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 category is intended for people who write non-fiction prose works about music, but its name is ambiguous enough that I just had to clean it up for the erroneous addition of several songwriters and/or composers. While it's true that the majority of its sibling categories are named in the format "[Subject] writers", we do have precedent (e.g.
"Film writers") for switching to "Writers on [subject]" in cases where the standard name carries this kind of "writers about subject, or writers of individual pieces of subject?" ambiguity.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, though surely
Category:Writers about music is a more natural name, in terms of grammar? As you said, it's for people who write about music - and less ambiguous in general terms. It doesn't matter overly with music as the subject, but sooner or later we'd get something like "writers on furniture" or "writers on books" as potential categories. Better to call it "about" while there's only a handful of categories of thsi type.
Grutness...wha?00:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"Comics writers" is for people who write comics, not people who write prose analysis about comics, and "television writers" is for people who write television programs, not people who write prose analysis about television — and sportswriters and garden writers are irrelevant here, because there's no possible ambiguity. Sports and gardens are not things that can be written per se, but things that can only be written about as a subject. The problem here remains that people have been filing songwriters and composers in here despite the existence of more appropriate categories for those things — like film and television, music is a thing that can be both written about as a subject and written as a thing in its own right, and we do have precedent for shifting to "writers on X" or "writers about X" in situations where "X writers" is ambiguous because X is a thing that can itself be written.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Bearcat's rationale, but prefer Grutness' idea, "about" as opposed to "on". @
Warren: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I would argue that "sportswriter" is an accepted term per my handy dandy dictionary, and you can't really "write" sports - you can only write about them. Same goes for gardens and horticulture. You can, however, write comics and TV shows. I feel it should be judged as to whether the thing can be written into existence or written about, and for things that can be both, "X writers" and "Writers about X" categories should be developed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)09:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, we have such words — but that doesn't stop people from sometimes misfiling composers and lyricists and songwriters in here anyway, just as the fact that we have the word
screenwriter for people who write film scripts didn't stop people from misfiling screenwriters in
Category:Film writers instead of
Category:Screenwriters. Not every speaker of English necessarily always knows the proper word for everything. Category names are not necessarily restricted to "what's the most common name for it in the sources" — we have lots of categories where we've shifted to an alternate wording, if the usual name for it actually leads to a lot of misfiling within the Wikipedia category system. Yes, people should know better than to file a songwriter or a lyricist or a composer here — but they don't always, and we do take patterns of consistent misuse into account when deciding how best to name categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:26, 27 January 2018 (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:Biblical art by medium
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:Music lending libraries
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:Fictional bullies
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 It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.
Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment None of the characters included so far seem to be super-villains, and the only one who is from the superhero genre is
Flash Thompson (an early
Spider-Man foe, turned into a long-running supporting character and eventually a hero in his own right). Most of the ones I recognize are children or teenagers, often in a school setting. I am not certain why
Joffrey Baratheon is included. The character is a particularly sadistic monarch in a war-time setting, but rarely gets his own hands dirty. He mostly commands others to kill, torture, or humiliate whoever he wants to target.
Dimadick (
talk)
17:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - many fictional characters, such as
Draco Malfoy are chiefly characterized and known as bullies. Since being a bully in many instances is considered the chief or important characteristic in many of these fictitious individuals, this category should be kept. I am not however opposed to removing the articles that are inappropriately placed in this article, but that is not an excuse to delete the whole category.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
04:28, 25 January 2018 (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:Queens regnant of Hungary
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:Films whose cinematographer won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award
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:WP:NOTDEFINING. Films are not primarily known for winning Best Cinematography at the Guldbagge Awards, the field is not as important as directing or writing and, argh, I hate to say it because of the America-centrism in the film industry, but the Guldbagge aren't as big as the Oscars. Sadly, this seems like
overcategorization.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. To be fair, it's not so much a problem of Guldbagges vs. Oscars per se — the average non-filmgeek person couldn't actually tell you who won the Oscar for Best Cinematographer either, let alone knowing what film they won it for. The
Category:Best Cinematographer Guldbagge Award winners parent is a perfectly acceptable and defining category for the people who won the award — but it's not a defining characteristic of the films they worked on.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per all the others, but even if we kept it, we'd have to rename it to make it clear that these particular films won this award. The same cinematographer could work on another film that doesn't win the award, and someone could fudge it and go, "Well, this movie's cinematographer is an award-winner for this that or the other film, and the category's name doesn't imply it should only be used on movies that actually won the award," and so put this category on an article for a film that didn't win the award. In future, on the very nonexistent chance this category scheme actually gains traction as valid here on Wikipedia, it should be named
Category:Films whose cinematography won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award. This category isn't about people, it's about specific films, but the name of the category doesn't currently reflect that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)23:11, 25 January 2018 (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: This category is intended for people who write non-fiction prose works about music, but its name is ambiguous enough that I just had to clean it up for the erroneous addition of several songwriters and/or composers. While it's true that the majority of its sibling categories are named in the format "[Subject] writers", we do have precedent (e.g.
