Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:25, 21 November 2007 editBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Category:Female models: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 12:33, 21 November 2007 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Category:Female models: reply on Under-populationNext edit →
Line 56: Line 56:
*'''Strong keep'''. Please folks, don't forget to check for previous CfDs, which should be listed in the nomination. And before nominating gendered categories, please read ], which permits gendered categories in certain circumstances, particularly "where gender has a specific relation to the topic". ] notes that <blockquote>"at all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?"</blockquote>. Does anyone seriously want to claim that gender does not have a specific relevance to the career of a model? Or that an encyclopedic head article could not be written on the subject of female models?<br />] is already subdivided by nationality, and the same should be one for female models, to avoid duplicate classification.<br />I really do wonder what on earth is going on with some of these nominations. How many time do we have to revisit a topic which is clearly covered in the guidelines? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong keep'''. Please folks, don't forget to check for previous CfDs, which should be listed in the nomination. And before nominating gendered categories, please read ], which permits gendered categories in certain circumstances, particularly "where gender has a specific relation to the topic". ] notes that <blockquote>"at all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?"</blockquote>. Does anyone seriously want to claim that gender does not have a specific relevance to the career of a model? Or that an encyclopedic head article could not be written on the subject of female models?<br />] is already subdivided by nationality, and the same should be one for female models, to avoid duplicate classification.<br />I really do wonder what on earth is going on with some of these nominations. How many time do we have to revisit a topic which is clearly covered in the guidelines? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:* '''Reply''': Point taken that it should have been mentioned. But just because this category has been at CfD before does not magically make it immune from future deletion consideration, esp. since most of a year has intervened, and the consensus against gender division in categories here has become a landslide. I cannot think of an encyclopedically valid reason to have separate articles on female and male modeling in general, so the criterion you cite seems questionable to me. Narrower topics, like, say, sexual harassment, might warrant their own well-researched articles, and there might well be a gender divide there, but the category in question is not ]. Even assuming one could somehow drawn a bright-line distinction, in some encyclopedically relevant way, between the fields of female and male modeling, how likely is such a distinction to be documentable with multiple reliable sources? I remain highly skeptical, or such an article would probably already exist. I think that best that is likely to happen is a section with a few paragraphs about male modeling and how comparatively small and unglamorous it is in comparison with female modeling and its wealthy supermodels. On what basis is your "keep" !vote "strong"? — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC) :* '''Reply''': Point taken that it should have been mentioned. But just because this category has been at CfD before does not magically make it immune from future deletion consideration, esp. since most of a year has intervened, and the consensus against gender division in categories here has become a landslide. I cannot think of an encyclopedically valid reason to have separate articles on female and male modeling in general, so the criterion you cite seems questionable to me. Narrower topics, like, say, sexual harassment, might warrant their own well-researched articles, and there might well be a gender divide there, but the category in question is not ]. Even assuming one could somehow drawn a bright-line distinction, in some encyclopedically relevant way, between the fields of female and male modeling, how likely is such a distinction to be documentable with multiple reliable sources? I remain highly skeptical, or such an article would probably already exist. I think that best that is likely to happen is a section with a few paragraphs about male modeling and how comparatively small and unglamorous it is in comparison with female modeling and its wealthy supermodels. On what basis is your "keep" !vote "strong"? — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::*''Reply''' My keep vote is "strong" because it is absolutely clear that it meets the criteria of ]. The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women. Here are some references which I found in two minutes, simply by scanning existing[REDACTED] articles: , , ; see also ], about the long-running controversy over the effect of modelling on the body-image of women, which has prompted government intervention in some countries; see Naomi Wolf]]'s book ]. That's just a quick start, but I have left a note at ], where I'm sure that there are lemty pf flks who can provid pages full of references. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ::*''Reply''' My keep vote is "strong" because it is absolutely clear that it meets the criteria of ]. The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women. Here are some references which I found in two minutes, simply by scanning existing[REDACTED] articles: , , ; see also ], about the long-running controversy over the effect of modelling on the body-image of women, which has prompted government intervention in some countries; see Naomi Wolf]]'s book ]. That's just a quick start, but I have left a note at ], where I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who can provide pages full of references. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - I'm not sure where this "overwhelming precedent" is coming from, but in any case, ''precedent of other topics is irrelevant'' because each such intersection has to be examined on its own merits to determine whether a head article can be written that would support the category. See ]. For female models, gender is a defining attribute: casting calls and advertisements for models are invariably gender-specific. The roles and rewards and careers of models are different, based on their gender. --] (]) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) * '''Keep''' - I'm not sure where this "overwhelming precedent" is coming from, but in any case, ''precedent of other topics is irrelevant'' because each such intersection has to be examined on its own merits to determine whether a head article can be written that would support the category. See ]. For female models, gender is a defining attribute: casting calls and advertisements for models are invariably gender-specific. The roles and rewards and careers of models are different, based on their gender. --] (]) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:* '''Reply''': That you seem unaware of the overwhelming precedent does not mean that it doesn't exist. We do not categorize separately by gender, whether it be actors, sportspeople, US Senators, etc., etc., etc. Also, it is not a safe assumption that because something has been at XfD before that its re-XfDing is some kind of mistake on the part of the re-nominator. Dumb category and other page ideas ''frequently'' get XfDed multiple times before finally being deleted; they usually only survive the first time through flukes, like activist and cavassing editors trying to save them, malformed or poorly reasoned initial deletion nominations, etc. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC) :* '''Reply''': That you seem unaware of the overwhelming precedent does not mean that it doesn't exist. We do not categorize separately by gender, whether it be actors, sportspeople, US Senators, etc., etc., etc. Also, it is not a safe assumption that because something has been at XfD before that its re-XfDing is some kind of mistake on the part of the re-nominator. Dumb category and other page ideas ''frequently'' get XfDed multiple times before finally being deleted; they usually only survive the first time through flukes, like activist and cavassing editors trying to save them, malformed or poorly reasoned initial deletion nominations, etc. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 64: Line 64:
:*And to respond to the "defining attribute" bit, actors and actresses are defined by their sex as well. The sex of an actor or actress is going to have a tremendous impact on the roles they will be offered and casting calls and advertisements for actors and actresses are overwhelmingly if not invariably sex-specific too. Yet we do not categorize actors and actresses separately and we shouldn't categorize female models separately on that basis. ] (]) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC) :*And to respond to the "defining attribute" bit, actors and actresses are defined by their sex as well. The sex of an actor or actress is going to have a tremendous impact on the roles they will be offered and casting calls and advertisements for actors and actresses are overwhelmingly if not invariably sex-specific too. Yet we do not categorize actors and actresses separately and we shouldn't categorize female models separately on that basis. ] (]) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::*Precisely. And the category is useless. It is ''ridiculously'' underpopulated, and guess why - virtually all article subjects that could be classified here have already been classified under far more specific categories. If this category actually were populated, it would be so large as to be virtually unusable. I also have to note that none of the categories that could be subcats of this one are; this category is not part of any kind of nomenclature system here, but a lazy add-on by people who could not be bothered to think of something more specific and see whether a category for it exists yet (e.g. ], etc., as already mentioned). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) ::*Precisely. And the category is useless. It is ''ridiculously'' underpopulated, and guess why - virtually all article subjects that could be classified here have already been classified under far more specific categories. If this category actually were populated, it would be so large as to be virtually unusable. I also have to note that none of the categories that could be subcats of this one are; this category is not part of any kind of nomenclature system here, but a lazy add-on by people who could not be bothered to think of something more specific and see whether a category for it exists yet (e.g. ], etc., as already mentioned). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:::*Under-population is not an argument for deletion, it is an argument for populating the categories. The idea that it would be too large is fully populated is simply wrong: as already proposed, it should be subdivided by country, just as ] has been. I strongly object to your unnecessary and rude attack on the editors who have populated of this category (] and ] please). The category exists, and has been used quite properly, and need not be used to the exclusion of any other category. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


