The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upmerge; there's no really pressing need for by-state diffusion of a parent category that's this small. But make sure that the upmerge goes to both
Category:LGBT organizations in the United StatesandCategory:Organizations based in Mississippi. And actually, while I can't recall whether non-admins see the basic "there have been deleted edits at this title" notice or not,
Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT deleted the correctly capitalized
Category:LGBT organizations in Mississippi as unwanted and unnecessary back in 2007. While the deleted edit history makes it appear as though I was the creator, I merely corrected the WP:NC error made by the original creator of this category — but I never thought it necessary in the first place, so I agreed fully with the deletion. But then it appears that the creator simply reverted it back to the original incorrect spelling without myself or the corrected cat's deleter noticing until now. Hmmmm.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, all editors see the deletion log when they click on the redlink (a nifty relatively new feature). But since it wasn't deleted after CfD, this one still needs to come here, and can stand in for both variants. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hugo
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: Eponymous
overcategorization for a media franchise. The amount of material relevant to the topic does not justify the existence of an eponymous category at this time and the five articles are adequately interlinked via in-text links. (Category creator not notified because: banned.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)20:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Security Guards murdered in terrorist incidents
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.
Delete Only one article, which is on an incident, not a biography. If we did have a slew of biographies of these unfortunate people, I'd vote keep, but we don't.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorization per Falcon. While being killed in a terrorist incident is tragic, unless the victim (regardless of occupation) is otherwise notable any article would likely be deleted per
WP:BIO1E so the probability of this category's ever being populated with articles about actual people is very low.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Film series
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. In digging through the nominated categories you find other navigation aids that do a better job. Everything from main articles, to templates, to dab pages. So for this subset I don't see a problem with deletion based on the strength of the arguments. I will add that this decision does not mean that everything in
Category:Film series can or should be deleted. If anyone wants additional deletions, I suggest that they be nominated on a one by one basis for discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete - per several recent CFDs for film series categories, consensus is emerging that for categories that consist of little or nothing but the film articles with possibly an article on the franchise, a category is not needed for navigational purposes. The film articles are interlinked and in many instances a template for the series exists.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep All as part of the well-defined structure
Category:Film series. I would suggest an intermediate parent on the order of
Category:Film series by title (or a variation thereof). That a category is "not needed" is an exceedingly poor rationalization for deletion, and the existence of navigation templates as an argument for deletion is in clear violation of
WP:CLN.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Otto is correct. Categories with no navigational potential, already categorized elsewhere and templated and usually listed, too. At some point, there's simply no synergy needed. And look at the first one, which doesn't match its main article! When something is unnecessary, it doesn't matter that it has "well-defined structure". Be careful to upmerge in some cases. For example, the films in
Category:Pirates of the Caribbean films need to be merged back into their parent
Category:Pirates of the Caribbean. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. How are these any different than TV episode categories? I can see an argument on the basis that there might be too few films in a category to justify the category, but I definitely don't want to endorse the principle described in the rationale.--05:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mike Selinker (
talk •
contribs)
I think the main difference is that there are more episodes in a tv series than films in a film series (except possibly Carry On...). I agree we should delete but keep as lists, as the information is useful, but not in category form.
Pegship (
talk)
19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Characters by novel nationality
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:Upmerge to
Category:Characters in written fiction which is the parent. It is clear that the name is a major problem. There are also strong cases being made to delete this category, or in one case to even delete the children. By upmerging we address the issue with the name and anyone who has an interest can work to develop a better solution. I'd suggest the talk page of the merge target.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: While inanimate objects can be said to belong to a nation, nationality is not a characteristic which can be appropriately attributed to such objects. I have been unable to think of a good alternative name, so any suggestions would be appreciated. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Would you clarify this comment please? You're not convinced of the need for these "articles"? Do you mean categories? But then you're saying it's a reasonable scheme? This seems contradictory.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm quite knotless, thanks, but still not understanding what you're trying to say with your comment. Your comments still seem in direct opposition to each other.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, dear, lets try Simple English: "Personally I'm unconvinced by the need for many or most of these articles. Once we have so many articles, at least for Anglophone novels, this seems a reasonable way to categorize them." Clearer now?
