Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18

Category:Liberman Broadcasting stations

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 Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Corporate name change Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2020 (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.

Visual arts by subject

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: keep all. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
General discussion
Nominator's rationale, Option A rename to visual arts (with s) per WP:C2C per Category:Visual arts by subject which was renamed in full discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC); option B rename to visual art (without s) as suggested in the speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
copy of CFDS discussion
      • Why is there an 's' at the end of each, "...in visual art" works much better. These don't necessary improve the names and make the category names longer. But particularly oppose Category:Universities and colleges in visual arts as the topics included in the category are not works of visual art. This also applies to Category:Climate change in visual arts, which includes other than links to sculptures, paintings, and drawings which define what visual art categories include. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Marcocapelle, you may not have seen this comment. Please drop 's' in 'visual arts' to 'visual art' on your requests. Timrollpickering, please see the discussion which you closed, most of the 'Support' ivotes were for 'visual art' and not 'visual arts' (possibly you can amend it before a bot starts in on changing to a incorrect name, thanks). And opposing the two I mention above. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • To me, it should be 'in visual art' or 'in the visual arts' (it is at present 'in art', not 'in arts' - 'in the arts' would be OK). Oculi ( talk) 18:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That's making it longer (in the arts). 'Moon in art' to 'Moon in visual art' seems concise enough, and the consensus of the linked discussion seems to favor 'in visual art' without the 's'. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose speedy for these art categories, because this doesn't seem like a speedy change that can happen without discussion first. Each category needs to be discussed for if it's known as "visual art" vs "art", per valid points brought up in the original discussion. Even though this is the parent category, it doesn't mean that's the category people were assuming when they were tagging "art." Art and visual art can be very different, and it's a lot more work to overhaul 10-20 categories now and then have to manually go through all of the tags and change any that aren't necessarily "visual," then at least having a discussion first about which of these should be kept, changed, or moved to be under "Art" as a parent. Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Gonnym, Randy Kryn, Oculi, and Whisperjanes: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Krakkos, Peterkingiron, Aymatth2, Johnbod, Sionk, Darwinek, Randy Kryn, Ewulp, and Modernist: pinging contributors to previous full discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Add new comments here.
  • Oppose per P Aculeius below, but if passed then: ...in visual art without the 's'. Better wording. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ...in visual art without the 's'. Yes, sorry, missed that in the original discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 22:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ...in visual art without the 's'. More idiomatic. Ewulp ( talk) 23:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • either "...in visual art" or "...in the visual arts". Not "...in visual arts". Using the form with the "s" requires the definite article. Grutness... wha? 02:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Either "...in visual art" or "...in the visual arts", per Grutness. Might as well go with the shorter one. Oculi ( talk) 09:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. None of these are intuitive titles, compared to the current ones. They simply wouldn't occur to most people. It's true that most of the examples of "art" in these categories are "visual", but they don't have to be—and why would we restrict the term to an umbrella category when the current contents aren't burdened by the inclusion of both visual and non-visual examples? "Visual art" or "arts" is the sort of phrasing one might expect to find in art textbooks, but not, to any great extent, in the real world. Books, museums, exhibitions of all kinds refer simply to "art", seldom to "visual art", even though the vast majority of their contents—perhaps in most cases, all of their contents—are "visual". This strikes me as an unnecessary and counterproductive move, when there are relatively few non-visual examples included in most of these categories, and there's no clear reason for excluding them. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all, Visual arts includes the wider arts such as film and television. These categories are clearly intended to categorise artworks. If it's not broke, don't fix it. 'Visual art' is not the common term for 'art'. Sionk ( talk) 19:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all per Sionk above. The current names are concise and unambigous.-- Darwinek ( talk) 23:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment these are being used as if any artwork containing X becomes categorized as "X in art". A piece of art that merely features or contains an X doesn't make that inclusion notable for categorization. Until that is cleaned up, renaming these is a smaller problem. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Aculeius and Sionk. There doesn't seem to be anything specifically "visual" about these categories, other than their parent. But I think a lot of editors tag categories without looking at the parent (especially when using HotCat), which means these categories are now being used for non-visual artworks too. I actually suggest moving them to be under Art or some other parent category, if the parent category is the main factor for change. Either way with the outcome, many of these are being used more broadly for artwork or fine art, so I think it's still important that non-visual artworks keep having a place in them. - Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Specific discussion about Category:Climate change in art
copy of CFDS discussion

