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. — ξ^xplicit 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pool venues to Category:Pool (cue sports) venues

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I don't suppose - we could just declare the Riviera a "pool hall" by fiat and get rid of this single-entry category? Are there a lot of "pool venues" that aren't pool halls? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: It won't be a single-entry category forever, and yes there are other venues that need to be added here. The vast majority of cue sports editors have focused on bio articles, and probably will continue to do so, with the result that growth in articles on other aspects of the topic (even game rules and equipment) has been quite slow. Aside from a cadre of exclusively-snooker specialists, there are fewer than 10 regularly active, focused cue sports editors, not all of them new-article creators on anything like a regular basis. I wish that weren't the case, but I think we do a pretty good job anyway for such a small project. Anyway, The Riv is emphatically not a pool hall. The billiards events there take place in the convention center "caverns"; the day the event ends, the tables are broken down (much faster than most would think possible), and within a day or so it'll all be a computer tradeshow or antiques convention or whatever. The category is not limited to pool halls. It is the pool sister category of Category:Snooker venues which (importantly here) includes zero snooker halls and no subcat for snooker halls (no WP:N-notable ones have been identified yet, though surely there are some), but rather two venues much more like The Riv - general-purpose events venues that have a very strong tie to the sport in question because they host key events year after year. These are some of WP:CUE's newest categories, so they are necessarily sparse right now, but will flesh out over time. It is more helpful to the reader to have accurate categories than to get rid of categories just because they are presently underpopulated. Calling the Riviera Casino and Resort a "pool hall" is like calling it a "computer and electronics shop" because they host a convention for that field and you can buy stuff at the convention. :-) And, as an aside, something like a Category:Computer and electronics convention venues would also be appropriate for the Riviera and some other similar 'Vegas venues that consistently host such tradeshows and are known for doing so. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::* Actually we tend not to categorize venues by event to that level. Category:Convention centers yes, but not subcategories for specific kinds of conventions because there's no limit as to how many kinds of conventions can be held in a particular venue. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Reply: I'm not suggesting categorizing every convention center (etc.) here that's ever hosted a pool tournament. Rather, venues that are very notable for being cue sports destinations, consistently and long-term. The Crucible Theatre (in snooker) is another example. While it hosts all sorts of things, it is so well-known for hosting the World Snooker Championship that "at the Crucible" is synonymous in snooker circles and even in mainsstream British sports journalism to an extent) with "at the World Championship". Any pool player even at the amateur league (well, ACS, BCA, ACS, or VNEA, at least) level knows what "My team's going to the Riv[iera] this year" means. By contrast I wouldn't put the Albuquerque Convention Center in a bowling category just because it one time hosted the ten-pin bowling world championship, a couple of years ago. I hope the distinction is clearer. So, I agree that we "tend" not to categorize venues this granularly, but all tendencies have exceptions. PS: I also would not want to see overcategorization of venues by intersections that aren't meaningful, like Category:Venues where Frank Sinatra stayed, etc. The cue sports connections for some venues are actually "defining" to an extent, as Wikipedia uses that term. <struck>[After the edit conflict I noticed that what I'm replying to was administratively struck, but the point stands anyway.] — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge this and all the other subcats of Category:Cue sports venues into Category:Cue sports venues (which appears to contain 5 articles in all). Occuli (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: That would be problematic, as this would upmerge the snooker articles as well, but the snooker categories are a special case. By long-standing consensus at WP:CUE and WP:SNOOKER (dating to the genesis of WP:CUE, which does not subsume WP:SNOOKER as a taskforce/workgroup, also by mutual consensus), snooker is both categorized as a subset of cue sports (and snooker categories - players, equipment, etc. - as subsets of corresponding cue sports categories), because snooker is technically a cue sport and an outgrowth of billiards; and categorized as a major sport in its own right directly under the sports category (and with snooker subcats also done as subsets of sports subcats), because snooker is one of the most important sports in the British Commonwealth after football (soccer), rugby and cricket, has a sporting subculture and business world all its own with pretty much nothing in common with pool, carom billiards or any other cue sports, and users browsing categories are highly unlikely to think to look under "cue sports" to find snooker. One categorization scheme is logical for and of use to students of the history, nature and interrelationships of sports and games, while