Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >

October 13[edit]

Category:Fictional bank robberies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bank robberies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a small category with little or no potential for growth. Although it currently contains two articles, both are miscategorised. One is about a cartoon episode and the other a motion picture. Although the plot of the cartoon and the motion picture center around bank robberies, neither the cartoon nor the film are instances of "fictional bank robberies". – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kyriakos 04:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category that's too broad. We don't categorize by every kind of fictional event. Imagine how many different events happen in a single story. Now imagine categorizing that story by every single event. Impractical. Doczilla 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This cat would make sense if we had a few articles about fictional bank robberies themselves, but I don't think we have any of those. We don't want to get caught-up categorizing works by either plot element or title. ×Meegs 16:44, 16 October 2007 (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 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:Romani silversmiths[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 13:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Romani silversmiths into Category:Silversmiths
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, single-member category formed by a non-notable intersection of ethnicity and occupation. There is also no real need to subcategorise Category:Silversmiths, which currently contains less than 50 entries. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, & my comments 2 down. Johnbod 00:14, 14 October 2007 (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 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:Entrepreneurs by nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was del/merge/rename per nomination. Kbdank71 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'entrepreneur' is not so unambiguous as to allow for objective categorisation. Moreover, these categories already overlap significantly with the "businesspeople" categories, so there is no value in maintaining two separate category trees. See also the precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 12#Category:Entrepreneurs.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cardinals by continent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:
Category:Cardinals by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is non-standard. There is no Category:Writers by continent, Category:Businesspeople by continent or even Category:Bishops by continent. The correct category is Category:Cardinals by nationality. Mushroom (Talk) 19:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The category is empty anyway clariosophic 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there does seem to be a writers by continent category, that may also be a nominee in future. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 17 October 2007 (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 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:Silversmiths by ethnicity or nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Silversmiths by ethnicity or nationality into Category:Silversmiths
Nominator's rationale: This intermediary category is probably not needed at this time. Category:Silversmiths currently contains less than 50 articles and the only member of the nominated category is Category:Romani silversmiths, which contains only one article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Category:Romani silversmiths should perhaps have been nominated as well. Actually I think at least some national sub-cats would be justified, but following similar categories, they should be national, not ethnic. Also most of these overlap with goldsmiths, maybe they should be merged? Delete Johnbod 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not certain about the merge (is it a case of actual overlap or miscategorisation?), but I've initiated a discussion for the "Romani silversmiths" subcategory. See #Category:Romani silversmiths. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an overlap; historically, and I think mostly today, they were the same thing - same guild etc. But one for another day I think. Johnbod 00:24, 14 October 2007 (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 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:Trishelle Cannatella[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trishelle Cannatella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation and categorisation of performances by performer. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 19:53, 13 October 2007 (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 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:German natives of...[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Regarding Category:German people by state, citizens of modern German states are categorized under "People from ..." Citizens from German/Prussian states/provinces no longer part of Germany, however, have been categorized as "German natives of ...", although the ethnicity of many individuals has often been disputed. As such, it would be better to change the "German natives of ..." to "People from ..." Relevant alternative categories will be created for people who lived in the same geographic region, but at a different time from when the actual administrative units existed (ie Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia). See also an earlier noticeboard discussion. Olessi 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, see also discussion of January 25th. -- Prove It (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This does not solve the problem that German figures of the past, which after Territorial changes of Germany happen to have hometowns outside of present Germany, are strongly disliked by some editors who try to marginalize them, or portray them as non-Germans[1]. See e.g. [2], many removals of Category:German natives of East Prussia on the weasel-wordy rationale that Ostpreußen did not exist for some decades in 19th century when the Province of East Prussia was united with West Prussia. As a result, many bios have no provenance category left at all, see Georg Forster, leaving them uncategorized and lost in space. If "German natives of" is sacrificed for an unspecific "People from", the next thing that will surely happen is replacing the outdated "East Prussia" with a modern "Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship", making undisputed German figures of the past look like modern Slavs - especially when the spelling of the name is altered[3], also, like it was done with town names. The five categories should stay as they are, and be applied to all Germans born there, no matter when. A better definition needs to be given in order to prevent edit-warring. There is enough work to do, fixing the damage already done. And then, cluttering the categories into many more according to changing administrative borders is a can of worms I am not going to touch, and hardly anybody else. What's next, hundreds of categories for German principalities during centuries of the HRE? Ridiculous, that would put many in a category of their own. What we need are about two dozens regional categories, along present 16 German state borders, plus some regions outside present Germany for the historic Germans from there. I don't oppose additional bean-counting subcategories, but insist on straightforward regional categories for an overview, and calling a German spade a German spade. -- Matthead discuß!     O       05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:German people by state for a cleaned-up category under which all German modern day Germany-related bios' should fit, with 16 current states grouped under cardinal points N,S,E,W (to help foreigners get an idea) and eight X-ternal historic regions. A rename to Category:German people by region would be better, to get away from pesky administrative border changes, or to Category:People by German state to include all, see that inconsequent precedence with both ways. -- Matthead discuß!     O       07:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be focusing on ethnic Germans, while I am focusing on those with citizenship (regardless of ethnicity) from German states. User:Kusma and I have both supported the creation of subcategories for the historical states. Your proposal of dividing Category:German people by state into geographic regions seems to be arbitrary; grouping people by first-level administrative country subdivisions is widespread in WP. The current system of grouping ethnicity by sometimes vague geographic regions has and regrettably probably will continue to result in disputes over who goes where; categorizing biographies with citizenship by administrative subdivision would cut down on disputes.