"Film writers") for switching to "Writers on [subject]" in cases where the standard name carries this kind of "writers about subject, or writers of individual pieces of subject?" ambiguity.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, though surely
Category:Writers about music is a more natural name, in terms of grammar? As you said, it's for people who write about music - and less ambiguous in general terms. It doesn't matter overly with music as the subject, but sooner or later we'd get something like "writers on furniture" or "writers on books" as potential categories. Better to call it "about" while there's only a handful of categories of thsi type.
Grutness...wha?00:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"Comics writers" is for people who write comics, not people who write prose analysis about comics, and "television writers" is for people who write television programs, not people who write prose analysis about television — and sportswriters and garden writers are irrelevant here, because there's no possible ambiguity. Sports and gardens are not things that can be written per se, but things that can only be written about as a subject. The problem here remains that people have been filing songwriters and composers in here despite the existence of more appropriate categories for those things — like film and television, music is a thing that can be both written about as a subject and written as a thing in its own right, and we do have precedent for shifting to "writers on X" or "writers about X" in situations where "X writers" is ambiguous because X is a thing that can itself be written.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Bearcat's rationale, but prefer Grutness' idea, "about" as opposed to "on". @
Warren: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I would argue that "sportswriter" is an accepted term per my handy dandy dictionary, and you can't really "write" sports - you can only write about them. Same goes for gardens and horticulture. You can, however, write comics and TV shows. I feel it should be judged as to whether the thing can be written into existence or written about, and for things that can be both, "X writers" and "Writers about X" categories should be developed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)09:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, we have such words — but that doesn't stop people from sometimes misfiling composers and lyricists and songwriters in here anyway, just as the fact that we have the word
screenwriter for people who write film scripts didn't stop people from misfiling screenwriters in
Category:Film writers instead of
Category:Screenwriters. Not every speaker of English necessarily always knows the proper word for everything. Category names are not necessarily restricted to "what's the most common name for it in the sources" — we have lots of categories where we've shifted to an alternate wording, if the usual name for it actually leads to a lot of misfiling within the Wikipedia category system. Yes, people should know better than to file a songwriter or a lyricist or a composer here — but they don't always, and we do take patterns of consistent misuse into account when deciding how best to name categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:26, 27 January 2018 (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:Biblical art by medium
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:Music lending libraries
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:Fictional bullies
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 It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.
Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment None of the characters included so far seem to be super-villains, and the only one who is from the superhero genre is
Flash Thompson (an early
Spider-Man foe, turned into a long-running supporting character and eventually a hero in his own right). Most of the ones I recognize are children or teenagers, often in a school setting. I am not certain why
Joffrey Baratheon is included. The character is a particularly sadistic monarch in a war-time setting, but rarely gets his own hands dirty. He mostly commands others to kill, torture, or humiliate whoever he wants to target.
Dimadick (
talk)
17:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - many fictional characters, such as
Draco Malfoy are chiefly characterized and known as bullies. Since being a bully in many instances is considered the chief or important characteristic in many of these fictitious individuals, this category should be kept. I am not however opposed to removing the articles that are inappropriately placed in this article, but that is not an excuse to delete the whole category.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
04:28, 25 January 2018 (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:Queens regnant of Hungary
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:Films whose cinematographer won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award
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:WP:NOTDEFINING. Films are not primarily known for winning Best Cinematography at the Guldbagge Awards, the field is not as important as directing or writing and, argh, I hate to say it because of the America-centrism in the film industry, but the Guldbagge aren't as big as the Oscars. Sadly, this seems like
overcategorization.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. To be fair, it's not so much a problem of Guldbagges vs. Oscars per se — the average non-filmgeek person couldn't actually tell you who won the Oscar for Best Cinematographer either, let alone knowing what film they won it for. The
Category:Best Cinematographer Guldbagge Award winners parent is a perfectly acceptable and defining category for the people who won the award — but it's not a defining characteristic of the films they worked on.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per all the others, but even if we kept it, we'd have to rename it to make it clear that these particular films won this award. The same cinematographer could work on another film that doesn't win the award, and someone could fudge it and go, "Well, this movie's cinematographer is an award-winner for this that or the other film, and the category's name doesn't imply it should only be used on movies that actually won the award," and so put this category on an article for a film that didn't win the award. In future, on the very nonexistent chance this category scheme actually gains traction as valid here on Wikipedia, it should be named
Category:Films whose cinematography won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award. This category isn't about people, it's about specific films, but the name of the category doesn't currently reflect that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)23:11, 25 January 2018 (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.