Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 24

January 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Fictional bullies

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional bullies - Template:Lc1
  
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional cyberbullies - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bullies, bully is a subjective term. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added the sub-category to this nomination, as the same rationale applies, although there was only one voice for deletion when it was put up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_22#Category:Fictional_cyberbullys. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.

As a for instance, Ghits for "biff tannen bully" number 83,000. I sure that there are plenty of others that get similar numbers. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queens regnant of Hungary

• Propose merging Category:Queens regnant of Hungary to Category:Queens regnant and Category:Hungarian monarchs

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The subcat was created by a nationalist banned user for no reasonable purpose. The merge will return us to the status quo ante of 2014. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films whose cinematographer won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award

• Propose deleting Category:Films whose cinematographer won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING. Films are not primarily known for winning Best Cinematography at the Guldbagge Awards, the field is not as important as directing or writing and, argh, I hate to say it because of the America-centrism in the film industry, but the Guldbagge aren't as big as the Oscars. Sadly, this seems like overcategorization. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No-one will first think of this specific award in relation to the film. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDEFINING. Films aren't known by this award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)