Johnbod (
talk)
02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
comment these renames seem to be confused. The underlying categories are based on the nationality of the author of the novel, not the location of the action of the novel, nor the publication location, first or otherwise. Read the categories.
Hmains (
talk)
23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- and its children, too.... Rampant ternary over-categorization. We already have authors by nationality, and we already have characters by fictional nationality. Who cares whether the Chinese character in a French-language novel was written by a Belgian or a Canadian? --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
It isn't OCAT - the underlying categories are such as
Category:Vladimir Nabokov characters which is neither ternary nor rampant. No-one is suggesting 'Fooian characters in Booian-language novels written by Zooians', although CatScan might get somewhere with it.
Occuli (
talk)
20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - All this springs from the assertion that novels are inanimate objects. While on that face of it this may seem true, but actually a novel is not an object in the way a building is. It is an artistic work, essentially a set of words and sentences in a given (original) language. One that springs from the culture within which it is given birth. Specifically by the author, whose birth may be the driver for cultural content or there home of choice. Hence the slightly ambiguous name. Generally this is the "natural" name for these subcategories from standard or common usage. It may not be the most precise but few categories come close to the type of precision you appear to be after. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk)08:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:UK Provincial Gentlemen's Clubs
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.
Rename per nom, er, or Occuli. I see Occuli's point, but at present another layer seems unnecessary. All the ones in the main cat seem to be American & I would support renaming this to say so, moving any non-US ones to a new head cat.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Well done - I see my estimate was a tad out! Looking at the Beggar's Benison, and even after checking out the refs I can't quite shake the feeling there may be a hoax going on here, it seems never to have owned premises, which in my book makes it a dining club, & rather different. Maybe your suggestion is better - the Scots are bound to turn up eventually & set up their own category anyway.
Johnbod (
talk)
02:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Law in Oregon
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.
DeleteMerge. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between the 'concept' of the law and its application, so drawing a distinction is valid. However, I would expect that to apply at a higher level e.g. International Law, English Law, and US Law, but not at state level (nor at county level in England).
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Support
Occuli -- The USA has at least 51 separate jurisdictions - USA itself, 50 states, and possibly a few more in territories etc (I do not know). Each has its separate law, and so needs a category for its law. In UK England (with Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a separate legal system. The law in Worcesterhire and in Suffolk are the same, so that there is no question of breaking down English law by counties, but there is by the three UK jurisdictions.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge - per Occuli. NB there are a hell of a lot more than 51 jurisdictions in the US. There's the nation, each state plus DC and the various territories, then subdivisions by geography and subject matter within the larger jurisdictions.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge I created the category and fully support the merge, but you should run this change by the category owners, who seem to be WikiProject Law. Here's the background:
User talk:Katr67#Law in Oregon Law. They're the ones who want to draw a distinction.
Katr67 (
talk)
05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Relational Psychoanalysts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:20th century people
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. I wish there was more discussion here. But since the normal keepers did not comment on this parent nomination, it has not opposition and should be deleted. Maybe everyone is waiting for the discussions on the subcategories which will not be as easy to decide.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: the number of people with bios on wikip of these two centuries, and probably the 19th as well, is so huge that pages listed on sub-cat pages of these two pages, combined, merely duplicate
Category:People and its subcat pages. I suggest we divide by century only to the 18th (possibly 19th). Do we need a
Category:20th-century sportspeople,
Category:21st-century singers, and possibly 50 more for each occupation (when generalised), as well as
Category:20th-century people by nationality and
Category:21st-century people by nationality for nearly 200 countries? Will put up the present (approximately 40) subcats for nomination (for an upmerge) if discussion here suggests it is necessary 08:48, 20 June 2009 (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:Century old churches in the Philippines
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. While the idea of reorganizing the tree by century instead has merit, it appears to require added discussion around a change to the current organizational consensus. Even with the upmerge, the parent category won't be inordinately large, so creating the proposed categories doesn't require this to remain in place in the meantime.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Arbitrary age inclusion criteria. Why 100 and not 50 or 200 years? Not a defining characteristic for these buildings.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename and eliminate any of 1901-1909. The category should be changed to
Pre-1901 churches in the Philippines. I say 1901, becasue that is when the American occupation was completed. This would make the category for churches of the Spanish colonial era. This therefore ceases to relate to an arbitrary period.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Reorganize by century This would fit into the typical "architecture by century" and "Christian congregations established by century" trees, & also effectively accomodate PKs point above. There are only 19 now so the work is not massive.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
No, it isn't, more's the pity! I thought we were debating
Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century in the "Formerly papal congregations..." one, but perhaps not. The obvious ways to categorize church buildings are by denomination, location and date. At the moment we have trees for the first two, but by date only goes into the "architecture by date" tree where the majority of articles, from all over the world, end up in "by year" categories (often of questionable accuracy, and covering construction periods of several years), which is rather ridiculous. Carlaude's mass forced conversions of architectural categories to "congregations" ones has made the situation much worse. We should move to more sensible categories, like "churches by century and country". Here is an easy place to start. That's my view anyway.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dutch admirals by century
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs about goats
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.
