July 7
Category:Roscommon
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Roscommon to Category:Roscommon (town)
- Nominator's rationale: to remove the ambiguity. People in Ireland don't often use the prefix "county" when referring to a county ... so "I'm from Roscommon" could mean either
County Roscommon or
Roscommon town.
This follows the long-standing precedents of Category:County Sligo/ Category:Sligo (town) (see 2011 CFD) and Category:County Dublin/ Category:Dublin (city) (see 2011 CFD). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- per Sligo precedent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – per Sligo and Dublin precedents. Oculi ( talk) 18:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- See also related discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Category:Kildare. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support per previous CFDs. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 12 July 2017 (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.
Derry city
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. I will leave redirects/disambiguation pages at the old names. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- Nominator's rationale: to remove the massive ambiguity of these titles. This follows the long-standing precedents of Category:County Sligo/ Category:Sligo (town) (see 2011 CFD) and Category:County Dublin/ Category:Dublin (city) (see 2011 CFD).
- In this case the category for the county is at Category:County Londonderry ... but that does not lessen the ambiguity, for reasons which I will set out below to help those unfamiliar with the topic.
- Background: The names of the city and county of Derry or Londonderry in Northern Ireland are the subject of a naming dispute between Irish nationalists and unionists. (For background, see Derry/Londonderry name dispute). In general, unionists call both "Londondery", and nationalists say "Derry" for both. (Yes, there are exceptions, but not relevant here).
- Per a compromise which has been stable since 2004, and docmented in the MOS for the Ireland-related articles, at WP:LDERRY, the head article for the city is at Derry, and the county is at County Londonderry. However, people in Ireland don't often use the prefix "county" when referring to a county ... so "I'm from Sligo" could mean either County Sligo or Sligo town.
- Similarly with Derry/Londonderry, where "I'm from Derry" could refer either to County Derry or the city of Derry.
- Equally, "I'm from Londonderry" could refer either to County Londonderry or the city of Londonderry.
- The choice of term tells you lots about the speaker's politics, but little about whether they live in the city or the wider county. So a reader or editor encountering a category named "Foo in Derry" may reasonably (but incorrectly) assume that it refers to the county. Adding the suffix " (city)" removes the ambiguity, whatever your politics. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
20:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- PS The category names listed above are all descriptive titles invented by Wikipedia editors. There are several sub-cats which I have omitted from this nomination because their title is the proper name of an organisation.
- So for example Category:Derry City F.C. and Category:Derry Journal Newspapers refer to the names of specific entities, and per WP:DERRY should follow each organisation's own choice of name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- All categories have been tagged [1]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have notified WikiProject Northern Ireland ( diff) and WikiProject Ireland ( diff). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Logical, follows precedent and IMOS. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Nom makes a strong case. I thought I would vote the other way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support despite my issues with IMOS this follows it better. Long time since I seen an editor use "foo", think I was a newbie and we were on about "County Foo". Mabuska (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support changes make sense/logical. st 170 e 13:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – per Sligo and Dublin precedents. Oculi ( talk) 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, for what good it will do. There is no "County Derry", and never has been. —
Jon C.
ॐ
13:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ User:Jon C.: that is true in official usage. But as I am sure you know, "County Derry" is widespread in common usage. See the refs at County Londonderry#Name, and also the huge numbers of hits on JSTOR or on Google Books and Google News (I use Gnews & Gbooks because unlike a general Google search they concentrate reliable sources)
- Wikipedia follows
WP:COMMONNAME not some notion of "official usage"; hence the needfor the style guide at
WP:LDERRY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know, I know. But "Derry" for the city at least has some precedent – there was a Derry/Doire prior to there being a city called Londonderry – but there has never been a County Derry. County Londonderry was previously County Coleraine. — Jon C. ॐ 14:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
User:Jon C.: whatever. Seriously, the issue of whether you or anyone else regards common usage as "correct" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
WP:NOTFORUM.
What matters here is that the common usage exists, and creates ambiguity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is already clarity, in WP:LDERRY. Derry is the city, Londonderry is the county. That's the compromise, as you know. — Jon C. ॐ 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. That's a naming convention, which is needed precisely because there is not clarity.
If the terminology for city and county was uncontested, then we wouldn't need to have WP:LDERRY. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. That's a naming convention, which is needed precisely because there is not clarity.
