August 4
Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border crossings
- 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 (NAC). Note: The only article in this category is already in Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border. DexDor (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. The border is currently closed (until the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, according to Azerbaijani MFA). The only article within, Lachin, is a city under NKR occupation, currently outside of Azerbaijani control. Brandmeistertalk 19:54, 4 August 2014 (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:Rendering APIs
- 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. I will also put the merged category into Category:Graphics libraries. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: These are more or less the same. Perhaps not Glide, which was technically 2D, although used as 3D well enough (had some z-ordering). JMP EAX (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you not anticipate more articles that do not do 3D? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there's stuff like Direct2D or Quartz 2D, but we already have a more general Category:Graphics libraries, and if you want to put the 2D stuff in a category of their own, it would surely not be called just "rendering APIs". The current contents of "rendering APIs" is all 3D hence the suggested target of the merge. JMP EAX (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to JMP EAX: should the member pages stay within Category:Graphics libraries somehow, and if so where? – Fayenatic London 12:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "member pages" are you referring to? JMP EAX (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- JMP EAX: – to the members of the nominated Category:Rendering APIs, which is currently within Category:Graphics libraries. The target Category:3D graphics APIs is not within that one. If it could or should be in that one, please make it so. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the member pages of Category:Rendering APIs are individually within Category:Graphics libraries, but should all of them be within it (whether individually or via a sub-cat), e.g. Mantle (API)? – Fayenatic London 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you want to quibble on the distinction between API and library I don't see why not. The two categories proposed for merging here both have only "API" in their titles; your question is a bit side-tracking, so it's best left for another discussion. JMP EAX (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been listed at WikiProject Computing. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
- More to the point of this merge discussion, I'm going to add that "rendering API" is hopelessly vague. One can even render sounds, e.g. using CSound; the CsoundQt (rather recently renamed to QuteCsound) has a button called "render" which (unlike "run" that sends output directly to the speakers) first produces a WAV file. JMP EAX (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2014 (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:19th-century painters of historical subjects
- 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: To match name of parent category Editor2020 15:30, 4 August 2014 (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:History painters
- 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, defaulted to not moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Less likelihood of confusion, agrees with subcategory name. Editor2020 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. First, please don't make the move while the discussion is happening. I have undone the move and restored the status quo for now. I also oppose the move in general, this was extensively discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 6#Categories: History artists and Historical painters. We should use the commonly used terms, not some longer explanatory ones because the common terms aren't clear to everyone. Furthermore, "history painters" often painted un-historical subjects like stories from mythology and the like. "History painting" is a genre of painting, but is not the same as "painting historical subjects". The 19th century subcat reflects the vogue at that time to restrict themselves to the purely historical, but to move everything to that title would be a mistake. Fram (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Rename to Category:Historical painters. Consider renaming the subcategory also. Editor2020 15:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)- Withdraw nomination, leave as is. Editor2020 15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ps. Sorry about renaming while the discussion was on-going but I received an error message when nominating and was unaware that the discussion was underway.)
- History painting is in Category:Historical painting. Shouldn't that be changed to Category:History painting? Editor2020 15:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support on the whole. Painters of History painting, which as Fram says includes all narrative religious and mythological subjects, is too broad to be useful, and the current contents only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the people in both categories fit in the 19th century subcat. The intention of the closer last time that these should be sorted out has not been followed up. The current situation is unsatifactory, & the original nom the simplest way to improve it. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you support the original proposal, the changed proposal, or the withdrawal of the nomination? All these happened before you supported here. Apart from that: feel free to correct any painters left in the main category which belong in the subcategory instead. But the rest of your arguments are hardly correct: the "too broad to be useful" is a description which has been used in art history for a very long time, and is still being used in many articles. Someone like Abraham Janssens, Philip Gyselaer, Richard Aertsz or Michel-François Dandré-Bardon is a historical painter, not strictly a painter of historical subjects. There are anough of these to make the category worthwhile and interesting. Ignoring such a major art historical description doesn't seem to have any benefits. Fram (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either the original or the revised proposal. The term "history painter" is only found in articles that retain text from sources over 100 years old, of which sadly there are many. It isn't a modern way of describing such artists, and the category only contains a few of those who painted eg religious narrative scenes. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "history painter" is found in recent authoritative books like the "Oxford History of Western Art" from 2000[1], which describes e.g. Nicolas Poussin as "one of the most renowned history painters". I don't think this book (and the many others recent ones using the text) all retain text from 100 years ago. See e.g. the 2013 "A Companion to British Art: 1600 to the Present"[2] or the also from 2013 "Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia"[3]. "History painters" is the (or a) modern way to describe these artists, which I thought was well established already after the previous discussion. It's a bit disappointing to have to demonstrate this again, but luckily it isn't too hard ;-) Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (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.