I think the 16 categories for the current Bundesländer should be at the top level, while people from other earlier states should be in Category:People from former German states, which would include the relevant subcategories such as Category:People from Prussia (with the provincial categories above as its own subcategories). The current Category:Prussian people should either be replaced with People from Prussia or include only ethnic Old Prussians. German natives of Alsace seems like a recipe for future dispute- what is the dividing line between a French Alsatian, a regional/nationalist Alsatian, and a German Alsatian? Category:People from Alsace-Lorraine would be a better category, at least for individuals from the imperial era. I started a discussion about Bohemians/Moravians/Sudeten Germans at WP:Czech. Ethnic Germans from outside Germany should be categorized under place of origin (People from... categories) as well as a relevant category at Category:German people by ethnic or national origin.
Your fear that individuals will be categorized by modern administrative units (ie Hilbert in Warmia-Masuria or Goebbels in North Rhine-Westphalia) is precisely what we want to avoid. Anyway, the preferred phrasing is "people from", not "natives of".[4] [5] Olessi 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my now updated last paragraph, I do not focus on ethnic Germans within present day Germany borders. There is no such thing as "citizenship (regardless of ethnicity) from German states", as nobody is a citizen of the modern day Bundesländer - "resident in", "native of" or "people from", but not citizen, which exists only on national level, in Germany since 1913. Regarding former states and principalities, it's hard or impossible to determine citizenship in hindsight, for Wikipedia purposes it can mostly only be guessed based on birth place and time. If it's known without violating WP:NOR, an additional subcategory might be applied just for the record. The current 16 "People from Bundesland" are useful first-step regional categories for any biography related to the area of present-day Germany, no matter what time-frame or ethnicity, from Homo heidelbergensis to Schiller (Category:People from Baden-Württemberg) and Bruce Willis (Category:People from Rhineland-Palatinate, not used). We don't know what citizenship Mr. & Mrs. Heidelbergensis had, nor do we want to insist on a subcategory only for the notable persons born in (extraterritorial?) US-Bases in Germany. If there is a bio stub to be categorized, spotting the birth place on a modern day map and finding the proper one of 16 Bundesländer should be good enough as a start, no need to demand further historical inquiries. Within present-day Germany, it's hopefully uncontroversial, at least for a start.
Now to the mine-fields outside present-day Germany. In that context, I consider the given references to harmless talk about Category:English people by county a joke, as only Category:British people by locality and Category:Irish people by county have remotely comparable conflict potential. Regarding Alsace, Category:People by place/Category:French people by place/Category:People from Alsace/Category:German natives of Alsace/Category:German people by state is already quite good, even though Albert Schweitzer is not exactly where I would expect him, and as said above, "People by Xish state" is better than "Xish people by state" in the case of Alsace.
I am consequent and say that, in same manner as within Germany, attributing Category:People from Kaliningrad Oblast to e.g. an East Prussian bio stub is okay as a starter, and certainly much better than having no category of provenance at all, as currently in many bios, due to relentless deletions by Mr. "10 Prussian Eagle kill marks on my Space Craft". Of course, a more appropriate category needs to be applied asap, with the current choice of 8 "German natives of" being fine for the undisputed German figures from there (of course, some try to dispute everybody and his dog). I have to remind again that many other categories call a national spade a spade, either "Xish people by state", or "People by Xish state". As the term "German state" gets often disputed for anything before 1871 (let alone Royal Prussia), this leaves us "German People of", as dropping all "German" from categories intended for Germans is not an option. I'll skip the issues with Bohemia/Moravia (German, Austrian, Czech?), and remind about the city famous for a vote: Category:People from Gdańsk, and List of Gedanian natives/List of famous born Gedanians. While Gedanian is a nice compromise for a List of Gedanians, Gdańsk does not fit for the many people born between 1308 and 1945, where Category:People from Danzig is appropriate. Same for Category:People from Königsberg, for those on the de:Liste der Söhne und Töchter der Stadt Königsberg.-- Matthead discuß!     O       12:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories are trying to bootstrap ethnicity from a 21st century perspective to people of the past. It seems pretty clear from the historical literature that people's sense of ethnicity in the past differed markedly from today. Some still differs today from what one may think: ask Bavarians, Swiss-Germans, or Austrians their ethnicity and if you get a uniform "German" response I'd be surprised. The alternative suggested by nom is a little better because those born in Kaliningrad wouldn't be from East Prussia - but that designation didn't formally exist apparently until 1772, then was defunct in 1829-78, so are births or formative years spent during those periods a basis for exclusion from the category? Basically, there cannot be a non-arbitrary objective standard for inclusion or exclusion that is defining, so the category is improper. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the earlier WT:GSWN discussion, Users Kusma, 52 Pickup, and myself supported the creation of relevant administrative subcategories (such as Category:People from the Province of Prussia for the 1829-78 period, or the later Lower and Upper Silesian provinces). Part of the Manual of Style explains that "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo (not "Natives of Foo"), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence" (emphasis is mine).
