February 21
Category:Kosovo music
- 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. Kbdank71 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo music to Category:Kosovar music
- Nominator's rationale: Correct adjective form. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kosovo people by occupation
- 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. Kbdank71 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo people by occupation to Category:Kosovar people by occupation
- Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_18#Category:People_of_Kosovo. Also rename all subcats to match. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support for speedily renaming all of the Kosovo-related categories to their proper name. As the creator of the categories, I was following past examples knowing perfectly well that Kosovar is indeed the proper name for someone from Kosovo.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 06:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Kleinzach ( talk) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kosovo Serbs
- 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. Kbdank71 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo Serbs to Category:Kosovar Serbs
- Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_18#Category:People_of_Kosovo. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary race/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Being a Kosovar Serb is certainly defining and will be all the moreso if Kosovo's independence gains wide recognition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kosovo people by ethnic or national origin
- 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. Kbdank71 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Kosovar people by ethnic or national origin
- Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_18#Category:People_of_Kosovo. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Ships of the Union Castle Line
- 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. Kbdank71 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ships of the Union Castle Line to Category:Ships of the Union-Castle Line
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. I missed the hyphen when I created it. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Adds a hyphen, to match the name of the shipping line in question ( Union-Castle Line). Possibly speedy rename, but wasn't sure. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy rename - obvious typo/punctuation error. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support speedy rename - hyphen seems to appear in sources, though I would not have expected it to. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy rename - obvious typo/punctuation error. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Texas A&M University agencies
- 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. Kbdank71 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Texas A&M University agencies (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a Texas A&M University agency. The articles being added to this are all over the place. Some are state agencies that are connected to Texas A&M University System (which is not the same as Texas A&M University, which is also under TAMUS). Such agencies are already more properly categorized under Category:Texas A&M University System. Others are things like the A&M student radio stations and university press, which aren't agencies at all but departments. They should either be under Category:Texas A&M University or Category:Texas A&M University student organizations. Collectonian ( talk) 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- no strong feelings either way. . . do you want to change the categories back to the way they were. . . Oldag07 ( talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
Television by country
- 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. Kbdank71 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Category:Television in Australia -> Category:Australian television
- Category:Television in Canada -> Category:Canadian television
- Category:Television in Ireland -> Category:Irish television
- Category:Television in New Zealand -> Category:New Zealand television
- Category:Television in the United Kingdom -> Category:British television
- Category:Television in the United States -> Category:American television
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move back to the original name of the categories before the undiscussed moves made by 16@r ( talk · contribs), and to bring them back in line with the naming convention of Category:Television by country. Tim! ( talk) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: The subcategories of
Category:Television by country are badly named. Most of the subcategories of
Category:Categories by country are populated by categories named "topic in X" (where X is a country, for example:
Category:Abortion in the United Kingdom,
Category:Corruption in the United Kingdom,
Category:Internet in the United Kingdom). So the topic television shouldn't be an exception. Plus the main article associated to
Category:British television is named
Television in the United Kingdom (British television redirects to Television in the United Kingdom).
16@r (
talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should nominate all the categories for renaming though CFD rather than a unilateral process. Tim! ( talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, as for examples, it is not so clear-cut: counter examples are Category:British culture and Category:British radio. Tim! ( talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily a requirement that Category:Television by country have the same subcategory-naming format as Category:Abortion by country does. The only requirement is that the subcategories within Category:Television by country are named in the same format as each other. Bearcat ( talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:British culture is categorised in
Culture by nationality which is not a
"by country" category but a
"by nationality" category, so I wouldn't compare it to
Category:British television. As for
Category:British radio (which is categorised in
Radio by country which, as
Television by country, is
"by country" category), I also intended to rename it to match the main associated article (
Radio in the United Kingdom, there's no article named
British radio, but it could possibly be a redirection).
- "The only requirement is that the subcategories within Category:Television by country are named in the same format as each other."
- Yes, they all should be named "Television in X" 16@r ( talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:British culture is categorised in
Culture by nationality which is not a
"by country" category but a
"by nationality" category, so I wouldn't compare it to
Category:British television. As for
Category:British radio (which is categorised in
Radio by country which, as
Television by country, is
"by country" category), I also intended to rename it to match the main associated article (
Radio in the United Kingdom, there's no article named
British radio, but it could possibly be a redirection).
I added a discussion about it on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). 16@r ( talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:NCCAT#Categories by country, which has various forms for category titles that are sorted by country; none of which are Adjective somethingoranothers. Suggest CFD-ing the rest of
Category:Television by country to bring it inline with the naming convention.