the other is useful to readers with no interest in such things, but who are looking for this year's World Snooker Championship scores, or bio details on great (or obscure) snooker players. I realize this is somewhat unorthodox, but it has served both projects, and their readerships, very well for years, and caused no known conflicts. If we start upmerging snooker categories into cue sports categories this entirely stable dual categorization system will collapse. Meanwhile, if we don't do that, it won't make any sense to have a category for snooker venues but not one for pool venues (in fact, I'd wager money that someone would soon re-create the latter to compensate for its absence). There are many more articles that can and eventually will be written for all of these categories, and this is CFD, where we're talking about real, user-facing categories to help readers, not stub categories which are almost aways upmerged to prevent profusion of categories that only help editors. There is no compellign resason to upmerge in this case, given the unusual snooker case, the lack of balance upmerging only non-snooker items would cause, and the loss of accuracy (and potential introduction of direct user confusion) by mix-'n'-matching pool halls and convention centers. They're just different "animals". For article categories, I alway prefer accuracy and precision over breadth and expediency for their own sake, so long as the precision isn't fanwanking, agenda-pushing or an inappropriate intersection. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck my view in the light of the overwhelming exegesis by SMcCandlish above and below. Some more articles in all these tiny categories would be a good idea. Occuli (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, though I can't force people to write venue articles. ;-) I did totally overhaul Golden Cue, which would have been AfDd but is now a solid article in the pool halls sub-category. We are kind of running out of missing bios of current major players and hall-of-famers, so I expect the situation to improve (WRT other cue sports topics too, like notable publications - see newish article On the Snap) over the next couple of years. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - no evidence of ambiguity in the category context much less any problems ever, even once, arising from any alleged ambiguity. No other pool-related categories are over-disambiguated in such a manner. "Pool[s]" in the sense of bodies of water is already sufficiently disambiguated in articlespace, with articles categorized intuitively, and no natatorium, oceanography, meteorology, environmental, gambling, etc., editors have raised an ambiguity or other conflict issues. In over 5 years as the most active shepherd of the cue sports categoryspace I have never seen a single swimming pool, vernal pool, tidal pool, office pool, etc., article miscategorized under Category:Pool or any subcategories thereof. Sayings come to mind: "ain't broke, don't fix it", "leave well enough alone", "solution in search of a problem", etc., etc. Disambiguation of an article title does not mandate disambiguation of the corresponding category title, because categories are not common search targets, are not frequently guessed at but usually browsed from page-bottom article links, and have different grammar (plurality, etc.), naming conventions and other guidelines. Further, "pool" in the billiards sense is itself used as a disambiguator (e.g. Cribbage (pool) and various other articles), which obviously indicates that it is not inherently ambiguous. It is only ambiguous on Wikipedia when used as a bare article title, Pool (which has long been a disambiguation page), since someone might mean a pool of water of some kind, or a betting pool or secretary pool or the surname Pool or whatever. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note well that in Vegas, there are many pool venues for music and parties. Rehab is only one of these and even has a TV show, Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Swimming pools (and pool parties) are count nouns that take pluralization, and so have to be pluralized in categoryspace. Pool, the sport, is a mass noun and as such cannot be pluralized in categoryspace. This automatically prevents homographs from being ambiguous in categoryspace when they are different kinds of nouns (cf. [[:Category:]] Because we actually have category naming conventions, and they apply for real, logical reasons, there actually isn't an ambiguity here at all. And anyway, the category you would want for Rehab is probably Category:Pool party venues if it's notable for pool parties in particular, or Category:Swimming venues or Category:Swimming pool venues if it's notable for its swimming pool, regardless of partying. Actually, I take that back. Rehab's not a venue, it's just a party, so Cagegory:Pool parties. I've updated Rehab to reflect this, too. The venue is the Hard Rock Casino. And the party is evidently not notable enough for an article yet, so it's kind of a moot point to have brought up. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I thought names were only disambiguated to resolve a usage conflict over the main term, rather than to avoid confusion? The chances of confusion are minimal anyway—if the category has been added to the article then the venue's role in this context should already be documented so there shouldn't be any ambiguity if the article is written well. Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are disambiguated when the meaning is ambiguous. I ran into this and thought it was about pools and simply badly named. So it is ambiguous. If you come into a discussion with a knowledge of what is expected in the category you will view this very differently then someone who does not. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. Category:Pool can't mean anything but Pool (cue sports) under our category naming conventions. If it were about any other kind of "pool", it would have to be Category:Pools, with an "s", which would necessarily have to have a Template:Category ambiguous on it, since there are tidal, vernal, swimming, etc. pools. There isn't anything else called "pool" as a mass noun, only count nouns with an article ("a pool"), which are mandatorily pluralized in categoryspace. There've been other cases here where an argument has been made for some kind of ambiguity, yet the category stood, because the ambiguity was only in theory or not particularly plausible, with no evidence of actual confusion. Such is the case here. Anyway, if strong feelings suddenly show up here on the part of a lot of people that Category:Pool really is somehow ambiguous in a way with real-world applicability, okay. But that would be a larger CfD nomination, about that category and its subcats like this one, and there'd be plenty of room for discussion of matters like whether it should be awkwardly disambiguated like Category:Pool (cue sports) or using a less common but more precise and well-sourced term like Category:Pocket billiards, and which subcategories actually need disambiguation, too (arguably not all of them would), and so on and so forth. It's a different and much larger can of worms than the sub-category under discussion here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Cue sports venues . ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've addressed, above, why this is not practical, at least not without a major consensus rebuilding discussion between two active projects with almost no participant overlap (and neither of which acknowledge any problem with the status quo), about totally restructuring snooker categorization (not just with regard to venues), all to avoid an actually imaginary ambiguity. An upmerge is not a simple proposition in this case, though it would be in less complex cases (and I'd support an upmerge myself then, as my record here and at upmerge-happy WP:SS shows). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: merge to Category:People from Berwyn, Illinois and Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois. — ξ^xplicit 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Politicians from Berwyn, Illinois to Category:People from Berwyn, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#Small. Category has two articles and furthermore, neither of the people in the category were politicians IN Berwyn, rather they were simply born there. This brings me to a larger point: What is the point of having categories like Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois if the only connection they have to Chicago was being born there, not their political career? There is extensive confusion on this topic; the example of Category:New York City politicians makes more sense, given that you have to be a politician in New York City to be included, not simply being born there. TM 20:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but also merge to Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois -- which should be renamed, along with Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois, so as to restrict their use to people who are actually active in local politics. Cgingold (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films produced by James L. Brooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films produced by Cameron Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films produced by Danny DeVito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films produced by Steven Spielberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films by producer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Discuss - these are the only categories currently for individuals (at least the only ones following this naming format). Before this proliferates we should have a discussion as to whether this is a good idea. We do have analogous categories for a couple of other film professions, but in those instances (specifically directors) it is very unusual that more than one person is credited as the director. Whereas for producers it's not uncommon for there to be many more than one, not to mention the various sub-types of producer (executive, co-executive, co-producer, associate producer, etc.) that could conceivably be included and credited. Fully implemented this could lead to category lists cluttered with several Category:Films produced by Foo entries that don't offer much in the way of encyclopedic value. I suggest a rename of Category:Films by producer to Category:Films by production company with the appropriate restriction in scope and deletion of the individuals' categories with lists in their articles if needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think there is probably merit in the renaming proposal. As for the rest, I'd like to see what other editors think. To that end, and especially given that you're clearly interested in having such a discussion, I'm utterly mystified as to why you haven't notified the category creators, who may well have something of interest to say about these issues... Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Recomend it's raised at the film project to help build a consensus (IE close this for now, and re-open in the future, if necessary). Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now until discussion can be opened at the film project and consensus reached. CfD is not the proper place to build consensus on policy. Redfarmer (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* The Films Wikiproject is not the arbiter of categorization policy and there's no reason why this shouldn't be discussed here like any other categorization scheme. This is exactly the place to build consensus on categorization policy and guidelines and it's best to do it while the category tree is in its infancy rather than ignoring it until it's grown to dozens or hundreds of categories. Consensus about categorizing creative product on the basis of almost every other kind of creative professional has been discussed here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CfD does not build policy; rather, it enforces consensus previously reached. While discussion of consensus can proceed out of CfD discussions, it is not the proper place to bring an initial question of consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::* I'm sorry but this simply is not true. CFD not only "enforces consensus" it is where consensus about categorization is reached. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Please relist - thanks. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposal as made by nom. I agree that this is something we should nip in the bud now before it proliferates further. PC78 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All as a means of grouping films by a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a strong defining characteristic, though. Sockpuppetry aside, the rationale of the nom is sound. PC78 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion of these. I agree this is not strongly defining. These have proliferated and there are now many, many more than when the nomination was started. All should be deleted, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 both. — ξ^xplicit 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Silent films by nation to Category:Silent films by country

Propose renaming Category:Science fiction films by nationality to Category:Science fiction films by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename both per covention of parent Category:Films by country and other subcats. PC78 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy rename both - per criterion C2C to bring them in line with the established trees. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, CoP. Lugnuts (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Roscelese (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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/No Consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Surrealist films to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: I suggest that this category be split: under the original title, we will leave films actually made by people within the Surrealist movement (Man Ray, Duchamp, Bunuel, etc.) and their direct heirs (Maya Deren, for example). In a new category, which could be titled Films influenced by Surrealism, under which would be grouped films by Lynch, Cronenberg, Jodorowsky, etc, as long as those articles are well-referenced. I believe this would solve the problem. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yes, sounds a good idea. Thanks for looking at this. Lugnuts (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this is the only solution. Of course, if someone has a better idea, I am willing to hear it. But, we do need to figure this out. It might be good to create two lists of which films belong in the two categories. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support the split. Surrealism is a pretty tremendous influence on a wide variety of film; limiting it just to the in-group regulars would be a shame, and splitting the label is the right thing to do. It is open to being just a dumping ground of anybody's random opinion, sure, but think about this: how many can you truly verify as surrealism influenced? Lynch and Cronenberg, clearly, but who else? I know I'm probably in the minority on this, but I'm open to the broad use of the word "surreal" being an indicator of the far-reaching effects of Surrealism proper. The Coen brothers, Guillermo Del Torro, etc., etc., etc., may not have published direct references to the influence of surrealism, but it has potential to help the casual researcher explore surrealism to have these in-roads. That's not exactly in line with Wikipedia Rule Nazism, but that's my take on it.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but... the keeping of the Surrealist films cat, but I think we need a better name for the second one. The second sounds way to open for original research and will not encompass anything useful. What makes Maya Deren a direct heir while films like Eraserhead not? And not all Lynch films or Cronenberg would fit the category either in my head, but I'm sure others would disagree. We'd need a better name for the second cat, or not have it at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the way you keep out the original research is that any film added to the second category, whatever we name it, would have to be referenced to reliable sources showing the director was influenced by Surrealist ideas and techniques. Such references have been shown for at least some of the Lynch and Cronenberg films. Then, we would all have to be vigilant as editors to make sure that a lot of rubbish is not added to the category, which is what happened with the category currently under discussion. So, what this comes back to is being watchful and enforcing WP's guidelines and rules for references and reliable sources.