Delete as
overcategorization on the basis of a
non-defining or trivial characteristic. As defined ("songs about goats, songs which refer to goats, and for songs with goat in the title"), this category would include any song with the word "goat" in it; if we exclude trivial mentions of goats, then we run into the problem of determining at what point a song stops just referring to goats and becomes about goats. A category for songs which
reliable sources have identified as being about goats is less problematic (it would still technically be "Category:Songs which at least one source has identified as being about goats"), but this is not that category. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete There is also the classic Hebrew-language song
Yesh Lanu Tayish that is undoubtedly about a goat, but I don't see songs by animal species as a defining characteristic or a means used by those studying music to group songs.
Alansohn (
talk)
15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. As of June 15, all current and past contributions are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and most are dual-licensed (with GFDL). Consequently, this category no longer describes a distinct, useful subset of edits. —
Gavia immer (
talk)03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Playstation Portable-only games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upmerge; there's no really pressing need for by-state diffusion of a parent category that's this small. But make sure that the upmerge goes to both
Category:LGBT organizations in the United StatesandCategory:Organizations based in Mississippi. And actually, while I can't recall whether non-admins see the basic "there have been deleted edits at this title" notice or not,
Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT deleted the correctly capitalized
Category:LGBT organizations in Mississippi as unwanted and unnecessary back in 2007. While the deleted edit history makes it appear as though I was the creator, I merely corrected the WP:NC error made by the original creator of this category — but I never thought it necessary in the first place, so I agreed fully with the deletion. But then it appears that the creator simply reverted it back to the original incorrect spelling without myself or the corrected cat's deleter noticing until now. Hmmmm.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, all editors see the deletion log when they click on the redlink (a nifty relatively new feature). But since it wasn't deleted after CfD, this one still needs to come here, and can stand in for both variants. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hugo
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: Eponymous
overcategorization for a media franchise. The amount of material relevant to the topic does not justify the existence of an eponymous category at this time and the five articles are adequately interlinked via in-text links. (Category creator not notified because: banned.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)20:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Security Guards murdered in terrorist incidents
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.
