September 9
Category:Sculptures of Neptune
- 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)
Asmodea Oaktree (
talk) 12:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Sculptures of Neptune to Category:Sculptures of Poseidon and Neptune
- Nominator's rationale: In artistic representation, many of the Greek and Roman gods are interchangeable. There are articles on statues of Poseidon that could fit into this category. The category needs to be renamed anyway to disambiguate from the planet. Adding in Poseidon avoids the need for brackets. MClay1 ( talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, the proposal interferes with the existance of the separate Category:Sculptures of Greek gods and Category:Sculptures of Roman gods. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) per Category:Neptune (mythology), Neptune (mythology) (per speedy criterion WP:C2C). In fact Category:Neptune (mythology) is at present a subcat of Category:Poseidon in which case Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) should be a subcat of Category:Sculptures of Poseidon. Oculi ( talk) 17:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I agree that there is no clear visual distinction between these two deities, but we should not suggest that all Greek and Roman gods have no distinguishing features. Dimadick ( talk) 22:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per discussion. You've got your Greek gods and you've got your Roman Gods, friendly with each other but proud of their own temples and such. If this passes it may set precedent and lead to more of these couplings so best to leave it as is. No one will confuse it with the esoteric sculptures of the planet (I made mine out of snow and brick-a-brack). Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Dimadick and Randy Kryn: better to leave these categories with separate scopes, even though the subjects are related. Is there a way to link them to each other without merging them or making one a subcategory of the other? Also oppose renaming by adding disambiguation. It's completely irrelevant that a topic contains disambiguation in its title, when there's absolutely no risk of confusion, and there's no significant benefit to requiring matching disambiguation for topics and categories. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is risk of confusion. You could have a sculpture of the planet Neptune. As pointed out above, this could be speedy renamed to
Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) per C2D (and almost certainly will be if this discussion closes as keep).
MClay1 (
talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, there's not. There are few, if any, famous or notable sculptures of planets, with the possible exception of sculptures part of which are intended to represent the earth. Why? Because they're spheres, and most notable sculptures derive their fame from artistic skill and originality; their ability to inspire, and speak to mankind through the centuries. Neptune—the gas giant—wasn't even known to exist until 1846, and only in the last few decades has it been possible for most people to get a good idea what any of the other planets looked like; there were no close-up images of Neptune until 1989. It is very unlikely that there are enough notable "sculptures" of it or any of the other planets to justify their own categories, or that there will be at any point in the foreseeable future. There's no point at all in moving a category due to the potential to confuse it with a purely hypothetical category that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
P Aculeius (
talk) 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. Convention is for subcats to follow the name of the parent category,
Category:Neptune (mythology).
Oculi (
talk) 12:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's not. In fact it's the exact opposite. This was previously argued while discussing Venus, and it was decided that there was no point in disambiguating subcategories such as "temples of Venus" (the goddess) from non-existent temples to the planet Venus. If upcoming space missions discover any temples on Venus, we can revisit that decision, just as we could if Praxiteles, Michelangelo, or Rodin rose from their graves and produced inspiring sculptures of the planet Neptune.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are obviously no alien temples so there is no confusion there. But just because you don't know of any notable sculptures of planets doesn't mean they don't exist or that readers and editors won't be confused.
MClay1 (
talk) 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The burden would be on the person asserting the likelihood of confusion to show that there is at least some potential. Mere speculation that something else could hypothetically exist somewhere (and be notable) fails to demonstrate that readers are likely to be confused. Do we have even one example of a sculpture of the planet Neptune—or for that matter, any other planet besides the earth—that is particularly notable? If there are at least a few examples of notable sculptures, then in theory some potential for confusion exists, however remote, and this discussion would be necessary, although the outcome would not be determined. If there aren't any notable sculptures of this type, then there cannot be any significant risk of confusing readers.
P Aculeius (
talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @
P Aculeius: This one springs to mind:
Sweden Solar System. See the discussion below where I tried to argue that another category didn't need disambiguation and others still felt like it should have it anyway.
MClay1 (
talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- (1) Not technically a sculpture, but an "acrylic globe"; (2) individual portions of the installation do not appear to be particularly notable; (3) even if the model of Neptune were minimally notable, it's not that well-known and wouldn't merit a category by itself, much less create a significant risk of confusion with statues of the god. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @
P Aculeius: This one springs to mind:
Sweden Solar System. See the discussion below where I tried to argue that another category didn't need disambiguation and others still felt like it should have it anyway.
