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:Illustrated manuscripts
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. All the items in this category are illuminated manuscript combat treatises. This category is a sub-cat of ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:illuminated manuscripts so I propose using the word "illuminated". I think this word is a clear enough distinction from the printed illustrations in the direct members of the other parent
category:combat treatises, so that the word "manuscript" is not required. This failed to achieve consensus at
CFD 2007 April 18, but needs renaming to mention the distinguishing feature i.e. combat/ military/ martial. –
FayenaticLondon20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
This is named so it can cover any illuminated manuscript. There is no particular reason to think that this contains a particular kind of manuscript, so it should be upmerged based on what its name actually is.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Why? Combat treatises are at least as distinctive as the other manuscripts by subject sub-cats, and the names are mostly uninformative, so they would easily be missed. The nomination, reviving the previous one, is to turn the category into something useful. If you think there is a reason why the group of 7 illuminated combat treatises do not deserve a sub-cat of Illuminated manuscripts and Combat treatises, please address that issue. The "particular reason to think that this contains a particular kind of manuscript" involves looking at those 7 articles - all except
Hastividyarnava, a manual on elephant-keeping.
Johnbod (
talk)
06:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I had assumed that the latter was in there because it covers "how they should be trained for use by the nobility and for the purpose of war", but I agree that it does not belong in a sub-cat of combat treatises. It's only been in that category since December… when it was added by your good self, Johnbod! I think that at the end, the nominated category should be redirected to "illuminated manuscripts". –
FayenaticLondon08:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
John Pack Lambert, in this case we are starting from a mismatch between (a) the category name, (b) its stated purpose, (c) its parents and (d) its current members. As (b), (c) and (d) coincide, they override (a), so that's the one that we need to bring into line. Moreover, the category purpose has been consistent for years, as it was the point of the previous CfD. –
FayenaticLondon08:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Well I would - it has 6 Illuminated combat treatises & might well get more. That is an adequate number to avoid "small and likely to expand" in WP:OCAT. The names are mostly extremely unilluminating (joke!) & except to experts convey no indication of the subject:
MS 862,
Cod. 44 A 8,
Codex Vindobonensis B 11093 etc. I also want to keep the manuscripts head cat uncluttered.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. There's enough here now to support a category, and clearly it's a specific genre with room for growth. As for the title, "Illuminated manuscript combat treatises" is internally redundant, and also more cumbersome than "Illuminated combat treatises". "Combat treatises" are clearly a type of manuscript. And "illuminated" ties the groups together as a particular type of treatment of manuscripts. --
Lquilter (
talk)
14:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)reply
either leave it alone, or else do some research on actual terminology before moving stuff If you think we need a category called "Illuminated combat treatises" just create it, no need to rename a completely unrelated category. What is behind this is presumably the misconception that "illuminated" is just a fancy word for "illustrated" when talking about "medieval manuscripts". Yes, Johnbod has consistently laboured under this misconception. I am not asking every Wikipedian to be an expert in the field they contribute to, but it is possible to be obstinate about it, too. I have given up trying to talk sense to Johnbod, who is fond of going around calling all possible and impossible things "illuminated" for no better reason that he apparently likes the word, but there is really no reason to now take this out on a specific and accurately named category for no good reason. All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with "combat treatises". There are illustrated (not "illuminated") combat treatises, but illustrated manuscripts are a class in themselves, manuscripts which contain substantial illustrations. Combat manuals are just one, just one, of numerous types of illustrated manuscripts. If you must create a category for these, call them "illustrated combat treatises", not "illuminated", or show me one combat treatise that is in fact widely described as "illuminated" rather than "illustrated". Also, google the term Bilderhandschrift please. --
dab(𒁳)10:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Query: It seems like there is some reason other than Johnbod to believe these are "illuminated" and not merely "illustrated": Specifically, they are subcategorized already under "illuminated", and a non-Johnbod user (Fayenatic london) made the proposal. So I hear you saying that "illustrated" is the better term than "illuminated" for this genre of combat manuscripts. But then do we need a larger category tree resolution to deal with the fact that these are subcategorized under illuminated? At least, can you explain to us non-experts how the category tree should be laid out? Because otherwise it is really difficult to understand this dispute. --
Lquilter (
talk)
14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I see from the history of the page
Illustrated manuscript that it was created by
User:Dbachmann (signed "dab", above) and merged to
Illuminated manuscript by Johnbod in 2007.
