Category:People from Salem
[edit]
- 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: RfD discussion now closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a notification only, for those who tend to be active at CfD. The category redirect People from Salem is being discussed at RfD. There isn't explicit guidance on the subject, but category redirects are usually discussed at CfD, since they're not true redirects. I tend to close new RfDs on them and point the nominator this way, but since discussion has already started on this item, I thought I'd just leave a notification here. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2015 (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:Rebellions in classical history
[edit]Category:Insects of Ukraine
[edit]
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The Ukraine category has been recreated (by NotWith) after being deleted by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. The Serbia category was created by another user during that discussion (which they may well have been unaware of). DexDor (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out in the prior discussion (and other similar cases), plant or animal species are not constrained by national borders — an animal doesn't need a passport to cross from Ukraine into Russia, and a tree doesn't need a visa to scatter its acorns over the border into Poland. So individual country is not a helpful or useful or WP:DEFINING point of categorization, but just pointless category bloat — flora and fauna should be categorized by continent, not individual country. Merge per nom (Ukraine technically speediable as it's been deleted before). Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not confined by continent either, so maybe just Insects of Earth? Or maybe an explanation why continents hold, when all your arguments against countries apply to the continents also. In fact, many plants and animals have distributions better defined by oceans and latitude than by continents, so the coast of Europe where a climate is moderated by a specific oceanic current have a similar flora, which, in turn, dictates aspects of the fauna. This is the same for areas of other continents. To restate, "Plants and animals are not constrained by continental borders -- an animal doesn't need passport to cross from Europe to Africa, from North America to South America, from Australia to Asia, and a tree doesn't need a visa to scatter its pollen over the border into Asia from Europe. So individual continent is not a helpful or useful or WP:DEFINING point of categorization, but just pointless category bloat -- flora and fauna should be categorized by planet, not individual continent." MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt or leave as a category redirect, with an explanation as to why it is not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom and consensus in previous cfds. Oculi (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify per my previous comments: a category system based on political units is not suitable for species, but this is a very useful idea to build a list for, where we can contextualise the information with things such as areas the species are present in, how common they are, areas previously inhabited, IUCN status, etc. SFB 19:40, 10 February 2015 (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:Weapon manufacturers
[edit]Category:18th-century architecture in the United States
[edit]
- 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/disperse. Note: while implementing this close, I came across this previous discussion in 2011. – Fayenatic London 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Many of the topics here are really multi century. So do we really need to break out American architecture by century when this is not done for any other country? If this gains consensus, a few more categories will be affected.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- but also to the "buildings and structures" tree, which is I think split by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the articles like Benjamin James House are already in a building category. My plan will be to go thought all of these and see which are about buildings and which are about architecture. And add or subtract categories as needed. That will not be a small task. that's why I'm not nominating all of these at once since the cleanup is time consuming. If anyone wants to add to the nomination they can do that. I don't think the reasons are going to change for the other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- About the additional merge category of "buildings and structures" tree, which is I think split by century. Actually not in this case, which is why each of these should be discussed individually. In this case, the only two articles are already in the correct century categories. The categories need to have the article moved in to the correct century categories since the individual buildings are generally only going to be in one century and not two based on completion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you'd really need to add the other "XXth-century architecture in the United States" categories to the nomination to make is a viable discussion, wouldn't you? Nominating one in isolation won't work. To be honest, I agree that mpst of the contents are multi-century, while the individual buildings are better fitted into the Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 18th century etc. extensive category trees. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While this discussion is winding down I'll add that for the past week I have been working to make sure that all of the articles here are in the correct building category. If I'm lucky this will finish in the next week or so. This requires reviewing and possibility editing thousands of categories. So a group nomination is inappropriate unless someone is going to do the required cleanup. We have manual work required to cleanup closed discussions going back to April of last year! So it seems reasonable to to nominate these one at a time as the needed cleanup is completed or possible. Of course if any editors would like to do the work and nominate the remainder have at it. In the mean time, givin the support this probably should move forward. The other likely could be done as speedies following cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 February 2015
- @Vegaswikian: Neat work, I see there is just 1 cat & 2 pages remaining. Saltbox is within Category:18th-century architecture, but don't Colonial and Federal categories need to be merged up to that one as well? – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fayenatic london: Yea, I'm still working on the cleanup. I just did those based on your comment. If the discussion is closed, I'll continue working on the many subcategories that still need to be reviewed to make sure the contents are actually in a good buildings category. Maybe in a month, I'll finish the work! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2015 (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:Slovene magazines
[edit]Category:Arabic books
[edit]