MClay1 (
talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The burden would be on the person asserting the likelihood of confusion to show that there is at least some potential. Mere speculation that something else could hypothetically exist somewhere (and be notable) fails to demonstrate that readers are likely to be confused. Do we have even one example of a sculpture of the planet Neptune—or for that matter, any other planet besides the earth—that is particularly notable? If there are at least a few examples of notable sculptures, then in theory some potential for confusion exists, however remote, and this discussion would be necessary, although the outcome would not be determined. If there aren't any notable sculptures of this type, then there cannot be any significant risk of confusing readers.
P Aculeius (
talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are obviously no alien temples so there is no confusion there. But just because you don't know of any notable sculptures of planets doesn't mean they don't exist or that readers and editors won't be confused.
MClay1 (
talk) 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's not. In fact it's the exact opposite. This was previously argued while discussing Venus, and it was decided that there was no point in disambiguating subcategories such as "temples of Venus" (the goddess) from non-existent temples to the planet Venus. If upcoming space missions discover any temples on Venus, we can revisit that decision, just as we could if Praxiteles, Michelangelo, or Rodin rose from their graves and produced inspiring sculptures of the planet Neptune.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. Convention is for subcats to follow the name of the parent category,
Category:Neptune (mythology).
Oculi (
talk) 12:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, there's not. There are few, if any, famous or notable sculptures of planets, with the possible exception of sculptures part of which are intended to represent the earth. Why? Because they're spheres, and most notable sculptures derive their fame from artistic skill and originality; their ability to inspire, and speak to mankind through the centuries. Neptune—the gas giant—wasn't even known to exist until 1846, and only in the last few decades has it been possible for most people to get a good idea what any of the other planets looked like; there were no close-up images of Neptune until 1989. It is very unlikely that there are enough notable "sculptures" of it or any of the other planets to justify their own categories, or that there will be at any point in the foreseeable future. There's no point at all in moving a category due to the potential to confuse it with a purely hypothetical category that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
P Aculeius (
talk) 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is risk of confusion. You could have a sculpture of the planet Neptune. As pointed out above, this could be speedy renamed to
Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) per C2D (and almost certainly will be if this discussion closes as keep).
MClay1 (
talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle, Dimadick, Randy Kryn, and P Aculeius: Those opposing based on the existence of separate categories for Category:Sculptures of Greek gods and Category:Sculptures of Roman gods don't seem to have taken into account that most of the subcategories of those two categories are the same. Currently, the sculptures of Greek and Roman gods are already being lumped together just under the name of one or the other, sorted into both parent categories. Would it not would be better to rename most of them similar to this proposal and merge the parent categories? We can keep separate subcategories for any Greek and Roman gods with substantial differences from each other. The categories are currently quite under-utilised and I cleaned them up a bit – the system is far from established. (I notice that User:Dimadick has created Category:Sculptures of Poseidon after this discussion started.) MClay1 ( talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Absolute oppose Greek and Roman gods are not interchangable, that is a huge misconception. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- In art, they often are. Italian renaissance artists, for example, used Roman names when painting Greek mythology. They don't need to be identical in every use to be grouped together in a category. The whole point of my nomination is to avoid them being used interchangeably by including both names. MClay1 ( talk) 13:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Some subcats of Category:Sculptures of Roman gods may well be purged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The subcats are not all the same, and, as Marcocapelle has indicated, some in the Roman category might well be removed, such as Category:Sculptures of Hermes (there currently is none for the Roman 'equivalent' Mercury). Having a category encompassing both Greek and Roman versions might be acceptable in some cases (e.g. Sculptures of Heracles), but I'm not seeing a compelling reason to do this with all mythological figures: above all, it's not clear that "in artistic representation, many of the Greek and Roman gods are interchangeable". I cannot see how or even which categories are underutilized; possibly the new Poseidon one, but, if so, a better solution will surely be to do an upward merge with Greek gods, rather than simply lump it together with Neptune. Avilich ( talk) 20:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unnecessary merge! An approach that leads astray. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (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:Amazons (Greek mythology)
- 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: no consensus (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Amazons (Greek mythology) to Category:Amazons
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see any compelling need for disambiguation. The article is at Amazons. There are no other uses for "Amazons" other than the comics characters named after the original Amazons, and those categories are subcats of this one. It's unambiguously the primary topic with no room for confusion with the rainforest. MClay1 ( talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is clearly the main topic. Dimadick ( talk) 16:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support There is no other topic for this subject. TheRollBoss001 ( talk) 14:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose see Amazon (a disambiguation page), which shows other uses for Amazons. Sometimes a category needs a disambiguator to prevent it picking up articles from otheruses. Classically Birmingham's categories are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, to exclude articles on Birmingham, AL. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of other uses. Amazones as a synomym and metaphor for warrior women (films, comics, novels, sports myths) shouldn't be mishmashed with Greek mythology references. --
Just N. (
talk) 17:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of terms can be used metaphorically. We don't disambiguate everything just for that. Category:Superheroes, for example, doesn't need to be disambiguated from everyday people who get called superheroes. No one would be confused and think Category:Amazons is for people who have been metaphorically compared to the Amazons. MClay1 ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Category names sometimes need more clarity than article names. This is one of those times, as already noted above. - jc37 19:41, 13 September 2021 (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.
