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:Media by setting
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 and start again from scratch if necessary. There's a general feeling that this category is too much of a mess for even merging to work.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Okay, I'm going to take a different approach to this tree by
User:Stefanomione than I had planned. He's been been calling books, even novels, "media" in a way that is confusing. If something is "set" in a place, it is a fictional work that belongs in the category tree for
Category:Creative works: something distinct from
Media and its category tree
Category:Mass media, which we reserve more for the instruments of modern communications. The detailed description at
Category:Mass media does explain that " Other forms and uses of media generally fall under the heading of entertainment media." But "entertainment media" is just a piped link to
Entertainment.
User:Stefanomione has, I believe, misunderstood our category trees for Mass media and Creative works, spawning a myriad of poorly named, confusing and inconsistent groupings.
Now, particular to this nomination, if something is "set" (as opposed to "shot" or "produced") somewhere, it is by definition a work of fiction. We are classifying articles by their fictional setting. So what is the difference between the nominated category tree and the pre-existing
Category:Locations in fiction? None that I can see. For example, compare any two such categories:
Category:Media set in Morocco and the
Category:Morocco in fiction.
If this top-level nom is successful, I'll nominate the myriad of sub-cats for merging to the applicable Foo in fiction category, or renaming if no such in-fiction category exists, but it'll take time.
And should we try to block this guy from creating more categories? I've been nominating his stuff for years and he does more damage than good, it seems to me.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Using your example, Media set in Morocco and Morocco in fiction is just a continuum. It's not even a line, or a fine line at that. I think blocking this guy would be a great idea. Years, shesh
Curb Chain (
talk)
11:24, 31 July 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:Self-styled orders of knighthood
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. Overcat, subjective, and as used, not appropriate to its claim. the main article should be
self-styled orders (of chivalry), but that article itself is a stub, and many of the self-styled orders are so small that they will never qualify for article status, because they're not recognized in the first place, so there is no expandability. The cat was populated incorrectly as well; not with groups as it should have been, but mainly with individuals like
Henry Lincoln, who never claimed to be a knight (but wrote a book about the
Priory of Sion, and
Karl Gotthelf von Hund, founder of a short-lived German Masonic system, which was also not a chivalric system, nor did it claim to be. Also listed was a pretender to the Jacobite throne, who also did not claim to be aq knight, and was listed in the appropriate pretender cat already. Obviously, individuals are not "orders of knighthood" and the creator of the cat did not really know what to do with it. Another addition was the
Larmenius Charter, which was a forged document purporting to be
Knights Templar related. After taking out the obviously incorrect entries, there are only two left.
MSJapan (
talk)
15:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
The website that showed Henry Lincoln knighted by the Militi Templi Scotia order at Newbattle Abbey in Scotland has been deleted but here's a pic
Keep. Category is not only about orders, but about their founders, e.g.
Michel Roger Lafosse, who is proven self-styled Prince and founder of "The Imperial and Royal Dragon Court and Order" and "Noble Order of the Guards of St Germain".--
Yopie (
talk)
17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: And where is that stated? Lafosse has no such citation in his article, a prince is not a knight, and a category about founders should be "members of self-styled orders of chivalry".
MSJapan (
talk)
17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete whether Henry Lincoln was knighted by anyone ever is immaterial. He is a person, not an order, and so would never belong in this cat. This is a poorly thought out cat. Beyond this its name strikes me as an attempt to disparage the content by saying "they claim to be knights, but really are not". I think it probably violates the rule that cat names should not express a point of view.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)reply
::Keep. Self-styled orders tarnish the existence of bonafide genuine orders of knighthood holding pedigrees dating back centuries by their existence. How can it be "point of view" if an order of knighthood is not officially recognised by any legal authority, and is an obvious fabrication? And there are secondary sources - website articles by authorities like Guy Stair Sainty and books like Rebels, Pretenders & Impostors by Cheesman & Williams.
Lung salad (
talk)
10:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Obvious keep. This is the established term for
this kind of organisations. It's important to have a separate category, these organisations do not belong in the same category as the one for real orders of knighthood (i.e. the same category as the one including, inter alia, the
Order of Malta), which are founded by a
sovereign.
Mocctur (
talk)
22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Check out this article on French Wikipedia - there's more than enough material:
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:False Order of St John
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. Subjective categorization and bad choice of title. This is not a title of a chivalric order called "The False Order of St. John", rather it is "False (as in fake/unrecognized/illegitimate) Orders of St. John" as in "Groups called the Order of St. John which are not the recognized
Hospitallers but use the name" of which there is only one listing in the cat. Bad titling aside, I see no real expandability in terms of articles of substance.
MSJapan (
talk)
15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per inexpandability. Also, this is a conflation of the fact that only one exists and the fact that the word order misleads readers believing that it is the name of an organization, although this maybe due to the punctuation (capitalization).
Curb Chain (
talk)
08:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per NPOV violations. We should not be categorizing things as false, except where there is a clear undisputed outside agreement on such. If the gorup itself claimed it was such a thing than there is clearly not agreement that is was false.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment this category can not just be merged into SSOOK. SSOOK is for articles that are on orders, this category is mainly about things related to a specific order, the contents of this category should not be merged into the other.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:52, 6 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.
Alumni of schools in Wales
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. Though I would prefer "Alumni" for all such categories, it's been made abundantly clear that that is a name that just doesn't apply in the UK. So let's wipe it out in that country, and get these to the dominant form. If it changes later, it changes later.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:30, 31 July 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.