- 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 especially in the absence of clarification by the nominator. – Fayenatic London 00:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: move academic journals, magazines, newspapers, and books into subcats in Publications by language. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this is just a parenting exercise you can do yourself. That said, I don't think they should be taken out of the mass media tree. There may be an argument for moving Category:Mass media to simply Category:Media, given it's common interpretation that way and it's many child categories with that name. Also note that Category:Publications is not part of the media tree. SFB 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Publications" are "media", but not necessarily "mass media". Should we not have a category for national newspapers, radio, television, etc. distinct from "media" and "publications"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't understand the proposal. The proposed subcat "Publications by language" & various siblings already exist and seem to be fully populated. As for "Mass media", this term is used rather than "Media" because of ambiguity – "category:media" could refer to Wikipedia media I.e. images, audio and video files held in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 00:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is. This is already done - the categories you suggest are all already subcategories of Category:Mass media by language, which is a logical parent category for them. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging nominator @Fgnievinski: (contribs): you do not appear to be watching this page. Any comment? – Fayenatic London 00:25, 19 February 2015 (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:Short film directors
[edit]
- 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 (as was pointed out, no merge of the contents is necessary). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The problem with this is that short film is not a type of film that directors specialize in to the exclusion of other types — it's a type of film that the vast majority of film directors have made at some point in their careers, which means that this category technically should include nearly every film director who has a Wikipedia article at all. Which makes it unhelpful as a point of categorization, and virtually unmaintainable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to point out that an "upmerge" would not be helpful in this particular case; as all of the directors in question should already be in a more appropriate subcategory of Category:Film directors by nationality, in most cases an upmerge would result in unwanted duplicate categorization. No objection to upmerging if anyone in the batch happens to not already be appropriately subcategorized, of course — but for anyone who is already properly subcatted, we don't want them upped to Category:Film directors. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2015 (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.
- The result of the discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other Category:Actors sub-categories. --Truniper (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the past five hundred attempts at quibbling with the naming format of "actors/actresses" content, the issue is that "actresses", not "female actors", is the terminology that's actually in use in the real world to refer to women who act. The awards are called "Best Actress", not "Best Female Actor"; the press coverage refers to them as actresses, not female actors, and on and so forth. Oppose move and request speedy close. Bearcat (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose And the Academy Award for Best Female Actor goes to... Bazinga. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose "Actress" is still by far the most common phrase to specifically describe a woman who acts. As I've previously said, I'd be happy to change if there is a seachange towards using "female actor". I would expect major awards to be renamed, or at least publicly criticised for using "actress", at that point. Also, while women may sometimes be referred to as actors, I don't think that warrants us to apply the novel label "female actors" to denote that difference. SFB 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- "Actress" is the correct English feminine of actor (a male word). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – I'm sure we have discussed this very topic at great length quite recently (2014?) but I can't find the discussion. Oculi (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Category:Actors breaking these up by sex was a bad idea, let's correct it now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – as above. Common name. Neutralitytalk 01:49, 16 February 2015 (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:Guinness World Records winners
[edit]
- 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 duplicate nominations, please - the discussion should all be at the same place, not split between two dates. BencherliteTalk 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Guinness World Records winners to Category:Guinness World Record setters
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Feb 1 nomination 'winner' may not apply to some records. I disagree as to the desired place to relocate it though. I think "setters" is better than "breakers" or "holders" because it is more inclusive than either of them and is the easiest to fact-check. "Break" would only apply if a previous record had been set, "hold" would only apply if nobody had surpassed the record, which is too hard to verify. Concerns about bulk seem trivial because only notable people have articles on Wikipedia so we're effectively only going to be including notable record-setters in the category, not just anyone who is listed as having set a record. Ranze (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2015 (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:Americas geography stubs
[edit]
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: We don't have any other "Americas" stub category. Move Category:South America geography stubs to the parent category, Category:Geography stubs and rename this, so that this category matches the rest of the continent stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose instead create a new subcategory/stubtype for North America. We have a Category:Americas and Americas is a geographic region, so seems like a good organizational level. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It was created initially as a parent category for North America, South America, Caribbean, and Central American stub categories, and for those rare stubs such as American Cordillera which belong in several of those categories. That similar root categories don't also exist for other stub types is a case of "WP:OTHERDONTEXIST" rather than any more pressing reason forpossible deletion. Grutness...wha? 08:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, to match continent stubs categories. There is no overall Americas stubs category in Category:Americas or Category:Stubs by region, and there does not appear to be a need for one. The single page in this category can be added to both North and South. – Fayenatic London 00:15, 19 February 2015 (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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There are several more standards besides Exif used in file metadata links, so the redirect category (rcat) template that populates this category has been renamed to ((R from file metadata link)). This is a maintenance page move to synchronize with the rcat. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 00:32, 9 February 2015 (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.