Conferences by location
- 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename, the trees of Category:International conferences by location and Category:Diplomatic conferences by location are wholly organized by country rather than generally by location. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Seems a valid observation of Marco. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:04, 12 September 2021 (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.
Conferences by location 2
- 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.
bibliomaniac
1
5 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Conferences by location to Category:Conventions by country (countries only)
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Algiers to Category:Conventions in Algiers
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Bolivia to Category:Conventions in Bolivia
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Brazil to Category:Conventions in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Cairo to Category:Conventions in Cairo
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in the Dominican Republic to Category:Conventions in the Dominican Republic
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Finland to Category:Conventions in Finland
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Israel to Category:Conventions in Israel
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in London to Category:Conventions in London
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Paris to Category:Conventions in Paris
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Port Harcourt to Category:Conventions in Port Harcourt
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Sharm El Sheikh to Category:Conventions in Sharm El Sheikh
- Propose merging Category:Conferences in the United States to Category:Conventions in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Warsaw to Category:Conventions in Warsaw
- Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, the difference between convention and conference is too small to split at national or local level. Except for the US, all countries have either a conventions or a conferences category. The merge direction is just because the tree of Category:Conventions by country is better developed than the tree of Category:Conferences by location, I do not have a substantive preference for one or the other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – The two terms aren't always interchangeable. A sci-fi convention is not a conference, and a business conference is not a convention. Maybe they could be merged together as "Conferences and conventions" like Category:Art museums and galleries? MClay1 ( talk) 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- That might be an alternative. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The majority of the content in categories that I sampled was called "conference" (occasionally, summit, forum, or other terms). A convention is a meeting of the English Parliament not summoned by a monarch. This happened in 1659 and 1689 when the throne was vacant. If convention is the common term in USA, the USA subcat can retain that name (per usual ENGVAR practice), but this nom strikes me as a case of US linguistic imperialism. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose along with Peterkingiron. AFAIK conventions is a term used generally by gamers, comic fans and literature genre fans. Most all the conferences are not about arts and fandom but politics and serious matters. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:11, 12 September 2021 (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:Campeonato Nacional de Seniores
- 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:Campeonato de Portugal (league) ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Adding this for discussion, really. This is no longer the name of a league, it is called Campeonato de Portugal. Also, it has dropped from being the third to the fourth tier. Geschichte ( talk) 07:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Liga 3 (Portugal) does not exist. I don't know if the CNS/CDP seasons up to 2021 are to be considered preceding editions of L3, or if L3 starts a completely new chapter like the German Category:3. Liga. Geschichte ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 17:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - standard procedure when a league changes its name is to simply change its categories/templates to match it. however, if there has been a league system re-organisation and a new parent article is created, then we would create a new category to match it. As far as I can see that has not happened, so I would support a rename to the new name. Giant Snowman 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Geschichte and GiantSnowman: the target has not been specified, based on the article name I would expect the target to be Category:Campeonato de Portugal (league), is that right? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that's what I meant, to match the parent article Campeonato de Portugal (league). Giant Snowman 07:14, 17 September 2021 (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.
