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: While the musician system sanctions triple intersections, there's no need for a quadruple intersection. Personally, I'm unconvinced we need the "Female drummers" category, but we do have other subcategories of
Category:Female musicians.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we allow gender categories only when the gender is relevant to the subject. Just because gender may be relevant to other musicians does not mean it has any relevance for drummers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
And when Twinkle allows the option of a double upmerge, I will start using that term. Hey Twinkle, start allowing the option of a double upmerge!--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Mike, you can either
Use Twinkle to propose a single merge, and then add the other category to the nomination, or
Keep as creator This category is interesting. It will be used by people. Its existence is not causing any problems. The proposed upmerges will diffuse these articles such that the grouping is hard to recover. Whatever category scheme is prompting this reorganization can just ignore this category and be no worse off for it. Don't take the fun out of Wikipedia.
Jason Quinn (
talk)
18:56, 19 April 2012 (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:Female NASCAR drivers
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:Victims of antisemitism
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.
Keep per Oculi. These cover conceptually different topics: attacks are not victims, and victims are not attacks. --
Lambiam23:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm open to a rename as I find "victims" vague in a number of categories, but these articles are people and the proposed rename doesn't match that.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I tend to agree that the current focus of the category on biographies is a meaningful one and that it should be preserved. I'm not entirely happy with the title though because it can be misinterpreted to something that's too wide. People who are refused jobs because they're Jewish, taunted at school because they're Jewish, harassed by the police or the state because they're Jewish, are all victims of antisemitism but I think it's pretty clear that we don't want the category to include them next to Holocaust victims and other victims of murderous antisemitic violence.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:32, 17 April 2012 (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.
Philosophers by language
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 This is one of the few by profession categories that is also done by language. However as we can see, we only have four categories in this tree which shows that in general there is not a view that philosophers should be categorized by language. The general rule for by language categories other than translation ones is to only use them where there is not a general overlap of nationality and language. Thus we should if we do keep these categories purge the German and Arabic ones of Germans and Austrians in the first case (but not Swiss), and a whole bunch of nationalities in the second. Still, the Arabic-language might be a useful designation for pre-modern philosophers, and it clearly would work for those in the Ottoman Empire. However I am not convinved this is a worthwhile schema, but I am more convinced we need to rethink the schema. Urdu if kept actually might be applyable to any philosopher who did philosophy in Urdu. How to cover the intersection of Latin and the Roman Empire is trickier, since the eastern half of the Empire always did its literary work in Greek, so it was more the Swiss than the Austrian model. However with Latin we have the alternate problem "does it make sense to group together an 18th-century and a 1st century philosopher who both wrote in what they considered Latin". We generally break down Latin into sub-groups because it changed so much over the centuries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment currently for the Arabic-language philosophers only 10 of the potential 17 related nationality cats exists (assuming
Category:Yemenite philosophers is for philosophers from Yemen) but other than Jordan and the non-classified countries are all in or very close to the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Mike Selinker's nom. THe one I was hesitant about was the Urdu issue, but all of the people currently in the category lived for large portions if not all their lives in Pakistan, and most did most if not all their philosophical work there. The actual center of Urdu Culture before 1947 was in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, but the category lacks anyone who died before the partition or who stayed in India after it, so it is functionally part of the Pakistani philosophers category. We should merge it without prejudice against creation of
Category;Urdu philosophers of India.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Mike Selinker's alternative. I have checked that all the German-language philosophers are categorised by nationality (13 were not, but are now). –
Fayenatic L(talk)22:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Mike Selinker's alternative. There remains a large Urdu-speaking Muslim minority in India, but unless there are any philosophers among them, there is no objection to the proposal. I thus also agree with JPL's point.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Philosophy and language are closely-related, because the conceptual frameworks of language reflect philosophical differences. I suggest seeking input from
WP:PHILO, who should have been notified by the nominator. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:07, 23 April 2012 (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:Lasse Berghagen
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:Italian Vedutisti