Articles in the categories to be renamed will be dispersed into relevant categories if they do not currently correspond with the correct administrative unit. While individuals from the HRE's constituent states can pose a daunting task with regards to the number of potential subcategories, the categories above to be renamed largely relate to provinces of the Kingdom of Prussia. Wojciech Kętrzyński was born in Prussia's Province of Prussia with the German name Adalbert von Winkler. However, he self-identified with the Polish Masurians. Under the current system he would be incorrectly categorized as a "German native of East Prussia", while a possible categorization under "People from the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" (where his birthplace is now located) would be unacceptable. He would, however, correctly be categorized under "People from the Province of Prussia". My goal is not to categorize German citizens under ethnic categories, but to categorize people from Prussia (regardless of ethnicity) by province. Olessi 21:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/rescope per Olessi. We don't need categories for so finely-grained intersections of location and ethnicity. Some of them are misleading anyway, especially with "natives" of places that did not exist at the time of a person's birth. Kusma (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2007 (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 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:Israeli songs about Peace[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli songs about Peace to Category:Israeli songs about peace Rename request from Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved from speedy.--Mike Selinker 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per Grutness. We have deleted numerous "Songs about..." categories, which give rise to various problems, even without the intersection. Johnbod 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no list - "List of songs about Foo" are almost always too problematic to be sustained. How much about peace does a song need to be to make it "about peace"? Otto4711 19:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no list per Otto. "About peace" is far to vague a concept to be useful, and can actually mean completely opposite things. One one hand it can mean "opposition to fighting" (pacifism), and on the other hand it can mean defeating one's enemy so that they can't fight any more (a good example of the latter usage is Operation Peace of the Galilee). An article on "songs about peace" could discuss the various diverse understandings of the word, but a bare list would be misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no list per Otto and BHG. Articles concerning Songs about peace or Pacifism in music might be valid, but a simple context-less list is not particularly useful, even as just a starting point, in this case. Part of the problem is the subjectivity involved in determining the subject of a song (highlighted by Otto) and part of it is the lack of clear definition of exactly what "about peace" implies (highlighted by BHG). Does it refer to the absence of war, or of conflict more generally? Does it refer to peace as a process or as an outcome? Is it a localised, specific peace or a more general 'peace on Earth'? Does it refer to inner spiritual tranquility? – Black Falcon (Talk) 15:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In most countries, songs about peace have a definite bias to the inner spiritual tranquility angle, frequently along the lines of "O glorious motherland, land of our birth//To your valleys and hills we bring peace//By killing the [insert chosen enemy] with joy and with mirth//And feeding their corpses to geese". Except that the lyrics are usually even worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simply phenomenal! :D It truly takes a certain flair to saturate a matter-of-fact statement with such sarcasm, especially in a way that so succinctly captures the essence of an entire musical genre. And it rhymes! Black Falcon (Talk) 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FYI there is Category:Anti-war songs clariosophic 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "songs about" category suffers from the deficiencies of the genre: How much about peace must a song be, and what WP:RSes will tell us it's at least that much about it. Meanings of songs is often quite subjective and may change over time: take the (now unused) first verse of the German national "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt" (Germany, Germany above all, above everything in the world), which our article without citation interprets "has to be understood as an appeal to the various German sovereigns to give the creation of a united Germany a higher priority than the independence of their small states" while others may thing that "everything in the world" refers to something more than just Germany. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 17 October 2007 (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 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:Indigenous peoples of Arizona[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous peoples of Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cuban Contemporary Artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuban Contemporary Artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Cuban contemporary artists, or Merge into Category:Cuban artists. -- Prove It (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2007 (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 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:Giant Statues of Jesus Christ[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Well, somebody's got to close this, so I guess I'll do it as a rename to Category:Colossal statues of Jesus. This gives the category two logical parents (one of which was created in response to my argument here). Maybe DRV-able, but I think this is the only logical path given the existence of Category:Colossal statues. I'm not going to touch the Jesus/Jesus Christ discussion, as it is possible to believe that Jesus existed and still not believe he is the Anointed One. Nominate the whole scheme if you want to pursue that one.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Giant Statues of Jesus Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus, or at least Rename to Category:Giant statues of Jesus. -- Prove It (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Define "giant". Lugnuts 12:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Giant statues of Jesus(rename changed below). Nothing wrong with this. I have added one already. The statues are all over 67 feet tall. If Lugnuts disputes this being "giant", he needs to make the case. Johnbod 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now 6 in the category - no doubt there are others out there. Johnbod 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm ... where is "giant" defined as 67' + ? And why? --lquilter 21:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Statues of Jesus. Size doesn't seem to be the defining factor here. Infant Jesus of Prague seems like it should belong with the one on Sugar Loaf.