September 9
Category:Sculptures of Neptune
- 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)
Asmodea Oaktree (
talk) 12:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Sculptures of Neptune to Category:Sculptures of Poseidon and Neptune
- Nominator's rationale: In artistic representation, many of the Greek and Roman gods are interchangeable. There are articles on statues of Poseidon that could fit into this category. The category needs to be renamed anyway to disambiguate from the planet. Adding in Poseidon avoids the need for brackets. MClay1 ( talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, the proposal interferes with the existance of the separate Category:Sculptures of Greek gods and Category:Sculptures of Roman gods. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) per Category:Neptune (mythology), Neptune (mythology) (per speedy criterion WP:C2C). In fact Category:Neptune (mythology) is at present a subcat of Category:Poseidon in which case Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) should be a subcat of Category:Sculptures of Poseidon. Oculi ( talk) 17:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I agree that there is no clear visual distinction between these two deities, but we should not suggest that all Greek and Roman gods have no distinguishing features. Dimadick ( talk) 22:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per discussion. You've got your Greek gods and you've got your Roman Gods, friendly with each other but proud of their own temples and such. If this passes it may set precedent and lead to more of these couplings so best to leave it as is. No one will confuse it with the esoteric sculptures of the planet (I made mine out of snow and brick-a-brack). Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Dimadick and Randy Kryn: better to leave these categories with separate scopes, even though the subjects are related. Is there a way to link them to each other without merging them or making one a subcategory of the other? Also oppose renaming by adding disambiguation. It's completely irrelevant that a topic contains disambiguation in its title, when there's absolutely no risk of confusion, and there's no significant benefit to requiring matching disambiguation for topics and categories. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is risk of confusion. You could have a sculpture of the planet Neptune. As pointed out above, this could be speedy renamed to
Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) per C2D (and almost certainly will be if this discussion closes as keep).
MClay1 (
talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, there's not. There are few, if any, famous or notable sculptures of planets, with the possible exception of sculptures part of which are intended to represent the earth. Why? Because they're spheres, and most notable sculptures derive their fame from artistic skill and originality; their ability to inspire, and speak to mankind through the centuries. Neptune—the gas giant—wasn't even known to exist until 1846, and only in the last few decades has it been possible for most people to get a good idea what any of the other planets looked like; there were no close-up images of Neptune until 1989. It is very unlikely that there are enough notable "sculptures" of it or any of the other planets to justify their own categories, or that there will be at any point in the foreseeable future. There's no point at all in moving a category due to the potential to confuse it with a purely hypothetical category that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
P Aculeius (
talk) 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. Convention is for subcats to follow the name of the parent category,
Category:Neptune (mythology).
Oculi (
talk) 12:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's not. In fact it's the exact opposite. This was previously argued while discussing Venus, and it was decided that there was no point in disambiguating subcategories such as "temples of Venus" (the goddess) from non-existent temples to the planet Venus. If upcoming space missions discover any temples on Venus, we can revisit that decision, just as we could if Praxiteles, Michelangelo, or Rodin rose from their graves and produced inspiring sculptures of the planet Neptune.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are obviously no alien temples so there is no confusion there. But just because you don't know of any notable sculptures of planets doesn't mean they don't exist or that readers and editors won't be confused.
MClay1 (
talk) 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The burden would be on the person asserting the likelihood of confusion to show that there is at least some potential. Mere speculation that something else could hypothetically exist somewhere (and be notable) fails to demonstrate that readers are likely to be confused. Do we have even one example of a sculpture of the planet Neptune—or for that matter, any other planet besides the earth—that is particularly notable? If there are at least a few examples of notable sculptures, then in theory some potential for confusion exists, however remote, and this discussion would be necessary, although the outcome would not be determined. If there aren't any notable sculptures of this type, then there cannot be any significant risk of confusing readers.
P Aculeius (
talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @
P Aculeius: This one springs to mind:
Sweden Solar System. See the discussion below where I tried to argue that another category didn't need disambiguation and others still felt like it should have it anyway.
MClay1 (
talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- (1) Not technically a sculpture, but an "acrylic globe"; (2) individual portions of the installation do not appear to be particularly notable; (3) even if the model of Neptune were minimally notable, it's not that well-known and wouldn't merit a category by itself, much less create a significant risk of confusion with statues of the god. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @
P Aculeius: This one springs to mind:
Sweden Solar System. See the discussion below where I tried to argue that another category didn't need disambiguation and others still felt like it should have it anyway.
