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:Historical divisions in Sweden
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:Geographical areas in Swedish history
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:Words to avoid
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, POV. Wikipedia is not a proscriptivist kind of place; we describe what is, and take no position on whether it should be or not.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Museum of Modern Art
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose Perfectly valid category for articles on this museum and related subcategories. Now, some may feel that the nominator's confusion over this indicates a need to disambiguate the MoMA articles and categories. I don't.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per SFB and obviously ambiguous per A1977, categories should not be overly ambiguous, and per the nominator putting up the proposal, this is clearly too ambiguous. --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Books by Bangladeshi 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.
Rename
Category:Bangladeshi books to match the others. It's a flawed categorization scheme because WP categorizes books as being of the nationality of their authors (as though books have passports); but, that's what we do (see, e.g.,
Category:Books by country and its subcats). That should be evaluated before we have categories such as books by former country (we already have
Category:East German books, and I would guess only a matter of time until we have
Category:Nazi German books, for all works published in Germany from 1933 to 1945), and other such crap.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
As would I, but if we try to discuss it here; no doubt someone will complain that every other category wasn't tagged and procedure wasn't followed, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per Carlossuarez46 above, but I do think nation of publication is relevant as books can (and often do) contribute to the national culture. Still, the "Fooian books" structure needs to be refined to something like
Category:Books by Fooian authors, like the above.
SFB21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I still don't buy it:
Nabokov is a good example; he was a citizen of 2 countries (Russia & USA), lived in several others (including Switzerland & Germany), and wrote in 3 languages (Russian, English, and French) - do only certain of his works contribute to certain national culture? And moreover, if we adopt the Fooian authors categorization scheme do we put all of Nabokov's pre-1948 (date of naturalization in the USA) into Russian authors (when he fled Russia in 1917 and lived nearly the entire period after than abroad) or something else. I think that Marcocapelle has it right, they should be categorized by original language - little more can be objectively stated and much of the "choices" we would make would be purely subjective.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I think it is the rest of the by country tree that is wrong. A book can only get its nationality from its author. Possibly
Category:Books by Bangladeshis would be even better. I cannot agree the remark about categorizing only by language: about half the contents are obviously in English, not Bengali.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
A book could also get a "nationality" from place of first publication. Often that and the nationality of the author correspond, but not always. But we never use "Bangladeshis" in category names. It's always "Bangladeshi people".
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to conform to group Personally I think this whole schema of Books by nationality is flawed. However if we categorize to other nationalities, we should to Bangladesh.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of TLAs
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: To make clear that this is a category for Wikipedia administration pages that list TLAs (often with lots of redlinks) rather than for encyclopedia articles.
DexDor (
talk)
07:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Oak Ridge Associated Universities
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 Not a prominent or defining grouping for the institutions involved. List already present in article.
SFB21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is not the usual kind of University Association member category, as it was originally those universities that contributed to the establishment of the Oak Ridge laboratory. However, even if they did contribute something once, I do not think this makes any difference. Categorisation by membership should be rare and limited to the most distinguished cases.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Historical divisions in Sweden
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:Geographical areas in Swedish history
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:Words to avoid
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, POV. Wikipedia is not a proscriptivist kind of place; we describe what is, and take no position on whether it should be or not.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Museum of Modern Art
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose Perfectly valid category for articles on this museum and related subcategories. Now, some may feel that the nominator's confusion over this indicates a need to disambiguate the MoMA articles and categories. I don't.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per SFB and obviously ambiguous per A1977, categories should not be overly ambiguous, and per the nominator putting up the proposal, this is clearly too ambiguous. --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Books by Bangladeshi 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.
Rename
Category:Bangladeshi books to match the others. It's a flawed categorization scheme because WP categorizes books as being of the nationality of their authors (as though books have passports); but, that's what we do (see, e.g.,
Category:Books by country and its subcats). That should be evaluated before we have categories such as books by former country (we already have
Category:East German books, and I would guess only a matter of time until we have
Category:Nazi German books, for all works published in Germany from 1933 to 1945), and other such crap.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
As would I, but if we try to discuss it here; no doubt someone will complain that every other category wasn't tagged and procedure wasn't followed, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per Carlossuarez46 above, but I do think nation of publication is relevant as books can (and often do) contribute to the national culture. Still, the "Fooian books" structure needs to be refined to something like
Category:Books by Fooian authors, like the above.
SFB21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I still don't buy it:
Nabokov is a good example; he was a citizen of 2 countries (Russia & USA), lived in several others (including Switzerland & Germany), and wrote in 3 languages (Russian, English, and French) - do only certain of his works contribute to certain national culture? And moreover, if we adopt the Fooian authors categorization scheme do we put all of Nabokov's pre-1948 (date of naturalization in the USA) into Russian authors (when he fled Russia in 1917 and lived nearly the entire period after than abroad) or something else. I think that Marcocapelle has it right, they should be categorized by original language - little more can be objectively stated and much of the "choices" we would make would be purely subjective.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I think it is the rest of the by country tree that is wrong. A book can only get its nationality from its author. Possibly
Category:Books by Bangladeshis would be even better. I cannot agree the remark about categorizing only by language: about half the contents are obviously in English, not Bengali.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
A book could also get a "nationality" from place of first publication. Often that and the nationality of the author correspond, but not always. But we never use "Bangladeshis" in category names. It's always "Bangladeshi people".
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to conform to group Personally I think this whole schema of Books by nationality is flawed. However if we categorize to other nationalities, we should to Bangladesh.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of TLAs
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: To make clear that this is a category for Wikipedia administration pages that list TLAs (often with lots of redlinks) rather than for encyclopedia articles.
DexDor (
talk)
07:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Oak Ridge Associated Universities
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 Not a prominent or defining grouping for the institutions involved. List already present in article.
SFB21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is not the usual kind of University Association member category, as it was originally those universities that contributed to the establishment of the Oak Ridge laboratory. However, even if they did contribute something once, I do not think this makes any difference. Categorisation by membership should be rare and limited to the most distinguished cases.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.