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were such a category, which there probably should be, it should still have sub-cats for the giant adult outdoor statues (now 6), and (maybe not yet) the miniature cult infants in churches (4 articles at present), who also form a very distinct group iconographically (a much more consistent one than the giants) and who are all smaller than life-size, showing Jesus as a baby. At the moment there are 2 lifesize adult statues. All are likely to grow (a Spanish giant has no article yet). This may seem like OCAT to those with no interest in iconography, but it isn't. The result of this debate should still be keep, and the other cat can be created above. Johnbod 18:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Statues with no size qualifier or Merge per nom. No objective standard for what constitutes a "giant" statue. Otto4711 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think any of the statues in the category might not be giant you need to say so, otherwise you are just splitting hairs that have not grown yet. Johnbod 19:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, I don't have to point at a specific statue and say whether it is or isn't "giant." The point still stands that there is no specific objective definition of "giant" which opens the category up to misuse which can be avoided by using the generic name. Otto4711 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As always I am amazed by the way in which important distinctions in mainstream art history are regarded as of no significance here, whilst the minutest differences in popular culture categories are taken entirely seriously. If you can't see any difference between a string of modern concrete outdoors sculptures of over ten times lifesize, and another group of sculptures of a different subject that are about half life-size then I suppose it will be difficult to help you. Jimbo is right to say we are far too weak on visual art, but with these sorts of attitudes, it is hardly surprising. Johnbod 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • People aren't ignoring important distinctions in mainstream art history; we're trying to come up with a useful and descriptive term. Were "Giant" the appropriate term of art (ahem) someone would have said so. --lquilter 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, "statues" is as far as some are prepared to go; other debates have seen a similar refusal to see any point in distinguishing between ancient and renaissance works for example. Johnbod 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Colossal statues of Jesus Category:Statues of Jesus per Otto4711. "Statues of Jesus" is better than "Artistic portrayals"; we should keep statues separate from paintings and black velvet and grilled cheese sandwiches. However, "giant" is just random, non-objective, and weird. If indeed it turns out that there are many, many statues and sub-categorizing is needed, then surely there's some kind of standard nomenclature for all figurative sculpture -- i.e., "miniature", "life-size", and "larger than life-size" or something. "Giant statues" indeed. --lquilter 21:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No all those suggestions are clearly much worse. If you can come up with a better one than "giant", I would be happy to support it. Most people would say I am rather pedantic about art terminology, but I am completely failing to see the problem here. If the category is renamed this way, the majority of statues of Jesus, which are not in the category under discussion, should be added. Johnbod 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You yourself said there might need to be a category for miniatures, and miniatures is a standard term in art, as is life-size. I'm not sure what the right term for larger-than-life-size, but there are modern sculptors who do larger than life figurative work, and, yes, there are things that I might call "giant" (like the buddhas destroyed by the Taliban). But since there's not an objective definition of giant, then I don't know why you're so attached to this term. --lquilter 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not, as I said just above. "Colossal" would be the technical term, but I think it is rather less descriptive here, and there is no precise cut-off for that either (any more than there is for miniature). What on earth is so wrong with giant, a word with a respectable classical etymology, used for the large Category:Giants tree - how big do they have to be to get their certificate? - and many other articles, like Giant star - tee hee, how absurd! I just don't see it. Johnbod 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably because "giants" makes it sound like a roadside attraction and there's already plenty of sensationalism in religion so that people are on alert. While colossal is also subjective, if it's the usual term of art, I'd go with that. (It also sounds less roadside attraction IMO.) --lquilter 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But they all are roadside attractions - and plane-seat attractions in many cases. Thats the point of them! Look at King of Kings (statue), right beside Interstate 75. I'll go with colossal if we must, but it has no International Conference of Art Historians Defined Standard (no - of course there is no such body), and would I think seem in practice vaguer to most readers. If you are concerned about avoiding an impression of vulgarity, you are barking up completely the wrong tree with this lot. Johnbod 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it a problem for all notable Jesus statues to be in a Jesus statues category? Otto4711 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have a problem with that, but this should remain as a sub-cat of that, especially as many of the article names are so uninformative. Also the category:Outdoor sculptures would have to be added individually - this is a handy sub-cat of this also, which mergists should note. The idea that an exact definition, capable of resolving all questions about membership, is essential for a category name is just nonsense. Terms like medieval, renaissance, jazz, punk, etc etc have no clear boundaries. The whole group of statues fall into "scale" groups of <1, 1, 10+; there is no middle ground between the last two, nor is there likely to be in the future. See my comment above just now also. Johnbod 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The