MClay1 (
talk) 06:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The burden would be on the person asserting the likelihood of confusion to show that there is at least some potential. Mere speculation that something else could hypothetically exist somewhere (and be notable) fails to demonstrate that readers are likely to be confused. Do we have even one example of a sculpture of the planet Neptune—or for that matter, any other planet besides the earth—that is particularly notable? If there are at least a few examples of notable sculptures, then in theory some potential for confusion exists, however remote, and this discussion would be necessary, although the outcome would not be determined. If there aren't any notable sculptures of this type, then there cannot be any significant risk of confusing readers.
P Aculeius (
talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are obviously no alien temples so there is no confusion there. But just because you don't know of any notable sculptures of planets doesn't mean they don't exist or that readers and editors won't be confused.
MClay1 (
talk) 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's not. In fact it's the exact opposite. This was previously argued while discussing Venus, and it was decided that there was no point in disambiguating subcategories such as "temples of Venus" (the goddess) from non-existent temples to the planet Venus. If upcoming space missions discover any temples on Venus, we can revisit that decision, just as we could if Praxiteles, Michelangelo, or Rodin rose from their graves and produced inspiring sculptures of the planet Neptune.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. Convention is for subcats to follow the name of the parent category,
Category:Neptune (mythology).
Oculi (
talk) 12:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, there's not. There are few, if any, famous or notable sculptures of planets, with the possible exception of sculptures part of which are intended to represent the earth. Why? Because they're spheres, and most notable sculptures derive their fame from artistic skill and originality; their ability to inspire, and speak to mankind through the centuries. Neptune—the gas giant—wasn't even known to exist until 1846, and only in the last few decades has it been possible for most people to get a good idea what any of the other planets looked like; there were no close-up images of Neptune until 1989. It is very unlikely that there are enough notable "sculptures" of it or any of the other planets to justify their own categories, or that there will be at any point in the foreseeable future. There's no point at all in moving a category due to the potential to confuse it with a purely hypothetical category that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
P Aculeius (
talk) 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is risk of confusion. You could have a sculpture of the planet Neptune. As pointed out above, this could be speedy renamed to
Category:Sculptures of Neptune (mythology) per C2D (and almost certainly will be if this discussion closes as keep).
MClay1 (
talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle, Dimadick, Randy Kryn, and P Aculeius: Those opposing based on the existence of separate categories for Category:Sculptures of Greek gods and Category:Sculptures of Roman gods don't seem to have taken into account that most of the subcategories of those two categories are the same. Currently, the sculptures of Greek and Roman gods are already being lumped together just under the name of one or the other, sorted into both parent categories. Would it not would be better to rename most of them similar to this proposal and merge the parent categories? We can keep separate subcategories for any Greek and Roman gods with substantial differences from each other. The categories are currently quite under-utilised and I cleaned them up a bit – the system is far from established. (I notice that User:Dimadick has created Category:Sculptures of Poseidon after this discussion started.) MClay1 ( talk) 15:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Absolute oppose Greek and Roman gods are not interchangable, that is a huge misconception. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- In art, they often are. Italian renaissance artists, for example, used Roman names when painting Greek mythology. They don't need to be identical in every use to be grouped together in a category. The whole point of my nomination is to avoid them being used interchangeably by including both names. MClay1 ( talk) 13:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Some subcats of Category:Sculptures of Roman gods may well be purged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The subcats are not all the same, and, as Marcocapelle has indicated, some in the Roman category might well be removed, such as Category:Sculptures of Hermes (there currently is none for the Roman 'equivalent' Mercury). Having a category encompassing both Greek and Roman versions might be acceptable in some cases (e.g. Sculptures of Heracles), but I'm not seeing a compelling reason to do this with all mythological figures: above all, it's not clear that "in artistic representation, many of the Greek and Roman gods are interchangeable". I cannot see how or even which categories are underutilized; possibly the new Poseidon one, but, if so, a better solution will surely be to do an upward merge with Greek gods, rather than simply lump it together with Neptune. Avilich ( talk) 20:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unnecessary merge! An approach that leads astray. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (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:Amazons (Greek mythology)
- 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: no consensus (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Amazons (Greek mythology) to Category:Amazons
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see any compelling need for disambiguation. The article is at Amazons. There are no other uses for "Amazons" other than the comics characters named after the original Amazons, and those categories are subcats of this one. It's unambiguously the primary topic with no room for confusion with the rainforest. MClay1 ( talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is clearly the main topic. Dimadick ( talk) 16:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support There is no other topic for this subject. TheRollBoss001 ( talk) 14:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose see Amazon (a disambiguation page), which shows other uses for Amazons. Sometimes a category needs a disambiguator to prevent it picking up articles from otheruses. Classically Birmingham's categories are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, to exclude articles on Birmingham, AL. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of other uses. Amazones as a synomym and metaphor for warrior women (films, comics, novels, sports myths) shouldn't be mishmashed with Greek mythology references. --
Just N. (
talk) 17:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of terms can be used metaphorically. We don't disambiguate everything just for that. Category:Superheroes, for example, doesn't need to be disambiguated from everyday people who get called superheroes. No one would be confused and think Category:Amazons is for people who have been metaphorically compared to the Amazons. MClay1 ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Category names sometimes need more clarity than article names. This is one of those times, as already noted above. - jc37 19:41, 13 September 2021 (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.