Talk:Illustrated manuscript has an argument about whether there is a difference;
TL;DR, nor the archives of
Talk:Illustrated manuscript about categorisation, but I have no objection to changing the target name to Category:Illustrated combat treatises since both Johnbod and dab have suggested that word instead, and these books have pictures as opposed to pretty borders. Nevertheless, the article says "In the most strict definition of the term, an illuminated manuscript only refers to manuscripts decorated with gold or silver, but in both common usage and modern scholarship, the term is now used to refer to any decorated or illustrated manuscript from the Western traditions, so I'm inclined to stick with the word "illuminated" which is in the parent category. For another example, the article
Swiss illustrated chronicles says "They were luxurious illuminated manuscripts". I did Google the German word but did not arrive at any material which helped me see a difference. As I said before, the nominated category should then be undeleted and redirected to ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Illuminated manuscripts, corresponding to the merged articles. –
FayenaticLondon19:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)reply
It's pretty simple really. Dab, a native German-speaker who knows much less than I do about illuminated manuscripts but much more about combat treatises, is confused by the difference between German and English usages of the term "illuminated" (and equivalent), and just won't be told, no matter how many library catalogues etc he is pointed to.
Category:Illustrated combat treatises would be progress at least, instead of the current nonsense. "Illuminated" is of course a sub-set of "illustrated", but it is normal practice in English to class European medieval and Renaissance manuscripts with even very minor pieces of decoration or illustration as "illuminated", which the rest of our category structure rightly follows. However "illuminated" is rarely used for non-European (really meaning non-Christian or Jewish) manuscripts however much gold they have in them, which is what the elephants are doing here. The usage of Bilderhandschrift need not concern us here, but the
British Library Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts contains thousands of MS with far less extensive and fancy decoration or pictures than the MS in this category.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:00, 3 May 2013 (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:Mars expedition
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.
Delete per nom. Also, "expedition" does not exclude robotic expeditions, so the usage in the category is incorrect if it only about manned expeditions. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Expedition may or may not be a manned expedition, and is unclear in other case. Other categories are sufficient.
N2e (
talk)
04:27, 31 March 2013 (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 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.
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:Farts in literature
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:Listify and delete. It does seem to be a notable motif in all five entries, but certainly not defining for all of them. I don't want to make a big stink over this, but a list within the article
Fart,
Flatulence or in
Flatulence humor would be a better and sufficient way to keep the information. –
FayenaticLondon16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Hmmm I disagree, of course. Two things: First, I have become accustomed to using (and having students use) categories to peruse our articles--it is simple, useful, elegant. The risk is overcategorization, but the risk of lists is a kind of trivialization, if you will, my second argument. Maintaining lists, whether stand-alone or incorporated, is more difficult and often necessitated by "drive-by trivial mentions" (as I like to call them). For instance, a list might invite someone to add Song of Myself because of the divine afflatus, or Moby-Dick, because Ishmael likes to be on the front deck--those are valid fart references/interpretations, but they are so minor that they should not lead to any kind of inclusion. Lists invite such, categories don't. Thanks,
Drmies (
talk)
16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I think both are prone to non-notable additions, although I accept that novice users can more quickly figure out how to add to a list than how to add a category. If the list is started well, with a summary that sets out the significance of the notable gust, this should deter trivial entries. Perhaps we could tabulate them with date and author. An embedded list within a more substantial article is probably safer than a standalone page.
Dante's Inferno could stand in such a list, but IMHO should not be kept in the category as it's not defining for that masterpiece. –
FayenaticLondon16:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Dante. Wonder what fartbrain put that category in there: I've taken care of the windbag's contribution. Thanks Johnbod.
Drmies (
talk)
22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
wait a minute is this whole conversation an april fools joke? It sometimes reads like it. In any case, I'm with the nom - listify and delete. Farts are not defining.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
13:56, 1 April 2013 (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:Alderman in the Netherlands
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.
ATX-NL has subsequently added further sub-cats using "Aldermen" rather than "Alderman". If s/he does not reply then I think we could take this as consent to rename the existing categories. –
FayenaticLondon08:24, 4 April 2013 (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:One-Test wonders
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. The discussion demonstrates that a list will be a lot better than a category, and does not make a case to keep both. I will provide a link at
Talk:One-Test wonder to the deletions in case it helps to populate the list. –
FayenaticLondon16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Wonders" is subjective and the concept is woeful especially as some of these players seem to have played in more than one Test but did perform especially well (another subjective view) on one particular occasion. Taking this to its logical conclusion, where are the categories for players with two Tests, 15 Tests, 88 Tests, 136 Tests and so on? Defies
WP:COMMONSENSE and adds no value whatsoever. --Jack | talk page10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. Yes, over-categorisation sums it up well. It is creation of a category for the sake of creating a category, in a nutshell. ----Jack | talk page12:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: Cheers Jack. Does this raise the future question of what we should do with the article as well? Is the article even viable - particularly when there is no definitive list attached?
Bobo.19:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with you Bobo - without a full list the article is nothing more than random trivia. *If* it is to survive it needs to include the full list of "one-Test wonders", probably as a table including player name, national team, dates and location of their sole Test match with opposition team, and possibly a column of "notes" that would include the trivia currently included in the article. Not sure how readable a table of 400 names (and counting) would be though!