Neier (
talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look under nationality where radio is listed: WP:NCCAT#Categories by nationality. Why should television be different to radio? Tim! ( talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose these should be in X, rather than adjectival because many things that are in one place come from somewhere else. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Prima donnas
- 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. Kbdank71 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Prima donnas (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this category for deletion as a result of this discussion. Essentially, it all boils down to this: this is a case of very subjective categorisation, as no one really has a good definition of what a prima donna is: is she a diva who throws temper tantrums? A distinguished female singer? Need she be a singer of opera? Major problem is this: in the old days a prima donna was simply the lead soprano of the company, regardless of whether she was "distinguished" or not, with the result that this category could contain a huge of amount of singers. Delete as overcategorisation. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Who decide what is the boundary between a "normal" female singer and a "prima donna"? The category is POV. -- Al Pereira (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and populate with those women who were the lead female singer of an opera company, which is what a prima donna is and the difference between them and a "normal" female singer. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That linked discussion at the Opera project has more than a whiff of collusion about it, and I remind the members of that project that CFD is not a vote. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No it's not a vote. It's a discussion. and as you can see, the possibility of proposing deletion was discussed quite a lot at the Opera Project. It was also discussed on the talk page for the category itself [1] by me and another editor who's coming more from a pop music perspective. Why is it 'collusion' to have a thoughtful discussion about the subject and to notify a relevant project about the subsequent deletion discussion? It would have been immensely helpful if the original re-naming proposal discussion [2] had notified relevant projects for some input. Why was that not done? In article deletion discussions, it's quite common to notify the relevant Wikipedia projects Voceditenore ( talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having a discussion amongst the project to decide what you want and concluding it with "If we all vote I think the recent renaming should be no problem." has an unsavory smell. As far as notifying people, how about notifying the people who participated in the recent CFD that the category was under further discussion? Otto4711 ( talk) 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are misunderstanding me? When I wrote "If we all vote I think the recent renaming should be no problem" what I meant was that given sufficient interest in the CFD it would be legitimate to have it reconsidered. Why does that have (quote) "an unsavory smell" (unquote)? Discussions on the Opera Project are centralized discussions about opera. They are open to everyone. They are not conspiracies. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, for heaven's sake, the lead female singer of every opera company ever formed? That would be one massive category - indeed, so massive as to be useless. Besides, start going round and asking people what prima donna means at random - you'll get a thousand different answers. There is no standard definition, as you seem to think there is: that's part of the problem. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- " As far as notifying people, how about notifying the people who participated in the recent CFD that the category was under further discussion?" I just did (apart from those who are already participating here). I also notified the other participant in the discussion on the category's talk page. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've also put a notice on the talk page of the Prima donna article. If there are any other relevant article talk pages or projects, just let me know and I'll be happy to notify them as well. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The 'Keep' comment by Otto4711 illustrates the problem as set out by Moreschi - that is, that the concept of 'prima donna' is highly subjective. Otto4711's purpose would be better served by Category:Lead sopranos of opera companies which would be explicit, but pretty useless - and hence an overcategorisation in itself. I don't see that Category:Prima donnas can serve any useful encyclopaedic function. By the way, I am a member of the Opera project but I don't see why that should inhibit me - or any other members -, as Otto4711 suggests, from offering opinion. Does having an interest in a topic disqualify one's views, somehow? -- Smerus ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Otto's point is taken, but I think, as one of the other project people says, Moreschi's "definition" is incorrect anyway. "Prima donna" (first lady) relates to the roles sung as well as a position in a company (now hardly relevant, as there have few permanent companies at the top level for a century or more). Anyone who has sung the role of, eg, Tosca in a proper production could reasonably said to have been a "prima donna", but that casts the net far too wide, and includes virtually all notable operatic sopranos at least, & probably Mezzo-sopranos as well. What they need, and don't have, is Category:Operatic sopranos , or even Category:Classical sopranos, plus the others. Category:Operatic baritones and tenors exist, but not the female ranges. There is Category:Sopranos, but this includes Joan Baez etc. I don't see how a deletion here will help! They need to set up the new categories, and populate them. Rename to Category:Female opera singers as a holding measure. Johnbod ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If we want to be really technical Prima Donna is part of the Convenienze but Moreschi is substantially correct in his presentation. I assume you don't consider German companies to be 'top level', but actually there are still a lot of permanent companies. Opera singer category reform has been discussed in the past, see here, but it's a huge undertaking which no-one has wanted to take on. (At the time of the discussion last summer, there were 1,000+ articles in 122 categories.) In practice the basic categories like Category:Sopranos, Category:Tenors are 80 to 90 percent operatic. It might be better if these categories were de-populated and subcategories like Category:Operatic sopranos, Category:Classical sopranos, Category:Jazz sopranos etc used instead but who is going to do it? -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not me for sure! I appreciate what you say, but I think my "holding rename" is preferable to just leaving that category a male-only zone. It would probably be easier, if your %s are correct (which on a quick look seems to be the case), to rename the existing cats to "Operatic" and move other sopranos etc to new categories above them. The big numbers are in the "by nationality" cats, which aren't affected - you might only have to move 100-odd in fact.