==== Category:Songs about fame ==== ==== Category:Songs about fame ====

Revision as of 12:33, 21 November 2007

< November 19 November 21 >

November 20

Category:Disney actors

Category:Disney actors - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: First of all, this is a recreated category which was deleted just over a year ago, see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 14#Category:Disney actors. The reason why this should be deleted because it is a performer by performance (or rather performer by employer) based category, and the precedent is that these sort of categories are unnecessary because they would fill up the bottom of notable actors who have had dozens and dozens of performances (or in this case employers). On top of that, the criteria is vague. Does guest starring on a Disney show make one a "Disney Actor"? etc. Andrew c  22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in El Dorado County

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in El Dorado County to Category:Companies based in El Dorado County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. another one-item cat, whose one item is more in the nature of a tourist site than a company as we think of them, rename to match El Dorado County, California or delete as appropriate.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Del Norte County

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Del Norte County to Category:Companies based in Del Norte County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Del Norte County, California - there is only one article so this cat may be pre-mature and a merge to its parents may be as good an alternative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Power Standards

Category:Power Standards - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I found this category in the orphanage, and placed it in Category:Standards. It doesn't seem to fit with the general pattern of categories in Category:Standards, and the category description seems rather vague (although that may just be because I don't understand the subject). I will leave a note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Electronics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Category:American Academy of Arts and SciencesTemplate:Lc1

Category:Anomalies

Category:AnomaliesTemplate:Lc1

Rugrats

Category:Raging Planet releases

Category:Raging Planet releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, divide between Category:Raging Planet artists, convention of Category:Artists by record label, and Category:Raging Planet albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Female models

Category:Female models - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Overwhelming precedent against M/F split categories, tiny category given its potential range, and everyone who could be classified here has already been classified under more specific categories, e.g. Category:Greek fashion models, etc., with few exceptions (i.e. check category contents before deleting category). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Added recommendation: Cat redirect to Category:Models, since someone will likely use it in the future instead of something more specific. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Previously discussed at CfD 2007 January 10, with a result of "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted first, BHG posted second: check the timestamps!. Bencherlite 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
D'oh. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Please folks, don't forget to check for previous CfDs, which should be listed in the nomination. And before nominating gendered categories, please read WP:CATGRS, which permits gendered categories in certain circumstances, particularly "where gender has a specific relation to the topic". WP:CATGRS notes that

    "at all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?"

