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.
Comment I've noticed this category is populated by categories, that have whenbeen thru cfd (in the case of kafka), or is currently being debated. I can make nowno opinion at the moment because of the currentconcurrent debates.
Curb Chain (
talk)
04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Not a problem, but eventually someone like me will come in and sort them into "authors" and "topics" anyways, so why not set it up that way now. I've been thinking about sorting "Literary Critics" into "Literary Scholars" and "Literary Reviewers" for similar reasons.
Aristophanes68(talk)17:53, 5 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:Shakespeare scholars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to
Category:Shakespearean scholars without prejudice to further discussion for both this category and
Category:Shakespearean scholarship. This is a tricky one with the comments pointing in multiple directions but the immediate parent seems the best tiebreaker and that may need to be renamed as well; in the meantime maintaining consistency between the two seems the best step forward.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Move to William Shakespeare scholars Although it's highly unlikely that there will be academics about anyone named Todd Shakespeare, we should follow the larger trend and parent cats. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
05:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Refraining from !voting here, but just noting 1) that spelling out "William Shakespeare" is exceedingly unnatural in some contexts (simply because Shakespeare has so saturated our culture) and tends to cause dissonance in terms of
WP:COMMONNAME; and 2) "Shakespearean <whatever>" tends to evoke "in the style or manner of" rather than "about or concerning" (scholarship in the manner of Shakespeare would be inventive, innovative, and creative; but the man is well known for his factual faux pas' such as giving Bohemia a coastline and anachronisms, so not particularly good science or scholarship). In other words, you could have a "Shakespearean play" or "…poem", but one would be a “Shakespeare scholar" or read a “Shakespeare biography”, and specifying that it is “William” that is the subject just feels badly redundant in most contexts. The reason I'm not !voting here is that, as you'll have probably noted, my preceding arguments are mostly in terms of grammar and good style, and do not specifically touch so much on categorization or ontology. --
Xover (
talk)
09:51, 3 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:Dostoyevsky scholars
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.
Boxing champions by weight
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. A few issues here: (1) most of these weightclasses are used by sports other than boxing, so it helps to specify that these are boxing categories (and to match the parent, ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:World boxing champions); (2) there is no single "title" that goes by these names: they are descriptors of a class of champions in various boxing organizations, so it is not a proper noun and "Champions" should not be capitalized; (3) the weightclasses themselves are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized; (4) I've matched the weightclass names to the article names/parent category names about the weightclass: if it is composed of more than one word, it is hyphenated when it acts as an adjective; (5) some of these are duplicate and need to be combined: e.g., "junior lightweights" are the same as "super featherweights"—different boxing orgs just use different terminology for the same weight class.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:02, 30 June 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.
Boxing champions by organization
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.
Religious history 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.
Note The Jewish equivalent cateogry is tricky because it's also an ethnic history one. Some of those are in the form of "Fooian history" and some are "History of Foo" or even "History of Foo people" or "History of [Region]". —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
21:28, 30 June 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:Cartoon Network original programs
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: To make the category all inclusive for anything the network shows. The Pokémon anime is currently in here, but I'm pretty sure it's not an in house CN work... also, expanding the category to all CN programs will allow acquisitions like Almost Naked Animals to be included. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention)20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I understand Foo programs to refer to shows where original episodes were broadcast on the Foo network, not just any syndicated content put into the rotation. Tom and Jerry and perhaps others would not belong.-
choster (
talk)
12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - As I understand it, only original shows are supposed to be in any of these categories. Otherwise a popular global show like Pokemon could be in 100s of categories for the networks that have ever aired it. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
04:30, 5 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:Affiliates of Visveswaraiah Technological University
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:Posthumous works
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. "Posthumous works" sound to me like "works by dead people", but the actual meaning is "Posthumous publications". The term "Works" isn't applicable in this context
E-Kartoffel (
talk)
18:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think "works" is more accurate, since this includes (audio) songs, films, etc. that were released after the artist's death—these aren't usually referred to as "publications", but they are referred to as "works" in the category tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:54, 30 June 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:Universities in Turkey
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:People from Tula, Russia
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. There are two 'Tulas' in Russia, the city and the oblast, whereas there is only city named Tula in the world
Mayumashu (
talk)
12:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose since the city article is
Tula, Russia. The introduction for the category listed the wrong name for the main article. So I'd suggest that since the current name matches the main article that this request be simply withdrawn.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:35, 30 June 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:Yoga positions
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:Bute
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:2010s singers
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: Per precedent at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_21#Music_groups. This is an overlapping set of categories and it leads to many long-running singers' articles being cluttered by overcategorization. To quote Vegaswikian, "Ample navigate is provided by the by year and by century categories and their associated navigation templates. This level of categorization does not add any value." I also suspect recentism since the scheme stops at the 1930s. Were musicians before 1930 not singers? (Finally, there doesn't seem to be a push to use any of the categories that widely, as none are over 2,000.) Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention)01:39, 30 June 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.