statues listed in this category range from 62 to 130 feet in height. That's giant in my book. They're not the normal statues found around or in public buildings, churches, etc. There is no comparison between these giants and the Infant of Prague, [which BTW is only 28 inches tall]. clariosophic 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)clariosophic 05:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Statues of Jesus. -Sean Curtin 06:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason, Sean, or suggestion as to how to deal with one of the parents being category:Outdoor sculptures? Johnbod 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove it from the parent should it no longer apply and put the outdoor Jesus statues in the parent directly. Otto4711 15:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps this could be renamed to Category:Outdoor statues of Jesus? This would address the problem of subjectivity, since drawing an outdoor/indoor distinction requires significantly less interpretation than drawing a giant/non-giant distinction. It would also allow the category to remain a subcat of Category:Outdoor sculptures. I suppose the main issue becomes whether this is enough of a defining characteristic ... The fact of being indoors is probably not defining, since every church has a statue of Jesus inside, so the question becomes: is it different for outdoor statues? Black Falcon (Talk) 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but being giant, or colossal, is. They all happen to be outdoors, for obvious reasons.Johnbod 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Johnbod 00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People may notice that Category:Statues of Jesus has gone blue, as User:Cgingold has set it up (unbeknownst to me), making the giants this nom is about a subcat. I think everyone above (?) was in favour of having this cat, as I was, so hope no one objects. He has also cleverly unearthed 2 new Michelangelos (thus raising the tone of the category considerably), so we now have: 5 miniature infants and 4 life-size adults in the new cat, plus 6 giants in the sub-cat. I am sure there are many more out there in fact. He has also found, and added as a parent Category:Colossal statues. In view of this, I now think either Category:Colossal statues of Jesus or the current (Giant) name (except with the small "s" for "Statues") are equally fine & am happy to go with concensus on this. The case for keeping a giant/colossal category is clearly greatly strengthened now it has a decent tree to fit into. Johnbod 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why the aversion to the term Christ being in the title of the category? Most of the articles in it have Christ or Cristo in their titles, e.g., Christ of the Andes, Cristo de las Noas, etc. clariosophic 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would much prefer to use "Jesus Christ". But that would mean renaming the other categories and articles, and I'm not sure whether it would get support. Cgingold 05:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Colossal statues of Jesus. I had hoped, of course, to tell everybody about the new categories I created (also including Category:Colossal statues) before they were noticed, but I needed to take a break (for dinner, etc). At any rate, since Johnbod has now saved me the effort with his explanatory paragraph, I will simply add that I went with "Colossal" for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, because the very meaning of the term had its origins in an enormous statue; and second because it is clearly an adjective, whereas "Giant" is also a noun and "Giant statues" could suggest "statues of giants". I did consider "Gigantic", but in the end, the derivation of "Colossal" was probably the deciding factor for me. That being said, if there is a concensus for another word for this particular category, no problem. Cgingold 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Rename to Category:Colossal statues of Jesus per above & emerging concensus. Sorry to steal Cgingold's thunder! The parent is a good category too. Johnbod 11:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happier with this too and have changed my summary of opinion above. --lquilter 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to me, this is a clear cut case of overcategorization. There are 6 statues in this category. Currently there are 21 articles in Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus and 9 in Category:Statues of Jesus. If all of these were merged to the artist portrayals category, we'd still have under 40 articles. As for the parallel tree that Cgingold created dealing with Colossal statues, there are only 6 categories articles in this "Giant Statues of Jesus Christ" category and 28 in Category:Colossal statues. Would merging the two and creating 34 articles in the category be too much? IMO, of course not. Looking through the list now, there are at least 9 articles on "colossal" statures of Buddha (more than Jesus). So should we create Category:Colossal statues of Buddha? (another thing to keep in mind, there are currently only 21 articles in Category:Buddha statues). So what I'm getting at is this category is simply too detailed. I think upmerging with "colossal statues" and "statues of Jesus" would be appropriate.-Andrew c [talk] 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about just subdividing to keep numbers manageable; these are different types of things. I go back to my complaint above. Too many editors think a statue is a statue is a statue. Yes we should have a Buddha sub-cat too. In both cases specific categories also remove category clutter too, by combining two categories. Actually most of our visual arts articles are massively undercategorised, apart from Wikiproject Biography clutter & datecruft, compared to most areas of the project, but new categories still get this sort of response. There seems to be a specific objection to all attempts at classifying works of art as works of art, rather than as things in a place, or produced on a date, etc etc. Why? I find it really odd.Johnbod 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I've already created Category:Colossal Buddha statues (consistent with the usage of "Buddha statues" in the articles), and it's up to 10 articles, with 11 still in Category:Buddha statues. Both of these sub-cats already pass the size test in my book, and in addition, both have potential for growth. As I've said elsewhere, I don't like to waste my time looking through lots of tiny sub-cats -- but I really don't understand the objection to these sub-cats, which will serve a useful purpose for many readers. Furthermore, I've added a slew of new articles to the parent Category:Colossal statues, bringing the grand total up to 50 articles -- and I'm quite sure there are more out there waiting to be found or written. Cgingold 12:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but support some renaming if kept. Despite some good arguments, this is rather too small a category to be viable; I appreciate the arguments for this as a distinct form, but I think that might be better addressed by an article on the phenomenon of monster statues of Jesus, comparing the different statues and discussing projects which never got off the ground. I notice that Category:Colossal statues has been created as a useful parent category, but I'm also not persuaded that we need this small intersection category. I'm also uncomfortable with the adjective "colossal"; it's better than "giant" or any other alternatives suggested so far, but surely there is some established term in the art world for this sort of monumental statue? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure an article would make very interesting reading, but these subcats do serve the purpose of helping readers find items that are of interest -- which is, after all, the whole point. As for the choice of "Colossal", I don't really have anything new to add my explanation (above), but I think it's worth noting that Johnbod is an art historian (or something very close to that), and if he doesn't know of an "established term in the art world" that would be preferred over "Colossus", it's highly unlikely that there is one. On the other hand -- it would be totally cool to have Category:monster statues of Jesus, wouldn't it?! Cgingold 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it seems to me that this category would sound more dignified if it was named Category:Colossal statues of Jesus Christ. That was actually my first preference, but as I explained above, I went with Jesus because that seemed to be the preferred term (it's used for the main article Jesus, and for Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus). However, I would definitely support renaming all of the pertinent articles and categories to use Jesus Christ, if that has any real hope of achieving concensus. Cgingold 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time, I think. If you want to rename the categories, you would have to start with the main article and work out into the categories, but that would me the mother of all renaming discussions.
As to finding similar articles, I think that a template would be a good idea. There are far too many small categories created where templates would do the job just as well, and this looks like one of those cases: there is a limited number of these monster statues of JC, and the dataset doesn't change often. WP:CLS is worth reading here, particularly as it points out that a template allows for faster to navigation than a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cgingold that it should be Category:Colossal statues of Jesus Christ. Ditto on changing all the other to Jesus Christ. As I asked before why the aversion to the term Jesus Christ? clariosophic 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Statues of Jesus. Size doesn't matter, because it'll eventually be an arbitrary cut off (what's giant? larger than life? and precisely how tall is/was Jesus any way). As for Jesus Christ, Christ is a title/honorific not accepted by all, not a surname. Usually titles (particularly those not accepted by all) aren't used in article or category names: Bill Clinton not President Clinton (a redirect); Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom not Queen Elizabeth II (a redirect); Muhammad not Prophet Muhammad etc..... Carlossuarez46 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not gonna do it. Sorry, someone else is going to have to close this. Nobody has, nor could they, defined "giant" or "colossal". It is entirely subjective. And when someone states The statues listed in this category range from 62 to 130 feet in height. That's giant in my book., that is nothing more than WP:OR. However, were I to rename it to Category:Statues of Jesus, or even Category:Statues of Jesus over 62 feet tall, you know, something objective, someone would have me at DRV so fast my head would spin, and today I'm a little tired of that. So someone else can rename it. (and no I won't play the "no consensus" game, as that is leaving it as the subjective "giant".) --Kbdank71 14:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Landmark Statues of Christ or Landmark Statues of Jesus, since size seems to be a problem. BTW, this is not an article requiring references, so what is the problem with expressing an opinion? The heights of the statutes in question are well-known. Maybe the title should be Tallest Statues, etc. We seem to be able to define Tallest Buildings. clariosophic 22:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC) This is all in my humble opinion. clariosophic 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Statues of Jesus (if there's still time to weigh in)... "Colossal" is equally unnecessary given that there aren't that many Statues of Jesus which warrant their own encyclopedia entries. When they do merit inclusion, it's usually because there's a story behind them and/or they're colossal. Paliku 21:28, 22 October 2007 (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 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:DVD rental services[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Video rental services. Kbdank71 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DVD rental services to Category:Movie rentals
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Why restrict this to only DVDs? Do these outlets only rent DVDs and no VHS or Blu Ray? Also the introduction states it is for online rentals only and that probably needs to be changed but if this is kept without the proposed rename we at least need to consider a rename to include online in the category name. Vegaswikian 07:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Trademarked and proprietary names aside, wouldn't all 5-1/4" optical discs with video be DVDs? Anyway, I'm not sure that "movies" is right, though, since games, music, instructional videos, and other content on optical discs are also rented. "Media rental services"? It's ugly but accurate, I think. --lquilter 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. That would like saying all 5-1/4" optical discs with music are CDs. (Where would you put VCDs?