Category:United States female military personnel impersonating males
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:Open-ended game
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: It is unclear what constitutes an "open-ended game" as there is no article on the subject. Therefore it would most likely be a
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT until such time as a definition is nailed down in the form of an article. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)20:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Brandmeister:Considering Animal Crossing was in the category, and it doesn't have alternate endings, I'd say the implied meaning is "this is a game that never ends... it just goes on and on my friends". That said, the definition of an "ending" can differ as sometimes games can have an ending but still let you play afterwards in an open ended manner. So, still somewhat subjective.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)18:28, 23 August 2017 (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:Kemono anime and manga
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:Kemono
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.
@
Zxcvbnm: It is still not clear. Which subcategories are "relevant" subcategories? Please specify. And please also indicate why it should not be merged to the parent categories which would be the more natural merge targets.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:49, 28 August 2017 (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:Sophism
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:Frankish colonisation
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 but expand. The German category from which this is derived has nine articles and I am happy to add those. BTW I'm puzzled that you don't think the other articles are related. As the main article says "The beginning of this colonisation and associated land appropriation came as the Merovingian king, Clovis I, defeated the Alemanni around 496 A. D. at the Battle of Zülpich." So both other articles were key to this phase of history". --
Bermicourt (
talk)
12:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Categories should be about something. While the battle may have been at the start of colonisation, the article about the battle is not about colonisation (i.e. it is not about how the Franks ruled in Alamanni territory). Similarly, of course feel free to translate the German articles, but they are about language, not about colonisation. It's not even clear from these German articles whether these linguistic particles are really originating from Frankish language.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There's never likely to be more than about one article on Frankish colonisation, and, as Marcocapelle says, the only article in this category that is actually about Frankish colonisation is
Frankish colonisation.
Dionysodorus (
talk)
17:19, 20 August 2017 (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:Row graves
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. The German Wiki category has 10 articles, most of which are individual row grave sites, but unless someone with an interest translates them I can't see them being created on English Wiki any time soon. So I am happy to support deletion. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
12:19, 20 August 2017 (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:Dogs in paintings by Titian
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 The whole categorization is questionable. Dogs appear in most of these pictures as part of the furniture, like benches and carpets and for that matter horses. I can see categorizing pictures with dogs as the principal subject, but not just because there's one nosing around somewhere in the frame.
Mangoe (
talk)
11:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept; the category contains paintings showing dogs, not dogs appearing in paintings. No opinion on keeping/deleting.
Nyttend (
talk)
21:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep as creator. What an astonishing set of comments, especially from Mangoe! You really need to read some art history, like: Cohen, Simona, Animals as Disguised Symbols in Renaissance Art, 2008, BRILL,
ISBN9004171010, 9789004171015,
[1], which has 1 1/2 chapters on Titian's dogs - fortunately the whole book is available on PDF.
Or this is shorter. Unlike the subjects of the vast majority of WP categories, the dogs in Titian's paintings are the subject of frequent scholarly comment. Mangoe's ideas of what is significant in
iconography leave me speechless. I am adding to the category all the time, and it's size is already entirely adequate. It is one of the highly unsatisfactory aspects of a category page that you just have, in such cases, a bare list of titles (in most cases) which for all except the best-known paintings are usually very uninformative. I don't see the logic (or grammar) in Oculi's comment at all, and if accepted it would require the renaming of the entire (and huge) "Cat:Foo in art" tree, all of which follows the same convention. In the same way, if Mangoe's OR and deeply wrong idea of what matters in iconography was accepted, most of those categories would need reducing by over 50%. Nyttend's comment just makes no sense. What is the difference between "paintings showing dogs" and "dogs appearing in paintings"? I'm lost. Few of the parent category, and none of these, are "dog portraits". The reason "there's no Dogs in paintings by artist categorization scheme" is that no major artist painted as many dogs as Titian, or gave them such significance.
Johnbod (
talk)
02:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Then do the right thing, and write an article on dogs in Titian's paintings! That I should need such education (and we can skip over whether I agree with this stuff: as someone who has made art, I tend to be skeptical of interpretation, but that's just me, I'm sure, and besides, Titian is, sorry to say, not in a period I'm much interested in) shows that the category doesn't help: it comes across as a trivia collection. Again, I say, write an article, and link to the paintings in it: that's what's helpful.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
It would be nice to have such an article, and indeed I have been writing a lot of Titian, including many mentions of his dogs, which was what led me to create the category. But as you know, the suggestion that an article on a specific category topic is necessary to justify the category goes against all WP precedent. Why am I not surprised to learn that you are not "much interested" in Renaissance art? I don't really see how you can judge what's "helpful" to the many that are in that case.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't attempt a general rule.