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per nom. I think vedutisti mainly reflects a topographical landscape movement of 17th century Italy; unfortunately, like many artistic movements the borderlines in time and style can get fuzzy. On the other hand, I think it is more descriptive of a type of painting than "Italian landscape painter", and has common use in multiple published titles and articles including Canaletto and the Venetian vedutisti Filippo Pedrocco, 1995 , Art international: Volume 11; Volume 11 James Fitzsimmons - 1967 "What, then, is the charm of these Vedutisti?" , Henri van de Waal, L. D. Couprie, Rudi Fuchs - 1975 - Jahrhunderts, Munchen 1969 Bibliografia della mostra dei vedutisti veneziani del Settecento. Palazzo Ducale 1967, Venezia 1968, Rome in the Age of Enlightenment: The Post-Tridentine... Hanns Gross - 2004 - Paesisti e vedutisti a Roma, 10-11. Lavagnino, "Roma nel Setecento," 19; Lavagnino, "La pittura," 27-28. ... Paesisti e vedutisti a Roma, 23; Barlow, Ideal and Classical Landscape, 23. , from a Googlebooks search. --
Rococo1700 (
talk)
03:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- the second word appears to mean view-ists, which does not need a capital. The term however appears to be wider than "landscpae painter".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 21 April 2012 (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:The Police images
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.
Sting categories
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:Art game developers
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.
Keep. An art game is one that has been named either with the words "art game" or as a piece of art by reliable sources. How much more well-defined that
WP:V can it be?
Diego (
talk)
15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
What do you do when 10% of the reliable sources use those words and 90% don't? Where do you set the threshold? When there's a fairly well-established definition (say
shooter game) the problem can easily be avoided but a case like this one requires a lot of subjectivity.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
This isn't comparable with video-game genres, which are
formulaic; this is like
Category:Art films, an artistic category (which does categorize WRT subjective opinion of reliable critics); as long as the 90% of sources don't say that it is not artistic, we can tag it with the same property that 10% of the sources agreed with. (If some sources called it artistic and some others explicitly disagreed, we would reflect both views by
WP:NPOV - but if there's only one reliable POV then it's safe to label the article with it). As long as the subjectivity comes from reliable sources and not from Wikipedia editors, we can use it as the definition criterion, as it's commonly done for anything artistic.
Diego (
talk)
16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. We don't categorize by name, nor by subjective opinions, even if they sometimes appear in reliable sources. A well-referenced list with commentary might be ok.
LeSnail (
talk)
21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Because in a list there is room for discussion of why each entry is on the list with references both to reliable sources claiming that a game is an art game and to reliable sources claiming it is not. It is ok for the list to contain entries whose categorization as art games would be questionable, as long as the list explains what the various views are. Categorization however requires being able to make definitive non-subjective decision.
LeSnail (
talk)
02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. But then you can create a category where every entry has been unambiguously identified as "art game" by a reliable source. This only makes the category less inclusive, it doesn't completely avoid having it; that implies only that some entries in the list shouldn't be included in the category. The current inclusion criterion for the category is like this.
Diego (
talk)
14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Category:Art games was deleted with 2 not-votes because it didn't have a well-defined inclusion criteron. We have a well-defined inclusion criterion now, which is the same that justifies the
Category:Art films. Also this is not a game genre, not exactly, in the same way that "artistic movie" is not a movie genre. (Also "X was also deleted" is not a real reason for deletion, in special when the deletion discussion included just three people; I think
Category:Art games should be re-created with the newly provided criterion).
Diego (
talk)
16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I used "genre" in a broad sense. I don't actually mind having
Category:Art games with proper inclusion criteria; I don't agree it's not well defined. I didn't see the CfD when it was up. The few thatgamecompany's games I dealt with were very clearly designated "art games" and I'm sure there are similar sources for other prominent art games. I would still oppose having "developer based on genre" subgroups. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, there's some common ground here; and I can see why you wouldn't like a category for "developers that have created a game on genre X", as it would include almost all companies in almost all genres. But how about a company that's reliably sourced as "video game company dedicated in exclusive to games in genre X"? I would say that
Tale of Tales (developer) (the original company in this category) and
Thatgamecompany have some special property that makes them a well-defined subset of
Category:Video game developers (as specialiced in creating art games), and that property is documented at reliable sources, in the same way that
Sierra Online and
LucasArts were regarded as companies specialized in adventure games and
EA Sports has a category just for
sports games.