Johnbod (
talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the 'holding rename' achieves anything. The singers are already (or should be) in Category:Sopranos. Regarding singer cat reform we are talking about all voice types not just sopranos - and there are many problems with the 'by nationality' cats. I should also point out that the figures I gave here are by cat, not by article. Singer articles almost always belong to multiple cats. (We may be getting off topic here, but I'd be happy to help if you want to pursue this, perhaps on the Opera Project?) -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not me for sure! I appreciate what you say, but I think my "holding rename" is preferable to just leaving that category a male-only zone. It would probably be easier, if your %s are correct (which on a quick look seems to be the case), to rename the existing cats to "Operatic" and move other sopranos etc to new categories above them. The big numbers are in the "by nationality" cats, which aren't affected - you might only have to move 100-odd in fact.
Johnbod (
talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with using "prima donna" in a category name is that it has a very different meaning in popular usage than its precise formal definition — to an opera specialist, obviously, a prima donna is the lead singer of an opera company, but to Joe Q. Public, a prima donna is any female celebrity who ever threw a public temper tantrum. So this would need constant monitoring to ensure that people weren't adding POV inclusions that don't fit the category's actual intention. Category names should be unambiguous. This isn't. Delete, but do implement Johnbod's very good suggestion instead. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- Per Moreschi's and Bearcat's rationale. Nrswanson ( talk) 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Prima Donna means "First lady" (Italian). There is a need for opera singer categories. It should be possible to exclude celebrities who throw tantrums by a suitable headnote limiting the category to operatic leading ladies. The question is perhaps whether "Female operaa singers" will not be adequate. This avoids the POV problem of who are "leading" ladies. It may well need to be divided into sopranos, mezzo, and contralto. Those, who are not leading ladies, are likely to be NN and hence will not warrant having articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- As Moreschi has correctly explained above, this is a technical term, popularly used in the modern world in a different, vague, secondary sense. It's not useful as a category - either as a list of leading sopranos of opera companies that have existed during the last 400 years, or as a list of celebrated (and sometimes badly behaved) female singers. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; inherently POV; should never have been created. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this name was originally proposed as an alternative for the "Divas" category as popular singers were being put into the latter. I said at the time I didn't think "Prima donnas" was a viable alternative because of its negative connotations in popular discourse. I still think there could be a place for such a category on Wiki though, I just can't think of an appropriate name offhand. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
(or possibly rename to Category:Female opera singers)for the following reasons:
- There is no clear definition even within its use in writing about opera. In the past it has referred to: (a) the principal female singers in an opera company regardless of the quality of the company or the quality of the singer (b) the classification of roles, i.e. Aida would be a "prima donna soprano role", while Amneris would be a "prima donna mezzo-soprano" role and (c) for a "star" singer. However because of the connonations which the word now carries and the fact that major opera singers don't usually 'belong' to a specific company anymore, opera companies never use this term now. It occasionally appears in modern opera biographies or fan sites, usually with the meaning 'star', or in opera reviews or articles but usually with the meaning of an "opera star who is also a temperamental pest". Which brings me to...
- The term now carries way too much semantic baggage. Its primary usage is now in the non-operatic sense where it has become inherently pejorative. Just google "prima donna" in the news. [3] It is almost invariably used in the non-operatic sense. And it is used for men and women. In fact, it tends to be used more for men. I've seen it used for politicians, sports men and women, company CEO's, fashion designers and even President Musharraf (!).
- The only way that subjectivity for category members can be avoided (i.e. eliminating the criteria of "distinguished" or "leading") is to reduce the definition used for the category to any female singer who has sung a principal role in an opera house. What is the use of that? Female opera singers who have never sung a principal role in a professional (as opposed to an amateur or student) production are highly unlikely to pass the notability test. (Plus, you can't start basing it on singing in a "leading opera house", again subjective and impossible to define adequately.) The category then becomes huge and congruent with all female opera singers in Wikipedia, yet the members of it are 'branded' with a term that for the reasons given in 1. and 2. is not appropriate.