    . Does anyone seriously want to claim that gender does not have a specific relevance to the career of a model? Or that an encyclopedic head article could not be written on the subject of female models?
    Category:Male models is already subdivided by nationality, and the same should be one for female models, to avoid duplicate classification.
    I really do wonder what on earth is going on with some of these nominations. How many time do we have to revisit a topic which is clearly covered in the guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Point taken that it should have been mentioned. But just because this category has been at CfD before does not magically make it immune from future deletion consideration, esp. since most of a year has intervened, and the consensus against gender division in categories here has become a landslide. I cannot think of an encyclopedically valid reason to have separate articles on female and male modeling in general, so the criterion you cite seems questionable to me. Narrower topics, like, say, sexual harassment, might warrant their own well-researched articles, and there might well be a gender divide there, but the category in question is not Category:Female models who have been sexually harassed. Even assuming one could somehow drawn a bright-line distinction, in some encyclopedically relevant way, between the fields of female and male modeling, how likely is such a distinction to be documentable with multiple reliable sources? I remain highly skeptical, or such an article would probably already exist. I think that best that is likely to happen is a section with a few paragraphs about male modeling and how comparatively small and unglamorous it is in comparison with female modeling and its wealthy supermodels. On what basis is your "keep" !vote "strong"? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply' My keep vote is "strong" because it is absolutely clear that it meets the criteria of WP:CATGRS. The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women. Here are some references which I found in two minutes, simply by scanning existing[REDACTED] articles: , , ; see also Size zero#Fashion_concept, about the long-running controversy over the effect of modelling on the body-image of women, which has prompted government intervention in some countries; see Naomi Wolf]]'s book The Beauty Myth. That's just a quick start, but I have left a note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, where I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who can provide pages full of references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not sure where this "overwhelming precedent" is coming from, but in any case, precedent of other topics is irrelevant because each such intersection has to be examined on its own merits to determine whether a head article can be written that would support the category. See WP:CATGRS. For female models, gender is a defining attribute: casting calls and advertisements for models are invariably gender-specific. The roles and rewards and careers of models are different, based on their gender. --Lquilter (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: That you seem unaware of the overwhelming precedent does not mean that it doesn't exist. We do not categorize separately by gender, whether it be actors, sportspeople, US Senators, etc., etc., etc. Also, it is not a safe assumption that because something has been at XfD before that its re-XfDing is some kind of mistake on the part of the re-nominator. Dumb category and other page ideas frequently get XfDed multiple times before finally being deleted; they usually only survive the first time through flukes, like activist and cavassing editors trying to save them, malformed or poorly reasoned initial deletion nominations, etc. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is that I do not agree that there is overwhelming precedent. Could you please respond to my substantive points about significant distinctions in the careers of male and female models? --Lquilter (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The existence of a few narrow exceptions like the heads of state one doesn't militate for expanding the idea across the board. Other categories of this sort, such as Category:Male porn stars or Category:Female athletes, should also arguably be deleted, as they simply do not rise to the level of rarity that female heads of state do. The key question to ask is whether the intersection of gender and other categorizer is so unusual as to be defining in an encyclopedically useful way. Female heads of state (so far), yes. Female models, hell no. Male models, also no in my book, and same goes for female athletes and male porn stars and most of the other lingering pointless categories of this sort. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And to respond to the "defining attribute" bit, actors and actresses are defined by their sex as well. The sex of an actor or actress is going to have a tremendous impact on the roles they will be offered and casting calls and advertisements for actors and actresses are overwhelmingly if not invariably sex-specific too. Yet we do not categorize actors and actresses separately and we shouldn't categorize female models separately on that basis. Otto4711 (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely. And the category is useless. It is ridiculously underpopulated, and guess why - virtually all article subjects that could be classified here have already been classified under far more specific categories. If this category actually were populated, it would be so large as to be virtually unusable. I also have to note that none of the categories that could be subcats of this one are; this category is not part of any kind of nomenclature system here, but a lazy add-on by people who could not be bothered to think of something more specific and see whether a category for it exists yet (e.g. Category:Greek fashion models, etc., as already mentioned). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Under-population is not an argument for deletion, it is an argument for populating the categories. The idea that it would be too large is fully populated is simply wrong: as already proposed, it should be subdivided by country, just as Category:Male models has been. I strongly object to your unnecessary and rude attack on the editors who have populated of this category (WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF please). The category exists, and has been used quite properly, and need not be used to the exclusion of any other category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Songs about fame

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete per user request Kwsn (Ni!) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Songs about fame - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another vague "about" category. How much of a song needs to be "about" fame to qualify for the category? Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan

Suggest merging Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan to Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment
Nominator's rationale: Merge, thin population, only 1 article; parent category has only 11 articles. It is overmuch subdivision. Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong merge; blatant overcat. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Outer Limits

rename - WP:TVNC--As3x (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds

Propose renaming Category:Dove breeds to Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds
Nominator's rationale: The new category will be a better description of the article pages currently under the "Dove breeds" category. As discussed at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy Sting_au Talk 11:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - more accurate name.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - others would say that what we call "pigeons" are in fact "rock doves" (i.e. "pigeons" are "doves", not vice versa). I'd like to hear from the ornithology WikiProject on this one. The accuracy assertion appears to be quite indeterminate to me, and may well simply be a matter of taste, habit, field or dialect. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - looking at the articles in the cat, they refer to breeds of ornamental pigeon, and the principle article is List of pigeon breeds - so "accurate" in that sense. (As a UK English speaker it happens that I do also find it more accurate linguistically, but that wasn't the main point). I note by the way that the correct name for a "rock dove" has been agreed to be "Rock Pigeon" by both US and UK ornithologists. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Media in Columbus, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Media in Columbus, Ohio to Category:Columbus, Ohio media
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:American media by market is unclear as to which form to use, 'foo media' or 'media in foo'. This nomination is to determine if there is consensus for one form over the other. If consensus appears to exist, I have no objection if someone wishes to add the other categories to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose (i.e. Strongly support the second proposal) - the "X, Y media" format is visually confusing, while the "Media in X, Y" format is unambiguous even if very slightly more longwinded. Almost always sacrifice marginal brevity in favor of clarity, since this is an encyclopedia not an anti-verbosity experiment.  :-) Just to be clear, I agree strongly with Vegaswikian that one standard or the other should be applied, and I argue for the second of the two that were proposed - use "Media in..." (And no, I'm not going to get into whether "media" is too vague a term; that is a topic for another mass CfD entirely.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus

Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus to Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus, Ohio
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and does not follow the form for most sub cats of Category:Columbus, Ohio. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy rename as a simple typo. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Columbus

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Columbus to Category:Companies based in Columbus, Ohio
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are several US cites called Columbus so this name is rather ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy rename as a simple typo. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: As discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject California State Highways#Category:California Freeway and Expressway System, this has been replaced by Category:Freeways in California and California Freeway and Expressway System. NE2 07:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Response: It's obviously a delete, like everything else there that is not flagged specifically as a rename or merge. Why would we do anything else with something (allegedly) made obsolete by a replacement category? <puzzled> — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Descent: FreeSpace

Propose renaming Category:Descent: FreeSpace to Category:FreeSpace series
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Descent prefix has no role in the series. Official games only consist of Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War, its expansion, and FreeSpace 2. The category has greater possible use from the mod community (utilising the modified FreeSpace engine under the FreeSpace 2 Source Code Project. Volition themselves use the term FreeSpace to refer to their products. Jappalang (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mimar Sinan

Category:Mimar Sinan - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. All building articles are already in a buildings subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sinan buildings

Propose renaming Category:Sinan buildings to Category:Mimar Sinan buildings
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of parent Category:Buildings and structures by architect. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kings of Nigeria

Propose renaming Category:Kings of Nigeria to Category:Nigerian royalty
Nominator's rationale: To encompass both genders, and because Nigeria isn't a royal entity. These people were/are kings of entities that are inside or partly inside what is now Nigeria. Picaroon (t) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Otto makes a good point here. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we just sorted this out merely because we're dealing with a different issue here. I'm not 100% certain that there are Nigerian queens, but it seems quite likely, especially considering that my wife has had several Nigerian princesses in her college classes (I kid you not). Cgingold (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that Nigerian queens exist in abundant numbers, but none seem to be categorised as such yet. Kings or Paramount chiefs are I think the usual terms, but they would be "Kings in Nigeria" to avoid confusion I think. Many of these are historical figures who ruled large areas by any standard (in fact all seem historical, most from very long ago). Oddly the Emirs from the north, like Ado Bayero, aren't in this category. Anyway I think "royalty" is the best way to go. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Generally, kings, queens, princes, and princesses are found in the south and center of the country. The Sultan of Sokoto and the emirs are in the north. It would be wrong to term the Hausa-Fulani (northern) royals as kings, quite simply because they're not kings; they are, however, royalty. So, if this renaming nomination proceeds, I'll categorize them as Nigerian royalty too. But "Kings of Nigeria" on Bayero's page would make no sense. Picaroon (t) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename but not per nom. It seems to me that we need to come up with a name that reflects the fact that these individuals are a sort of local or regional "king", which may perhaps be on a par with what are elsewhere referred to as "chiefs" or "chieftains". I honestly don't know what the proper terminology is, so I posted notice of this CFD (with {{cfd-notice}}) at the talk page of its creator and at the talk page for WikiProject Nigeria -- where I then discovered that Picaroon, who started this CFD, is an active member. So perhaps he/she can supply the answer! Cgingold (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, "king" is used by some individuals who would be called chiefs elsewhere. Again, they're all "Nigerian royalty", but aren't all "Kings of Nigeria". Picaroon (t) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Open source games