Diego (
talk)
17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Maybe the inclusion criterion should be made more strict (the current one is all developers that had made an art game, it could be changed to developers with a career dedicated to them as referenced by reliable sources), but that would still be a specific inclusion criterion; the nom argument was that a well-defined criterion didn't exist (and now we can choose between two).
Diego (
talk)
16:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge we do not even have a category for art games because they are too hard to define. If we can not define art games, than we can not figure out who counts as having developed them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
We don't need to define art games, we can use reliable sources to do that for us. And "it's too hard to do" is not a very good deletion/merging/removing-the-page argument.
Diego (
talk)
12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment when "it's too hard to do" is how I express "it is too open to debate and not something that has an easy yes or no answer" than it is a good criteria to get rid of the category. Categories need to be something that can be answered with a clear yes or no. There is no consensus of what makes an art game for us to draw upon.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"Have some reliable sources called the game a 'work of art' or 'art game'?" Yes/No. What's difficult or subjective in that?
Diego (
talk)
10:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
If that was a reason to not have a category, there wouldn't be any of
these or
these. How I hope the closing admin evaluates the coincidence of arguments with respect to current Wikipedia practice, and not the number of heads in the discussion - (administrators already know that, but commenters would do good to discuss how their objections would apply to the category if it is kept).
Diego (
talk)
10:29, 23 April 2012 (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:March of Time
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.
Thank you — I agree with renaming the category and I appreciate your proposal. If it's renamed "The March of Time," any images related to the radio series could also be included in the category. For now I'd advocate keeping it less specific. —
WFinch (
talk)
02:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't have a strong preference but he fact is that the category currently contains the March of Time films so I placed it inside
Category:Documentary film series which will probably attract a number of readers to the category. If the scope of the category is wider, we'll probably lose this.
Pichpich (
talk)
03:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm sold. I'd be very surprised if any separate articles for the radio series were ever created. The documentary film series category is a great place for MOT, since that's how it's principally known. —
WFinch (
talk)
11:48, 17 April 2012 (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:NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements
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 This category is being used solely to track pages that transclude a certain template. The correct way to do this is through the "what links here" tool. Categories like this, even if used as hidden, create unnecessary clutter.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Note I'm open for whatever but the thinking behind this was to have a category to view all sports teams with NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements information. The category description should probably be changed and category renamed but I was having a hard time think about what to call it or how to describe it. --
ben_b (
talk)
02:35, 16 April 2012 (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:Ranking movements
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 This category is being used solely to track pages that transclude a certain template. The correct way to do this is through the "what links here" tool. Categories like this, even if used as hidden, create unnecessary clutter.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Note I'm open for whatever but the thinking behind this was to have a category to view all sports teams with ranking movements information. The category description should probably be changed and category renamed but I was having a hard time think about what to call it or how to describe it. --
ben_b (
talk)
02:35, 16 April 2012 (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.
