of ... " style to make it clear.--Mais oui! 08:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- suggestion why not rename and also create a Category:Natives of Greater London which would be a sub-cat of Category:Londoners. then you would put natives in one, residents in the other and they d be connected. there needs to be a Category:Natives of Greater London to be a proper sub-cat of Category:English people by county and the newly renamed Category:Londoners would be a proper subcat for Category:English people by city - Mayumashu 03:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that is a reasonable suggestion, but should proposed new Category:Londoners (ie Residents of London) really be a subcat of Category:English people? After all, not all residents of the great metropolis are English. Indeed, very far from it: it must be the most cosmopolitan city in Europe.--Mais oui! 05:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- true enough - then the name of the superordinate cat needs to be change to Category:People in English cities or something similar, doesn t it. sounds fine to me.- Mayumashu 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, that would change the meaning of all the "People by city" categories, and you would then have to do the same thing for American, Australian, Canadian, etc cities. We could just put a note on the category page that it applies only to those born or raised in London, and not those who are only residents of London. JW 13:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- true enough - then the name of the superordinate cat needs to be change to Category:People in English cities or something similar, doesn t it. sounds fine to me.- Mayumashu 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was created two months ago, but there's still only one article in it, Gordon Brown. I don't know if it means trade unionist or opposed to Scottish independence, but it's not a lot of use either way and should be deleted. JW 19:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too vague, unused and would need pluralising on recreation anyway. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete uselessly vauge --Doc (?) 11:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Empty category which serves no useful purpose. CLW 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No associated articles to populate the category. siafu 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as this seems to be the standard form. JW 15:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, with a subcat of Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Dublin, into which most of these people actually fall. -- Necrothesp 23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Necrothesp. Dn w. abbrevs. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No articles, topic is adequately served by Category:Motor racing drivers of Australia -- Ian ≡ talk 14:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree to delete as I nearly nominated it some time ago as it was better covered by Category:Motor racing drivers of Australia. Puzzled that empty and not in hierarchy are justifications to delete. The category was cleaned out by User:220.238.63.116 on the afternoon of 29 September, recatting the articles to Category:Motor racing drivers of Australia. That is the only day that IP number has edited Wikipedia (+3 edits the night before), all editing V8 Supercar-related articles. --Scott Davis Talk 14:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant. siafu 17:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot see the point or how this could be used. -- Ian ≡
- Delete. Pointless, empty, and...pointless. Firestorm 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
talk 14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it might hypothetically become vaguely useful if it was supercatted so as to contain {Category:1986 births, Category:1987 births ... Category:1992 births}. And I suppose there are some teenager-related articles out there that might make sense, in it. We seem to making do without it just fine, of course. -The Tom 20:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pointless. If applied, comment above would make relatively frequent maintainance necessary. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Once a year is frequent? -The Tom 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Teenage Wikipedians. Or is that redundant? 12.73.196.191 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it was probably created to hold encyclopedic articles, so merging with Category:Teenage Wikipedians wouldn't be prudent. Plus it is now empty. «»Who?¿?meta 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Omigod. There really is a Category:Teenage Wikipedians?? I was being sarcastic - what a larf. Bwaaaaaahaa,haa,haa,haa. 12.73.196.191 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 17:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fantastically too broad. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No Vote I actually can see a use for this category, if not necessarily by this name. People who are notable only for something they did as a teenager and not any other reason. Still, it probably is too broad and not quite the proper name. Caerwine 03:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to standard form category:Buildings and structures in Detroit. CalJW 11:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Churches in the United States
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all as nominated --Kbdank71 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some categories which are not in the standard "in" form for man made objects and are inconsistent with the parent category:Churches in the United States:
- category:Churches of Alaska --> category:Churches in Alaska
- category:Chicago churches --> category:Churches in Chicago
- category:Churches of Wisconsin --> category:Churches in Wisconsin
- category:Houston churches --> category:Churches in Houston
- category:Churches of Michigan --> category:Churches in Michigan
- category:Churches of Detroit, Michigan --> category:Churches in Detroit, Michigan
Rename all CalJW 11:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me. Consistency is good. I'll be glad to change the Houston category over to "Churches in Houston".Rockhopper10r 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. No argument. siafu 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been merged into Category:Australian referendums, the stub needs to be deleted. Note that as all australian referendums have their own page already there's no chance that anything will accidentaly be assigned to this category. Swamp Ig 08:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Get rid of it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per article Referendums in Australia, "referenda" is not the word to use. siafu 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a malformed, actually empty category that duplicates Category:Military of China and its subcategories. NatusRoma 08:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Putting these into a category does not appear to serve an orginization need in an encylopedia. These lists articles are, and should be, in the airports category for the cities. Vegaswikian 05:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This category facilitates comparison of the aviation facilities of different cities. It needs expansion rather than deletion. CalJW 09:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are not airport categories for individual cities as far as I know, and these local metropolitan area categories tend to cross geopolitical lines: the NYC airports include some in New Jersey, the Ottawa, Ontario airports include one in Quebec, and the Montreal, Quebec airports include two in Ontario. Are there any other lists that should be assigned to the cat? David 13:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but it should be renamed to Category:Lists of local airports by city. siafu 17:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, that would be a better name. Vegaswikian 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found this tagged for merger with Category:Hip hop. -- Beland 04:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. I was the one to clean out the hip-hop category several months ago, and I made this as a seerate category for the elements of the subculture. --FuriousFreddy 16:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would suggest renaming this as Category:Elements of Hip-Hop culture. siafu 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found this tagged for merger with Category:French hip hop. -- Beland 04:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. No need to muck up genre/artists-of-genre distinction. -The Tom 21:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Category is part of categorization of rappers by country. --FuriousFreddy 05:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object as per The Tom and FuriousFreddy. CLW 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found this tagged for merger with Category:Art directors. -- Beland 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Untag. Not the same thing. 12.73.195.27 14:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both into Category:Film art directors and production designers. "Art director" was the term for the head of a film's art department (thus the supervisor of everything that appears onscreen aside from actors—props, sets, wardrobe, hair and makeup design) until around about the seventies, when, as the art director article tells us:
- In the past, the art director title was used to denote the head of the art department (hence the Academy Award for Best Art Direction) however, the Art Directors' union felt that the title was becoming too diluted, as multiple art directors were appearing on a single show, negating the idea of one person responsible to the look of a show, and people started giving themselves the title without the approval of the union. As a result, the union decided to create the title of production designer, and created rules as to the use of the title, namely there can be only one production designer on a show, and the union must approve the use of the title.