Delete Only one article, which is on an incident, not a biography. If we did have a slew of biographies of these unfortunate people, I'd vote keep, but we don't.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorization per Falcon. While being killed in a terrorist incident is tragic, unless the victim (regardless of occupation) is otherwise notable any article would likely be deleted per
WP:BIO1E so the probability of this category's ever being populated with articles about actual people is very low.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Film series
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. In digging through the nominated categories you find other navigation aids that do a better job. Everything from main articles, to templates, to dab pages. So for this subset I don't see a problem with deletion based on the strength of the arguments. I will add that this decision does not mean that everything in
Category:Film series can or should be deleted. If anyone wants additional deletions, I suggest that they be nominated on a one by one basis for discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete - per several recent CFDs for film series categories, consensus is emerging that for categories that consist of little or nothing but the film articles with possibly an article on the franchise, a category is not needed for navigational purposes. The film articles are interlinked and in many instances a template for the series exists.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep All as part of the well-defined structure
Category:Film series. I would suggest an intermediate parent on the order of
Category:Film series by title (or a variation thereof). That a category is "not needed" is an exceedingly poor rationalization for deletion, and the existence of navigation templates as an argument for deletion is in clear violation of
WP:CLN.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Otto is correct. Categories with no navigational potential, already categorized elsewhere and templated and usually listed, too. At some point, there's simply no synergy needed. And look at the first one, which doesn't match its main article! When something is unnecessary, it doesn't matter that it has "well-defined structure". Be careful to upmerge in some cases. For example, the films in
Category:Pirates of the Caribbean films need to be merged back into their parent
Category:Pirates of the Caribbean. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. How are these any different than TV episode categories? I can see an argument on the basis that there might be too few films in a category to justify the category, but I definitely don't want to endorse the principle described in the rationale.--05:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mike Selinker (
talk •
contribs)
I think the main difference is that there are more episodes in a tv series than films in a film series (except possibly Carry On...). I agree we should delete but keep as lists, as the information is useful, but not in category form.
Pegship (
talk)
19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Characters by novel nationality
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:Upmerge to
Category:Characters in written fiction which is the parent. It is clear that the name is a major problem. There are also strong cases being made to delete this category, or in one case to even delete the children. By upmerging we address the issue with the name and anyone who has an interest can work to develop a better solution. I'd suggest the talk page of the merge target.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: While inanimate objects can be said to belong to a nation, nationality is not a characteristic which can be appropriately attributed to such objects. I have been unable to think of a good alternative name, so any suggestions would be appreciated. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Would you clarify this comment please? You're not convinced of the need for these "articles"? Do you mean categories? But then you're saying it's a reasonable scheme? This seems contradictory.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm quite knotless, thanks, but still not understanding what you're trying to say with your comment. Your comments still seem in direct opposition to each other.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, dear, lets try Simple English: "Personally I'm unconvinced by the need for many or most of these articles. Once we have so many articles, at least for Anglophone novels, this seems a reasonable way to categorize them." Clearer now?
Johnbod (
talk)
02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
comment these renames seem to be confused. The underlying categories are based on the nationality of the author of the novel, not the location of the action of the novel, nor the publication location, first or otherwise. Read the categories.
Hmains (
talk)
23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- and its children, too.... Rampant ternary over-categorization. We already have authors by nationality, and we already have characters by fictional nationality. Who cares whether the Chinese character in a French-language novel was written by a Belgian or a Canadian? --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
It isn't OCAT - the underlying categories are such as
Category:Vladimir Nabokov characters which is neither ternary nor rampant. No-one is suggesting 'Fooian characters in Booian-language novels written by Zooians', although CatScan might get somewhere with it.
Occuli (
talk)
20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - All this springs from the assertion that novels are inanimate objects. While on that face of it this may seem true, but actually a novel is not an object in the way a building is. It is an artistic work, essentially a set of words and sentences in a given (original) language. One that springs from the culture within which it is given birth. Specifically by the author, whose birth may be the driver for cultural content or there home of choice. Hence the slightly ambiguous name. Generally this is the "natural" name for these subcategories from standard or common usage. It may not be the most precise but few categories come close to the type of precision you appear to be after. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk)08:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:UK Provincial Gentlemen's Clubs
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.
Rename per nom, er, or Occuli. I see Occuli's point, but at present another layer seems unnecessary. All the ones in the main cat seem to be American & I would support renaming this to say so, moving any non-US ones to a new head cat.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Well done - I see my estimate was a tad out! Looking at the Beggar's Benison, and even after checking out the refs I can't quite shake the feeling there may be a hoax going on here, it seems never to have owned premises, which in my book makes it a dining club, & rather different. Maybe your suggestion is better - the Scots are bound to turn up eventually & set up their own category anyway.
Johnbod (
talk)
02:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Law in Oregon
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.
DeleteMerge. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between the 'concept' of the law and its application, so drawing a distinction is valid. However, I would expect that to apply at a higher level e.g. International Law, English Law, and US Law, but not at state level (nor at county level in England).