West Indian Communities in the United States
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 I hate to suggest this. A rename might save the category, but I have my doubts. The problem right now is there are no criteria on what makes a place a "West Indian Community". For example,
Blue Hills, Connecticut is in this category. The article tells us Blue Hill with 23% of its population reporting Jamaican ancestry on the 2000 census longform had the highest percentage of people of Jamaican descent in the United States at that point. However that means that still 3 out of every four residents were not Jamaican. There is no evidence provided on the percentage of other West Indians, but there is no evidence that they were a majority of the population. So how much of the population of a place needs to be West Indian for it to be a West Indian community?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 16 April 2012 (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: While the musician system sanctions triple intersections, there's no need for a quadruple intersection. Personally, I'm unconvinced we need the "Female drummers" category, but we do have other subcategories of
Category:Female musicians.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we allow gender categories only when the gender is relevant to the subject. Just because gender may be relevant to other musicians does not mean it has any relevance for drummers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
And when Twinkle allows the option of a double upmerge, I will start using that term. Hey Twinkle, start allowing the option of a double upmerge!--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Mike, you can either
Use Twinkle to propose a single merge, and then add the other category to the nomination, or
Keep as creator This category is interesting. It will be used by people. Its existence is not causing any problems. The proposed upmerges will diffuse these articles such that the grouping is hard to recover. Whatever category scheme is prompting this reorganization can just ignore this category and be no worse off for it. Don't take the fun out of Wikipedia.
Jason Quinn (
talk)
18:56, 19 April 2012 (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:Female NASCAR drivers
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:Victims of antisemitism
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.
Keep per Oculi. These cover conceptually different topics: attacks are not victims, and victims are not attacks. --
Lambiam23:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm open to a rename as I find "victims" vague in a number of categories, but these articles are people and the proposed rename doesn't match that.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I tend to agree that the current focus of the category on biographies is a meaningful one and that it should be preserved. I'm not entirely happy with the title though because it can be misinterpreted to something that's too wide. People who are refused jobs because they're Jewish, taunted at school because they're Jewish, harassed by the police or the state because they're Jewish, are all victims of antisemitism but I think it's pretty clear that we don't want the category to include them next to Holocaust victims and other victims of murderous antisemitic violence.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:32, 17 April 2012 (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.
Philosophers by language
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 This is one of the few by profession categories that is also done by language. However as we can see, we only have four categories in this tree which shows that in general there is not a view that philosophers should be categorized by language. The general rule for by language categories other than translation ones is to only use them where there is not a general overlap of nationality and language. Thus we should if we do keep these categories purge the German and Arabic ones of Germans and Austrians in the first case (but not Swiss), and a whole bunch of nationalities in the second. Still, the Arabic-language might be a useful designation for pre-modern philosophers, and it clearly would work for those in the Ottoman Empire. However I am not convinved this is a worthwhile schema, but I am more convinced we need to rethink the schema. Urdu if kept actually might be applyable to any philosopher who did philosophy in Urdu. How to cover the intersection of Latin and the Roman Empire is trickier, since the eastern half of the Empire always did its literary work in Greek, so it was more the Swiss than the Austrian model. However with Latin we have the alternate problem "does it make sense to group together an 18th-century and a 1st century philosopher who both wrote in what they considered Latin". We generally break down Latin into sub-groups because it changed so much over the centuries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment currently for the Arabic-language philosophers only 10 of the potential 17 related nationality cats exists (assuming
Category:Yemenite philosophers is for philosophers from Yemen) but other than Jordan and the non-classified countries are all in or very close to the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Mike Selinker's nom. THe one I was hesitant about was the Urdu issue, but all of the people currently in the category lived for large portions if not all their lives in Pakistan, and most did most if not all their philosophical work there. The actual center of Urdu Culture before 1947 was in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, but the category lacks anyone who died before the partition or who stayed in India after it, so it is functionally part of the Pakistani philosophers category. We should merge it without prejudice against creation of
Category;Urdu philosophers of India.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Mike Selinker's alternative. I have checked that all the German-language philosophers are categorised by nationality (13 were not, but are now). –
Fayenatic L(talk)22:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Mike Selinker's alternative. There remains a large Urdu-speaking Muslim minority in India, but unless there are any philosophers among them, there is no objection to the proposal. I thus also agree with JPL's point.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Philosophy and language are closely-related, because the conceptual frameworks of language reflect philosophical differences. I suggest seeking input from
