August 1
Category:Foreign films shot in the Philippines
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Films by country of shooting ___location does not have an established scheme of using subcategories to segregate "foreign-produced but locally-shot" films from "locally-produced and locally-shot" films for any other country, and there's no reason why the Philippines should need special treatment that other countries' film industries aren't getting. Literally every country on earth has some "foreign" films shot there in addition to its own native film industry, and the Philippines are not unique in this. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police
- Nominator's rationale: This is the same joke category. We really should just have one to keep Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages as clean as possible. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pings @Mr. Guye, Epicgenius, Toddst1, Benjaminikuta, Pablo X, and Floquenbeam: You all include this joke category in your userspace or usertalkspace. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Upptalk
- Nominator's rationale: The comparison pages (which are easily found as links from Upptalk anyway) only mention this software briefly. This is as close to a "category for a single article" as you can get. Connor Behan (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Public universities
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, in these countries a university is public by default, so it does not make sense to make subcategories for public universities. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Many universities are already in a (e.g. regional) subcategory of the target, so this should be merged manually in order to avoid duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films directed by Christian Duguay (director)
- Nominator's rationale: Department of redundancy (department). "Films directed by" already disambiguates this category as pertaining to the film director rather than the actor, so it's not necessary to double-disambiguate. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep. If the other Christian Duguay was in a completely different field, I'd agree - but actors do often turn their hand to directing, and it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to think that these films were directed by the actor. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Same as Category:Republika Srpska international footballers and Category:Republika Srpska official football team managers, this category supposedly covers non-existent Republika Srpska national football team, and several associate articles. "National team" as defined by Wikipedia article National team usually doesn't exists at the level of regional football association and regional administrative unit or entity, which is part of FIFA/UEFA affiliated nation/state (in this case Bosnia and Herzegovina) - in essence, it's like saying and creating category "Swabian" or "Bavarian national football team" instead of "German national football team". Few articles included in this category are on players, who are already categorized in other appropriate categories. Apart from being on "national team" on local administrative entity which isn't a nation, category practically overlaps with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team - first is administrative part of a nation of Bosnia, and another is nation of Bosnia affiliated UEFA and FIFA member. It can't be this kind of separate categorization on Bosnia and Herzegovina national team, or sportsmen/women for that matter, based on country's administrative entities, and against WP:NOTA, WP:NFOOTY, WP:SPORTBASIC and especially WP:FOOTYN. Finally, it fails in following Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category completely. ౪ Santa ౪99° 02:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, both of these articles, which seemingly senior experienced User:Grutness, and admin at that, was able to dig out, are created by same editor, User:Calapez, and both of the articles stand there without single references, and both in a way describing and following obvious separatists political pattern in contested areas, both in real world and on Wikipedia, and both have nothing in common, not even remotely, with case of Republika Srpska regional association, which is vital part of Bosnian association and not separate and/or separatist (for now at least) - oh, wait, there is one source in both of these and in article on Republika Srpska, self-published, by mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" at non-fifa-news-agency.netau.net, archived at Wayback machine for 2009 than moved to blogger.com for 2012, and defunct ever since.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I could name a dozen more such articles, by several different editors, many of them well sourced. I'd suggest looking at the articles for the national football teams of Tibet, the Isle of Wight, Zanzibar, Sapmi, Occitania, Kurdistan, Northern Cyprus, Trnasnistria,Zanzibar, Somaliland, Kárpátalja, Tamil Eelam, Panjab, Székely Land, Cascadia, and Matabeleland, to name just a few. And it's a tenet of Wikipedian editing not to bring either an editor's experience or lack of it into consideration when discussing an editor's opinions or !votes. In any case, if you look closely, I'm agreeing with you as far as deletion is concerned, so there is no need for such back-handed personal attacks - if there ever is. And given your history of arguments involving articles related to Srpska, I would suggest that throwing stones from a glass house is not a good idea in any case. As for Calapez, that editor has created many football-related articles, and did not create all the articles I mentioned. I further note the pointy prods you added to the articles, all of which were quickly removed by other editors. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you can - I checked entire Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA my self, and although few are reasonably notable but mostly unverifiable and poorly or not sourced at all, it's filled with "well sourced" articles on "national", and of lately "official" (which is clever little WP:MASK for notability), teams of every region and locality imaginable, especially where separatist politics takes significant role, and similar feelings are mirrored on the project. But, that cherry-picking game doesn't make any more comparable such cases of Tibet and Northern Cyprus with Srpska or Gozo for that matter. Great that you checked my history of "arguments" involving Srpska, only you should immediately point to those which you find problematic. Yes I proded those "national" teams like Gozo national team and such notable European football institutes, I wonder on what grounds they intended to keep those articles.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Similarly as Category:Republika Srpska international footballers, this category supposedly covers articles on managers of non-existent Republika Srpska national football team, which primarily fails on WP:NOTA, and several associate articles. "National team" as defined by Wikipedia article National team usually doesn't exists at the level of regional administrative unit or entity, which is part of FIFA/UEFA affiliated nation/state (in this case Bosnia and Herzegovina) - in essence, it's like saying and creating category "Swabian" or "Bavarian national football team" instead of "German national football team". Few articles included in this category are on players, who are already categorized in other appropriate categories. Apart from being on "national team" on local administrative entity which isn't a nation, category practically overlaps with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team - first is administrative part of a nation of Bosnia, and another is nation of Bosnia affiliated UEFA and FIFA member. It can't be this kind of separate categorization on Bosnia and Herzegovina national team, or sportsmen/women for that matter, based on country's administrative entities, and against WP:NOTA, WP:NFOOTY, WP:SPORTBASIC and especially WP:FOOTYN. Finally, it fails in following Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category completely. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, both of these articles, which seemingly senior experienced User:Grutness, and admin at that, was able to dig out, are created by same editor, User:Calapez, and both of the articles stand there without single references, and both in a way describing and following obvious separatists political pattern in contested areas, both in real world and on Wikipedia, and both have nothing in common, not even remotely, with case of Republika Srpska regional association, which is vital part of Bosnian association and not separate and/or separatist (for now at least) - oh, wait, there is one source in both of these and in article on Republika Srpska, self-published, by mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" at non-fifa-news-agency.netau.net, archived at Wayback machine for 2009 than moved to blogger.com for 2012, and defunct ever since.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I could name a dozen more such articles, by several different editors, many of them well sourced. I'd suggest looking at the articles for the national football teams of Tibet, the Isle of Wight, Zanzibar, Sapmi, Occitania, Kurdistan, Northern Cyprus, Trnasnistria,Zanzibar, Somaliland, Kárpátalja, Tamil Eelam, Panjab, Székely Land, Cascadia, and Matabeleland, to name just a few. And it's a tenet of Wikipedian editing not to bring either an editor's experience or lack of it into consideration when discussing an editor's opinions or !votes. In any case, if you look closely, I'm agreeing with you as far as deletion is concerned, so there is no need for such back-handed personal attacks - if there ever is. And given your history of arguments involving articles related to Srpska, I would suggest that throwing stones from a glass house is not a good idea in any case. As for Calapez, that editor has created many football-related articles, and did not create all the articles I mentioned. I further note the pointy prods you added to the articles, all of which were quickly removed by other editors. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you can, it doesn't mean that you should, because they shouldn't be there at all to begin with - I checked entire Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA my self, and although few are reasonably notable but mostly unverifiable and poorly or not sourced at all, it's filled with "well sourced" articles on "national", and of lately "official" (which is clever little WP:MASK for notability), teams of every region and locality imaginable, especially where separatist politics takes significant role, and similar feelings are mirrored on the project. But, that cherry-picking game doesn't make any more comparable such cases of Tibet and Northern Cyprus with Srpska or Gozo for that matter. Great that you checked my history of "arguments" involving Srpska, only you should immediately point to those which you find problematic, and also significant for my arguments here. Yes I proded those "national" teams like Gozo national team and such notable European football institutes, I wonder on what grounds they intended to keep those articles. But, how you know that they are "pointy", anyway.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a regional exhibition team at best, does not need this category. GiantSnowman 08:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Republika Srpska is one of those non-FIFA national teams. Regional, yes, but so is Catalonya. FkpCascais (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sources, sources, sources, neutral, reliable sources, verifiability, notability.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pop-folk singers
- Nominator's rationale: The standard English-language term for the musical genre that blends pop and folk is folk-pop rather than pop-folk. (Although the term "pop-folk" does seem to also exist for a specifically Balkan variant, it just gets handled as a paragraph within our article about folk-pop, rather than as its own separate article.) Accordingly, this should be named to match the actual ___location of the article. The Balkan country subcategories can keep "pop-folk" if they want on WP:ENGVAR grounds — but the transnational parent should use the standard terminology, and a couple of the non-Balkan country subcategories should probably be listed for renaming too. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