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Support
Occuli -- The USA has at least 51 separate jurisdictions - USA itself, 50 states, and possibly a few more in territories etc (I do not know). Each has its separate law, and so needs a category for its law. In UK England (with Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a separate legal system. The law in Worcesterhire and in Suffolk are the same, so that there is no question of breaking down English law by counties, but there is by the three UK jurisdictions.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge - per Occuli. NB there are a hell of a lot more than 51 jurisdictions in the US. There's the nation, each state plus DC and the various territories, then subdivisions by geography and subject matter within the larger jurisdictions.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge I created the category and fully support the merge, but you should run this change by the category owners, who seem to be WikiProject Law. Here's the background:
User talk:Katr67#Law in Oregon Law. They're the ones who want to draw a distinction.
Katr67 (
talk)
05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Relational Psychoanalysts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:20th century people
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. I wish there was more discussion here. But since the normal keepers did not comment on this parent nomination, it has not opposition and should be deleted. Maybe everyone is waiting for the discussions on the subcategories which will not be as easy to decide.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: the number of people with bios on wikip of these two centuries, and probably the 19th as well, is so huge that pages listed on sub-cat pages of these two pages, combined, merely duplicate
Category:People and its subcat pages. I suggest we divide by century only to the 18th (possibly 19th). Do we need a
Category:20th-century sportspeople,
Category:21st-century singers, and possibly 50 more for each occupation (when generalised), as well as
Category:20th-century people by nationality and
Category:21st-century people by nationality for nearly 200 countries? Will put up the present (approximately 40) subcats for nomination (for an upmerge) if discussion here suggests it is necessary 08:48, 20 June 2009 (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:Century old churches in the Philippines
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. While the idea of reorganizing the tree by century instead has merit, it appears to require added discussion around a change to the current organizational consensus. Even with the upmerge, the parent category won't be inordinately large, so creating the proposed categories doesn't require this to remain in place in the meantime.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Arbitrary age inclusion criteria. Why 100 and not 50 or 200 years? Not a defining characteristic for these buildings.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename and eliminate any of 1901-1909. The category should be changed to
Pre-1901 churches in the Philippines. I say 1901, becasue that is when the American occupation was completed. This would make the category for churches of the Spanish colonial era. This therefore ceases to relate to an arbitrary period.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Reorganize by century This would fit into the typical "architecture by century" and "Christian congregations established by century" trees, & also effectively accomodate PKs point above. There are only 19 now so the work is not massive.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
No, it isn't, more's the pity! I thought we were debating
Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century in the "Formerly papal congregations..." one, but perhaps not. The obvious ways to categorize church buildings are by denomination, location and date. At the moment we have trees for the first two, but by date only goes into the "architecture by date" tree where the majority of articles, from all over the world, end up in "by year" categories (often of questionable accuracy, and covering construction periods of several years), which is rather ridiculous. Carlaude's mass forced conversions of architectural categories to "congregations" ones has made the situation much worse. We should move to more sensible categories, like "churches by century and country". Here is an easy place to start. That's my view anyway.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dutch admirals by century
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs about goats
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.
Delete as
overcategorization on the basis of a
non-defining or trivial characteristic. As defined ("songs about goats, songs which refer to goats, and for songs with goat in the title"), this category would include any song with the word "goat" in it; if we exclude trivial mentions of goats, then we run into the problem of determining at what point a song stops just referring to goats and becomes about goats. A category for songs which
reliable sources have identified as being about goats is less problematic (it would still technically be "Category:Songs which at least one source has identified as being about goats"), but this is not that category. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete There is also the classic Hebrew-language song
Yesh Lanu Tayish that is undoubtedly about a goat, but I don't see songs by animal species as a defining characteristic or a means used by those studying music to group songs.
Alansohn (
talk)
15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. As of June 15, all current and past contributions are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and most are dual-licensed (with GFDL). Consequently, this category no longer describes a distinct, useful subset of edits. —
Gavia immer (
talk)03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Playstation Portable-only games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.