I personally agree that Category:Female opera singers could be a useful one. For one thing, it would avoid the issue of non-operatic singers who are still classifiable as sopranos, i.e. Joan Baez. It would provide a holding space until the opera singer categories can be overhauled (which is a massive job).But whatever solution is used, Category:Prima donnas has got to go. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)- changed my mind about possibly renaming to Category:Female opera singers, on thinking about it further. There are only about 100 pages currently in the Prima donnas category. Most of us writing opera articles weren't even aware of that category (or its predecessor Divas) and never added it to articles.) Also, we don't have a congruent category of Male opera singers, although I notice that there are Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers. Rather than adding yet another layer. I think it would be better to just make sure all opera singer articles are at least in Category:Opera singers and their relevant voice category, e.g. Category:Tenors, Category:Sopranos, etc. Or at some point Category:Operatic tenors etc. if anyone wants to take that kind of reorganization in hand. But as Kleinzach pointed out, it's a huge undertaking. Let's just delete Prima donnas for now. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or rename to Category:Female opera singers - Per much of the discussion above, "Prima donnas", like "Divas" before it, seems vague since it has multiple meanings in different communities -- opera, music generally, and even general terms for women. The opera-precise definition is unnecessary categorization by performance or role within a company or opera. Category:Female opera singers fixes the problem of vagueness and fills a need -- I'm surprised it doesn't exist already. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Opera singers are defined by vocal range (soprano, mezzo, contralto. tenor, baritone, bass etc.) not sex. This is clear if you read any article in WP on opera - or any book. Category:Female opera singers / Category:Male opera singers would each have 500+ items. I can't think of any practical use for these categories. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete entirely subjective. I disagree with Lquilter of the need for dividing opera singers by sex any more than other professions we don't divide by sex. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and listify same as for any DIVA category that started my interest in this. These categories are just ripe for abuse as fans of these folks seem to add them regardless of validity or definition. As a suggestion, I would support a well reffed list that is used for basis of inclusion in the category - "this category denotes those ___ as included in ____ list", if your diva/prima donna, etc isn't included in that list an editor will remove it from the category. As categories are useful I generally would like to see them used for this but the diva categories seem to be a magnet for unsupported inclusion so we need to be extremely clear and vigilant for them to remain useful. I would change my support if my concerns were proven to be met. Benji boi 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Subjective. Will never be NPOV. -- Folantin ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kaiser-i-Hind recipients
- 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: listify and delete. Kbdank71 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Kaiser-i-Hind recipients (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - overcategorization by non-defining "distinguished service"-style award, similar to other such service awards that have been deleted. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and listify - Looking at it makes it clear that it is an award that recognizes achievements, rather than defines someone. Gandhi is not known as "the person who accepted and then returned his Kaiser-i-Hind award". -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
People from Baltic governorates
- 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: relisted on feb 27. Kbdank71 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Category:People from Estland to Category:People from the Governorate of Estonia
- Category:People from Livonia to Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia
- Category:People from Courland to Category:People from the Courland Governorate, Category:People from Courland Governorate, or Category:People from the Governorate of Courland
Currently the three categories list people from the geographic regions of northern Estonia, Livonia, and Courland before the independence of Latvia and Estonia in 1918, going as far back as the Middle Ages. The proposed categories will group individuals by specific governorates of the Russian Empire. I will create new categories for the pre-Imperial Russian era when necessary. See also a related discussion at WT:BALTIC#Categorization. Olessi ( talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for asking, but this seems like clear WP:OCAT to me. The categories are already small by the standards of the "people from..." tree. What would be the purpose of this? I accept there may be other examples where such categories are effectively divided by time, but I don't think this is to generally encouraged - it hardly makes finding a person easier. There is only one other person in the project disciussion, & he doesn't seem that bothered either way. Johnbod ( talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Alternatively, at least Category:People from Estland could be moved to Category:People from Esthonia. The former province/governorate consisted only of what is now northern Estonia, while modern southern Estonia was part of Livonia. User:Martintg and I agreed that "Esthonia" was used more frequently to refer to the province than "Estland". Modern historians usually use "Estonia" to refer to the former northerly province, but Category:People from Estonia seems too easily confused with Category:Estonian people. Olessi ( talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename Category:People from Estland only. This particular category ought to be moved for reasons of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "Estland" is the German/Danish term for "Estonia", while "Esthonia" is the older english term that fell out of use before 1920. My preference is for Category:People from Estonia. Note in 1917 the Russian Provisional Government expanded the Governorate of Est(h)onia (today northern Estonia) to absorb the northern part of Livonia, hence that was how the whole territory of modern Estonia got its name. However if you believe it would be confused with Category:Estonian people, then Category:People from Esthonia would be second choice. Martintg ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it alone The probelm with this is that they were not always Russian governorates. Courland was at one period an independent Duchy, and most were at another period Swedish provinces. Still earlier they belionged to the Teutonic Knights. We have recently discussed People from Birmingham (or Birmingham, England). I think we have people from Worcestershire, so why not people from Livonia? The situation is complcated by the fact that the old provinces and modern nations are not co-extensive, but that is a problem with which we have to learn to live. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about " Category:People from Estland" and the requirement to use English in the naming convention? Martintg ( talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename although more verbose, they are more accurate. Livonia is still a region and people can be from there today, e.g., Estland is German/Scandinavian term for Estonia - use English, Esthonia is an English archaism and was used to refer to the geographical place regardless of the political entity located there: like Servia is archaic English for Serbia. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:City academies in England
- 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. Kbdank71 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:City academies in England to Category:Academies in England
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The schools which were previously called "city academies" are now known as "academies" - see Academy (England) - so the category name should be changed. The subcategory Category:Academies in London already reflects the new name. PamD ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fear that we must rename. The name change was presumably because some of them were not in cities. The problem is that there are other institutions that use the name "academy", such as the