As for Maya Deren, and why I would associate her directly with the Surrealists, rather than as a later director influenced by them, I offer this quote: "Evasive and unclassifiable, Deren actively rejected categorization as a surrealist ... Her affiliation with surrealism is undeniable. In 1943 Deren collaborated with Marcel Duchamp to produce a film called Witch's Cradle, a choreographed set of movements between the figure (played by Duchamp) and the camera." which can be found here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One. On the face of it, the creation of the direct category for people involved in the Surrealist movement seems clear and worthwhile (though it presumably stretches to Buñuel's later post-movement films?). I wonder what about Cocteau though? Or Dulac & Artaud? AllyD (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two. The "influenced by" category seems a minefield. While Lynch and Cronenberg are not particularly problematic, it will attract any amount of noise of the "Wow, that's really surreal" variety. And sadly many of these will be referencable to published reviews by critics using slack terminology, leaving a rather worthless "Films once described as surreal by someone" category. Maybe better without it altogether, and just stick with one category tightly defined as requiring membership/proximity to the historical Surrealist Movement? AllyD (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and share your concerns and I think I addressed some of them in my response to Andrzejbanas above. For a better understanding of why I began this category discussion, please see this discussion on the Wikiproject Films page. Thanks for your comments. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although the gray zone will constantly cause disagreement...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In effect, RJ wants a category of "Films by people with an undeniable connection to Surrealism". What will be the criterion for "people involved in the Surrealist movement"? If you make a surrealist film, isn't that an undeniable connection? And doesn't that make you a surrealist? How on earth does RJ propose to resolve all those disputes? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. The Surrealism article has a chart of people who were involved in the movement, and only a few of them (Man Ray, Duchamp, Bunuel, Dali) were involved in filmmaking. As for any problems with the "influenced by" category, we demand, as we should be demanding in any case, that the articles in question be well-referenced, that the references be reliable, and that a strong case is made for Surrealist influence. But no, making a film that shows Surrealist influence does not make one a Surrealist. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. It'll get rid of the misuse of the Surrealist film category, but I share AllyD's fear that anything remotely phantasmagorical will be added to the new category, no matter whether it was derived from the surrealists or not. It's probably not a good idea to have categories just for different aesthetics, which an "influenced by" category easily could become except that it excludes movies that precede the surrealist movement. The genre categories should really be sufficient. Smetanahue (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So films within the surrealist movement should only get the tag of surrealist? Can RepublicanJacobite provide an authoritative source that says only films within the 1920s to perhaps 1940s by Man Ray, Dali, et al are considered surrealist? I rarely take part in category discussions because they require very strict interpretations of definitions and things just rarely work that way in reality. See what I did there? Ha. This discussion therefore is outside reality. So why not create a category of Films in the early 20th century Surrealist movement to include all the Man Ray etc., and Surrealist films to include Lynch and others influenced by early 20th century surrealism? --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing here seems very strange to me. If we were talking about painters, I do not believe we would be having this debate. There were painters who were members of the Surrealist movement. Later, there were other painters who were influenced by, say, Max Ernst, but being influenced by him did not make them Surrealists. Likewise, there were Surrealist filmmakers, and those with whom they directly collaborated (i.e., Maya Deren's collaboration with Duchamp). Later, there were filmmakers (Jodorowsky, Lynch, Kubrick, or whathaveyou) who were influenced by Surrealism, and knowingly used Surrealist techniques and imagery in their films. It would be these films, in those cases in which the given articles are reliably sourced to show said influence, that would be placed in the 2nd category. I think I have been clear about this. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it natural that a discussion about surrealism should be strange? If we're going to use your example about painters, the difference is that there are a group of Renaissance painters and no critics or art historians worth their reputations are going to call 20th century painters Renaissance painters. Surrealist art also heavily influenced modern art in ways that film has not been redefined. But film scholars and very notable critics call David Lynch films surrealist. So the characterization of surrealist films either defies strict definition or is being broadly applied by reputable sources. Categories force us to look at things strictly, which they just don't want to be. It seems the more solid category here is films that are part of the early 20th century Surrealist movement. That has a beginning and end point and an accurate description of it would be "Films in the early 20th century Surrealist movement". All other films that have been labeled such by reliable sources would be Surrealist films. --Moni3 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Discussion on this issue has ceased, so I want to take a moment to sum up. The majority of editors who responded here are in favor of the split. The main caveat seems to be that any article placed in the second category, the "influenced by" category, have reliable sources showing the conscious influence of Surrealism. We want to avoid the subjective adjective "surreal," for which no one can offer an encyclopedic definition. I will create a user subpage with lists of the films which belong in the two categories, and ask for comment on those lists. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did not respond to what I think is a better solution to this issue. Category:Films in the early 20th century Surrealist movement and Category:Surrealist films. Furthermore, it's kind of surprising that you initiated this discussion and did not yourself offer an authoritative definition of what Surrealist film refers to. So here is mentioned "subvert chronological time and narrative causality", further explaining that "some filmmakers expanded on the Surrealist tradition, dismantling narrative by working in a poetic form". This source mentions the Surrealist movement, but includes at least one contemporary filmmaker. In this source (scroll up to page 1), the first paragraph says pretty much the same. Nonlinear narrative, poetry, and references to the subconscious. The entire fourth chapter in this book discusses Surrealism and Hollywood, starting in the 1920s and going into David Lynch (stating that critics often misidentify the reasons why Lynch is considered Surrealist, but then naming other late 20th century directors who are -- p. 73.). And finally, Dictionary.com states that Surrealism means a style of art and literature developed principally in the 20th century, stressing the subconscious or nonrational significance of imagery arrived at by automatism or the exploitation of chance effects, unexpected juxtapositions, etc. So in the absence of any more authoritative definition of Surrealism, it seems that films that include nonlinear narrative, subconscious, and references to dreams, regardless of what decade or country they were released in, would qualify. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't like to be in the position of being asked to identify a closure to this discussion, so I agree with RJ that the best way ahead is for interested parties to work with a draft allocation of articles and see whether consensus can be reached on worthwhile separation and naming. Maybe best to close thie current CfD and take that further discussion elsewhere for the time being? AllyD (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To where would the discussion be taken? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Somewhere close to the location for your proposed draft lists, I was thinking? But it needs to be somewhere in line of sight of interested parties, both from CfD and WP:FILMS. Maybe just carrying on here, but I feel (maybe wrongly) that CfD shelf-life tends to expire after a few days and this is likely to need longer to reach consensus. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note - A consensus does not appear to have been reached on what a new category will be named or which articles will be placed in it, although consensus for some sort of a split does seem to have developed. One of the editors above suggests taking the discussion elsewhere, hashing it all out, and then bringing it back to CFD. I would heartily support this suggestion, as discussion seems to have stalled in the current venue. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underground rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Almost by definition, an "underground" rapper, is a non-notable rapper. As has already been raised on the talk page by another user, the criteria for inclusion here are absent. Indeed it seems hard to imagine how it could be defined without members violating notability. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there are 100+ articles in the category. In the absence of inclusion criteria, someone would be in this category if described in their article as an 'underground rapper'. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This isn't my field of expertise, but it's clear from the main article that this isn't just a semi-imaginary group of people, as one might think from the Nominator's rationale. There are over 100 articles about them which would be scattered to the wind if the category is deleted. If they really are all non-notable they should be taken to AFD and deleted -- then there will be no rationale for the category. Unless and until that happens the category should be retained. Cgingold (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Sinoe County, Liberia to Category:People from Sinoe County

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Sinoe County. TM 05:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is always good to have the name of the country included. Cgingold (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Having the country name is useful here. (I seem to recall Helene Cooper mentioning in her memoir The House at Sugar Beach that, as a child in Liberia, she heard about "Sino-Soviet relations" and interpreted that to mean that there were too many Russians in Sinoe County.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we are going to just have this be the oddball category from all of the other Liberian county categories?--TM 07:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the first comment at this discussion, having county in the name can avoid confusion and help find categories in the wrong tree. So maybe all of the others need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vichy regime to Category:Vichy France

Nominator's rationale: Rename (over redirect). Suggest renaming to match main article, which is now at Vichy France. If this one is renamed, I will follow it up by nominating all the subcategories that use "Vichy regime" for renaming to match. Some subcategories use "Vichy France" already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. While this category of course includes articles about the Vichy regime, per se, it also includes articles about France during that period, so the broader name is an improvement. However, I would not support renaming all of the sub-cats, as some of them are in fact about the regime itself, while others should be broadened as suggested. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for this idea. I looked at, and resorted, many items out of this cat recently, and this renaming is elegant and appropriate. --Lockley (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.