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.
Actually, there were two U.S. Barracuda classes of submarines, so I think the addition of a year disambiguator makes the best sense. The year was selected because that was the year all three members of the class were launched. Will support use of any other year thought best. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename (as adjusted in nom) to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge per nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are two labels named Giant Records. This should be merged to the existing, clearer category name to prevent confusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more accurately reflect title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There has been more than one baseball team named the New York Giants. The other such team's respective category is at Category:New York Giants (PL) players, so this would fit the already established pattern. -Dewelar (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Making a distinction here is a good idea. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename Not a perfect solution, but it does a better job of disambiguating. Alansohn (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (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:Gardner-Webb Bulldogs football coaches[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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category no longer needed as the Wikiproject was merged to Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix during April 2009. One member only, being an editor who has been inactive since 2006. G.A.Stalk 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more relevant after project merge. --KrebMarkt 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I !vote whack instead of delete? or would that not be commensurate with an encyclopedic tone? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... is there some sort of FF-related in-joke there? Or are you just feeling a bit silly today? In either case, I could go with it... =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as project is defunct. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (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.
Revisit - Category:Fictional characters by origin[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 all. --Xdamrtalk 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with exception of the Jamacian and Welsh categories, all the above were done by one editor. These four seem to meet the same criteria that resulted in the deletion of the other 23. - J Greb (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – I really don't follow the objection to these categories. Also why is Category:Fictional Americans missed out? (In the earlier cfd these were mixed up with comics characters, whose nationality is indeed a moot point. I think eg James Bond however was established perfectly well as British. There is no doubt that Rambo was american, surely.) Occuli (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that cat's history, it was the lone cat taken to DRV based on it having multiple (massively so) subcats that were headed to a "Keep". IIUC, the logic was it was acceptable as a parent/header category, not as a stand alone one though. And I really didn't go too deep into remaining pop of Category:Fictional characters by nationality. Some of those were left as per the Sept 1, 2008 CfD and some have gone through CfDs in Feb 2009. In most of those cases a note was left on the talk pages as to why the cats still exist. These don't. And to be hones, that's why I brought these here instead of flat deletion as recreations - consensus on this may have changed. - J Greb (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that does clarify matters. I still think the 'delete' camp was thinking mainly of comics and not 'proper' novels/plays/films where the provenance of characters is carefully described. Why should we be precluded from categorising Michael "Crocodile" Dundee as a fictional Australian? Occuli (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - the nationality of a fictional character is certainly a defining characteristic of that character. We can determine that nationality the same way we do for real people, through reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the example of a German-language novel written by a German author and set in Germany. How would you say it is defining that a particular character from that novel is German, when 99% of the characters in said novel are likely to be German by default (in other words, when a character's nationality is merely a byproduct of the setting)? –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 02:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - As per above. Also, I can't help to noting that the nominator's reasoning above, subcategories to Fictional Americans such as Category:Fictional characters from Montana are OK but not Category:Fictional Spaniards? Que? Either it's OK to assign nationality/regionality/ethnicity to fictional characters or it's not. I don't really see the problem. Tomas e (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should not have Fictional foo people in foo people categories. This really mixes reality with fiction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That I agree with. There is a fair argument that "Fictional Fooians" is an offshoot of "Foo in fiction" - it's part of how the country is portrayed in works of fiction. And the various nationality projects may take an interest in the cats and characters. But putting, say, Napoleon and D'Artagnan in the same category is just wrong. - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Just wrong"? It strikes me as only natural. It's not only relevant (because creators who "assign" nationalities usually find them relevant and make some kind of point), it's also helpful for navigation. Nobody's making a statement by including them there, it's just common sense. (Incidentally, D'Artagnan was also a real person.) Dahn (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, look at the article in the link. It is stritly about the charact within Alexandre Dumas' works. It does point to Charles de Batz-Castelmore, Comte d'Artagnan, upon whom the character is "is loosely based".