Royal Academy of Music and the
Royal Academy. The main article thus needs an "otheruses" template added, if it is to be allowed to retain its present name. Otherwise the main article and the category should become
Academy (English school), or such like.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Useful comments. I've added a hatnote to the Academy (England) page, and also convinced myself, from govt website, that Academies are indeed England-specific not UK-wide. I think the Category page could usefully have an explanatory note. The article at Academy (England) has had this name since December 2005 with no objections raised, so I think it could stay at that title. PamD ( talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
February 21
Category:Kosovo music
- 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. Kbdank71 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo music to Category:Kosovar music
- Nominator's rationale: Correct adjective form. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kosovo people by occupation
- 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. Kbdank71 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo people by occupation to Category:Kosovar people by occupation
- Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_18#Category:People_of_Kosovo. Also rename all subcats to match. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support for speedily renaming all of the Kosovo-related categories to their proper name. As the creator of the categories, I was following past examples knowing perfectly well that Kosovar is indeed the proper name for someone from Kosovo.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 06:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Kleinzach ( talk) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kosovo Serbs
- 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. Kbdank71 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo Serbs to Category:Kosovar Serbs
- Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_18#Category:People_of_Kosovo. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary race/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Being a Kosovar Serb is certainly defining and will be all the moreso if Kosovo's independence gains wide recognition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kosovo people by ethnic or national origin
- 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. Kbdank71 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kosovo people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Kosovar people by ethnic or national origin
- Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_18#Category:People_of_Kosovo. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Ships of the Union Castle Line
- 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. Kbdank71 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ships of the Union Castle Line to Category:Ships of the Union-Castle Line
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. I missed the hyphen when I created it. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Adds a hyphen, to match the name of the shipping line in question ( Union-Castle Line). Possibly speedy rename, but wasn't sure. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy rename - obvious typo/punctuation error. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support speedy rename - hyphen seems to appear in sources, though I would not have expected it to. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy rename - obvious typo/punctuation error. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Texas A&M University agencies
- 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. Kbdank71 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Texas A&M University agencies (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a Texas A&M University agency. The articles being added to this are all over the place. Some are state agencies that are connected to Texas A&M University System (which is not the same as Texas A&M University, which is also under TAMUS). Such agencies are already more properly categorized under Category:Texas A&M University System. Others are things like the A&M student radio stations and university press, which aren't agencies at all but departments. They should either be under Category:Texas A&M University or Category:Texas A&M University student organizations. Collectonian ( talk) 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- no strong feelings either way. . . do you want to change the categories back to the way they were. . . Oldag07 ( talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
Television by country
- 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. Kbdank71 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Category:Television in Australia -> Category:Australian television
- Category:Television in Canada -> Category:Canadian television
- Category:Television in Ireland -> Category:Irish television
- Category:Television in New Zealand -> Category:New Zealand television
- Category:Television in the United Kingdom -> Category:British television
- Category:Television in the United States -> Category:American television
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move back to the original name of the categories before the undiscussed moves made by 16@r ( talk · contribs), and to bring them back in line with the naming convention of Category:Television by country. Tim! ( talk) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: The subcategories of
Category:Television by country are badly named. Most of the subcategories of
Category:Categories by country are populated by categories named "topic in X" (where X is a country, for example:
Category:Abortion in the United Kingdom,
Category:Corruption in the United Kingdom,
Category:Internet in the United Kingdom). So the topic television shouldn't be an exception. Plus the main article associated to
Category:British television is named
Television in the United Kingdom (British television redirects to Television in the United Kingdom).
16@r (
talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should nominate all the categories for renaming though CFD rather than a unilateral process. Tim! ( talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, as for examples, it is not so clear-cut: counter examples are Category:British culture and Category:British radio. Tim! ( talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily a requirement that Category:Television by country have the same subcategory-naming format as Category:Abortion by country does. The only requirement is that the subcategories within Category:Television by country are named in the same format as each other. Bearcat ( talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:British culture is categorised in
Culture by nationality which is not a
"by country" category but a
"by nationality" category, so I wouldn't compare it to
Category:British television. As for
Category:British radio (which is categorised in
Radio by country which, as
Television by country, is
"by country" category), I also intended to rename it to match the main associated article (
Radio in the United Kingdom, there's no article named
British radio, but it could possibly be a redirection).
- "The only requirement is that the subcategories within Category:Television by country are named in the same format as each other."
- Yes, they all should be named "Television in X" 16@r ( talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:British culture is categorised in
Culture by nationality which is not a
"by country" category but a
"by nationality" category, so I wouldn't compare it to
Category:British television. As for
Category:British radio (which is categorised in
Radio by country which, as
Television by country, is
"by country" category), I also intended to rename it to match the main associated article (
Radio in the United Kingdom, there's no article named
British radio, but it could possibly be a redirection).
I added a discussion about it on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). 16@r ( talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:NCCAT#Categories by country, which has various forms for category titles that are sorted by country; none of which are Adjective somethingoranothers. Suggest CFD-ing the rest of
Category:Television by country to bring it inline with the naming convention.