WP:PHILO, who should have been notified by the nominator. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:07, 23 April 2012 (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:Lasse Berghagen
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:Italian Vedutisti
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per nom. I think vedutisti mainly reflects a topographical landscape movement of 17th century Italy; unfortunately, like many artistic movements the borderlines in time and style can get fuzzy. On the other hand, I think it is more descriptive of a type of painting than "Italian landscape painter", and has common use in multiple published titles and articles including Canaletto and the Venetian vedutisti Filippo Pedrocco, 1995 , Art international: Volume 11; Volume 11 James Fitzsimmons - 1967 "What, then, is the charm of these Vedutisti?" , Henri van de Waal, L. D. Couprie, Rudi Fuchs - 1975 - Jahrhunderts, Munchen 1969 Bibliografia della mostra dei vedutisti veneziani del Settecento. Palazzo Ducale 1967, Venezia 1968, Rome in the Age of Enlightenment: The Post-Tridentine... Hanns Gross - 2004 - Paesisti e vedutisti a Roma, 10-11. Lavagnino, "Roma nel Setecento," 19; Lavagnino, "La pittura," 27-28. ... Paesisti e vedutisti a Roma, 23; Barlow, Ideal and Classical Landscape, 23. , from a Googlebooks search. --
Rococo1700 (
talk)
03:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- the second word appears to mean view-ists, which does not need a capital. The term however appears to be wider than "landscpae painter".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 21 April 2012 (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:The Police images
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.
Sting categories
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:Art game developers
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.
Keep. An art game is one that has been named either with the words "art game" or as a piece of art by reliable sources. How much more well-defined that
WP:V can it be?
Diego (
talk)
15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
What do you do when 10% of the reliable sources use those words and 90% don't? Where do you set the threshold? When there's a fairly well-established definition (say
shooter game) the problem can easily be avoided but a case like this one requires a lot of subjectivity.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
This isn't comparable with video-game genres, which are
formulaic; this is like
Category:Art films, an artistic category (which does categorize WRT subjective opinion of reliable critics); as long as the 90% of sources don't say that it is not artistic, we can tag it with the same property that 10% of the sources agreed with. (If some sources called it artistic and some others explicitly disagreed, we would reflect both views by
WP:NPOV - but if there's only one reliable POV then it's safe to label the article with it). As long as the subjectivity comes from reliable sources and not from Wikipedia editors, we can use it as the definition criterion, as it's commonly done for anything artistic.
Diego (
talk)
16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. We don't categorize by name, nor by subjective opinions, even if they sometimes appear in reliable sources. A well-referenced list with commentary might be ok.
LeSnail (
talk)
21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Because in a list there is room for discussion of why each entry is on the list with references both to reliable sources claiming that a game is an art game and to reliable sources claiming it is not. It is ok for the list to contain entries whose categorization as art games would be questionable, as long as the list explains what the various views are. Categorization however requires being able to make definitive non-subjective decision.
LeSnail (
talk)
02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. But then you can create a category where every entry has been unambiguously identified as "art game" by a reliable source. This only makes the category less inclusive, it doesn't completely avoid having it; that implies only that some entries in the list shouldn't be included in the category. The current inclusion criterion for the category is like this.
Diego (
talk)
14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Category:Art games was deleted with 2 not-votes because it didn't have a well-defined inclusion criteron. We have a well-defined inclusion criterion now, which is the same that justifies the
Category:Art films. Also this is not a game genre, not exactly, in the same way that "artistic movie" is not a movie genre. (Also "X was also deleted" is not a real reason for deletion, in special when the deletion discussion included just three people; I think
Category:Art games should be re-created with the newly provided criterion).
Diego (
talk)
16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I used "genre" in a broad sense. I don't actually mind having
Category:Art games with proper inclusion criteria; I don't agree it's not well defined. I didn't see the CfD when it was up. The few thatgamecompany's games I dealt with were very clearly designated "art games" and I'm sure there are similar sources for other prominent art games. I would still oppose having "developer based on genre" subgroups. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, there's some common ground here; and I can see why you wouldn't like a category for "developers that have created a game on genre X", as it would include almost all companies in almost all genres. But how about a company that's reliably sourced as "video game company dedicated in exclusive to games in genre X"? I would say that
Tale of Tales (developer) (the original company in this category) and
Thatgamecompany have some special property that makes them a well-defined subset of
Category:Video game developers (as specialiced in creating art games), and that property is documented at reliable sources, in the same way that
Sierra Online and
LucasArts were regarded as companies specialized in adventure games and
EA Sports has a category just for
sports games.
