Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17

[edit]

Category:Boy-Girl Groups

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 08:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest fixing the capitalization and clarifying that this is a category for musical groups. Deletion is a possibility; I don't know enough about music to know if this is a legitimate group genre or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. I've never heard of music groups with both boy and girls (or men and women) in them being referred to as "boy-girl" groups; they're just groups. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear inclusion criteria. Presumably there is an age limit, otherwise bands like Blondie or Jefferson Airplane would be included. Despite that, the category includes Abba, who were aged 22, 25, 26 and 27 at the time of their first release in June 1972; and Buck's Fizz, who were aged 19, 26, 27 and 27 at the time of their first release in March 1981. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not generally considered a characteristic of the group. Gladys Knight and the Pips were put in their by me, the lead members were under 15 when it began performing, but considering how long they lasted, I am not sure that really makes any sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2015 (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.

Category:Caterpillars that resemble twigs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Due to non-defining traits of a life-stage of certain species, and potentially subjective, editor's opinion (WP:OR) in deciding which species are thus categorized. I can think of a lot of things some caterpillars look like that don't warrant categorization. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite a large number of caterpillars fall into this category and as the nomination says the point of acceptability into this grouping is far too debatable to be useful. This information would be better reflected in prose in articles relating to caterpillars and camouflage. If it proves to be a topic with much to say, then maybe a stand-alone article or list could be created. Still, as a category this isn't very functional. SFB 18:43, 18 February 2015 (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.

Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a very unusual category (it's the only category named "Talkpages...", it currently has no parent categories) so we should decide whether this is a categorization scheme that benefits Wikipedia or not. A list might be more appropriate than a category. DexDor (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, - sure - but this is not an article. As per WP:WHATABOUTX: - this is not something that may be a characteristic of most or all Wikipedia users, not a grouping of users on the basis of characteristics which cannot be readily identified, it is not on the absence of a particular characteristic, does not limits opportunities for encyclopedic collaboration to just one or very few articles, it is not categorised by personal preference, such as by user(s) edits or uploads, or any grouping of users based on a shared dislike for a person, group, organisation, event, idea, philosophy, or activity - nor group users on the basis of irrelevant likes like Wikipedians who like red foxes, Wikipedians by food preference - it is does not includes any grouping of users that are patently false and it is not any grouping of users on the basis of a characteristic that, unintentionally or by design, triggers a negative emotional reaction in others. I actually do decorate these pages, and ever if the Swedish Wikipedia blocked Drmies for putting Wikilove on my page overthere, I never expected this encyclopedia should react like this. Can't se how this could hurt anyone. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every new categorization scheme has costs (e.g. editor time fixing uncategorized categories) and categorizing user talk pages by a relationship to another editor ("Wikipedians awarded a barnstar by <editor>" ?) is, IMO, unnecessary. 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexDor (talk • contribs)
If you'd please sign with four tildes, not five, we'd know whose opinion it is. Having to research the history for it is pretty unnecessary too. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Ha! Category:Wikipedia humor! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've created another category with no parents .... and do you have any evidence for "helps against harassment and verbal violence" ? DexDor (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category. (However, there is no need to categorize talk pages, redirects, or user pages, though these may be placed in categories where appropriate.)"
So, talkpages may be placed in a category. The question is: is this category appropriate? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer is: No, it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Of the arguments for deletion, the one invoking "categories have a technical overhead that pages do not" is the most amusing. If that were an actual consideration we'd just scrap the entire category system (except for certain of its automated technical uses) which is almost completely worthless for finding anything with any confidence. EEng (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know notfacebook and all that, but some things waste more time and resources in their (attempted) deletion than they ever could just being left alone. LadyofShalott 17:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CFD discussion does more than delete a single category; it also establishes a precedent - whether this is a form of categorization that benefits the encyclopedia. IMO, it's better to discuss this before the category tree is expanded (e.g. into thousands of "Editors awarded a barnstar by <editor>" categories). DexDor (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also a good argument. I admit, it was a "joke," though a serious one, since it expresses my sincere appreciation for Hafspajen's friendly edits and good humor. The talkpage-category fits into this 'attitude'. But alas, to discuss the establishment of precedents: what would be a good reason to create a category for a talkpage? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a good argument! (Serious!) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think fun and beauty are "unnencyclopedic", whatever that means. EEng (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well there has been a lot of "fun and beauty" on wiki recently. Somebody needs to pay. Do you have a list of names? I dont have much traction with admins, but will get one of them drunk enough to troll through and range block whicever continent. Ceoil (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Thanks Bishzilla. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Would someone please take that horrid animal outside - it's causing disress to my pekes. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smoke. Somebody changed the lead image at Peke. Always Put My Pet on Wiki Movement. Hafspajen (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Back when I joined this site in 2006, the Clinic for Wikipediholics was still a thing. We tend to take ourselves too seriously here, and as Crisco 1492 pointed out, nobody is being harassed by this category; on the contrary, it's providing some badly needed comic relief. Humor and writing an encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive. Altamel (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dear God end this absurd waste-of-time discussion! Somebody close this! Put us out of our misery! Trout the nominator! EEng (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trout the nom? Why? For not knowing in advance that a group of IWANTIT voters would show up to try to create chaos in a shameless attempt to try to hide that, in the end, this is a vanity category for users whose talk pages another user happened to drop one or more images on? Shrugs.
    User categories are supposed to be about collaboration, facilitating editing of the encyclopedia. Sooooo, if that's true of this category, now that you're all here, here's a challenge: Decoration is a dab page, how about picking one or more of those to edit? If you all pitch in with the fervor you have here, I'm sure we'll all be quite amazed by the results... - jc37 03:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is about collaboration. Many of us happen to find H's efforts uplifting, amusing, and inspiring. (And in the best traditions of open content, I've shamelessly stolen it). Now why don't you do us all a favor and withdraw the nomination, so you can move on to worrying about whether Caterpillars That Look Like Twigs should be a category, and the rest of us can get back to whatever it is we get back to? EEng (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See User:EEng#saddest. EEng (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Anyway, it's the unknown Wikipedians I'd worry about.[reply]
Do I have to? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your nose and click. EEng (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well admittedly it might look like a lot of fun... but I have to add that it is a creative fun ... and a little point on Wiki achivements: .... At least 30 articles were created through this kind of fun, people picking up an idea, an other comming up with an other one, many of those articles went to DYK, at least five resulted in articles that later had Featured pictures from those article, lately it was the Ploughing in the Nivernais - both a DYK and a FP: so it is surely, in fact, beneficial to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2015 (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.