Neier (
talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look under nationality where radio is listed: WP:NCCAT#Categories by nationality. Why should television be different to radio? Tim! ( talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose these should be in X, rather than adjectival because many things that are in one place come from somewhere else. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Prima donnas
- 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. Kbdank71 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Prima donnas (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this category for deletion as a result of this discussion. Essentially, it all boils down to this: this is a case of very subjective categorisation, as no one really has a good definition of what a prima donna is: is she a diva who throws temper tantrums? A distinguished female singer? Need she be a singer of opera? Major problem is this: in the old days a prima donna was simply the lead soprano of the company, regardless of whether she was "distinguished" or not, with the result that this category could contain a huge of amount of singers. Delete as overcategorisation. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Who decide what is the boundary between a "normal" female singer and a "prima donna"? The category is POV. -- Al Pereira (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and populate with those women who were the lead female singer of an opera company, which is what a prima donna is and the difference between them and a "normal" female singer. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That linked discussion at the Opera project has more than a whiff of collusion about it, and I remind the members of that project that CFD is not a vote. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No it's not a vote. It's a discussion. and as you can see, the possibility of proposing deletion was discussed quite a lot at the Opera Project. It was also discussed on the talk page for the category itself [1] by me and another editor who's coming more from a pop music perspective. Why is it 'collusion' to have a thoughtful discussion about the subject and to notify a relevant project about the subsequent deletion discussion? It would have been immensely helpful if the original re-naming proposal discussion [2] had notified relevant projects for some input. Why was that not done? In article deletion discussions, it's quite common to notify the relevant Wikipedia projects Voceditenore ( talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having a discussion amongst the project to decide what you want and concluding it with "If we all vote I think the recent renaming should be no problem." has an unsavory smell. As far as notifying people, how about notifying the people who participated in the recent CFD that the category was under further discussion? Otto4711 ( talk) 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are misunderstanding me? When I wrote "If we all vote I think the recent renaming should be no problem" what I meant was that given sufficient interest in the CFD it would be legitimate to have it reconsidered. Why does that have (quote) "an unsavory smell" (unquote)? Discussions on the Opera Project are centralized discussions about opera. They are open to everyone. They are not conspiracies. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, for heaven's sake, the lead female singer of every opera company ever formed? That would be one massive category - indeed, so massive as to be useless. Besides, start going round and asking people what prima donna means at random - you'll get a thousand different answers. There is no standard definition, as you seem to think there is: that's part of the problem. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- " As far as notifying people, how about notifying the people who participated in the recent CFD that the category was under further discussion?" I just did (apart from those who are already participating here). I also notified the other participant in the discussion on the category's talk page. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've also put a notice on the talk page of the Prima donna article. If there are any other relevant article talk pages or projects, just let me know and I'll be happy to notify them as well. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The 'Keep' comment by Otto4711 illustrates the problem as set out by Moreschi - that is, that the concept of 'prima donna' is highly subjective. Otto4711's purpose would be better served by Category:Lead sopranos of opera companies which would be explicit, but pretty useless - and hence an overcategorisation in itself. I don't see that Category:Prima donnas can serve any useful encyclopaedic function. By the way, I am a member of the Opera project but I don't see why that should inhibit me - or any other members -, as Otto4711 suggests, from offering opinion. Does having an interest in a topic disqualify one's views, somehow? -- Smerus ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Otto's point is taken, but I think, as one of the other project people says, Moreschi's "definition" is incorrect anyway. "Prima donna" (first lady) relates to the roles sung as well as a position in a company (now hardly relevant, as there have few permanent companies at the top level for a century or more). Anyone who has sung the role of, eg, Tosca in a proper production could reasonably said to have been a "prima donna", but that casts the net far too wide, and includes virtually all notable operatic sopranos at least, & probably Mezzo-sopranos as well. What they need, and don't have, is Category:Operatic sopranos , or even Category:Classical sopranos, plus the others. Category:Operatic baritones and tenors exist, but not the female ranges. There is Category:Sopranos, but this includes Joan Baez etc. I don't see how a deletion here will help! They need to set up the new categories, and populate them. Rename to Category:Female opera singers as a holding measure. Johnbod ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If we want to be really technical Prima Donna is part of the Convenienze but Moreschi is substantially correct in his presentation. I assume you don't consider German companies to be 'top level', but actually there are still a lot of permanent companies. Opera singer category reform has been discussed in the past, see here, but it's a huge undertaking which no-one has wanted to take on. (At the time of the discussion last summer, there were 1,000+ articles in 122 categories.) In practice the basic categories like Category:Sopranos, Category:Tenors are 80 to 90 percent operatic. It might be better if these categories were de-populated and subcategories like Category:Operatic sopranos, Category:Classical sopranos, Category:Jazz sopranos etc used instead but who is going to do it? -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not me for sure! I appreciate what you say, but I think my "holding rename" is preferable to just leaving that category a male-only zone. It would probably be easier, if your %s are correct (which on a quick look seems to be the case), to rename the existing cats to "Operatic" and move other sopranos etc to new categories above them. The big numbers are in the "by nationality" cats, which aren't affected - you might only have to move 100-odd in fact.