But particularly oppose Category:Universities and colleges in visual arts as the topics included in the category are not works of visual art. This also applies to Category:Climate change in visual arts, which includes other than links to sculptures, paintings, and drawings which define what visual art categories include. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Add new comments here.
  • Keep This and similar examples should be left, or if changed go to "Foo in visual art" (or "the visual arts"). Johnbod ( talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Or rename per Johnbod. About half of the pages in the category are appropriately categorized as visual art; the exceptions can be recategorized. Ewulp ( talk) 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the current category is intended for artworks, though there would be nothing to prevent someone creating a Category:Climate change in the visual arts to include media such as films and television. Sionk ( talk) 06:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as art, I usually see that a lot of climate change in art is done as interactive art, data-driven art, computational art, or land art (and the current category content seems to reflect that) -- all of which aren't usually considered explicitly "visual." - Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Specific discussion about Category:Universities and colleges in art
copy of CFDS discussion

But particularly oppose Category:Universities and colleges in visual arts as the topics included in the category are not works of visual art. This also applies to Category:Climate change in visual arts, which includes other than links to sculptures, paintings, and drawings which define what visual art categories include. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Add new comments here.
  • Oppose using "...in visual art", per my comment in the "box" above. Many entries in this category do not apply to what is considered 'visual art' in Wikipedia categories. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This and similar examples should be left, or if changed go to "Foo in visual art" (or "the visual arts"). Johnbod ( talk) 22:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Until the category is populated with some visual art, it should be deleted. Unless I'm mistaken, everything there belongs either in Category:Films set in universities and colleges, Category:Universities and colleges in fiction, or Category:Universities and colleges in popular culture. Ewulp ( talk) 02:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, agree per Ewulp's comment, I'd tend towards Delete. The contents appear to be films and books and, while film could come under the visual arts, none of this is 'art'. The categories listed by Ewulp are much more appropriate. Sionk ( talk) 19:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment agree with some of the above points that it doesn't contain art, or even visual art, at this point. Maybe it should be deleted, but if it was renamed, it probably needs a larger discussion, because both Universities and colleges in art or visual art made me think it was about art schools. The name is a bit confusing, and if it's about depictions, it maybe needs that word, like "Depictions of universities and colleges in _____." But it doesn't seem like a notable category, since I don't think colleges are a notable theme in visual artwork in general (unlike death, mythology, etc). Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Specific discussion about Category:Art depicting people
copy of CFDS discussion
      • Oppose this. Does not match the other categories. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
        • It does match the "visual arts" in the parent category though, that is what this nomination is about. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
          • No reason to change a bad title to another bad title. My oppose still stands. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Add new comments here.
  • What was the proposed new name - not stated above? Probably Keep Johnbod ( talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Would oppose renaming to Category:People in visual art if that's the question—it's fatally ambiguous. Category:Visual art depicting people may not match the other categories but the exception is necessary. Ewulp ( talk) 02:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, the contents are works of art depicting people. The proosed new name doesn't make grammatical (or any) sense. The nomination is driven by pedantry not practicality. Sionk ( talk) 06:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Sionk. Some of the content/subcategories aren't explicitly about visual art, such as the "Women in Art" subcategory containing video games and fictional female subcategories. Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Other specific discussions
Add new comments here.
  • Keep -- It will be much better to leave this alone. The nom wants to confine categories to painting, sculpture, etc, but some of the categories are stretching into performing arts. The primary scope of most of these categories is the visual arts, but it is difficult to see how one can paint climate change though it may be represented by depictions in visual arts. If we did change this, it would be necessary to purge all categories of non-visual items and move them to a (rather unnecessary) parallel tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (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.

