Category:Members of the National Assembly of Saint Kitts and Nevis[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clear duplication; not fussed which prevails, but clearly one category needs to be chosen and the other deleted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE or reverse merge. The UK categories are "UK MPs 2005-10". This is an unusual case where abbreviations are acceptable. If there is an accepted abbreviation, something like "Saint Kitts and Nevis MNAs" migfht be accpetable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 16 July 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:All film articles using the film date template[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: There are thousands of templates in Wikipedia and we don't have a corresponding "pages using <template>" category for most templates. This category currently (incorrectly) categorizes articles (not talk pages) under a wikiproject category. For info: There are other ways to find pages that use a particular template (for maintenance purposes) - e.g. use what-links-here. There are no significant inlinks to this category - i.e. afaics it isn't being used as part of some important wikiproject activity. DexDor(talk) 20:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a tracking category which seems to fine per other categories, and it's hidden too. It can't be used on the talkpage, as it's populated via the article, so it's not "incorrectly" cat'ing articles. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question Is there a valid argument for requiring a category to track what pages use a template that is not covered by simply using what-links-here on the template page? --Slivicon (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Courtesy ping: Lugnuts. As far as I know this category isn't being used for anything. My guess is that it was used to gauge usage of {{film date}} but whatever pet project that was is now dormant. The creator of the category hasn't answered questions about its purpose on its talk page which suggests low maintenance activity. If it has no current purpose, get rid of it. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do better than that. Why it it tracking use of the template? And is it being used for anything? Jason Quinn (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is 1,778 categories that are in Category:Tracking categories. This is just one of many. There is more information at Special:TrackingCategories. I know that this isn't a good argument to keep it but just further information if you want to look into the purpose of tracking categories. LizRead!Talk! 20:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD is a proposal to delete one (very unusual, if not unique) category - not to delete all tracking categories (many of which may serve useful purposes and don't cause any problem). DexDor(talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what tracking categories are. The point is, as discussed in DexDor's rationale, that tracking categories shouldn't exist indiscriminately. Lugnuts has had more than a fair chance to say how he/she is using this tracking category but has failed to do so. At this point is it reasonable to assume the category is not being used. (I'll be skeptical of any late-in-coming answer now so if that's wrong, I'd like to see some recent pre-debate diffs proving otherwise. An apology for not being more forthcoming would also be appreciated.) As somebody who tries to fix problems with maintenance categories, I see this category crufting up the list of hidden categories all the time. It's pointless. And I trust the closer will taken into account the question-begging nature of the keep rationale and the obtuse avoidance of saying what's being done with the category. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already clearly explained. It's not my fault you don't seem to understand. It's far from pointless. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not because of its obvious pointlessness then because of Lugnuts's being a [please insert your favourite insult] about it. Primaler (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Oh, please, teh drama. What I meant is this url: don't be a jerk. Also, who the hell do you think you are, issuing warnings like that? Primaler (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the, not teh. I can issue warnings to rude uncivil people like yourself. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you clearly can't use google. Happens to the best of us! Let alone you. Primaler (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because no convincing evidence has been given that the category serves an important purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 6 August 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. This is not worth holding up for listification, since the category only contains five articles: Ricardo Arjona, Pipedreams, Ivy Queen, Romeo Santos, and Selena. That's the only "list" that is produceable from the category. Obviously there are more ASCAP award winners than these five, so any list made from category contents would hardly be worthwhile. Of course, at any time anyone can begin writing a decent list.Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Selena received this award is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. This could be listified, but American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers#Awards refers to "a series of annual awards shows" which suggests that there have been a many more recipients than are currently in this category - it'd be better to create any such list directly from a RS. DexDor(talk) 19:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with listifying, but please don't delete before then. As discussed with admin Lquilter here, Category:ASCAP Award winners was created so that notable winners won't be excluded from the parent Category:Music award winners, which does qualify as a defining characteristic but only allows individual winners to be included via Subcategories. I'll try to prioritize creating the ASCAP list next month. Thanks for the nudge. —Patrug (talk) 13:01, 26 July 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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. One county small community with just 3 or less entries. Another CFD discussion involving other small Jersey communities can be found here[1]. ...William 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back to parent counties, unless