Second, it is improper to treat a character, a piece of intellectual property, as a real person. Having "Fictional Fooians" branch from "Fooians" does just that, treats the characters as people. - J Greb (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nationality of fictional characters is not often a relevant fact, as in that it should be essential to a real-life undertsnading and mentioned in sources. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The nationality of a fictional character—a mutable characteristic that lies at its creator's whim and desire/ability for consistency—is generally not defining. Although nationality can be defining for certain stock characters, for the majority of fictional characters, nationality is a trivial byproduct of setting. Most characters in works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, and Sweden are likely to be Italian, Romanian, and Swedish by default. In addition, the nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors. As far as nationality applies to fictional characters, we should group characters by the literary culture which spawned them (e.g. Category:Characters in Italian written fiction). To complicate matters even further, nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes and forced comparisons (such as by categorization) may require original research. Everything in a fictional universe is at the whim of its creator, up to and including laws of science and national labels. (The first law of thermodynamics doesn't fit into a particular plot line? Ignore it!) The nationality of a character exists solely within the context of the fictional universe in which that character appears; making unqualified comparisons across fictional universes treats the characteristic as being significantly more "real" than it actually is. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since almost all of these were recreated by one editor, rather than naturally over time: speedy delete (CSD G4) as an attempt to circumvent consensus reached at a deletion discussion. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that all attribute categories for fictional characters should be deleted? Because that's where you seem to be going with this argument. All aspects of a fictional character are subject to the whim of the creator and most of Category:Fictional characters would likely fall under your line of reasoning. If that is in fact where you're going with this then a much broader discussion is needed before such a radical viewpoint can be accepted. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. I am suggesting that we should emphasize out-of-universe attributes over in-universe attributes, but as far as deletion is concerned, I am suggesting only that we should delete categories based on the in-universe attribute of nationality because it is uniquely problematic. My rationale for deletion is that nationality is generally non-defining (the first paragraph); the other portions of my comment are distinct, albeit related, secondary points. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 20:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Even if the character's nationality is not a defining part of their role, it is always still important. Also, when Black Falcon says "Most characters in works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, and Sweden are likely to be Italian, Romanian, and Swedish by default", most American characters are from American media and Category:Fictional Americans is not on the list. WölffReik (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of information that is "important" is a very poor criterion for categorization. For example, marital status is an important piece of information for both real people and fictional characters, but it is a very poor basis for categorization. Being non-defining, however, is a very good reason to not have a category. The category for fictional Americans is not in the list because of its unique deletion nomination history; it's not that fictional Americans are in any way special, but rather that Category:Fictional Americans is being used as a parent category only. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not just that. Categories such as Fictional Romanians and Fictional Danes seem to be allowed to stand, yet more prominent nationalities in fiction such as Russians, Germans or Arabs are up for deletion. I'm not suggesting that they should be deleted, just that Russians, Germans, Arabs, etc. should be left alone WölffReik (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that any particular national categories are allowed to stand, rather than that it's difficult to identify them all at once in order to include them all in a single nomination. There are, after all, dozens of such categories, and not all are properly categorized. If the nominated categories are deleted, then similar categories will surely follow. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think WölffReik is refering the the ~1/2 of Category:Fictional characters by nationality that wasn't listed here. Mainly that was on the grounds that those categories went through a CfD with a result of "keep". These include:
The remaining 5 (Eskimos, Estonian, Sicilians, Slovenians, and Vikings) have never been put up for CfD and all pre-date the CfD that removed the 22 initiall put up with this nom.
Keep All The national origin of a fictional character is a strong defining characteristic designated by the author for the purpose of defining the character. Various aspects associated with that nation will be assumed to apply to the character. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to ask you, then, the same question that I posed to Otto, with whom you are in agreement. Consider the example of a German-language novel written by a German author and set in Germany. How would you say it is defining that a particular character from that novel is German, when 99% of the characters in said novel are likely to be German by default (in other words, when a character's nationality is merely a byproduct of the setting)? Thank you, –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a paradox. A characteristic that is defining, but not important. This appeals to my sense of whimsy. But let's take that same novel and translate it into English (or not) and use it as the basis for a comparative analysis of how German authors are creating German characters versus how Austrian authors are creating German characters or how American authors are. Or how German authors of the 1950s differ in their characterization of fictional Germans from German authors of the 1980s or 2000s. I certainly did enough comparative lit in college to see the encyclopedic value of such a scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "important, but not defining", rather than the reverse. A category for fictional German people is woefully inadequate to the task that you describe, as it gives primacy to fiction (in-universe attribute) over culture (out-of-universe attribute) and lumps together characters created by German, Austrian, American, and other authors. If we want to know how German authors create German characters, we would focus on the literature produced by German authors (i.e. German literature), not on all literature which includes characters of German nationality. An analysis of comparative literature would be far better served by categories such as Category:Fictional characters in German literary fiction and Category:Fictional characters in Austrian literary fiction, which would allow readers to compare German literary culture with Austrian literary culture. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 01:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paradoxes aside, this characteristic is more a fact created by the plot then something defining. So the nationality of a fictional character is not in and of itself defining. It is simply a direct result of the plot. 96.54.48.237 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the characters I've added to such categories, I'm leaning towards a keep. In literary tradition, nationality is quite often used to make a point, be it one about "glory" or an ironic one (stereotypical, but not quite). A writer who creates such characters usually intends something with the attribution of national "traits" (even in the cases where it is an objectionable point, it is still a relevant point). Nowhere is it implied that any fictional character necessarily belongs to such categories, nowhere is it implied that separate categories on all sorts of nationalities should be created, nowhere is it implied that such a characteristic should be "divined" when not stated in the work- insisting on these points confuses the matter and misses the point. Concerning Black Falcon's statement "Most characters in works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, and Sweden are likely to be Italian, Romanian, and Swedish by default", I can say that, as a Romanian and the author of articles on Romanian literature: he may be right, but that's irrelevant. For starters, we should not have or aim to have articles on all or even many characters in those respective cultures; the relatively few that we will have articles may indeed be 80% ascribable to the respective nation(ality), but there are many cases where this is patently not the case. One such article is Ivan Turbincă, a fictional Russian in Romanian literature (and the fact that he's Russian is not a minor element in the narrative). Let's talk facts. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All per Occuli. Kuralyov (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Interesting category's and they don't take much place. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all by Black Falcon's arguements. Nationality may be defnied for some of them but mostly is implied or it's purely original research. Some times nationality makes no sense. Take for example fictional countries, continents, universes, etc. Moreover, nationality is not a good reason to categorise characters from different fictional universies, works, books, films, etc. For those that the nationality is important the article (in the infobox or not) should mention the nationality. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using the same rationale, I could say that all nationality categories should be deleted: since there are people whose inclusion would be problematic, why include any? The idea is clearly that these categories should include only articles where they apply for an explicit reason, same as for all categories. From what I've seen (at least in my area of interest), the categories live up to that purpose. If there are any problematic inclusions, take those particular articles out of the categories and that's that. Dahn (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2009 (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:Administrative divisions of federal subjects of Russia[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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency. This category contains Commonwealth of Australia legislation. All other Australian legislation is categorised by jurisdiction as a subcategory of Category:Australian law by jurisdiction. No category for Commonwealth law exists there. VeryRusty (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: like the other category, this should be renamed to make it completely unambigious what is being categorised RussaviaDialogue 09:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Apparently I created this- must have been late! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
Rename Sounds better and is more correct. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per previous consensus and CfR discussions, the category should match the club's main article: Feyenoord. – PeeJay 09:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 09:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the nominator is spot on with his reasoning. GiantSnowman 14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent article. --Jimbo[online] 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (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:Governors of the Russian Federation[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.
Nominator's rationale: Governors does not include Presidents of the republics of the RF, and as they are all known collectively as Federal subjects of Russia, the category Heads of the federal subjects of Russia is probably a better way to categorise these. RussaviaDialogue 08:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Kuralyov (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Argument is correct. But let's keep a redirect in place, because "governors" is the correct title for most of them. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and be more inclusive of various titles of these governmental positions. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename? Is it worth retaining this other "newspapering" category under a different name? After I moved Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 to the main Newspaper publishing category, this cat is comprised solely of US political endorsements. The suggested rename could open it up to non-US articles, perhaps helping to populate a pretty sparse category. I have no strong feelings, other than "newspapering" has to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with either, but I can't think of any notable newspaper endorsements, worthy of a Wikipedia article, outside of the political sphere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. No reason why there shouldn't be a political subcat, and then a US one, when required by a host of articles. Occuli (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to open up the category to expansion. Endorsements are not a U.S.-only phenomenon, and as additional articles are created this category should be split on a national basis. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upmerge per nom. Last week it had 6 members, which have already been reduced to 3 (rightly, I think). Small category with very weak justification related to business rather than journalism. It is also in head category:Business but there is no need to maintain this as the other head category, just renamed as Newspaper publishing, is within Business> Industry> Industries> Publishing. Therefore there is no need to upmerge to that one as well. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom; and Fayenatic reassures any who might be fretting about a potentially lost parent. Occuli (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2009 (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.