Category:Oxford events

[edit]
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 to Category:Oxford Wikimedia events. MER-C 07:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title doesn't indicate that this is an administration category (i.e. not for articles) so a rename to something like "Wikimedia events in Oxford" might be appropriate. However, as the text says that this is for "Wikimedia" (not just "Wikipedia") events shouldn't it be a Wikimedia category like this[[2]] ? DexDor (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2015 (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.

Category:Bounty board

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete/UpMerge to Category:Wikipedia awards. - jc37 21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Add "Wikipedia" to the name to make clearer that this is part of Wikipedia administration (rather than being for articles) and change capitalization (it's a name). Alternatively, upmerge this category (which contains one page and one subcategory - which perhaps should be deleted) to Category:Wikipedia awards. DexDor (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2015 (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.

Category:Christian Classics

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. DexDor (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The capitalization implies this is a set, i.e. a discrete collection or publisher's imprint, while the category's description, "Books that are part of the classic literature of Christianity", does not imply the same. Note there is the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, which may or may not be related, but even if that was the inclusion criteria it may fail WP:DEFINING, as the CCEL website self-describes as a "digital library of hundreds of classic Christian books", which means such a category may be no more defining than "Books on Goodreads" or "Publications at the Wichita Public Library". Unless an explicit, defining, non-subjective set is identified, I say delete. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wildly subjective. The category was created on 15 July 2014, and neither the creator nor anybody else has added any articles to it since that date. It's populated by one book. (The Kneeling Christian, created by the same user.) I hope it's not overly personal to point out that the creator was a very new user and perhaps didn't understand the category system well. They seem to have left Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 17 February 2015 (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.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, merge contents to Category:Bing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is the same as Category:Bing: "Live Search" is the old name of "Bing". The majority of their entries are the same. All entries in "Live Search" are eligible for inclusion in Category:Bing. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (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.

Category:Delhi MLAs 2013–

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superseded by accurate description (close date) by Category:Delhi MLAs 2013–15. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:44, 17 February 2015 (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.

Category:Aspects of Shiva

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In sync with Category:Forms of Vishnu and Category:Forms of Parvati. The category contains various forms/ incarnations of Shiva. Redtigerxyz Talk 08:31, 17 February 2015 (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.

Category:Illinois Coal History

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To mirror Category:Coal in the United States. There is no need at this stage to break the topic down by "history". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2015 (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.

Radio owners

[edit]
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:Radio broadcasting companies of the United States. – Fayenatic London 17:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think that these categories are for people or entities that own radio stations in the jurisdictions mentioned. I'm assuming that it's obvious that they are not for people who own radios, meaning the receiving devices, since that is commonplace. I don't think we need the "by state" in the U.S. category at this stage, since there are two subcategories and nothing else in it. I'm not sure how defining this is, so I'm open to other solutions, such as deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2015 (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.

Category:Fictional magicians (fantasy)

[edit]
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 the respective categories up. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles are there already, and splitting like this hinders navigation.