Conferences by location
- 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename, the trees of Category:International conferences by location and Category:Diplomatic conferences by location are wholly organized by country rather than generally by location. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Seems a valid observation of Marco. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:04, 12 September 2021 (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.
Conferences by location 2
- 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.
bibliomaniac
1
5 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Conferences by location to Category:Conventions by country (countries only)
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Algiers to Category:Conventions in Algiers
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Bolivia to Category:Conventions in Bolivia
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Brazil to Category:Conventions in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Cairo to Category:Conventions in Cairo
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in the Dominican Republic to Category:Conventions in the Dominican Republic
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Finland to Category:Conventions in Finland
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Israel to Category:Conventions in Israel
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in London to Category:Conventions in London
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Paris to Category:Conventions in Paris
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Port Harcourt to Category:Conventions in Port Harcourt
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Sharm El Sheikh to Category:Conventions in Sharm El Sheikh
- Propose merging Category:Conferences in the United States to Category:Conventions in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Conferences in Warsaw to Category:Conventions in Warsaw
- Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, the difference between convention and conference is too small to split at national or local level. Except for the US, all countries have either a conventions or a conferences category. The merge direction is just because the tree of Category:Conventions by country is better developed than the tree of Category:Conferences by location, I do not have a substantive preference for one or the other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – The two terms aren't always interchangeable. A sci-fi convention is not a conference, and a business conference is not a convention. Maybe they could be merged together as "Conferences and conventions" like Category:Art museums and galleries? MClay1 ( talk) 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- That might be an alternative. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The majority of the content in categories that I sampled was called "conference" (occasionally, summit, forum, or other terms). A convention is a meeting of the English Parliament not summoned by a monarch. This happened in 1659 and 1689 when the throne was vacant. If convention is the common term in USA, the USA subcat can retain that name (per usual ENGVAR practice), but this nom strikes me as a case of US linguistic imperialism. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose along with Peterkingiron. AFAIK conventions is a term used generally by gamers, comic fans and literature genre fans. Most all the conferences are not about arts and fandom but politics and serious matters. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:11, 12 September 2021 (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:Campeonato Nacional de Seniores
- 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:Campeonato de Portugal (league) ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Adding this for discussion, really. This is no longer the name of a league, it is called Campeonato de Portugal. Also, it has dropped from being the third to the fourth tier. Geschichte ( talk) 07:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Liga 3 (Portugal) does not exist. I don't know if the CNS/CDP seasons up to 2021 are to be considered preceding editions of L3, or if L3 starts a completely new chapter like the German Category:3. Liga. Geschichte ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 17:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - standard procedure when a league changes its name is to simply change its categories/templates to match it. however, if there has been a league system re-organisation and a new parent article is created, then we would create a new category to match it. As far as I can see that has not happened, so I would support a rename to the new name. Giant Snowman 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Geschichte and GiantSnowman: the target has not been specified, based on the article name I would expect the target to be Category:Campeonato de Portugal (league), is that right? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that's what I meant, to match the parent article Campeonato de Portugal (league). Giant Snowman 07:14, 17 September 2021 (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.