} But, you're right, according to the DVD article, "DVD is also used generically to refer to HD (High Density) video disc formats Blu-ray and HD DVD." Rocket000 11:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Media rental services" is conceptually on the right track, but unfortunately it sounds too much like like renting a TV station or a newspaper. How about "DVD and other media rental services"? It's not pretty, but it is unambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Multimedia" would be better. Rocket000 11:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not opposed to other renames. But I'm still not sure what the better choice is. I did consider Category:Film rentals but that did not sound right. Category:Optical media rentals could be a good parent and then have sub categories for movies, games and whatever else there may be. However if we retain optical in the name, where do we put VHS rentals? Vegaswikian 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about Category:Entertainment rentals? This covers movies on any format, games which can be on DVD or memory cards and even down loadable software. Vegaswikian 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, I clicked on this category because I wished to rename it. --Voidvector 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Video rental services. The nominator's suggest - Category:Movie rentals - sounds like the category's for movies that are rented, not services. I think using "movie" is fine, though, as all the services included in the category rent out movies. I like "video" better because it's more inclusive (like TV shows and other non-film things on DVD). Also, it's a stretch, but one can argue this includes video games, too. Rocket000 11:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Video rental services. —Ashley Y 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Video rental services per the arguments of nom & Ashley Y. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 17 October 2007 (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 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:Promotional comic book cover art[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Promotional comic book cover art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete empty category that's more than a year old. Doczilla 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since it says to use {{Non-free comic}} which automatically puts the images in Category:Comic book covers, I think this category is unnecessary. I'm not too familiar with comic book articles, but this also seems pretty narrow as it's not even being used. Rocket000 09:43, 16 October 2007 (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 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:Awarded Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was deleted per author request.--Mike Selinker 07:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Awarded Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: After previous nomination for deletion I disagreed with the nominator's first rationale (Self-agrandizement). However, after hearing better rationale and the later arguments, which make total sense, I request, as author, speedy deletion Heltzen◩ 07:24, 13 October 2007 (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 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:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
Nominator's rationale: Two issues: (1) "The" is superfluous and unneeded, even though it is part of the official name of the organization. (Similar example: category is Category:George Washington University, not Category:The George Washington University, even though the official name of the organization is "The George Washington University".) (2) Because of the existence of Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), which has quite a similar base name, some sort of DAB should be added to this category name, as has been added to the Stangite one. -"(LDS Church)" is the DAB used for articles with a DAB specific to this organization. Snocrates 05:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep to conform with the article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As far as the GWU example, please note that the article is located at George Washington University (without the 'The'), so it's once again a case of the category title matching the article title. I think we should also keep in mind the fact that the LDS Church is by far the largest and most well-known denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't there more then one church using the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That's why there is a dab page. There is a guideline that the category name make clear what the subject is. So, if there are several churches using this name then it would be appropriate to dab the category name. Vegaswikian 21:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (disambiguation) lists 11 churches with a similar name, of which three are pre-disambiguated. I don't support a name change because adding "LDS Church" won't really introduce any clarity, since all 11 are LDS churches. Renaming the category to Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is not helpful either, since the term 'Mormon' is sometimes applied only to members of this denomination and sometimes to members of any denomination in the LDS movement. I think the best way to minimise ambiguity in this case is to ensure that the category name conforms to the article name. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, "LDS Church" only applies to the church in question. Other Latter Day Saint denominations generally don't use the abbreviation "LDS", and "LDS Church" is widely recongised as applying only to this church, so the disambiguation actually would be denomination-specific. That's why it's used as a disambiguator for denomination-specific articles, like First Presidency (LDS Church). The general DAB that applies generally to the Latter Day Saint movement is "(Latter Day Saints)", as in Seer stone (Latter Day Saints). Snocrates 03:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You make a convincing argument, but I still feel that conformance to the article title adds more clarity than a parenthetical disambiguator would. (However, I've changed my opinion to "weak keep" to reflect my uncertainty on the issue.) I would gladly support the move if there was consensus to rename the article itself, but until then ... – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon - if dab is needed, a note on the category page is enough. The proposed name change will be no help at all in that respect. Johnbod 00:02, 14 October 2007 (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 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:Action film characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Action film characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete this recently created category that mostly includes characters best known for other media (e.g., comic book characters, video game characters). Is "action film" a clearly defined category? No. Because the films themselves are not consistently categorized as action films, the characters simply cannot be. If not in an action film, it's not an action film character. Doczilla 04:06, 13 October 2007 (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 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:Brøndby IF footballers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the convention of Category:Footballers in Denmark by club and the other subcategories of Category:Football (soccer) players by club. The use of "footballers" is redundant when the clubs concerned are football clubs. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:26, 13 October 2007 (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 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:AaB footballers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:AaB footballers to Category:Aalborg Boldspilklub players
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the parent category (Category:Aalborg Boldspilklub) and the main article (Aalborg Boldspilklub), as well as per the convention of Category:Footballers in Denmark by club. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:19, 13 October 2007 (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 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:Historical medical landmarks in Boston[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename for the sole purpose of adding the state. I'd recommend nominating Category:Historical medical landmarks in the United States and it's subcats, as CS46 is correct, what defines "historical"? Although there is also Category:Historical medical landmarks by country and it's subcats.... Kbdank71 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical medical landmarks in Boston to Category:Historical medical landmarks in Boston, Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the parent category and per precedent. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:45, 13 October 2007 (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 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:Museum ships in Falls River, Massachusetts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Massachusetts. Kbdank71 14:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museum ships in Falls River, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is small with no possibility for growth. Also it is spelled wrong. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also entries all link to Battleship Cove and it links to them all. clariosophic 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge entries to Category:Museum ships in the United States --MChew 03:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as above. Makes little sense to have a category with only four entries when they're named elsewhere. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename to Category:Museum ships in Fall River, Massachusetts. The smallness of a category is not a reason to delete it when the category is part of a pattern, as it is in this case. Of course, the category also has possibility of growth: more museum ships can be added to this location. Upmerging loses the fact that these ships are all located at this one location and provides no category to place in the parent category Category:Museums in Massachusetts. Battleship Cove is the name of a museum, not a ship, so the natural cross references between the museum and its ships do not serve any point in the discussion here. It seams to be a natural method for subcats of the Category:Museum ships which includes all such ships world-wide. Thus, the subcats need to be completed for the rest of the physical locations where the ships are located (something I did not get back to work on) Hmains 21:06, 13 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Open flat horse races by length[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination to rename includes the following:

Each of these categories uses at least one non-standard character (either a ≈ character, or that and a combined fraction such as ½), which are difficult to search for and type into articles. These titles get the same point across without the fancy symbols and should be much easier on editors and searchers alike. WP:NAME does not specifically mention fractions or approximate signs, but one could interpret them as "accent characters used only for emphasis". As such, I propose to rename the above categories as shown. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I did not nominate those categories with ampersands, as those are at least easy enough to type with a standard keyboard (Shift-7). Perhaps for those we could create a category redirect that spells out "and". Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Use metric system. It removes all the fractions. (Yes, I know US and UK races still use furlong/miles) --Voidvector 10:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and because of that we should stick with the imperial system per WP:UNITS. It would make things easier in terms of naming, but not in terms of usage. Nobody's going to search for these races in terms of kilometer(re)s. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:29, 15 October 2007 (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 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:TV series using Total War[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:TV series using Total War to Category:Total War series
Nominator's rationale: This category has existed for roughly eight and a half months, but only has two member articles. Being somewhat familiar with the subject matter, I doubt that there are more; if there are, they would almost certainly be few in number, such that there still wouldn't be enough members to justify this category, which seems over-specific. Suggest upmerging to parent category (Category:Total War series). — TKD::Talk 00:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose leaning toward delete altogether. The proposed target category seems to focus mainly on the games themselves - since the TV shows aren't part of the games, it seems incorrect to place them there. I do agree that a category should ideally have more than two members, however, so perhaps it's best to simply delete the category as underpopulated and unlikely to get more populated. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point. I wouldn't mind outright deletion. — TKD::Talk 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hersfold. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete altogether. It's impractical to categorize any TV series by specific tools they use. Doczilla 04:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This set is unlikely to grow much larger, and the visualization software isn't really a defining characteristic of the programs. If kept, keep the current name per Hersfold. ×Meegs 16:38, 16 October 2007 (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 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/2007_October_13&oldid=1138389015"