I understand that the goal here was purportedly by occupation, but if you look at the category contents, that's obviously not the case. Being a witch, wizrd, sorcerer, etc through some form of magic usage is different than utilising magic as a profession or as a means to making money. - jc37 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • UpMerge both as nom. - jc37 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unclear distinction which does not aid those searching or those categorising. SFB 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "Being a witch, wizrd, sorcerer" is precisely a profession. As opposed to just "some form of magic usage", like in cases of Geralt of Rivia, whose profession is a "witcher" (as in: a monster hunter warrior powered by magical elixirs), or Imhotep (character), whose profession is a priest, or Sun Wukong, who is a fighter with a magical staff (and also a monkey). --302ET (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your examples prove the point. These are characters with other professions who also use magic. Yes, there are a few characters who truly have magic-user as their occupation, but to split them from the rest of the magic-using characters for solely this reason does a disservice to navigation, and therefore to our readers. And "priest" does not automatically equal "magic user" by any stretch of the imagination. and by the by, these categories are named "magician", not "priest". - jc37 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For recent history of these categories, see old discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 14#Category:Fictional sorcerers, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4#Category:Fictional magicians and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:Fictional female magicians. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging of power with profession, but Oppose merging of genders. I therefore support the first line, but suggest Category:Fictional female characters who use magic for the second. Gender is mentioned as significant several times in the article witchcraft. – Fayenatic London 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll support that outcome as well. SFB 20:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting by gender isn't a good idea in this case, due to the fact that "magic" is what we're talking about. Switching genders is a common trope in fantasy fiction, and that aside, a character's gender is at the whim of the author. And what of situations like Wotan (comics) which was a male character until later authors decided the character should be female? Due to literary present tense, the character has been both. Or characters like Doctor Fate which have been various male and female characters. And there are magical characters which are non-human (certain plant creatures, for example), and so "gender" becomes a problem in quantifying. And by the by, "witch" doesn't mean just female magic users. So in all, splitting by gender just reduces navigation and creates WP:OR issues. - jc37 02:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Unless someone wants the male and female categories to be fully diffusing, let's not ghettoize the women, particularly fictional ones who might be able to switch. Montanabw(talk) 06:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dyspeptic comment This kind of Titanic-deck-chair-rearranging underscores how ridiculously nonfunctional the entire category system truly is. EEng (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Will it reduce ambiguity? Fictional characters who use magic is subcategory of characters by superhuman feature or ability (aka Superheroes) of science fiction. Fictional magicians is fantasy oriented subcategory of characters by profession, usually in worlds where having a magical <insert title> occupation (i.e. yōkai, sorceress, witch, enchanter, wizard, magical girl, warlock, etc.) is about as common as scientists and engineers. Merging them will inevitably encourage the re-pollination of these ambiguous titles and undue previous attempts to keep these from bloating the Fictional stage magicians or those ...who use magic categories. --173.55.119.156 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have become convinced that in fiction the role of gender in splitting magic users is unclear. There are clearly some creators of works involving magic (Terry Pratchet is the example I can think of the fastest) who see a strong gender role in magic. On the other hand J. K. Rolling presents male and female magic as essentially the same thing. Warlock, wizard, witch, enchanter, magician, sorcerer, sorceress, enchantress and other terms I have not thought of all come into play. I think the unified target category will best categorize this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Fictional female magicians (fantasy) was created to prevent the recreation of the highly subjective Category:Fictional witches; which was pollinated with nearly every notable spellcaster who just "happens" to be a woman. --71.177.78.98 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both Many of these fictional works don't specify a specific class of magic user, and the different 'classes' of magic user are generally subjective applications to the character based on the opinion of the creator of the work. I see no reason these separate categories would be useful. ― Padenton|✉   18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, whereas I can clearly see the usefulness to keep the nominated category (with magician as defining characteristic) I really have my doubts about the usefulness of the target category other than as a container category. 'Characters who also use magic', that's not really defining, it's hardly different from 'characters in fantasy fiction'. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2015 (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.

Category:Filmmaking

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to merge. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Basically the same concept while 'Film production' sounds more professional. WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is clearly a lot of overlap here, but the target doesn't seem right for some things, like Category:Screenwriting. There are quite a lot of considerations to be made her about how this idea of production of a film sits within the overall parent of Category:Film. Category:Film industry may also warrant some merging here. I agree with Liz that the Film WikiProject should be involved as these are quite high level structures. We need buy-in from the topic experts who we would expect to maintain it. SFB 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is a qualitative distinction between the two but they seem to be used synonymously here. I personally associate "filmmaking" with the art and craft of making films i.e. directing/cinematography/editing and "film production" with a far broader scope that encompasses not only filmmaking but also Film budgeting/Principal photography/Post-production etc. There currently is no rhyme nor reason for how the articles are divided between the two categories (some things appear in both cats), so unless clear qualification criteria can be established for each category then perhaps merging is the best option. I've put some film articles through GA so am familiar with a lot of the terminology present in these categories. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17&oldid=1136102502"