Categories involving burials at cemeteries

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: keep ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Proposed renaming
  • Nominator's rationale: I am proposing renaming categories logging cemetery burials from "Burials at" to "Interments at". EX: Category:Burials at Arlington National Cemetery -> Category:Interments at Arlington National Cemetery. This would be to account for interments at cemeteries that weren't actual burials. Some are cremated and placed in walled niches, or if not cremated placed in a walled/above ground crypt. Perhaps this is just semantics but I feel Interments would be a more accurate phrasing. Rusted AutoParts 16:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leave alone -- An interment of ashes is still a burial. Much better to use the Anglo-Saxon origin word than the Latin-derived one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep an interment or inurnment is still a burial. Now we can argue over the pronunciation of "burial". Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • RIP. Keep as is per above comments. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (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:Drafts of political history overviews by decade

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. This cat will be empty most of the time, and have perhaps one article at some points, when there is such a draft and people care enough to actualy categorize it (which usually doesn't happen with drafts). Fram ( talk) 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - far too specific. I had not realised that drafts were categorised at all, as they are not in article space. Oculi ( talk) 09:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
As drafts can be (and are) categorized on their talk pages (e.g. Category:Draft-Class Asian military history articles) I think "reader-side" categorization of drafts is unnecessary and could cause of wasted effort and confusion. DexDor (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- such drafts are much better in user space. If an author wants others to work with him on a draft, he can no doubt post a notice of that somewhere. Having Draft-class articles categorised as such on their talk pages is sensible. Is this category being populated from somewhere else? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (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:Decades in british politics

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 to Category:Politics overviews by decade Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization error. I'm not convinced that this isn't overcategorization and that we shouldn't simply upcat this, but if we have it, it should be corrected. Fram ( talk) 08:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Politics overviews by decade, which is not vast enough to need subcatting (and is itself bizarrely named, as we do not have Category:Politics overviews, and it is not a subcat scheme 'by decade'). 'Political overviews' perhaps. Oculi ( talk) 09:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • In principle, Rename per nom -- I do not like these trees, but there is a long series of annual Category:1991 in politics by country, which someone may want to parent with decade categories. While there are only two members, I would not object to Oculi's proposed upmerge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per Oculi, and the parent category may be upmerged as well because 'overview' is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:30, 18 March 2020 (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:Norfolk County treasurers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 18#Category:Norfolk County treasurers

Southland Conference sports tournament venues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:44, 26 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18&oldid=951528102"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18

Category:Liberman Broadcasting stations

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 Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Corporate name change Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2020 (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.

