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.
Keep – it is the just the sort of thing we do categorise by, such as 'alumni of Foo university'. I think it is defining and would be mentioned in a 2 paragraph bio. (Probably not in a 1 paragraph bio.)
Occuli (
talk)
23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Even universities? I had been trying to soften the blow. I concede that the earlier deletion of all the 'school alumni' categories would have been a master-stroke.
Occuli (
talk)
00:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Serving in the Peace Corps or VISTA has always been recognized as an extraordinary act undertaken by superior persons, and most such volunteers were changed by the experience: Consider Jimmy Carter's mother, etc. Kiefer.
Wolfowitz00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Once I closed a nomination that Vegaswikian had started. After his nominating statement, he was the only user to comment in the discussion, and his comment directly contradicted the nominating statement. So I nearly closed the discussion as "no consensus", but actually there was a better explanation for what he had done when you read it in context. ...
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep - As others have said, service in the Peace Corps is a defining characteristic. It does not make a volunteer notable (that's why Chris Dodd wouldn't be introduced as a former Peace Corps volunteer), but it often changes the course of their lives, and it will be mentioned in their obituaries. --
Orlady (
talk)
00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
If "mentioned in their obituary" is the standard, we're in trouble. Charlton Heston's obituaries always mentioned his role as "Moses" in The Ten Commandments, but we don't categorize him as an actor in that movie or as an actor who portrayed Moses.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Appearing in a particular movie is not a defining characteristic for a person, but being an actor is. Ah, but we can't know that if we use "if mentioned in their obiturary" as the standard.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I was reacting to the statement that No one would refer to "Chris Dodd, the former Peace Corps volunteer ...", which implied that since "Peace Corps volunteer" is not the basis for Dodd's notability, it can't be a basis for categorizing him. That's contrary to the entire approach to categories -- and if people were categorized only by the characteristics that make them notable, a large percentage of Wikipedia's categories (from "1647 births" to "Navy Midshipmen men's basketball players") would have to go away. My point about the obituary was that Peace Corps service is a significant part of a person's life that is routinely noted by others. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, it is fairly well accepted that categories should be "defining" for the topics in question. Just because you can point to any number of categories that aren't defining in your opinion does not negative the general principle, because not every single category you can identify has been nominated and discussed. Any editor can create any craptastic category, but until it gets nominated and discussed, the default is for it to exist. In other words, pointing to
WP:OTHERSTUFF is never very convincing. These are trite and well-known points, but they seem to be relevant to what you are suggesting.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I didn't say those other categories aren't defining. My point is that not every "defining" characteristic is also the basis for a person's notability. Being born in 1647 (
Category:1647 births) is defining, but it's clearly not a basis for notability. --
Orlady (
talk)
12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
This is a departure from the usual criteria: even German wikipedia categorises by year of birth, year of death, nationality, gender, generally thought defining. Compare
Paul Theroux (14 cats, some rather verbose) and
de:Paul Theroux (8 succinct cats, the first 5 related to notability, the last 3 'the sort of things we categorise by' which have nothing to do with notability) however for the pared-down approach to categories. (I prefer the German approach.)
Occuli (
talk)
02:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
But just because we have certain category systems doesn't make that feature necessarily defining. Year of birth may not be defining; it is conceivable that we categorize by year of birth for reasons that are unrelated to whether or not it is defining. Or they might just exist because there is no consensus for them not to exist. The default in WP is for things to exist—no consensus is needed to create anything, but consensus is needed to get rid of it. So the system doesn't really work in reverse and you can't say—these categories exist, thus they must be defining.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the argument that this is an important factor in people's lives, like what college they attended, works. There are not a lot of these organizations with volunteers that are notable enough to organize, and few if any people were in both this and VISTA, the one other example of something like this that has been brought up, so it probably has even less chance of creating lots of categories for specific individuals than the alumni categories do. I think that this is within the reasonable domain of categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:37, 25 August 2011 (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:Floridians
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.
Rename all per nominator. The "Floridians" name is seriously ambiguous. Consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, the word "The" should not be part of the name. --
Orlady (
talk) 04:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Changed opinion (see below). --
Orlady (
talk)
22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
What policy are you refering to? 'The' is part of this team's (former) name. It is not like refering to, say, (the) New York Yankees as 'the Yankees' - here it's 'The Floridians' and not 'the Floridians'. Saying that though, I do see what you mean now that 'The Floridians (basketball)' is ambiguous.