- Since then, "art director" has generally—but not always—been used to refer to the immediate deputy to the production designer. "Art director" is still used in some non-U.S. contexts, however, in its original sense, and the academy award still treats the discipline as "art direction." The jobs are closely-enough related and the difficulty of coming up with a practical-enough means of sorting them separately makes this an ideal merged categorization. -The Tom 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The term "Production Designer" was created in the USA in 1938 by MGM execs. to acknowledge the unusual breadth of work done by Wm. Cameron Menzies on overall design functions for "Gone With The Wind". It was used occasionally thereafter into the early postmodern period but, by and large, within the decades of the studio system, the Art Director worked in peer consort with the Set Design, Wardrobe, Makeup and Hair, and Prop Departments under the production team and director to rework standing sets to fit specific plot needs, and so in fact did was not the "one person responsible for the look of" the product. In countries where standing studio sets weren't the norm, the Director-as-auteur frequently developed the "look" in supervisory collaboration with selected experts in the various fields ("art directors" were often actually practical architects - the structural developers and engineers of preliminary sketch work or script descriptions). With the disappearance of the studios, the expansion of budgets and crews and actors to be managed, reliance on location shooting, and elongated deadlines and runtimes, the Production Designer as an intermediary between a busier Director and the specialized design-and-application artists became, if not always necessary, expected and accepted. On cheaper films in the 60s and 70s, they were just as likely glorified, re-named art directors. However, while the work of each has common points, if you're going to join PDs and ADs automatically and arbitrarily, you'll have to throw in the entire settings, properties, wardrobe, and grooming artists as well, and also for the most part the special effects people. Sticking with the realities, you'll keep them as separate as the others, as they have at bottom a distinct task. 12.73.196.191 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The terms "Art director" and "Production designer" are by no means limited to film. Perhaps these both need to be renamed? siafu 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cities and towns in Austria
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all per nomination --Kbdank71 19:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The cities and towns categories have just been combined into Category:Cities and towns in Austria because there is no official distinction in Austria. The few subcategories which have been created so far should be renamed on the same basis:
- Category:Cities in Burgenland --> category:Cities and towns in Burgenland
- Category:Cities in Styria --> category:Cities and towns in Styria
- Category:Cities in Oberwart -->
category:Cities and towns in Oberwartamended to merge into Category:Cities and towns in Burgenland'
Rename/merge all CalJW 01:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Cities in Burgenland and Category:Cities in Styria as suggested, but merge Category:Cities in Oberwart into the renamed Category:Cities and towns in Burgenland. Oberwart is just a small district in Burgenland, there's no reason for it to have its own cities-and-towns category. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and Merge per amended proposal. siafu 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge all as above. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a useful category. MakeRocketGoNow 00:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Harmless enough, valid grouping of streets. Alternately, listify-The Tom 00:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Although I think listification would be a better bet. -Swamp Ig 08:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify. This information is pretty useless without knowing which piece of music references the street. - SimonP 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong listify per SimonP (and yes, that means deleting the category, but not deleting the information) Radiant_>|< 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a similar list already exists, as part of List of songs whose title includes geographical names. It may be worth breaking this section of that (very long) list out into a separate article, then adding any in this category not listed there, before deleting this category - mind you, the list'll probably turn up later at AFD as being "songcruft" :/ Grutness...wha? 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and list. siafu 17:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify. Not category material, but, regrettably, a list is fine. A list allows a small amount of extra information to be tagged onto each entry and is much better than the category which would serve no purpose upon the creation of such a list. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cities and towns in India
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all as nominated --Kbdank71 19:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the categories for the cities and towns in India's states and territories are in the standard "in" form, but some are not:
- category:Cities and towns of Chhattisgarh --> category:Cities and towns in Chhattisgarh
- category:Cities and towns of Haryana --> category:Cities and towns in Haryana
- category:Cities and towns of Jammu and Kashmir --> category:Cities and towns in Jammu and Kashmir
- category:Cities and towns of Punjab, India --> category:Cities and towns in Punjab, India
- category:Cities and towns of West Bengal --> category:Cities and towns in West Bengal
- category:Towns in Sikkim --> category:Cities and towns in Sikkim (Sikkim is a small state, but the largest settlement has 50,000 people and has state capital status, so I think it is reasonable to make it consistent with all the others.)
Rename all CalJW 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename -Swamp Ig 08:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. JW 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. No argument. siafu 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all as above. -Splashtalk 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.