Visual arts by subject

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: keep all. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
General discussion
Nominator's rationale, Option A rename to visual arts (with s) per WP:C2C per Category:Visual arts by subject which was renamed in full discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC); option B rename to visual art (without s) as suggested in the speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
copy of CFDS discussion
      • Why is there an 's' at the end of each, "...in visual art" works much better. These don't necessary improve the names and make the category names longer. But particularly oppose Category:Universities and colleges in visual arts as the topics included in the category are not works of visual art. This also applies to Category:Climate change in visual arts, which includes other than links to sculptures, paintings, and drawings which define what visual art categories include. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Marcocapelle, you may not have seen this comment. Please drop 's' in 'visual arts' to 'visual art' on your requests. Timrollpickering, please see the discussion which you closed, most of the 'Support' ivotes were for 'visual art' and not 'visual arts' (possibly you can amend it before a bot starts in on changing to a incorrect name, thanks). And opposing the two I mention above. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • To me, it should be 'in visual art' or 'in the visual arts' (it is at present 'in art', not 'in arts' - 'in the arts' would be OK). Oculi ( talk) 18:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That's making it longer (in the arts). 'Moon in art' to 'Moon in visual art' seems concise enough, and the consensus of the linked discussion seems to favor 'in visual art' without the 's'. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose speedy for these art categories, because this doesn't seem like a speedy change that can happen without discussion first. Each category needs to be discussed for if it's known as "visual art" vs "art", per valid points brought up in the original discussion. Even though this is the parent category, it doesn't mean that's the category people were assuming when they were tagging "art." Art and visual art can be very different, and it's a lot more work to overhaul 10-20 categories now and then have to manually go through all of the tags and change any that aren't necessarily "visual," then at least having a discussion first about which of these should be kept, changed, or moved to be under "Art" as a parent. Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Gonnym, Randy Kryn, Oculi, and Whisperjanes: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Krakkos, Peterkingiron, Aymatth2, Johnbod, Sionk, Darwinek, Randy Kryn, Ewulp, and Modernist: pinging contributors to previous full discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Add new comments here.
  • Oppose per P Aculeius below, but if passed then: ...in visual art without the 's'. Better wording. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ...in visual art without the 's'. Yes, sorry, missed that in the original discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 22:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ...in visual art without the 's'. More idiomatic. Ewulp ( talk) 23:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • either "...in visual art" or "...in the visual arts". Not "...in visual arts". Using the form with the "s" requires the definite article. Grutness... wha? 02:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Either "...in visual art" or "...in the visual arts", per Grutness. Might as well go with the shorter one. Oculi ( talk) 09:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. None of these are intuitive titles, compared to the current ones. They simply wouldn't occur to most people. It's true that most of the examples of "art" in these categories are "visual", but they don't have to be—and why would we restrict the term to an umbrella category when the current contents aren't burdened by the inclusion of both visual and non-visual examples? "Visual art" or "arts" is the sort of phrasing one might expect to find in art textbooks, but not, to any great extent, in the real world. Books, museums, exhibitions of all kinds refer simply to "art", seldom to "visual art", even though the vast majority of their contents—perhaps in most cases, all of their contents—are "visual". This strikes me as an unnecessary and counterproductive move, when there are relatively few non-visual examples included in most of these categories, and there's no clear reason for excluding them. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all, Visual arts includes the wider arts such as film and television. These categories are clearly intended to categorise artworks. If it's not broke, don't fix it. 'Visual art' is not the common term for 'art'. Sionk ( talk) 19:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all per Sionk above. The current names are concise and unambigous.-- Darwinek ( talk) 23:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment these are being used as if any artwork containing X becomes categorized as "X in art". A piece of art that merely features or contains an X doesn't make that inclusion notable for categorization. Until that is cleaned up, renaming these is a smaller problem. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Aculeius and Sionk. There doesn't seem to be anything specifically "visual" about these categories, other than their parent. But I think a lot of editors tag categories without looking at the parent (especially when using HotCat), which means these categories are now being used for non-visual artworks too. I actually suggest moving them to be under Art or some other parent category, if the parent category is the main factor for change. Either way with the outcome, many of these are being used more broadly for artwork or fine art, so I think it's still important that non-visual artworks keep having a place in them. - Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Specific discussion about Category:Climate change in art
copy of CFDS discussion

But particularly oppose Category:Universities and colleges in visual arts as the topics included in the category are not works of visual art. This also applies to Category:Climate change in visual arts, which includes other than links to sculptures, paintings, and drawings which define what visual art categories include. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Add new comments here.
  • Keep This and similar examples should be left, or if changed go to "Foo in visual art" (or "the visual arts"). Johnbod ( talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Or rename per Johnbod. About half of the pages in the category are appropriately categorized as visual art; the exceptions can be recategorized. Ewulp ( talk) 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the current category is intended for artworks, though there would be nothing to prevent someone creating a Category:Climate change in the visual arts to include media such as films and television. Sionk ( talk) 06:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as art, I usually see that a lot of climate change in art is done as interactive art, data-driven art, computational art, or land art (and the current category content seems to reflect that) -- all of which aren't usually considered explicitly "visual." - Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Specific discussion about Category:Universities and colleges in art
copy of CFDS discussion