Johnbod (
talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the 'holding rename' achieves anything. The singers are already (or should be) in Category:Sopranos. Regarding singer cat reform we are talking about all voice types not just sopranos - and there are many problems with the 'by nationality' cats. I should also point out that the figures I gave here are by cat, not by article. Singer articles almost always belong to multiple cats. (We may be getting off topic here, but I'd be happy to help if you want to pursue this, perhaps on the Opera Project?) -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not me for sure! I appreciate what you say, but I think my "holding rename" is preferable to just leaving that category a male-only zone. It would probably be easier, if your %s are correct (which on a quick look seems to be the case), to rename the existing cats to "Operatic" and move other sopranos etc to new categories above them. The big numbers are in the "by nationality" cats, which aren't affected - you might only have to move 100-odd in fact.
Johnbod (
talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with using "prima donna" in a category name is that it has a very different meaning in popular usage than its precise formal definition — to an opera specialist, obviously, a prima donna is the lead singer of an opera company, but to Joe Q. Public, a prima donna is any female celebrity who ever threw a public temper tantrum. So this would need constant monitoring to ensure that people weren't adding POV inclusions that don't fit the category's actual intention. Category names should be unambiguous. This isn't. Delete, but do implement Johnbod's very good suggestion instead. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- Per Moreschi's and Bearcat's rationale. Nrswanson ( talk) 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Prima Donna means "First lady" (Italian). There is a need for opera singer categories. It should be possible to exclude celebrities who throw tantrums by a suitable headnote limiting the category to operatic leading ladies. The question is perhaps whether "Female operaa singers" will not be adequate. This avoids the POV problem of who are "leading" ladies. It may well need to be divided into sopranos, mezzo, and contralto. Those, who are not leading ladies, are likely to be NN and hence will not warrant having articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- As Moreschi has correctly explained above, this is a technical term, popularly used in the modern world in a different, vague, secondary sense. It's not useful as a category - either as a list of leading sopranos of opera companies that have existed during the last 400 years, or as a list of celebrated (and sometimes badly behaved) female singers. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; inherently POV; should never have been created. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this name was originally proposed as an alternative for the "Divas" category as popular singers were being put into the latter. I said at the time I didn't think "Prima donnas" was a viable alternative because of its negative connotations in popular discourse. I still think there could be a place for such a category on Wiki though, I just can't think of an appropriate name offhand. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
(or possibly rename to Category:Female opera singers)for the following reasons:
- There is no clear definition even within its use in writing about opera. In the past it has referred to: (a) the principal female singers in an opera company regardless of the quality of the company or the quality of the singer (b) the classification of roles, i.e. Aida would be a "prima donna soprano role", while Amneris would be a "prima donna mezzo-soprano" role and (c) for a "star" singer. However because of the connonations which the word now carries and the fact that major opera singers don't usually 'belong' to a specific company anymore, opera companies never use this term now. It occasionally appears in modern opera biographies or fan sites, usually with the meaning 'star', or in opera reviews or articles but usually with the meaning of an "opera star who is also a temperamental pest". Which brings me to...
- The term now carries way too much semantic baggage. Its primary usage is now in the non-operatic sense where it has become inherently pejorative. Just google "prima donna" in the news. [3] It is almost invariably used in the non-operatic sense. And it is used for men and women. In fact, it tends to be used more for men. I've seen it used for politicians, sports men and women, company CEO's, fashion designers and even President Musharraf (!).
- The only way that subjectivity for category members can be avoided (i.e. eliminating the criteria of "distinguished" or "leading") is to reduce the definition used for the category to any female singer who has sung a principal role in an opera house. What is the use of that? Female opera singers who have never sung a principal role in a professional (as opposed to an amateur or student) production are highly unlikely to pass the notability test. (Plus, you can't start basing it on singing in a "leading opera house", again subjective and impossible to define adequately.) The category then becomes huge and congruent with all female opera singers in Wikipedia, yet the members of it are 'branded' with a term that for the reasons given in 1. and 2. is not appropriate.
I personally agree that Category:Female opera singers could be a useful one. For one thing, it would avoid the issue of non-operatic singers who are still classifiable as sopranos, i.e. Joan Baez. It would provide a holding space until the opera singer categories can be overhauled (which is a massive job).But whatever solution is used, Category:Prima donnas has got to go. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)- changed my mind about possibly renaming to Category:Female opera singers, on thinking about it further. There are only about 100 pages currently in the Prima donnas category. Most of us writing opera articles weren't even aware of that category (or its predecessor Divas) and never added it to articles.) Also, we don't have a congruent category of Male opera singers, although I notice that there are Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers. Rather than adding yet another layer. I think it would be better to just make sure all opera singer articles are at least in Category:Opera singers and their relevant voice category, e.g. Category:Tenors, Category:Sopranos, etc. Or at some point Category:Operatic tenors etc. if anyone wants to take that kind of reorganization in hand. But as Kleinzach pointed out, it's a huge undertaking. Let's just delete Prima donnas for now. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or rename to Category:Female opera singers - Per much of the discussion above, "Prima donnas", like "Divas" before it, seems vague since it has multiple meanings in different communities -- opera, music generally, and even general terms for women. The opera-precise definition is unnecessary categorization by performance or role within a company or opera. Category:Female opera singers fixes the problem of vagueness and fills a need -- I'm surprised it doesn't exist already. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Opera singers are defined by vocal range (soprano, mezzo, contralto. tenor, baritone, bass etc.) not sex. This is clear if you read any article in WP on opera - or any book. Category:Female opera singers / Category:Male opera singers would each have 500+ items. I can't think of any practical use for these categories. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 02:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete entirely subjective. I disagree with Lquilter of the need for dividing opera singers by sex any more than other professions we don't divide by sex. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and listify same as for any DIVA category that started my interest in this. These categories are just ripe for abuse as fans of these folks seem to add them regardless of validity or definition. As a suggestion, I would support a well reffed list that is used for basis of inclusion in the category - "this category denotes those ___ as included in ____ list", if your diva/prima donna, etc isn't included in that list an editor will remove it from the category. As categories are useful I generally would like to see them used for this but the diva categories seem to be a magnet for unsupported inclusion so we need to be extremely clear and vigilant for them to remain useful. I would change my support if my concerns were proven to be met. Benji boi 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Subjective. Will never be NPOV. -- Folantin ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:Kaiser-i-Hind recipients
- 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: listify and delete. Kbdank71 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Category:Kaiser-i-Hind recipients (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - overcategorization by non-defining "distinguished service"-style award, similar to other such service awards that have been deleted. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and listify - Looking at it makes it clear that it is an award that recognizes achievements, rather than defines someone. Gandhi is not known as "the person who accepted and then returned his Kaiser-i-Hind award". -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
People from Baltic governorates
- 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: relisted on feb 27. Kbdank71 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Category:People from Estland to Category:People from the Governorate of Estonia
- Category:People from Livonia to Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia
- Category:People from Courland to Category:People from the Courland Governorate, Category:People from Courland Governorate, or Category:People from the Governorate of Courland
Currently the three categories list people from the geographic regions of northern Estonia, Livonia, and Courland before the independence of Latvia and Estonia in 1918, going as far back as the Middle Ages. The proposed categories will group individuals by specific governorates of the Russian Empire. I will create new categories for the pre-Imperial Russian era when necessary. See also a related discussion at WT:BALTIC#Categorization. Olessi ( talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for asking, but this seems like clear WP:OCAT to me. The categories are already small by the standards of the "people from..." tree. What would be the purpose of this? I accept there may be other examples where such categories are effectively divided by time, but I don't think this is to generally encouraged - it hardly makes finding a person easier. There is only one other person in the project disciussion, & he doesn't seem that bothered either way. Johnbod ( talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Alternatively, at least Category:People from Estland could be moved to Category:People from Esthonia. The former province/governorate consisted only of what is now northern Estonia, while modern southern Estonia was part of Livonia. User:Martintg and I agreed that "Esthonia" was used more frequently to refer to the province than "Estland". Modern historians usually use "Estonia" to refer to the former northerly province, but Category:People from Estonia seems too easily confused with Category:Estonian people. Olessi ( talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename Category:People from Estland only. This particular category ought to be moved for reasons of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "Estland" is the German/Danish term for "Estonia", while "Esthonia" is the older english term that fell out of use before 1920. My preference is for Category:People from Estonia. Note in 1917 the Russian Provisional Government expanded the Governorate of Est(h)onia (today northern Estonia) to absorb the northern part of Livonia, hence that was how the whole territory of modern Estonia got its name. However if you believe it would be confused with Category:Estonian people, then Category:People from Esthonia would be second choice. Martintg ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it alone The probelm with this is that they were not always Russian governorates. Courland was at one period an independent Duchy, and most were at another period Swedish provinces. Still earlier they belionged to the Teutonic Knights. We have recently discussed People from Birmingham (or Birmingham, England). I think we have people from Worcestershire, so why not people from Livonia? The situation is complcated by the fact that the old provinces and modern nations are not co-extensive, but that is a problem with which we have to learn to live. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about " Category:People from Estland" and the requirement to use English in the naming convention? Martintg ( talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename although more verbose, they are more accurate. Livonia is still a region and people can be from there today, e.g., Estland is German/Scandinavian term for Estonia - use English, Esthonia is an English archaism and was used to refer to the geographical place regardless of the political entity located there: like Servia is archaic English for Serbia. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:City academies in England
- 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. Kbdank71 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:City academies in England to Category:Academies in England
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The schools which were previously called "city academies" are now known as "academies" - see Academy (England) - so the category name should be changed. The subcategory Category:Academies in London already reflects the new name. PamD ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fear that we must rename. The name change was presumably because some of them were not in cities. The problem is that there are other institutions that use the name "academy", such as the
Royal Academy of Music and the
Royal Academy. The main article thus needs an "otheruses" template added, if it is to be allowed to retain its present name. Otherwise the main article and the category should become
Academy (English school), or such like.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Useful comments. I've added a hatnote to the Academy (England) page, and also convinced myself, from govt website, that Academies are indeed England-specific not UK-wide. I think the Category page could usefully have an explanatory note. The article at Academy (England) has had this name since December 2005 with no objections raised, so I think it could stay at that title. PamD ( talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.