- @
User:Jon C.: whatever. Seriously, the issue of whether you or anyone else regards common usage as "correct" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
WP:NOTFORUM.
- Wikipedia follows
WP:COMMONNAME not some notion of "official usage"; hence the needfor the style guide at
WP:LDERRY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
11:55, 13 July 2017 (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:Subjects of iconic photographs
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. It would probably be valuable for someone also to create a list. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NONDEFINING and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.
First, the subjectivity: just what is the definition of an "iconic" photo? The article iconography gives no hit of robust criteria.
Second, the non-definingness. Despite a half-hearted warning on the category page that "the people listed in this category are generally those who are most notable for their appearance in the photograph at issue", the warning also notes that "this is not exclusively the case".
The result of the fuzzy inclusion criteria is that the category contains plenty of articles on people who are clearly not defined by their photos, but who have been the subject of some great photos because of their notability: e.g. Salvador Allende, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lyndon B. Johnson, Winston Churchill. Sure, those pages could be removed from the category, but the lack of any simple and robust criteria will just lead to the category filling up with more stuff. For every person such as Ira Hayes who clearly is defined by a photo, there are dozens more subjective cases. This cannot be fixed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (rename) and fix. There are clearly people such as
Afghan Girl,
Phan Thi Kim Phuc,
Omayra Sánchez,
Florence Owens Thompson, and the six Iwo Jima flag raisers (
Michael Strank,
Harlon Block,
Franklin Sousley,
Rene Gagnon,
Ira Hayes, and
Harold Schultz) whose notability objectively can be identified as arising entirely from the fact that they were the subjects of a photograph which can objectively be described as iconic based on widespread dissemination and critical recognition. Absent such a category, we have no way of tying these people together by their primary identifying characteristic. If necessary, we can establish clearer criteria for inclusion in the category, and tweak the category name to reflect this.
bd2412
T 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
BD2412, as I noted in the nom, some people are indeed so defined. But the problem is that there are many less clearcut cases, and no objective means of drawing a clear line: any line is either
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or
WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
More verbose inclusion criteria don't work in practice, because most categs are added using WP:HOTCAT which doesn't display any caveats on the categ page.
The only way this categ could work is with a title which tightens the scope without relying on explanatory text on the page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)- Still fixable. How about renaming it
Category:People notable for being subjects of iconic photographs? bd2412 T 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still fixable. How about renaming it
- @
BD2412, as I noted in the nom, some people are indeed so defined. But the problem is that there are many less clearcut cases, and no objective means of drawing a clear line: any line is either
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or
WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
- Delete -- Whether a photo is iconic is a POV issue.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?
bd2412
T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- What if the descriptor was not "iconic"? We must have some objective standard to determine that these people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in the first place. bd2412 T 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- In light of the above comments, I propose renaming this to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. This eliminates the question of whether a given photograph is "iconic" and focuses on the notability of the subject. It is, of course, highly implausible that a person would be notable for being the subject of a photograph if the photograph itself was not notable. bd2412 T 01:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?
bd2412
T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Listify, a table with subject, photographer and circumstances would be a useful addition to the history of photography, but the subjects have too little in common for a category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per BD2412. I'm the editor who added Lyndon B. Johnson and Evelyn McHale to this category. I would not have added Johnson if the category were more narrowly defined, but McHale is a perfect example of a person whose notability rests on a single photograph. DragonflyDC ( talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow more consideration of options to rename or convert to list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: to allow more consideration of options to rename or convert to list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Clarification -- I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the name that can be corrected by a rename, or even repurposing. The whole basis of the category depends on what one editor thinks is iconic. Another editor may disagree. That conflict cannot be resolved, because inclusion depends on the subjective judgement of the editor, in other words, the editor's view. This is contrary to the principles of the category system, which requires objective criteria. There can be no option other than Delete.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a "clarification" but a repetition of your earlier !vote. I suggest that you unbold your second use of "delete" to avoid the appearance of trying to double vote. The proposal on the table is to rename the category to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph; this is obviously not a subjective determination, because if these subjects were not notable at all, they would not be included in Wikipedia at all, and if they were notable for some reason other than being in a specific photograph, that would be indicated in the subject's article. DragonflyDC provides an excellent example of this principle. bd2412 T 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep with whatever name. It's quite reasonable to have a category for people who lived ordinary, nonnotable lives in all ways except for things that grew out of them being the subjects of major photos; Leonard Siffleet is a good example who's not currently in the category. Nyttend ( talk) 11:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly the distinguishing characteristic of these people is that they notable appeared in photographs. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep or Rename as proposed. This is the only thing making some of these people notable. It makes sense to have them in a category. Deciding what goes into the category is just like deciding what paintings are notable. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 17:38, 14 July 2017 (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:Robot video 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 result of the discussion was: do not delete, no consensus about renaming. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: "Video games featuring robots" is not a defining characteristic of video games. Highly WP:OR and vague. Rise of the Robots, a fighting game without a substantial narrative to Overwatch, a multiplayer shooter with a robotic character, there are dozens games, if not hundreds, that feature a robot. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Way too vague to categorize. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: IMHO a stronger consensus would be desirable before deleting this category, as it is fairly well-used.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: IMHO a stronger consensus would be desirable before deleting this category, as it is fairly well-used.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Consider purging instead of deleting, for example Robot Battle seems to fit perfectly in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. I kinda agree with the above and it should be kept as a category. 46.161.234.14 ( talk) 18:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing vague in this definition. Dimadick ( talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose If you consider it too vague create a discussion about new inclusion-criteria please. -- Fixuture ( talk) 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Fixuture and
Dimadick:, I've also said that "video games featuring robots" is not a
WP:CATDEF. I'm saying it is too vague for a definition, because "featuring robots" can refer to any kind of robot: humanoid robots ("droids"), industrial robots (machines), military robots (drones, UAVs), etc. How do you feel about changing it to "Video games featuring robot characters"?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK
10:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Soetermans: Those could become subcategories within that category. I don't think deleting it would be a reasonable thing to do here - instead renaming, merging and establishing stricter inclusion criteria would be options here. Renaming it to "Video games featuring robot characters" would be a reasonable suggestion. I'm not sure about it though as there are probably also video games which significantly feature robots but not as characters but tools only. Hence I tend towards oppose on that too and would instead prefer inclusion criteria that requires some minimum focus / depth of the "robot" element. For this I'd suggest something along the lines of: "featuring a robot as a main character or extensively featuring robots throughout the game / at least 1 nonshort, important game-segment or the press making note of specifically its robot contents." --
Fixuture (
talk)
14:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fixuture: That sounds reasonable enough. But in which term are you refering to as "featuring robot characters"? I mean, Clank from the Ratchet and Clank series is a robot, sure. But... 46.161.233.173 ( talk) 10:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Soetermans: Those could become subcategories within that category. I don't think deleting it would be a reasonable thing to do here - instead renaming, merging and establishing stricter inclusion criteria would be options here. Renaming it to "Video games featuring robot characters" would be a reasonable suggestion. I'm not sure about it though as there are probably also video games which significantly feature robots but not as characters but tools only. Hence I tend towards oppose on that too and would instead prefer inclusion criteria that requires some minimum focus / depth of the "robot" element. For this I'd suggest something along the lines of: "featuring a robot as a main character or extensively featuring robots throughout the game / at least 1 nonshort, important game-segment or the press making note of specifically its robot contents." --
Fixuture (
talk)
14:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Fixuture and
Dimadick:, I've also said that "video games featuring robots" is not a
WP:CATDEF. I'm saying it is too vague for a definition, because "featuring robots" can refer to any kind of robot: humanoid robots ("droids"), industrial robots (machines), military robots (drones, UAVs), etc. How do you feel about changing it to "Video games featuring robot characters"?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK
10:05, 16 July 2017 (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.
International relations
- 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/delete as nominated. –
Fayenatic
London
21:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:907 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:911 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:921 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:945 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:962 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1033 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1072 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1122 in international relations
- Propose merging Category:1188 in international relations to Category:12th century in international relations
- Propose merging Category:1245 in international relations to Category:13th century in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1249 in international relations
- Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each year category and no chance of substantial growth. Many of the articles don't need a merge to a century in international relations category, insofar they are already contained in a centuries subcat in the tree of international relations (mostly in a treaties subcat). None of the articles needs a merge to a year category, since they all are in another subcategory of a year category already (mostly in a law, continent or country subcategory of a year). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support this is another case of category twigs, not trees. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:30, 7 July 2017 (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.