Mayumashu (
talk)
22:31, 19 August 2011 (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:Lucas family
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to something less ambiguous. I looked at a few articles and I'm not sure if any notability for this is based on one or more persons. So I don't have a suggestion as to a disambiguator for the name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:47, 18 August 2011 (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:Pioneers of bus transport
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete The term "pioneer" is inherently subjective. It creates a problem with regards to
neutrality and makes it very difficult to define the scope of the category.
Pichpich (
talk)
19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I added the category "Pioneers of bus transport" as there is a category "Pioneers of rail transport". The term "pioneer" is to suggest that the person in the article started bus transport in a particular place a long time ago, as the bus company may now no longer exist.
Karrattul (
talk)
07:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment the whole including of "a long time ago" makes the category not workable. That is an unclear inclusion criteria. Anyway, why would we exclude someone if they begin bus transport in an area 15 years ago and it had never existed there before. Categories need criteria that allows us to without debate say "yet the person belongs" or " no they do not belong". If part of the criteria is doing something "a long time ago" than we have to ask does 60-years-ago meet the criteria or not, and we end up with debatable inclusion criteria.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I admit "a long time ago" is an ambiguous criteria. What I really meant was "the first person to do something". I just thought that there should be a category for people who were the first operators of bus transport to separate them from those who came later. I value the comments in this discussion.
Karrattul (
talk)
11:40, 25 August 2011 (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:Nickelodeon (TV channel)
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 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:Categories by function
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.
Keep, I was organizing the categories by status (i.e. what they are), and by function (what they do or are intended to do). I don't see why this is an invalid categorization scheme. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Both function and status are ambiguous and these categories only tend to group things where the only commonality is the word function or status. While there are other subcategories with different names, they are still not grouped by any underling defining characteristic.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:34, 25 August 2011 (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:Articles containing Sanskrit language text
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.
Weak support. "Sanskrit" is just as clear as "Sanskrit language", so the proposed renaming makes sense. If rejected, "Sanskrit-language text" should at least be written with a hyphen. (This applies to all
sister categories as well.)
Jafeluv (
talk)
10:24, 26 August 2011 (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.
Newspaper publishers (people) by century
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.
Nominator's rationale: remove overcategorisation of the latter two, and rename 17th/18th to match 19th. This is a very similar nomination to the outcome of
CFD 2010 May 29 re similar C19 categories. -
Fayenatic(talk)17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The general nomination is good. Now that I have removed the person not born until 1781 from the 17th-century American publishers cat, that cat only has one person so it is even more clearly unneeded.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:44, 20 August 2011 (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.
Jurists by nationality
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. The longer answer from the discussion, and not just the !votes, is to reverse merge the first 3 but the first is a category redirect so no action is needed there.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Nominated to match all other categories of
Category:Jurists by nationality. The hatnote on that category says, "A jurist is a professional who studies, develops, applies or otherwise deals with the law. The term is widely used in the United States, but in the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth countries it has only historical and specialist usage. In these countries members of the general public are largely unaware of the term and are liable to confuse it with juror. There is no alternative word for jurist in the Commonwealth. The term "legal professionals" may be used for convenience, but it is not an everyday term." To UK and Canadian editors: How true is that? Jurist seems a very clear term from where I sit in the US, enough that a hatnote that said "This category is for British professionals who study, develop, apply, or otherwise deal with the law." would be sufficient to cover any questions. Agree or disagree?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename per nom, not because "jurist" is well understood in the UK (it is not), but because the current "legal professionals" is positively misleading. "Legal professionals" in the UK means "lawyers", i.e. solicitors + barristers. In effect what we are talking about here is a "people in law" category including writers and academics. If I were starting from a blank sheet I would have called it "people in law", but as there is already an established tree of "jurists", that name is fine by me. Keep the four British categories, and redirect them to "lawyers"; I can't speak for Canada or Argentina. -
Fayenatic(talk)17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose (UK categories): Have you read the article
Jurist? It gives a clear explanation as to why the word Jurist only has relevance in American English, and yet is not used in English in the United Kingdom and most former Commonwealth countries. Hence anyone using English as their language, would not know what Jurist meant. As the article
Jurist explains, Legal Professional is the term used in English. Hence if you can find precedence for the terms usage in the other nominated countries, I would accept change. But where in country language precedence on naming is set, the guidance is clear. Rgds, --
Trident13 (
talk)
20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I've read it, and it all looks very suspect to me. Not the facts per se, as I have no personal background in them; just the way the article is written makes me doubt everything in it. But if you guys say from experience that in the UK this would cause confusion, then striving for a non-confusing term in all cases might be better. Say, "Legal professionals" in all countries.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
07:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Striking most of my previous comments after research – I was wrong, "legal professional" is used in the UK to include legal executives, experts and others who work in law but are not lawyers; e.g.