Propose renaming Category:Open source games to Category:Open source games software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. tooold (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The main article's, Open source games, first line is Open source games (short open games) are video games which are open-source software so, yes, these games definitely have software. Alternatives to the proposed name would include 1. putting software in ()s, e.g. (software) 2. renaming the main article (does Misplaced Pages have a guideline about plural names?). Nominator prefers the main article name to be unchanged in the category name, but is happy with any rename that includes "software". tooold (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear -- I meant, have software in the name (obviously they are made of software). See Otto4711's point below. --Lquilter (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the category name matches the lead article. The category is not capturing software that's used to create open source games. It's capturing games. The proposed rename makes no sense. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Paintings by artist

Propose renaming a number of categories in Category:Paintings by artist to include the full name of the painter.
Nominator's rationale: On May 4, 2006, I proposed the renaming of Category:Vermeer paintings to Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings. The closing admin declined this, "pending a mass rename of paintings cats." As far as I can tell, that renaming hasn't taken place. My reasoning of May 4, 2006 still stands: I believe that a subcategory of Category:Paintings by artist would need to include the full name of the painter, unless the painter was known by a single name. The most appropriate guideline for this would be the name of the corresponding article, as is outlined in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions: "When creating an article one should ... create a category of the same or similar name on the same topic" and "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories."
For this reason, I propose the renaming of the following categories:
In all of these requests for renaming, I'm using the name of the corresponding article as a guideline. For example, I haven't nominated Category:Pontormo paintings, because the article on this painter is called Pontormo. Aecis 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel very enthusiastic about this, as far as the older artists go, because several of these names, like Botticelli and Perugino, are actually nicknames, not the artists real name, and only used like this by convention. Category:Botticelli paintings‎ sounds more natural and grammatical to me than Category:Sandro Botticelli paintings‎. Also few of these have defaultsorts currently, as they don't need them - these would have to be added to avoid chaos. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It is true that they are nicknames, not real names. But the combination of first name and nickname appears to be most established, hence the use of the two in the article names. I feel that the title of the category should correspond to the title of the article; if the title is wrong, it should be moved. But if it is correct, the title of the category should be changed to correspond to the article. Defaultsort would indeed have to be added (good catch), but that can be done in a matter of minutes. Aecis 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, at least for all where it's a known first name and last name (Vermeer, Durer, Rubens, and Chagall at the very least). If there are others where the name is shakier, the article should probably be renamed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That's rather counter to your "plays by" !vote just now, isn't it Mike? Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The two have nothing to do with each other. The plays nomination is about order; for consistency's sake, I think they should be made to look like novels, which put the work in front of the creator. I'm not taking a stand on visual arts order, which affects buildings, sculptures, and many other category types; similarly, I'm not suggesting that the music categories be flipped around. This nomination is about content; for consistency's sake, I think they should be made to look like any creative work category, which all use full names. But just in case you're hypothesizing about my comments even further, I think Category:Shakespearean plays should become Category:Plays by William Shakespeare.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opppose I would only think this was justified if there were two or more artists of the same name - otherwise it seems superfluous.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I might have agreed with you if Misplaced Pages had been consistent in that. Either we only use the surnames unless there are more artists with the same name, or we always use the full name unless a person was and is known by a single name. All the other subcategories of Category:Works by artist use the full name of the artist, unless the artist was known by a single name, using the title of the corresponding article as the guideline. Category:Paintings by artist should be consistent with these sister categories. Aecis 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes to all your points, except that I still think the other option is the better one. The argument from relative quantities of work is not good - if after a thorough discussion it appeared that all the other cats should be changed instead, then that is exactly what should happen. But probably in real terms the pressure from the example of the other cats will be too great. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename per Aecis, who said it perfectly. I recognize HeartofaDog's issue, but that objection does not stand here, since it would also object to the standard currently impemented for all other such categories. I.e., I sympathize with the view that where disambiguation is not needed it should not be used, but that would be a much, much, MUCH larger CfD than this one, affecing a both wide and quite deep range of categories, and in the opposite direction to what was proposed here. It is better to be consistent with what we've decided to implement, and decide separately and later whether to change what we have decided to implement, than to defy what we have decided to implement in hopes of changing it; per WP:POINT. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: See #Category:Sinan buildings above. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Channelling