Diego (
talk)
17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Maybe the inclusion criterion should be made more strict (the current one is all developers that had made an art game, it could be changed to developers with a career dedicated to them as referenced by reliable sources), but that would still be a specific inclusion criterion; the nom argument was that a well-defined criterion didn't exist (and now we can choose between two).
Diego (
talk)
16:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge we do not even have a category for art games because they are too hard to define. If we can not define art games, than we can not figure out who counts as having developed them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
We don't need to define art games, we can use reliable sources to do that for us. And "it's too hard to do" is not a very good deletion/merging/removing-the-page argument.
Diego (
talk)
12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment when "it's too hard to do" is how I express "it is too open to debate and not something that has an easy yes or no answer" than it is a good criteria to get rid of the category. Categories need to be something that can be answered with a clear yes or no. There is no consensus of what makes an art game for us to draw upon.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"Have some reliable sources called the game a 'work of art' or 'art game'?" Yes/No. What's difficult or subjective in that?
Diego (
talk)
10:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
If that was a reason to not have a category, there wouldn't be any of
these or
these. How I hope the closing admin evaluates the coincidence of arguments with respect to current Wikipedia practice, and not the number of heads in the discussion - (administrators already know that, but commenters would do good to discuss how their objections would apply to the category if it is kept).
Diego (
talk)
10:29, 23 April 2012 (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:March of Time
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.
Thank you — I agree with renaming the category and I appreciate your proposal. If it's renamed "The March of Time," any images related to the radio series could also be included in the category. For now I'd advocate keeping it less specific. —
WFinch (
talk)
02:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't have a strong preference but he fact is that the category currently contains the March of Time films so I placed it inside
Category:Documentary film series which will probably attract a number of readers to the category. If the scope of the category is wider, we'll probably lose this.
Pichpich (
talk)
03:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm sold. I'd be very surprised if any separate articles for the radio series were ever created. The documentary film series category is a great place for MOT, since that's how it's principally known. —
WFinch (
talk)
11:48, 17 April 2012 (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:NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements
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 This category is being used solely to track pages that transclude a certain template. The correct way to do this is through the "what links here" tool. Categories like this, even if used as hidden, create unnecessary clutter.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Note I'm open for whatever but the thinking behind this was to have a category to view all sports teams with NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements information. The category description should probably be changed and category renamed but I was having a hard time think about what to call it or how to describe it. --
ben_b (
talk)
02:35, 16 April 2012 (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:Ranking movements
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 This category is being used solely to track pages that transclude a certain template. The correct way to do this is through the "what links here" tool. Categories like this, even if used as hidden, create unnecessary clutter.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Note I'm open for whatever but the thinking behind this was to have a category to view all sports teams with ranking movements information. The category description should probably be changed and category renamed but I was having a hard time think about what to call it or how to describe it. --
ben_b (
talk)
02:35, 16 April 2012 (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.
West Indian Communities in the United States
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 I hate to suggest this. A rename might save the category, but I have my doubts. The problem right now is there are no criteria on what makes a place a "West Indian Community". For example,
Blue Hills, Connecticut is in this category. The article tells us Blue Hill with 23% of its population reporting Jamaican ancestry on the 2000 census longform had the highest percentage of people of Jamaican descent in the United States at that point. However that means that still 3 out of every four residents were not Jamaican. There is no evidence provided on the percentage of other West Indians, but there is no evidence that they were a majority of the population. So how much of the population of a place needs to be West Indian for it to be a West Indian community?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 16 April 2012 (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.