CPS ("Whether you are a barrister, a solicitor or are just starting your legal training"),
Inst of Legal Execs,
Waterlow (directory), and a
firm whose Legal Exec was headlined as "Outstanding Legal Professional Wins Prestigious Law Society Award". -
Fayenatic(talk)16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose (UK categories). Per Trident13, "Jurist" is not a term used in British English, and most non-specialists (like me when I saw the entry in the TOC on this page) will assume it means jurors. "Legal professionals" is, while perhaps not an identical term, the closest equivalent. In short, and to answer the specific question above, the statement from the
Jurist article is exactly right, at least regarding the UK. I have no opinion regarding the non-UK categories nominated.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose change. Naming these categories "jurists" looks to me like a sure-fire recipe for obfuscation and confusion. As a speaker of American English, I think of the word "jurist" as synonymous with "judge" -- and a word whose use is usually a bit of an affectation, or a synonym used in news media to avoid repetition of "judge". I consulted an avowedly American dictionary, which indicated that the word refers to a person who has achieved eminence in the field of law, such as a legal scholar or judge. The article "
Jurist", which asserts that this is an American and Canadian word for lawyers looks like
original research of the worst kind (meaning that it's false information). --
Orlady (
talk)
14:35, 20 August 2011 (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:Futures Tour
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 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:Non-fiction writers by century
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not a formed category tree - only subcats are for 20th and 21st non-fiction writers; these two lists would be of enormous length and have little navigational value.
Mayumashu (
talk)
13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: I agree about those two, but the other sub-cat
Category:Historians by century is markedly useful -- the more so as it is mainly populated with 18th-century and earlier. I propose that 20th and 21st century sub-categories should be deprecated, deleted and salted, but categories for earlier writers should be encouraged. Opinions invited about 19th century. -
Fayenatic(talk)17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have added Historians' head category Scholars into the nominated category, along with Religious leaders, as most of the latter who achieved notability would have been writers. -
Fayenatic(talk)17:18, 18 August 2011 (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:Writers by fiction subject area
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 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:American wheelchair tennis players
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 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.
Literary characters by genre
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These can all be shortened, and it may be useful to consider them together. The first one contains a mixture of "X-genre characters" and "Characters in X-genre" sub-cats, and IMHO the mixture is OK as some of each would sound awkward the other way round. The contents of the Comedy and Western categories are not mainly literary characters; move these categories along with
Category:Science fiction characters up into new
Category:Fictional characters by genre. -
Fayenatic(talk)13:08, 18 August 2011 (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:Fictional characters in other media
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.
Yes, you either need a vast set - Literary characters in other media, Opera characters in other media, Radio characters etc etc - or abandon the idea of a head cat. --
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
21:11, 18 August 2011 (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:Mental and behavioural disorders
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.
Given that physiologically caused behavourial ones are included, I agree with User:Fayenatic's view to keep. The article name is what needs to be changed
Mayumashu (
talk)
22:51, 19 August 2011 (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:User:Intoronto1125
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.
Nominator's rationale: Violates
WP:UCAT, category does not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. User-specific categories like this have a precedence of being deleted. —
ξxplicit05:34, 18 August 2011 (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:Female association football players
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.
Nominator's rationale: The people in this category are players of
women's association football. I see no reason to avoid that established name and, instead, to use an odd combination of three characteristics – players of association football who are female – that has the same meaning. If this nomination succeeds, I will nominate the subcategories for speedy renaming. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree that in this case (and in most cases but not all) the cat name should match the article name, but I'd like naming consistency across sportspeople cats. Should we therefore have all sportswomen subcats be 'women's ...' and not 'female ...'? Probably yes. For tennis, my main WP interest for the last while, it could be done - the two ways of naming seem to work equally.