a community (with clearly defined boundaires will have at least a dozen articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All The parent of these categories, Category:People from Burlington County, New Jersey and Category:People from Monmouth County, New Jersey, are being fully diffused and further review of the parents, of other articles that link to these places and of articles that link to unincorporated communities within these places, keep on turning up additional entries to be added to these categories. The categories also allow more effective navigation through the corresponding categories created for other places. Longtime consensus is that such diffused categories should remain diffused and there is no policy basis to the arbitrary insistence that all categories must have a minimum of 12 entries or be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, I've seen numerous discussions before in which there was consensus about not fully diffusing county categories by community. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All I don't think there is a consensus that diffused categories should remain diffused. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 22 July 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:rename as nominated, without prejudice to a new discussion about the additional plural "s". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term is "found object". There is no such thing as "found art". That term is gibberish. Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Both parent categories are "art" categories. DexDor(talk) 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DexDor—"found art" doesn't mean anything. It's nonsense. It is a mistake. It was an error from the day it was created. If you would prefer to delete the Category "Found art", that would be OK with me. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Found art" means (IMO, in normal English) art that has been found. "Found object" (in the absence of any category text - and editors can't be relied upon to read any such text) has a much wider meaning. P.S. shouldn't your target category be Category:Found objects?DexDor(talk) 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that the page "Found art" was moved to the page "Found object" in September of 2012.[2]. It is by the same reasoning that the corresponding Category needs moving or deletion. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that "found art" means, in plain English, art that has been found. But that is not what this Category is. This is not a collection of articles on works of art that have been found. This is (supposedly) a Category containing those articles relating to the found object in art. The classic example would be some of the works of art by Marcel Duchamp, for example Readymades. "Found art" does not have any special meaning. You suggest "Category:Artwork made from found objects". The problem here is that this Category is not just that. It is the Category containing those articles relating strongly tofound objects. If we really tried to put all articles on artworks made from found objects in this Category, there would be hundreds or thousands of articles. It is commonplace for found objects to be used in artworks. If this Category is to be meaningful it should contain those articles that substantially, according to good quality sources, relate to found objects. A mere mention in passing should not suffice as this is common art lingo. In order to tamper least with the Category structure I would suggest a simple move to the name "Category: Found object". Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be thought of as both a "topic" Category and an "example" Category. Most of the Category's contents are probably going to examples of artworks containing found objects. But there are also articles that relate to found objects in art. Found poetry (not presently in the Category) and Found photography can, I think, basically be thought of as offshoots of the concept of the "found object". Fountain (Duchamp) is clearly an "example". In truth, judgement has to be exercised as to what gets included and what gets excluded from this Category. I find "Category:Use of found objects in art" to be unnecessarily verbose. We are going to have to employ discernment as to what to include or exclude and I don't think your lengthier suggested title for the Category would help guide us in exercising discernment. But if others support "Category:Use of found objects in art" I can go along with that. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The well known term is Found object. People understand the term - it's been around for 100 years...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Found object art There seems in fact to be some divergence of terminology. Looking for "found object" and "art" together in book hits, I find that a decided majority use the phrase "found object art"; there's almost as many hits of "found art" as on "found object". In any case using the word "art" somewhere clarifies this as an art category. Seyasirt (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seyasirt—"Found object art" is a colloquialism. Poor quality sources inflate Google hits for that sequence of words. Academic sources and other good quality sources are unlikely to speak of "Found object art" because this is not a type of art. Many types of art incorporate "found objects". You say "In any case using the word 'art' somewhere clarifies this as an art category." This is unnecessary. We have an article on Found object, clarifying the meaning of the term. What sort of article could be mistakenly included in a "Category: Found object"? You say "there's almost as many hits of 'found art' as on 'found object'." We should not be perpetuating that misnomer. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not sure what "found art" means, found object is the term usually describing what's being categorized. "Found art" seems to also mean: some old master found at a jumble sale (this term was used that way in Antiques Roadshow), or what was dug up at Troy or in King Tut's tomb. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fairness there is some use of the term "found art" by what may seem to be good sources. But they are not really good sources. The article Found photography uses the term "found art" throughout. It even uses the term "found artist". (!) There is a source listed there for "A Hegelian Critique of Found Art and Conceptual Art". That would seem to be a good source. But is it? It is available on JSTOR. That would seem to be an endorsement. But the Tate is a better source. For "Found object" the MoMA website says in part: "Term applied in the 20th century to existing objects, manufactured or of natural origin, used in, or as, works of art. With the exception of the Ready-made, in which a manufactured object is generally presented on its own without mediation, the objet trouvé is most often used..." I have in my possession a book called "Artspeak", by Robert Atkins. It has an entry for the term "Found object". There is no mention of "found art" in that entry, and that would be another good quality source. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "found art" is "gibberish" is exaggerated. I personally prefer terminology within the field to lay terms, but it's perfectly clear that "found art" means "artworks incorporating 'found objects'". But it's that "incorporating" that is proving to be the sticking point, for me. The MOMA definition implies, as a rule, that "found objects' are not for the most part the artworks, but rather that they are components. To take an extreme example, The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millennium General Assembly is described by the Smithsonian as being made of "found objects", but the thing as a whole is only "found" in the sense that one day the garage doors were opened, and there it was. Personally I find Hampton insulted in a comparison of the construction of his work with pickling a shark or writing a name on a urinal. The point, in the end, is that nothing in the category is a found object. Seyasirt (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seyasirt—the idea of the "found object" has been an important part of visual art since the beginning of the twentieth century. The artist generally credited with introducing the idea is Marcel Duchamp. It would be hard to overestimate the influence of the idea on subsequent art activity—for better and for worse. According to the concept, "found objects" can stand on their own as artworks, even if unaltered by the artist. This is so simply because the artist made the declaration that the object is a work of art. Notice an artwork such as Bottle Rack. It is unaltered. The artist simply declared that it is an artwork. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, is it still "found" if you have to make a replica of it because the original was accidentally thrown out? Enquiring art theorists want to know. Anyway, I'm up on the whole notion of the objet trouvé. Personally I think of the whole thing as a kind of performance art, but that's just me, and I certainly lack the "MOMA Seal of Approval". It bores me, but chacun a son goût, as they also say in French art circles. the point is to come up with a category name that makes sense. Duchamp's readymades are a relatively small corner of "found object" artworks, perhaps because it is a joke that didn't bear repeating that many times, but be that as it may, we still have a category name which doesn't say that it's about art theory and which tends to imply that the things in it are found objects, when in fact they are either artworks, or people who messed with found objects, or media that often work from found objects.... Seyasirt (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Found object" is a term which refers to single non-art objects as well as collective non-art objects. The present Category name contains articles about single non-art objects and collective non-art objects. But it is the wrong name. Someone inadvertently titled the Category "Found art" when the correct nomenclature is "Found object". Reliable sources don't call these individual non-art objects "found art" and they don't call artworks made of a collection of non-art objects "found art". They call them "found objects". (Or they say that they are made of "found objects".) Sure—some errors can be found in sources. But we don't model our encyclopedia after errors. You are correct that an average reader knows what is meant by "found art". But it is an error. Shouldn't we choose to use the correct term? I'm not sure what your argument is. So far (in an earlier post) you have suggested that the Category be named "Found object art". Why? For what reason? The term itself—"found object"—is a term used in art. It is only used in art. There is no other sphere of activity to which the term "found object" has any applicability. The Category has a note at the top. Perhaps it is called a "hatnote". That hatnote reads: "The main article for this category is Found object." What more does the reader need? Editors can avail themselves of that link too. Editors and readers alike can find out what found object means. Additionally "Found object" is listed above all the alphabetically listed contents of the Category. This is supposed to be educational. Obviously this Category has to be monitored just in case someone puts something in it that doesn't belong in it. But that is par for the course. Please see, from a previous discussion, Talk:Found object#A source—ArtSpeak, by Robert Atkins. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would cease assuming that we don't know anything about this. I have no problem working directly from the MOMA definition of a "found object". My issue here is entirely that saying just "found object" as a category is unclear. Is it a category of "found objects"? No, although that's what it looks like. It is a category of art of/incorporating found objects, with some artists and genres/media thrown in. Seyasirt (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your suggested Category name? I am arguing that the title for this Category should be "Category: Found object". Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Some inappropriate articles are included though. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Rename The main article is Found object so the category should blindly follow. I would add an "s" to it though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you "add an 's' to it"? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you why. In my opinion the Category name should be "Found object". Why are you suggesting the plural "Found objects"? Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PLURAL: "Categories are almost always given plural titles." For instance, the main article is Tree but the category is Category:Trees because the presence of more than one article makes the grouping plural. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction has to be made between "trees" and "found objects", as concerns Categories. The "found object" (singular) is an idea in art. That idea has a range of meanings. At one end of the spectrum of meanings is the unaltered object presented as a work of art. By extension from that meaning, non-art objects in works of art are called "found objects". The plural use of the phrase is of secondary importance. The important idea is the presentation of the non-art object as a work of art, based upon nothing but the artist's declaration. This is not a Category for non-art objects found in art. These would be too numerous to mention. And merely mentioning them might not shed light on this phenomenon in modern art. Rather this is a Category for all articles that strongly relate to this concept in visual art. In this Category we should have the article New materials in 20th-century art and the article Assemblage (art). Of course we should have all of Marcel Duchamp's Readymades such as Bottle Rack, Prelude to a Broken Arm, Fountain, Bicycle Wheel, and others. In its original incarnation it is the idea that matters most, not the object(s) themselves. This is a Category containing articles relating to that idea. The best sources—the Tate, MoMA, and Robert Atkins' book ArtSpeak are talking about the concept of the "found object" in art. The heading or the title for these entries in these sources is in the singular: "Found object". Their entries are not merely giving examples of "found objects" in art. It would be fairly meaningless to collect instances of "found objects" in art in this Category. The usefulness of this Category is in assisting the reader in expanding their understanding of the referred-to phenomenon in modern art. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you feel more strongly about the one letter change than I do. We'll have to agree to (very marginally) disagree.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Category pertains to the phenomenon of the found object in art, rather than the instances of found objects in art. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional commentary: A way to think about the Category under discussion would be its relation to Categories such as Category:Art materials, Category:Painting materials, Category:Sculpture materials. Such Categories literally pertain to items from which art is built. A considerable proportion of such materials can be bought in an "Art supply store". Unfortunately we don't have an article called Art supply store. (We have Flax Art Supply Stores, Pearl Art and Craft Supply, Utrecht Art Supply, Michaels Arts and Crafts Stores.) When art is made from materials not expected to be used to make art those components are sometimes called "Found objects". We are discussing a name for a Category pertaining to materials that would not appear in the Categories I mention above, nor would they likely to be purchasable in an "art supply store". Furthermore such materials or items are very commonly used in the visual arts from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. Therefore in many if not most cases it makes little sense to gather together in a Category the instances in which such "found objects" are used in art. High profile instances would be an exception, thus Picasso's Bull's Head should appear in this Category. Articles that allude to non-art-supply-store materials should appear in the Category we are discussing (New materials in 20th-century art, Assemblage (art)). It is a concept in visual art that almost anything can be a component of a work of art. This is a Category to be used by the reader as a resource to explore the applicability of that concept to visual art from the early 20th century to the present. Judgement obviously has to be exercised as to what gets included and what gets excluded from this Category. I think we can err on the side of inclusion although I think we should not want to give undue weight to very minor instances. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 8 August 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:1497 establishments in the Kingdom of Valencia[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, Valencia was one of the component realms of the Crown of Aragon and it's highly unlikely that it has ever been regarded as a country of its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Tim! (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - i'm not an expert on Iberian history, so i don't know to tell whether it was or wasn't controlled by Aragon. I do however strongly object to merge into Spanish category tree.GreyShark (dibra) 09:46, 13 August 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:Delete. IMO it was created without minimal thinking. When I see a category which lumps together National Bolshevik Party and Moscow Helsinki Group I smell something is deeply wrong. "Opposition" is an extremely vague and volatile term. So how come Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolsheviks) (which was in opposition to the Tsarist rule of the Russian Empire, as you may know) is not listed here? Seriously, this category must be ruthlessly dismembered and reclassified according to standard political/organizational traits. -M.Altenmann >t 04:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the groups that are in this category actual political parties? DexDor(talk) 20:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, e.g. the Moscow Helsinki Group is not a political party. But this is an article that doesn't belong in this category anyway, because it's not an opposition group per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Politics of Russia as suggested by DexDor; "opposition groups" begs the question "opposed to what?" and Russian opposition groups mean what: "Opposed to Russia? the Russian government? its policies - all of them or any of them? or groups that opposed to anything, where such groups are based in Russia?" and then there's "when?" Usually "opposition" is not infinite in time, but if it's defining - it cannot be a "current" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind merging to Category:Politics of Russia instead of to Category:Political parties in Russia. I would propose to do the merge manually though, because it's likely that many articles are already in another (grand)child category of the merge target, for those articles we only need to remove the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 17 July 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.