July 7
Category:Roscommon
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Roscommon to Category:Roscommon (town)
- Nominator's rationale: to remove the ambiguity. People in Ireland don't often use the prefix "county" when referring to a county ... so "I'm from Roscommon" could mean either
County Roscommon or
Roscommon town.
This follows the long-standing precedents of Category:County Sligo/ Category:Sligo (town) (see 2011 CFD) and Category:County Dublin/ Category:Dublin (city) (see 2011 CFD). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- per Sligo precedent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – per Sligo and Dublin precedents. Oculi ( talk) 18:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- See also related discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Category:Kildare. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support per previous CFDs. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 12 July 2017 (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.
Derry city
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. I will leave redirects/disambiguation pages at the old names. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- Nominator's rationale: to remove the massive ambiguity of these titles. This follows the long-standing precedents of Category:County Sligo/ Category:Sligo (town) (see 2011 CFD) and Category:County Dublin/ Category:Dublin (city) (see 2011 CFD).
- In this case the category for the county is at Category:County Londonderry ... but that does not lessen the ambiguity, for reasons which I will set out below to help those unfamiliar with the topic.
- Background: The names of the city and county of Derry or Londonderry in Northern Ireland are the subject of a naming dispute between Irish nationalists and unionists. (For background, see Derry/Londonderry name dispute). In general, unionists call both "Londondery", and nationalists say "Derry" for both. (Yes, there are exceptions, but not relevant here).
- Per a compromise which has been stable since 2004, and docmented in the MOS for the Ireland-related articles, at WP:LDERRY, the head article for the city is at Derry, and the county is at County Londonderry. However, people in Ireland don't often use the prefix "county" when referring to a county ... so "I'm from Sligo" could mean either County Sligo or Sligo town.
- Similarly with Derry/Londonderry, where "I'm from Derry" could refer either to County Derry or the city of Derry.
- Equally, "I'm from Londonderry" could refer either to County Londonderry or the city of Londonderry.
- The choice of term tells you lots about the speaker's politics, but little about whether they live in the city or the wider county. So a reader or editor encountering a category named "Foo in Derry" may reasonably (but incorrectly) assume that it refers to the county. Adding the suffix " (city)" removes the ambiguity, whatever your politics. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
20:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- PS The category names listed above are all descriptive titles invented by Wikipedia editors. There are several sub-cats which I have omitted from this nomination because their title is the proper name of an organisation.
- So for example Category:Derry City F.C. and Category:Derry Journal Newspapers refer to the names of specific entities, and per WP:DERRY should follow each organisation's own choice of name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- All categories have been tagged [1]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have notified WikiProject Northern Ireland ( diff) and WikiProject Ireland ( diff). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Logical, follows precedent and IMOS. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Nom makes a strong case. I thought I would vote the other way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support despite my issues with IMOS this follows it better. Long time since I seen an editor use "foo", think I was a newbie and we were on about "County Foo". Mabuska (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support changes make sense/logical. st 170 e 13:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – per Sligo and Dublin precedents. Oculi ( talk) 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, for what good it will do. There is no "County Derry", and never has been. —
Jon C.
ॐ
13:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ User:Jon C.: that is true in official usage. But as I am sure you know, "County Derry" is widespread in common usage. See the refs at County Londonderry#Name, and also the huge numbers of hits on JSTOR or on Google Books and Google News (I use Gnews & Gbooks because unlike a general Google search they concentrate reliable sources)
- Wikipedia follows
WP:COMMONNAME not some notion of "official usage"; hence the needfor the style guide at
WP:LDERRY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know, I know. But "Derry" for the city at least has some precedent – there was a Derry/Doire prior to there being a city called Londonderry – but there has never been a County Derry. County Londonderry was previously County Coleraine. — Jon C. ॐ 14:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
User:Jon C.: whatever. Seriously, the issue of whether you or anyone else regards common usage as "correct" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
WP:NOTFORUM.
What matters here is that the common usage exists, and creates ambiguity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is already clarity, in WP:LDERRY. Derry is the city, Londonderry is the county. That's the compromise, as you know. — Jon C. ॐ 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. That's a naming convention, which is needed precisely because there is not clarity.
If the terminology for city and county was uncontested, then we wouldn't need to have WP:LDERRY. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. That's a naming convention, which is needed precisely because there is not clarity.
- @
User:Jon C.: whatever. Seriously, the issue of whether you or anyone else regards common usage as "correct" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
WP:NOTFORUM.
- Wikipedia follows
WP:COMMONNAME not some notion of "official usage"; hence the needfor the style guide at
WP:LDERRY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
11:55, 13 July 2017 (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:Subjects of iconic photographs
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. It would probably be valuable for someone also to create a list. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NONDEFINING and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.
First, the subjectivity: just what is the definition of an "iconic" photo? The article iconography gives no hit of robust criteria.
Second, the non-definingness. Despite a half-hearted warning on the category page that "the people listed in this category are generally those who are most notable for their appearance in the photograph at issue", the warning also notes that "this is not exclusively the case".
The result of the fuzzy inclusion criteria is that the category contains plenty of articles on people who are clearly not defined by their photos, but who have been the subject of some great photos because of their notability: e.g. Salvador Allende, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lyndon B. Johnson, Winston Churchill. Sure, those pages could be removed from the category, but the lack of any simple and robust criteria will just lead to the category filling up with more stuff. For every person such as Ira Hayes who clearly is defined by a photo, there are dozens more subjective cases. This cannot be fixed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (rename) and fix. There are clearly people such as
Afghan Girl,
Phan Thi Kim Phuc,
Omayra Sánchez,
Florence Owens Thompson, and the six Iwo Jima flag raisers (
Michael Strank,
Harlon Block,
Franklin Sousley,
Rene Gagnon,
Ira Hayes, and
Harold Schultz) whose notability objectively can be identified as arising entirely from the fact that they were the subjects of a photograph which can objectively be described as iconic based on widespread dissemination and critical recognition. Absent such a category, we have no way of tying these people together by their primary identifying characteristic. If necessary, we can establish clearer criteria for inclusion in the category, and tweak the category name to reflect this.
bd2412
T 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
BD2412, as I noted in the nom, some people are indeed so defined. But the problem is that there are many less clearcut cases, and no objective means of drawing a clear line: any line is either
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or
WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
More verbose inclusion criteria don't work in practice, because most categs are added using WP:HOTCAT which doesn't display any caveats on the categ page.
The only way this categ could work is with a title which tightens the scope without relying on explanatory text on the page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)- Still fixable. How about renaming it
Category:People notable for being subjects of iconic photographs? bd2412 T 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still fixable. How about renaming it
- @
BD2412, as I noted in the nom, some people are indeed so defined. But the problem is that there are many less clearcut cases, and no objective means of drawing a clear line: any line is either
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or
WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
- Delete -- Whether a photo is iconic is a POV issue.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?
bd2412
T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- What if the descriptor was not "iconic"? We must have some objective standard to determine that these people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in the first place. bd2412 T 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- In light of the above comments, I propose renaming this to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. This eliminates the question of whether a given photograph is "iconic" and focuses on the notability of the subject. It is, of course, highly implausible that a person would be notable for being the subject of a photograph if the photograph itself was not notable. bd2412 T 01:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima?
bd2412
T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Listify, a table with subject, photographer and circumstances would be a useful addition to the history of photography, but the subjects have too little in common for a category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per BD2412. I'm the editor who added Lyndon B. Johnson and Evelyn McHale to this category. I would not have added Johnson if the category were more narrowly defined, but McHale is a perfect example of a person whose notability rests on a single photograph. DragonflyDC ( talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow more consideration of options to rename or convert to list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: to allow more consideration of options to rename or convert to list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Clarification -- I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the name that can be corrected by a rename, or even repurposing. The whole basis of the category depends on what one editor thinks is iconic. Another editor may disagree. That conflict cannot be resolved, because inclusion depends on the subjective judgement of the editor, in other words, the editor's view. This is contrary to the principles of the category system, which requires objective criteria. There can be no option other than Delete.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a "clarification" but a repetition of your earlier !vote. I suggest that you unbold your second use of "delete" to avoid the appearance of trying to double vote. The proposal on the table is to rename the category to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph; this is obviously not a subjective determination, because if these subjects were not notable at all, they would not be included in Wikipedia at all, and if they were notable for some reason other than being in a specific photograph, that would be indicated in the subject's article. DragonflyDC provides an excellent example of this principle. bd2412 T 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep with whatever name. It's quite reasonable to have a category for people who lived ordinary, nonnotable lives in all ways except for things that grew out of them being the subjects of major photos; Leonard Siffleet is a good example who's not currently in the category. Nyttend ( talk) 11:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly the distinguishing characteristic of these people is that they notable appeared in photographs. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep or Rename as proposed. This is the only thing making some of these people notable. It makes sense to have them in a category. Deciding what goes into the category is just like deciding what paintings are notable. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 17:38, 14 July 2017 (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:Robot video 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 result of the discussion was: do not delete, no consensus about renaming. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: "Video games featuring robots" is not a defining characteristic of video games. Highly WP:OR and vague. Rise of the Robots, a fighting game without a substantial narrative to Overwatch, a multiplayer shooter with a robotic character, there are dozens games, if not hundreds, that feature a robot. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Way too vague to categorize. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: IMHO a stronger consensus would be desirable before deleting this category, as it is fairly well-used.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: IMHO a stronger consensus would be desirable before deleting this category, as it is fairly well-used.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Consider purging instead of deleting, for example Robot Battle seems to fit perfectly in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. I kinda agree with the above and it should be kept as a category. 46.161.234.14 ( talk) 18:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing vague in this definition. Dimadick ( talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose If you consider it too vague create a discussion about new inclusion-criteria please. -- Fixuture ( talk) 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Fixuture and
Dimadick:, I've also said that "video games featuring robots" is not a
WP:CATDEF. I'm saying it is too vague for a definition, because "featuring robots" can refer to any kind of robot: humanoid robots ("droids"), industrial robots (machines), military robots (drones, UAVs), etc. How do you feel about changing it to "Video games featuring robot characters"?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK
10:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Soetermans: Those could become subcategories within that category. I don't think deleting it would be a reasonable thing to do here - instead renaming, merging and establishing stricter inclusion criteria would be options here. Renaming it to "Video games featuring robot characters" would be a reasonable suggestion. I'm not sure about it though as there are probably also video games which significantly feature robots but not as characters but tools only. Hence I tend towards oppose on that too and would instead prefer inclusion criteria that requires some minimum focus / depth of the "robot" element. For this I'd suggest something along the lines of: "featuring a robot as a main character or extensively featuring robots throughout the game / at least 1 nonshort, important game-segment or the press making note of specifically its robot contents." --
Fixuture (
talk)
14:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fixuture: That sounds reasonable enough. But in which term are you refering to as "featuring robot characters"? I mean, Clank from the Ratchet and Clank series is a robot, sure. But... 46.161.233.173 ( talk) 10:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Soetermans: Those could become subcategories within that category. I don't think deleting it would be a reasonable thing to do here - instead renaming, merging and establishing stricter inclusion criteria would be options here. Renaming it to "Video games featuring robot characters" would be a reasonable suggestion. I'm not sure about it though as there are probably also video games which significantly feature robots but not as characters but tools only. Hence I tend towards oppose on that too and would instead prefer inclusion criteria that requires some minimum focus / depth of the "robot" element. For this I'd suggest something along the lines of: "featuring a robot as a main character or extensively featuring robots throughout the game / at least 1 nonshort, important game-segment or the press making note of specifically its robot contents." --
Fixuture (
talk)
14:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Fixuture and
Dimadick:, I've also said that "video games featuring robots" is not a
WP:CATDEF. I'm saying it is too vague for a definition, because "featuring robots" can refer to any kind of robot: humanoid robots ("droids"), industrial robots (machines), military robots (drones, UAVs), etc. How do you feel about changing it to "Video games featuring robot characters"?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK
10:05, 16 July 2017 (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.
International relations
- 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/delete as nominated. –
Fayenatic
London
21:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:907 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:911 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:921 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:945 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:962 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1033 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1072 in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1122 in international relations
- Propose merging Category:1188 in international relations to Category:12th century in international relations
- Propose merging Category:1245 in international relations to Category:13th century in international relations
- Propose deleting Category:1249 in international relations
- Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each year category and no chance of substantial growth. Many of the articles don't need a merge to a century in international relations category, insofar they are already contained in a centuries subcat in the tree of international relations (mostly in a treaties subcat). None of the articles needs a merge to a year category, since they all are in another subcategory of a year category already (mostly in a law, continent or country subcategory of a year). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support this is another case of category twigs, not trees. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:30, 7 July 2017 (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.