Mayumashu (
talk)
12:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I don't think we need to worry about the other non-team sports here. It's clear that the sport is referred to as "women's association football" (or "women's football" or "women's soccer"), so the rename makes sense for players.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename we should follow the organizaiton name. We already do have women's basketball categories. However if their is inconsistency in what the various sports are called we should not try to force the categories to be consistent despite the inconsistency in usage.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:56, 20 August 2011 (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:Healthcare in the Caribbean
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.
Keep - I don't understand why the subcategories under Caribbean would be appropriately categorised immediately under "continent". Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico etc. are not continents.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
keep Nomincation is confused. This is a category with proper parents for the Caribbean region within the North American contintent.
Hmains (
talk)
02:35, 21 August 2011 (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:Fictional characters from recorded music
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.
Support for shortness. I think that Mike was suggesting that if the category contents ever justify being split into sub-categories, this naming format would be suitable for specific musical genres. -
Fayenatic(talk)18:56, 18 August 2011 (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:Former students of the BRIT School
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.
A category inclusion is not evidence. Some of these are secondary schools, others are tertiary institutions; it's a hotchpotch. This is an excellent example of the advantages of "People educated at".
Occuli (
talk)
23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I think after dozens of discussions now, this general form for UK schools is becoming a well-accepted compromise solution. It's amazing how long one can kick against the pricks in resistance, but eventually it makes sense to compromise for the sake of broader cross-category consistency and promotion of consensus decision-making, if nothing else. I don't particularly like the alumni categories; I don't think they are justified; I would prefer to see them all deleted. But I've given up that fight because it's clear there is a consensus that they will exist, and I can live with that.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename We have a tentative consensus to use "people educated at X" for secondary and primary schools in the UK, and to reserve alumni for tertiary institutions. This is not a tertiary institution, so we should use the secondary form.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:02, 20 August 2011 (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.
Characters in written fiction by nationality
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.
Nominator's rationale: There are a couple ways we can do these as well. "Chinese characters" has another meaning, that of symbols in the Chinese languages, so maybe putting the demonym at the front is smart.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Characters tends to be used to denote fictional persons, 'people' to denote historical individuals. Although having just tagged
Judge Dee into the Chinese characters category, perhaps 'people' is better.
Rename to "...in literature" - "French literary characters" et al. are ambiguous (who belongs there, Fabrice del Dongo or Madame Defarge?) and "Literary French characters" et al. are odd.
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
But you mean "Characters in Russian literature," not "Russian characters in literature," right? Because they mean different things and the second would include Russian baddies in James Bond, etc.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Is it not currently organized by the nationality of the character? There are a bunch of Shakespearean Italians in that category, and Dickens's Frenchpeople likewise. I think both trees should exist, but am I mistaking what's being discussed here?
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
02:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Per my above comment, I feel I should unequivocally state my !vote, which would be to rename to Characters in Foo literature, to make it clear that it is the nationality of the literature, not the characters, that is being categorized. But if I'm mistaken, and it really is the other way around, disregard.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
01:25, 20 August 2011 (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.
Characters in written fiction by species
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.
Nominator's rationale: There are a couple of different ways we can do these. I'm okay with the shortest version, or upmerging. But at minimum the "in written fiction" should go away per
this discussion.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
00:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to "...in literature". I see no reason to upmerge, as these are within other hierarchies by species. "Literary" would suggest to me that the characters were knowledgeable about literature, rather than just appearing in it. -
Fayenatic(talk)07:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
They can both mean "well-read", but in my experience "literate" (on its own, not "highly literate") usually means "able to read".
Dictionary.com gives "a literary man" as an example of usage for the meaning "engaged in or having the profession of literature or writing". Unfortunately it doesn't give an example for "a literary dog". ;-) -
Fayenatic(talk)16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Because all its sibling categories in that one are "Child characters in X". The meaning of "characters" is generally clear when used alongside a medium of entertainment. Parent categories that do not mention media need to include the word fiction. -
Fayenatic(talk)18:09, 22 August 2011 (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:Literature sidekicks
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.
Rename to
Category:Sidekicks in literature. I wish there was a way to avoid the "in" form because it makes it sound like it is a category for things on the theme, not things that fit the description, but I think it is the only form that really works, the current form is just to irregular.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:12, 20 August 2011 (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.
Characters in written fiction container categories
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.
I have no objection to the phrase "literary characters" on its own, so rename without prejudice against using different words on more specific categories. -
Fayenatic(talk)09:53, 18 August 2011 (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.