National Party of Australia politicians
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. It is clear there should be some change, but it's impossible to figure out from this discussion exactly what form each one should take. I suggest settling it on the talk page of
National Party of Australia and then renominating.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Formatting these in the "STATE National politicians" format can give the impression that there is a political party called "STATE National", since the standard format for politicians is "POLITICALPARTY politicians". I suggest renaming these to use the proper name of the party, which is "National Party of Australia", and then matching the format to
Category:National Party of Australia politicians by simply adding the state of origin on the end of the name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I left out the WA one because I knew about the state party article and thought that perhaps it needed to be treated differently in a future nomination, depending on how these turn out. I wasn't aware of the SA party article, which suggests maybe this one could be treated differently as well.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
There's a bit of a problem with the SA and WA articles - basically the two state parties use the same format for their branding and formal names but the articles have gone different ways. As I understand it the NSW and Victoria (and Queensland before it merged) state parties have the same name forms.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
That's probably a good idea if they are all meant to be state politicians. With the current names, there's no reason federal politicians from the state in question could not be added to the categories. In fact, I assumed it was for both federal and state politicians, which is kind of why I suggested the names I did.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Many of these people were never members of the National Party of Australia - the WA and SA ones are explicitly members of separate organisations (the WA one was started in opposition to the NPA's affiliated organisation, ran independently for 7 years then absorbed the affiliated organisation and for 19 years retained affiliation before effectively splitting again). SA's history has always been that of an independent party founded by locals in the 1960s and limited to a couple of electorates - the official Country party merged into the LCL in the 1930s. The WA federal National member in the House of Representatives is not part of the Nationals caucus and sits with the independents (see
bullet 4). WA and SA delegates are able to attend national conferences, but this right is occasionally restricted. I could anticipate the Foundation receiving complaints from the WA party if they were to be so classified, as I know some of them monitor Wikipedia. Queensland had its own "national" headquarters for its state party for the Bjelke-Petersen years. Also the NPA only existed from about 1984 onwards - previous incarnations were the National Country Party, the Country Party etc, all of which are included in these categories.
Orderinchaos21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Similar to my comments on the Liberals below, these categories should be based on the state parties and use the current/final name - we have the Country and NCP incarnations covered by the National articles already. It's probably best to use the state specific name in each case:
Tasmania: There was a brief "National Party of Australia - Tasmania"
registered in the mid 1990s but currently there doesn't seem to be any organisation in the state.
Australian Capital Territory: No party
Northern Territory: The territory Liberal and National (then "Country") parties merged in the 1970s as the
Country Liberals
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.
Liberal Party of Australia politicians
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. It is clear there should be some change, but it's impossible to figure out from this discussion exactly what form each one should take. I suggest settling it on the talk page of
Liberal Party of Australia and then renominating. (Also, "Liberal" in Australia simply means "conservative".? No wonder this is confusing.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Formatting these in the "STATE Liberal politicians" format can give the impression that there is a political party called "STATE Liberal", since the standard format for politicians is "POLITICALPARTY politicians". I suggest renaming these to use the proper name of the party, which is "Liberal Party of Australia", and then matching the format to
Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians by simply adding the state of origin on the end of the name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment / lean oppose It's a difficult one, but it's what happens when one tries to enclose complicated and sometimes quite fluid reality within the straitjacket of naming conventions.
Not all historical Liberal Parties had anything to do with the Liberal Party of Australia. The
Commonwealth Liberal Party,
Western Australian Liberal Party (1911–1917), and the Liberal Country League of SA (1930s onwards) are but three examples, and there were Liberal movements in SA and VIC which weren't part of the party during the party's existence but were still Liberal politicians.
Only federal politicians are officially members of the federal branch. State members are members of their state organisation, which could have any number of official names.
With all the permutations possible, one arbitrarily divides people into a raft of categories which are not necessarily useful for searching. "Liberal" in Australia simply means "conservative".
Orderinchaos21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment we categorize politicians by the party they were affiliated with. If there are multiple non-connected liberal parties that at different times existed in the same area, then we should have categories for each of these parties. Not all politicians need to be identified by their party. It is also better to have more, smaller but accurate categories than a few larger categories that make it look like politicians from multiple parties were all part of hte same party.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment These categories should be trimmed to just politicians from the current Liberal Party state divisions as categorisation by party is fairly standard. The problem is what to call the categories as we have next to no articles on the state parties, with just
List of leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division) giving any guidance. The general trend on the state websites is to give the party name in the long form of "Liberal Party of Australia, [State] Division" (with some variations on full state names or abbreviations or adjectives) and the short form "Liberal [State]". Tasmania is different as is the ACT:
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:SuperKombat
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:SuperKombat events
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:Fictional New York City Police Department officers
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: As much as I think this is a perfectly fine idea for a category, this doesn't have any articles in it, except for one redirect. If it is populated, my opinion would change.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
keep and populate. I have trouble believing that there are NO articles here. I am adding some as we speak, we had articles on the starts of Law and Order:SVU, and that's set in Manhattan, for one. This needs to be populated but the articles exist and as you said yourself, it's a perfectly fine idea for a category. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HominidMachinae (
talk •
contribs)
03:49, 30 July 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:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detetion
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:Texas Tech basketball
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.