But particularly oppose Category:Universities and colleges in visual arts as the topics included in the category are not works of visual art. This also applies to Category:Climate change in visual arts, which includes other than links to sculptures, paintings, and drawings which define what visual art categories include. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Add new comments here.
  • Oppose using "...in visual art", per my comment in the "box" above. Many entries in this category do not apply to what is considered 'visual art' in Wikipedia categories. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This and similar examples should be left, or if changed go to "Foo in visual art" (or "the visual arts"). Johnbod ( talk) 22:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Until the category is populated with some visual art, it should be deleted. Unless I'm mistaken, everything there belongs either in Category:Films set in universities and colleges, Category:Universities and colleges in fiction, or Category:Universities and colleges in popular culture. Ewulp ( talk) 02:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, agree per Ewulp's comment, I'd tend towards Delete. The contents appear to be films and books and, while film could come under the visual arts, none of this is 'art'. The categories listed by Ewulp are much more appropriate. Sionk ( talk) 19:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment agree with some of the above points that it doesn't contain art, or even visual art, at this point. Maybe it should be deleted, but if it was renamed, it probably needs a larger discussion, because both Universities and colleges in art or visual art made me think it was about art schools. The name is a bit confusing, and if it's about depictions, it maybe needs that word, like "Depictions of universities and colleges in _____." But it doesn't seem like a notable category, since I don't think colleges are a notable theme in visual artwork in general (unlike death, mythology, etc). Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Specific discussion about Category:Art depicting people
copy of CFDS discussion
      • Oppose this. Does not match the other categories. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
        • It does match the "visual arts" in the parent category though, that is what this nomination is about. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
          • No reason to change a bad title to another bad title. My oppose still stands. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Add new comments here.
  • What was the proposed new name - not stated above? Probably Keep Johnbod ( talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Would oppose renaming to Category:People in visual art if that's the question—it's fatally ambiguous. Category:Visual art depicting people may not match the other categories but the exception is necessary. Ewulp ( talk) 02:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, the contents are works of art depicting people. The proosed new name doesn't make grammatical (or any) sense. The nomination is driven by pedantry not practicality. Sionk ( talk) 06:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Sionk. Some of the content/subcategories aren't explicitly about visual art, such as the "Women in Art" subcategory containing video games and fictional female subcategories. Whisperjanes ( talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Other specific discussions
Add new comments here.
  • Keep -- It will be much better to leave this alone. The nom wants to confine categories to painting, sculpture, etc, but some of the categories are stretching into performing arts. The primary scope of most of these categories is the visual arts, but it is difficult to see how one can paint climate change though it may be represented by depictions in visual arts. If we did change this, it would be necessary to purge all categories of non-visual items and move them to a (rather unnecessary) parallel tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (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.

Categories involving burials at cemeteries

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: keep ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Proposed renaming
  • Nominator's rationale: I am proposing renaming categories logging cemetery burials from "Burials at" to "Interments at". EX: Category:Burials at Arlington National Cemetery -> Category:Interments at Arlington National Cemetery. This would be to account for interments at cemeteries that weren't actual burials. Some are cremated and placed in walled niches, or if not cremated placed in a walled/above ground crypt. Perhaps this is just semantics but I feel Interments would be a more accurate phrasing. Rusted AutoParts 16:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leave alone -- An interment of ashes is still a burial. Much better to use the Anglo-Saxon origin word than the Latin-derived one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep an interment or inurnment is still a burial. Now we can argue over the pronunciation of "burial". Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • RIP. Keep as is per above comments. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (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:Drafts of political history overviews by decade

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. This cat will be empty most of the time, and have perhaps one article at some points, when there is such a draft and people care enough to actualy categorize it (which usually doesn't happen with drafts). Fram ( talk) 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - far too specific. I had not realised that drafts were categorised at all, as they are not in article space. Oculi ( talk) 09:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
As drafts can be (and are) categorized on their talk pages (e.g. Category:Draft-Class Asian military history articles) I think "reader-side" categorization of drafts is unnecessary and could cause of wasted effort and confusion. DexDor (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- such drafts are much better in user space. If an author wants others to work with him on a draft, he can no doubt post a notice of that somewhere. Having Draft-class articles categorised as such on their talk pages is sensible. Is this category being populated from somewhere else? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (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:Decades in british politics

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 to Category:Politics overviews by decade Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization error. I'm not convinced that this isn't overcategorization and that we shouldn't simply upcat this, but if we have it, it should be corrected. Fram ( talk) 08:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Politics overviews by decade, which is not vast enough to need subcatting (and is itself bizarrely named, as we do not have Category:Politics overviews, and it is not a subcat scheme 'by decade'). 'Political overviews' perhaps. Oculi ( talk) 09:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • In principle, Rename per nom -- I do not like these trees, but there is a long series of annual Category:1991 in politics by country, which someone may want to parent with decade categories. While there are only two members, I would not object to Oculi's proposed upmerge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per Oculi, and the parent category may be upmerged as well because 'overview' is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:30, 18 March 2020 (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:Norfolk County treasurers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 18#Category:Norfolk County treasurers

Southland Conference sports tournament venues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:44, 26 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18&oldid=951528102"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE