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:RfD discussion now closed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notification only, for those who tend to be active at CfD. The category redirect People from Salem is being discussed at RfD. There isn't explicit guidance on the subject, but category redirects are usually discussed at CfD, since they're not true redirects. I tend to close new RfDs on them and point the nominator this way, but since discussion has already started on this item, I thought I'd just leave a notification here. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: It doesn't seem very meaningful to group Greek and Roman rebellions together. There is no parent Category:Classical history. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Renameto Category:Rebellions in ancient history and re-parent to Category:Ancient history. Ancient means pre-700 AD, including "late antique". This is somewhat broader than the present category, but that is no harm. One of the sub-categories concerns the Seleucid Empire, where Greek emperors were ruling non-Greeks. This might usefully be moved up to be a direct child of my target. There is a well developed tree for Category:Classical antiquity. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per Peterkingiron. It is usual to categorise topics by period, and rebellions in ancient history seems a perfectly valid extension of that. SFB 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice alternative indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
As pointed out in the prior discussion (and other similar cases), plant or animal species are not constrained by national borders — an animal doesn't need a passport to cross from Ukraine into Russia, and a tree doesn't need a visa to scatter its acorns over the border into Poland. So individual country is not a helpful or useful or WP:DEFINING point of categorization, but just pointless category bloat — flora and fauna should be categorized by continent, not individual country. Merge per nom (Ukraine technically speediable as it's been deleted before). Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are not confined by continent either, so maybe just Insects of Earth? Or maybe an explanation why continents hold, when all your arguments against countries apply to the continents also. In fact, many plants and animals have distributions better defined by oceans and latitude than by continents, so the coast of Europe where a climate is moderated by a specific oceanic current have a similar flora, which, in turn, dictates aspects of the fauna. This is the same for areas of other continents. To restate, "Plants and animals are not constrained by continental borders -- an animal doesn't need passport to cross from Europe to Africa, from North America to South America, from Australia to Asia, and a tree doesn't need a visa to scatter its pollen over the border into Asia from Europe. So individual continent is not a helpful or useful or WP:DEFINING point of categorization, but just pointless category bloat -- flora and fauna should be categorized by planet, not individual continent." MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt or leave as a category redirect, with an explanation as to why it is not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and consensus in previous cfds. Oculi (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per my previous comments: a category system based on political units is not suitable for species, but this is a very useful idea to build a list for, where we can contextualise the information with things such as areas the species are present in, how common they are, areas previously inhabited, IUCN status, etc. SFB 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 (no merge of the contents is necessary—all of the contents were articles about individuals who were not weapons designers).Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the companies cat, purging out any individuals (unless they were kn fact manufacturers). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:18th-century architecture in the United States[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:Merge. Many of the topics here are really multi century. So do we really need to break out American architecture by century when this is not done for any other country? If this gains consensus, a few more categories will be affected.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- but also to the "buildings and structures" tree, which is I think split by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles like Benjamin James House are already in a building category. My plan will be to go thought all of these and see which are about buildings and which are about architecture. And add or subtract categories as needed. That will not be a small task. that's why I'm not nominating all of these at once since the cleanup is time consuming. If anyone wants to add to the nomination they can do that. I don't think the reasons are going to change for the other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About the additional merge category of "buildings and structures" tree, which is I think split by century. Actually not in this case, which is why each of these should be discussed individually. In this case, the only two articles are already in the correct century categories. The categories need to have the article moved in to the correct century categories since the individual buildings are generally only going to be in one century and not two based on completion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you'd really need to add the other "XXth-century architecture in the United States" categories to the nomination to make is a viable discussion, wouldn't you? Nominating one in isolation won't work. To be honest, I agree that mpst of the contents are multi-century, while the individual buildings are better fitted into the Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 18th century etc. extensive category trees. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this discussion is winding down I'll add that for the past week I have been working to make sure that all of the articles here are in the correct building category. If I'm lucky this will finish in the next week or so. This requires reviewing and possibility editing thousands of categories. So a group nomination is inappropriate unless someone is going to do the required cleanup. We have manual work required to cleanup closed discussions going back to April of last year! So it seems reasonable to to nominate these one at a time as the needed cleanup is completed or possible. Of course if any editors would like to do the work and nominate the remainder have at it. In the mean time, givin the support this probably should move forward. The other likely could be done as speedies following cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 February 2015
@Vegaswikian: Neat work, I see there is just 1 cat & 2 pages remaining. Saltbox is within Category:18th-century architecture, but don't Colonial and Federal categories need to be merged up to that one as well? – FayenaticLondon 09:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Yea, I'm still working on the cleanup. I just did those based on your comment. If the discussion is closed, I'll continue working on the many subcategories that still need to be reviewed to make sure the contents are actually in a good buildings category. Maybe in a month, I'll finish the work! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: duplication Egeymi (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Category:Slovenian magazines and leave as category redirect as easily confused for a missing category. SFB 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 as identical scope. SFB 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 especially in the absence of clarification by the nominator. – FayenaticLondon 00:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: move academic journals, magazines, newspapers, and books into subcats in Publications by language. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is just a parenting exercise you can do yourself. That said, I don't think they should be taken out of the mass media tree. There may be an argument for moving Category:Mass media to simply Category:Media, given it's common interpretation that way and it's many child categories with that name. Also note that Category:Publications is not part of the media tree. SFB 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Publications" are "media", but not necessarily "mass media". Should we not have a category for national newspapers, radio, television, etc. distinct from "media" and "publications"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand the proposal. The proposed subcat "Publications by language" & various siblings already exist and seem to be fully populated. As for "Mass media", this term is used rather than "Media" because of ambiguity – "category:media" could refer to Wikipedia media I.e. images, audio and video files held in Wikipedia. – FayenaticLondon 00:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use of just the term "media" has other possible problems. We don't want to repeatedly have to fish out the various members of Category:Art materials from this category. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. This is already done - the categories you suggest are all already subcategories of Category:Mass media by language, which is a logical parent category for them. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 (as was pointed out, no merge of the contents is necessary). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The problem with this is that short film is not a type of film that directors specialize in to the exclusion of other types — it's a type of film that the vast majority of film directors have made at some point in their careers, which means that this category technically should include nearly every film director who has a Wikipedia article at all. Which makes it unhelpful as a point of categorization, and virtually unmaintainable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title is also unclear. Is it about film directors who aren't tall? Maybe this guy has directed a film? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 14:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Film directors. Directors are likely to make films of various lengths in the course of their careers. Making short ones is not characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Directors of animated shorts -- esp. outside of Hollywood -- tend not to make animated features, ever, just because it would be so time-consuming. That's just an observation, not an oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Short films are not really a common speciality for certain directors, but rather a form used by many film directors, so this doesn't really help differentiate film directors from the main category. SFB 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that an "upmerge" would not be helpful in this particular case; as all of the directors in question should already be in a more appropriate subcategory of Category:Film directors by nationality, in most cases an upmerge would result in unwanted duplicate categorization. No objection to upmerging if anyone in the batch happens to not already be appropriately subcategorized, of course — but for anyone who is already properly subcatted, we don't want them upped to Category:Film directors. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not clear that the skills aren't basically the same. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other Category:Actors sub-categories. --Truniper (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per the past five hundred attempts at quibbling with the naming format of "actors/actresses" content, the issue is that "actresses", not "female actors", is the terminology that's actually in use in the real world to refer to women who act. The awards are called "Best Actress", not "Best Female Actor"; the press coverage refers to them as actresses, not female actors, and on and so forth. Oppose move and request speedy close. Bearcat (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And the Academy Award for Best Female Actor goes to... Bazinga. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 15:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Actress" is still by far the most common phrase to specifically describe a woman who acts. As I've previously said, I'd be happy to change if there is a seachange towards using "female actor". I would expect major awards to be renamed, or at least publicly criticised for using "actress", at that point. Also, while women may sometimes be referred to as actors, I don't think that warrants us to apply the novel label "female actors" to denote that difference. SFB 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- "Actress" is the correct English feminine of actor (a male word). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'm sure we have discussed this very topic at great length quite recently (2014?) but I can't find the discussion. Oculi (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – as above. Common name. Neutralitytalk 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 duplicate nominations, please - the discussion should all be at the same place, not split between two dates. BencherliteTalk 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per Feb 1 nomination 'winner' may not apply to some records. I disagree as to the desired place to relocate it though. I think "setters" is better than "breakers" or "holders" because it is more inclusive than either of them and is the easiest to fact-check. "Break" would only apply if a previous record had been set, "hold" would only apply if nobody had surpassed the record, which is too hard to verify. Concerns about bulk seem trivial because only notable people have articles on Wikipedia so we're effectively only going to be including notable record-setters in the category, not just anyone who is listed as having set a record. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Oppose instead create a new subcategory/stubtype for North America. We have a Category:Americas and Americas is a geographic region, so seems like a good organizational level. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It was created initially as a parent category for North America, South America, Caribbean, and Central American stub categories, and for those rare stubs such as American Cordillera which belong in several of those categories. That similar root categories don't also exist for other stub types is a case of "WP:OTHERDONTEXIST" rather than any more pressing reason forpossible deletion. Grutness...wha? 08:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
changing to support - on second thoughts, it may well have outlived its usefulness, given that it contains only one non-subcategorised stub.Grutness...wha? 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecating the stub template while keeping the organizational category level would solve that problem -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no stub template - the category has been added directly to the one item it contains. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to match continent stubs categories. There is no overall Americas stubs category in Category:Americas or Category:Stubs by region, and there does not appear to be a need for one. The single page in this category can be added to both North and South. – FayenaticLondon 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: There are several more standards besides Exif used in file metadata links, so the redirect category (rcat) template that populates this category has been renamed to {{R from file metadata link}}. This is a maintenance page move to synchronize with the rcat. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The general purpose of the category is to gather metadata redirects, not metadata redirects of a certain subtype. SFB 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