Richard3120 (
talk)
21:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Table headings: Name | Nationality (by Test nation) | Season of only Test match | (First) date of only Test match | Opponent | Score (inn. 1) | Bowling figures (inn. 1) | Score (inn. 2) | Bowling figures (inn. 2)
Or alternatively: Name | Nationality (by Test nation) | Season of only Test match | (First) date of only Test match | Opponent | Combined batting score | Combined bowling figures
Bobo.17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If you will forgive my rustiness in creating tables:
Name
Nationality
Season
Date
Opponent
Score (inn. 1)
Bowling figures (inn. 1)
Score (inn. 2)
Bowling figures (inn. 2)
Bransby Cooper
Australia
1876/77
March 15, 1877
England
15
–
3
–
To order the tables appropriately (chronologically), should we have a column for "cap number", as well? In this case, where would Cooper be ordered? He's third alphabetically by those who appeared for Australia in the debut Test, but overall..?
Bobo.17:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Something like that - I think the match date should include the complete dates the match took place over (in your example, 15–17 March 1877), and I would have the OTWs numbered in chronological order of appearance, with Cooper and
Ned Gregory at 1 and 2, up to
Ian Blackwell as the most recent permanent member. Of course it is possible to create sortable tables so that you can click on individual columns and sort alphabetically, or by country, etc. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here - I would wait and see what is the general feeling among the Wikipedia community for creating such a list. Although personally speaking I think it would be of more interest than some of the more obscure cricketing lists currently on Wikipedia: "
list of Jamaica women ODI cricketers", "
list of cricketers called for throwing in top-class cricket matches in Australia" and "
list of cricketers who were murdered" spring to mind...
Richard3120 (
talk)
18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I didn't create the category - I should mention that the term "one-Test wonders" has not been created just for Wikipedia, it is a commonly used term for players who have only played one Test. I'm not entirely sure how it can be described as "subjective" - the contents aren't "diverse" at all, none of these players have played more than one Test match, contrary to the suggestion above, and I'm not sure I follow the logic in saying "there are no categories for players with 88 Tests": after all, the concept of the "
one hit wonder" in music is well known, it doesn't mean that you would delete the category just because there isn't a category for acts that have had seventeen hits, for example - it is a fact that many people have an interest in "uniqueness", whether in music, sport, or any other field. Having said all that, it is also true that many of the earliest members of this club, particularly from the likes of what were then still colonies like West Indies and South Africa, happen to be on the list simply because there was virtually nothing in the way of organised cricket in their countries at the time, and many of the players appear to have been picked from "whoever was available locally" at the time, rather than on their abilities. I was adding players to the category because it only contained some of the better known names, and I don't see the point in having an incomplete category: in my opinion it should either contain a complete list of all the players who fit the bill (I believe there are around 400 of them to date) or the category should be deleted - I have no objection to the latter if that's the majority decision.
Richard3120 (
talk)
17:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment There are already lists of Test cricketers by nation (such as
this and
this which already contain the data on how many Tests they've played for. Maybe this could be used as the basis of lists of cricketers who've only played in one Test. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead18:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Very true, although you have to be careful with these lists: many of them don't appear to have been updated since about 2008, and the player data is very out of date for recent and current players for each country.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment and question This is a notable intersection, reported on, using this exact (and therefore NPOV) terminology in RS every so often. What guidance does policy or guideline give us as to deciding if the contents are best off as a list, category or both? I'm too tired/lazy to check. --
Dweller (
talk)
21:16, 3 April 2013 (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:Mars Exploration Rover
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:Shopping malls in Huntsville, Alabama
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.
Category creator's response: The reason I created it was so that the ones in Huntsville wouldn't get mixed up with all the other places in Alabama. Is there a better way to subcategorize? Would the category include places such as the (since renamed) Haysland/Hamilton Square (a strip mall), Loveman's Mall, and Heart of Huntsville Mall (both historic)? If a broader category is necessary, I would propose still making a smaller geographical area than all of Alabama - Perhaps "North Alabama" - and stipulate the counties in the set - perhaps the present 256 area code. --
ke4roh (
talk)
03:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Support dual upmerge as while there is a chance of expansion (The Mall, Loveman's Mall, and a few others) but there's no chance of this category cracking into double digits. -
Dravecky (
talk)
12:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose - After looking through the contents of
Category:Shopping malls in Alabama, it appears that both Montgomery and Mobile could have categories with the same number of articles as this one. While it's, as pointed out, not necessary to subdivide, it would seem reasonable enough that, with four potential subcategories here, having the articles categorised as "Shopping malls in Foo, Alabama" would be of more service to the readers than dual categorisation in "Buildings and structures in Foo, Alabama" and "Shopping malls in Alabama". -
The BushrangerOne ping only09:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose Merge as an adequately sized category within the structures for both malls in the state and structures in the city, serving as an effective aid to navigation within those structures.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:23, 8 April 2013 (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:Theatre education in the United States
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.