Category:Trees in art, as a subcat of Landscape, would probably be inappropriate, or need tighter defining - there are in fact a number of notable "tree portraits" with articles. "Clothing in art" is not much help in general, but more precise categories might be helpful in some cases.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep, the rational that editors are using here, in a discussion which has evolved from the original question, would, as Johnbod points out, delete hundreds of extremely informative categories. It is so restrictive that it would seriously damage the encyclopedia. This particular category is fine, educational, and precise enough that it fits well into Wikipedia's stated purpose of sharing knowledge with the world. One rational for allowing categories like this, i.e. Dogs in art, is that dog species change over the years and centuries. Paintings are the pre-photographic era's "photographs". Only when photography came into its own, and pretty much replaced the need for realistic paintings, did many un-photographic styles of painting evolve and give art new directions. But the older paintings of, say, dogs, are the historical record of what the breeds looked like over many centuries. There should be no restrictions put on competent collections of this historical record, which is what Wikipedia categories have provided and should continue to provide.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
04:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Just to be pedantic, I make it 9 dogs in the Pardo Venus actually - two roughly life-size hounds in left foreground, and 7 more in the right background (the same number as the humanish figures). Of course this would be easy to see in the very large original, where even the background ones are a decent size, but is not hard to miss looking at stamp-sized thumbs.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:18, 31 August 2017 (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:American Christians by state
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 to delete. In support of deletion, users cite a trivial intersection between religion and location, which is a perfectly valid argument per
WP:TRIVIALCAT. In support of keeping the category, users argued that
American Christians has become too large, and these categories are being used for diffusion in accordance to
WP:OCLOCATION. The discussion was split right down the middle, and as both sides of the argument were based on the
overcategorization guideline, I can not determine the consensus to delete these categories. What will be implemented in the rename option, and these categories will follow the 'Fooian from state' format.
ℯxplicit03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
StAnselm: I've done it now but it's quite easy. You can just copy the expanded template script on
Category:American Christians by state which includes a hard coded date, to the other categories. But preferably add the section title on this discussion page after |1= so that in this case it becomes |1=Category:American Christians by state.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
And as other here have said, except for Mormons in Utah there's no real meaning to the intersection of church and state (as it were), especially considering that Americans do move about. Denomination more defining, for the most part.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep;
Category:American Christians has nearly two thousand members (and that excludes thousands of pages in the subcategories), and this seems a useful means of reducing it to a more manageable size. The inclusion criteria are obvious; as long as it fits into
Category:American Christians, assigning an article to a state subcategory is trivial. But consider renaming the subcategories to "Christians from X" rather than "X Christians".
Nyttend (
talk)
21:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, the nearly 2000 articles in here should be diffused by denomination as the main classification scheme. A tree by state isn't a good solution for that problem, in the context of Christianity that is a trivial intersection.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)reply
But the huge number of independent churches causes a problem with that — tons of biographies specify Christianity, and while that's sometimes merely for lack of information, it's often because the person's a member of a church that rejects the authority of all other churches and thus doesn't have a useful denominational label. We can't possibly come close to diffusing the whole "American Christians" category by denomination, but we can diffuse all of them (or just almost all of them) by state.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not following how the colonies are related to this. Suppose the Episcopalian Church monopolized the Connecticut colony (just as a hypothetical example), how would that affect a 20th-century Presbyterian or Catholic person in Connecticut?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep A large number of American Christians do not clearly identify with any specific denomination, they identify with Christianity as a whole. Sub-divisions by state matter especially in religious history.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)reply
But this is a misunderstanding, we shouldn't categorize a large number of American Christians, we only ought to categorize those for whom it is a defining characteristic (e.g. clergy, writers of Christian books, performers of Christian music). For those for whom it is defining, it is highly likely that there is a more specific subcategory available.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Geographic divisions tend to apply to clergy, not people in general, and usually those divisions (e.g. dioceses) are larger or smaller than states.
Mangoe (
talk)
14:25, 25 September 2017 (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.
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 26#Category:Frankish colonisation.
ℯ
xplicit
03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)