Suggest merging Category:Channelling to Category:Spiritual mediums
Nominator's rationale: Merge, These two categories appear to be about the same thing, although the former is categorized under categories for New Age, Occult and Pseudoscience while the latter is categorized under Spirituality. I'm having trouble seeing much daylight between the two and would like to know if there is a consensus to merge, somewhow. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: A potential problem is the nomenclature: "Spiritual mediums" means "particular people who channel spirts" (allegedly <cough>) while "Channelling" (which I think should be "Channeling" anyway, though I'm not 100% sure this double-L thing isn't some US/UK dialect issue) means "the act of spiritually mediumizing". I Strongly agree that a merge is virtually demanded, but it may need to involve a rename on the side, e.g. both extant categories merge into a new "Spirtual channeling" so that all articles in both categories will fit. It's completely absurd for two categories for this to exist, regardless (and regardless what I think of the subject matter; this is a redundancy issue, pure and simple). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks, that's what I had thought, too. A merge and rename may be what's needed, along the lines of what you have suggested.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Looney Tunes Golden Collection

Category:Looney Tunes Golden Collection - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Empty category and completely unncessary. Even if the articles up for AfD are kept, that's still only six articles in a very narrow category. Collectonian (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The Category is only empty because User:Collectonian merged all the articles. In the merge, most of the information was lost. Where does one go for the list of cartoons in each volume now? That information is gone. There's 60 cartoons per volume so it makes sense to have a separate page per volume, rather than have an enormous article with 300 cartoons (and growing every year). Plus, there was no discussion before the extremely lossy merge. I vote to revert all the changes that User:Collectonian made today. We should be voting before he makes giant unilateral edits like that, not afterwards. DavidRF (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Per previous AfDs, there is absolutely no reason for a DVD release to have individual volumes, nor is it necessary to list every cartoon short that is included on every volume. The main Looney Tunes Golden Collection is not that big at all, and there is no reason not to have the DVD release information in the article. Work is being done now to incorporate the pertinent information from each volume to the neglected main article. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. I don't understand why you get to delete large quantities of information and then call for a vote? Why does it not work the other way around? Who made you the editor in charge here?!? Previous AfD's?!? Which ones? These are not Power Rangers DVD sets. These are Warner Brothers cartoons and deserve to have the cartoon shorts listed. Again I ask? What was wrong with the way it was before and who are you to unilterally make these decisions? DavidRF (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am going to undo your changes. You should call for a vote before you make big changes. Not after. DavidRF (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if the AfDs say to keep the individual articles, I still think this category is unnecessary. There is also already a template for this as well (though is it also up for TfD), and the main article links to the five subarticles. I can understand a single Looney Tunes category, but one for just six articles seems like excessive categorization to me. Why not have them in the main Category:Looney Tunes where the rest of the Looney Toon DVD articles are filed, or make a sub category of Category:Looney Tunes/DVD Releases to put all of them in, which would be consistent with the songs, shorts, etc, categories? Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Collectonian; the precise final shape and number of the article(s) with the relevant content in them are simply not germane here. Even if the article count went back to where it was, there is little to no justification for a category for it/them. Just because there have (hypothetically) been two serial killers in the Kindom of Tonga does not automatically mean that we need a Category:Tongan serial killers. If the category has little to no potential for growth and/or would be an exceptionist anomaly, don't go there. More to the point, we don't have categories for things by release format. There are no Category:Beatles LPs, Category:Beatles eight-tracks, Category:Beatles cassettes, etc. for a reason. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But we do have quite a few Category:Music videos and DVDs subcats by artist and presumably if there were multiple notable Beatles DVDs then they'd end up in a category. If the individual articles are kept then it makes sense to categorize them rather than having six articles cluttering up the main category. If they're deleted or merged then fine, delete the category. But since the status of the articles is unsettled then there's no rush to delete the category. CFD will still be here in five days when the AFD has closed. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20: Difference between revisions Add topic