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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus, and I can see why. If you've heard a painting is by Botticelli, you can just type "Botticelli paintings" and get the result you want. You can't do that if the category demands you also know his first name. That said, the desire to match the article name is strong. More discussion about paintings by painters with a well known last name and a less well known first name is clearly warranted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move Categorization by first or last name only is preferred when paintings by an artist are commonly described in this way, and the full name is not needed for disambiguation purposes. Chester Markel (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 00:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli: the convention is to match the category names to the article about the person, which in this case is Sandro Botticelli. I don't see a problem with keeping a category redirect on Category:Botticelli paintings in this case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose No, this is certainly NOT a speedy! Most of these creeping changes have been unhelpful. Just like rap artists, some Renaissance painters are commonly known in English by two names and others by one. This will just confuse users, who typically will not know the first name. The nom is misleading as MANY other artists also have single names in their categories, usually the most famous: Michelangelo, Raphael, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Durer, Cimabue, etc. I count 32 like this (there used to be many more), and would oppose changing all but a handful. What to call the article is a different matter here. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that approach is that there is no way of knowing—apart from using someone's subjective sense—which categories should use the full name and which should use a single name. We need a standard to follow, and in WP it seems the best such standard to adopt would be to follow whatever the article name about the artist is called. That way, naming issues are resolved via at a single page—the article talk page—and we avoid the situation of multiple naming decisions about the same artists being made independent of one another. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't actually a problem. This category has been serving a useful function since 2005, and no "decision" is actually needed; most of the others have been around similar lengths of time. I realize the thought that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is largely alien to CFD, but in examples like this there is a clear risk of adding confusion that does not apply to the article - anyone arriving there not sure if "Sandro" is the Botticelli they are after will very soon realize he is, whereas he her they may not. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may believe it is not a problem, but others (including me) disagree. I'd like to know how to predict what a "paintings by artist" category is named before actually locating it, and currently there is no way of reliably predicting that, because it may use two names or more or it may use just one, and there is currently no correlation in this choice with the corresponding article name. If the category names were correlated with the article names, it would at least add one non-subjective factor that could be used to aid in these predictions. "Potential for confusion" is not really an issue here on way or the other, in my opinion, nor is the age of the category particularly relevant. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not broke and doesn't need fixing. Category:Botticelli paintings is fine...Modernist (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: per Occuli. Botticelli (game) is ambiguous, people might think the category refers to paintings of this game. People who equate rappers with Renaissance artists, should put their money where their mouth is and move to articles on gangsta rap. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johnbod. Renaming the category would only make its purpose less obvious. - Eureka Lott 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. Rembrandt and Michelangelo have parent articles with those names, whereas in this case the parent article is at Sandro Botticelli. This is an issue of following parent article/cat agreement, not an issue of full name versus single name use in other sister cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an issue of finding the clearest and least confusing name. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Johnbod. Not a problem. There are lots of sub-categories too. Lets not invent a new world order. The relevant page should really be 'Botticelli paintings', not Sandro B. The consequences of an unthinking change will ripple through lots of other cats. This should not be attempted here until a consensus is arrived at on those affected pages & project pages. Ephebi (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. If the painter is more commonly known as just Botticelli, the article should be renamed accordingly. Otherwise, follow the naming of the parent article. Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If populated, this would be a near-infinite number with the most trivial association (a format t hat they all don't share) and would set a bad precedent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a particularly bad idea. Occuli (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. You guys are joking, right? Near-infinite? You guys are not LP collectors, are you? I have thousands of LPs; I consulted with another friend who is a bigger collector than I am, and more knowledgeable. That list is complete, or nearly so. Yes, I do have a lot of classical LPs which have not been re-issued. But do individual classical LPs get their own WP pages? Not in my lifetime. Something that is significant enough to warrant its own WP page, but, over rights' issues or whatever, has never been reissued in 2 decades is a very rare bird indeed. Rara avis. I still have to check with a jazz collector friend, but so what? So there are 10 major jazz albums which have a page but have not been reissued. Big deal. The list is close to complete, and I would like to see the number of titles fall through further reissues. Varlaam (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Are you seriously telling me that only about 17 albums have not been released on CD and nine of them are Beatles albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can 'never on CD' be a defining characteristic for The League of Gentlemen (album) when it is not even mentioned in the article? Where is the source for this claim? Occuli (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIA. I can't think of other instances where we've categorized works for not being released in a particular format, such as films not released on DVD. What's more, albums are still categorized by us merely as Category:Albums, which Album describes as a "collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public," regardless of format. So it just doesn't seem to me that the existence or not of a record in CD form is defining, for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that in all cases it's essentially trivia to categorize media by what format they did not appear in. In almost every case it's inappropriate to categorize subjects by what they are not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Trivia. Presumably this would become near infinite in the future when albums are only available on digital download. Snappy (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "albums only in format X" might be a worthwhile format, but this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (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:Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure).[email protected] (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a completely unnecessary category and undistinguished intersection. If there are similar categories by other writers that I have not yet come across, I am not being selective, and they can be piggybacked here should another editor wish to do so. Creator of category notified. [email protected] (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that the entire list of Greeley's writings already exists in the Andrew Greeley article. I had to do some disambiguating, though. [email protected] (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course; part of the very large and established Category:Novels by author. The author is obviously a defining characteristic of a novel. (Which 2 categories are being intersected?) Occuli (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author significant enough (and with enough novels)rto justify the category. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consistent with established customs of category usage. Chester Markel (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typically, the places where passengers board and alight light rail lines (as opposed to the related but distinct tram mode) are called "stations". Of note, all articles use the term "Baltimore Light Rail station" in their titles. At the very least, the incorrect capitalization of "Stop" needs to be changed. oknazevad (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match articles the category contains. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category has been nominated for renaming before, and I originally opposed it on the grounds that they were generally considered stops rather than stations. However with many of the SEPTA Light Rail stops being categorized as stations, as well as those in other systems, I'd have to change my mind and vote for a Weak Support. ----DanTD (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what these places are generally known as, I'm just going by the fact that every article in the category is named "station". If that's not the common name for them the ought to be moved. Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me it would be easier to rename the category than rename all the articles. From what I've been able to find in my searches, whether a system's alighting points are called "station" or "stop" varies from one to another, and isn't always consistent for any system. MTA Maryland's general information page for the Light Rail actually uses the construct "station stops", as though they couldn't decide. As such, I think sticking with the existing use of "station" is the easiest way to go. oknazevad (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point, and in fact you all do. Here's the original discussion, and I think we should invite the editor who originally nomiated this for renaming. Having said that, I'm afraid I have to change my vote from Weak support to Conditional Support. The reasons I have to make it conditional are; 1)The current lead sentence from "BLR Stops" should be moved to "BLR Stations," and 2)I'd really like to see a category redirect from BLR stops to BLR stations, because the issue of who created the BLR stops cat is still nagging me. ----DanTD (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Slightly OT question; Does anybody remember who created this category in the first place? Because I'm sure it wasn't me despite what's listed in the history, and Murjax has denied doing it, even though he did a lot of work on the BLR articles. ----DanTD (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the thing to be worthy of an article it will be a station and not jsut a stop, or at least be spoken of as a station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I've got some issues over the creation of the "stops" cat, I'm going to move it myself, tonight. ----DanTD (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now you can close this discussion. ----DanTD (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2011 (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: Withdrawn by nominator. Jafeluv (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is no biggie, but I happened across the source category and saw that it contained just one article, on a documentary film. User:Stefanomione created a branch for Category:Documentary films about countries by country this past winter and I've been adding films to the country subcategories therein. I figured Iran is one nation where we're likely to have lots of docs about country that are made elsewhere, so I created the target cat and figure we can merge until such time as we have more fiction films about Iran that require a category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valrlaam clearly shows we have films to avoid the merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN by nominator: there indeed fiction films about the country and no interest in my merge, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "People who boycott Israel"? Really? Is that a defining characteristic now, what people don't do, where they don't shop, etc.? — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 06:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was heading here to propose this myself. Non-defining characteristic. It is also likely that the categorisation could/should be removed from various of the people as not otherwise mentioned or referenced in their biographical article. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see this is a useful category. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign is notable, and the boycott is a notable and defining tactic of struggle and solidarity. However, AllyD raises the real point of practicality: it will be hard to find or add references, but the way to deal with that is to riase the question on the talk pages for those people rather than to remove the category. --Duncan (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Talk page queries as a strong enough way to deal with biographical categorisation not supported by article text and references. See the first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT. AllyD (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article itself looks fine in terms of referencing and discussion of those who've chosen to associate with it or not; as Duncan says, a notable campaign. AllyD (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is well defined categorization, and is not something that defines the individuals currently listed in the category. Peacock (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Duncan notes above, the boycott is a notable abd growing tactic. Performers and artists are coming under increasing pressure to decide one way or another on this, and some of the decisions have attracted widespread coverage. There is indeed a problem of sourcing with some of these entries; I am confident that I can address this in most cases, with solid reliable references for the fact and its significance. There are many others who could be added. RolandR (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, it's precisely because "Performers and artists are coming under increasing pressure to decide one way or another" that I do not believe merely signing onto such a boycott (literally or figuratively) elevates it beyond WP:OC#OPINION to a truly defining characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I checked 3 at random and none of the articles mentions any boycott of Israel. If "the boycott is a notable and growing tactic" then there should be an article on it including a list of supporters, not a category. Occuli (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not defining of a person in any meaningful way. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename Yes, I think Malik is right. If kept, the category would need to be renamed and repurposed in some way similar to Category:Anti-apartheid activists, someway that goes beyond a mere WP:OC#OPINION position of simply taking part in an increasingly widespread consumer, artistic or academic boycott, to something more defining for these individuals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as wholly subjective; poorly named and ill-thought out. Possibly a category could be crafted in this vein, but this category is not it. [email protected] (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but specify more exactly--at least some of the people entered have had significant roles in the current boycott. (or,if one preferrs, curent attempt at a boycott). I agree the title is awkward, Possibly 'People who have participated in boycotting Israel ? DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Chester Markel. - Darwinek (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is probably not a particularly defining characteristic for those included. I can see it somehow becoming some sort of activists category, but simply choosing to boycott Israel has the potential of being such a minor aspect of a person's life, it hardly seems like category material. Demi Moore boycotts Israel and that is so significant to Moore's persona that we categorize by it? Naomi Klein—my gosh, is there anything she doesn't boycott? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone who would be proud to be included. Padres Hana (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too easliy changed. I could boycott Israle today, stop my boycott tomorrow to buy some good Lox, and then start it up again on Wednesday. This is just not the think that lends itself to a category. Maybe a list, but not a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2011 (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.
