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:Naval engineer is a synonym, and in France the main term, for a
naval architect – broadly, designer of ships.
Marine engineer is a wider term encompassing e.g. design of harbours, ship engines and torpedos. The members of this category are ship designers (including one submarine designer). Rather than follow the parent and be named
Category:French naval architects, I have proposed "French naval engineers" as this is closer to the dominant French usage. This will revert an undiscussed out-of-process move by
user:Afil in 2015. –
FayenaticLondon21:24, 17 February 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:People who were shot by a U.S. Vice President
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;
non-defining. Wikipedia is not The Book of Lists; we do not create a category for every potentially interesting bit of
WP:TRIVIA that might happen to be shared by two people, but only on defining characteristics of the topic. I'm absolutely certain that we've done this before, actually — probably at a different name than this, but I know for a fact that we've seen this tried before — so speedy G4 if somebody can find the earlier discussion.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like Bearcat, I'm nearly certain this category has been deleted before under a different name. I feel like it came up after Dick Cheney shot someone on a hunting trip, if anyone wants to go searching. If so, this would be eligible for
WP:CSD#G4 deletion.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:14, 18 February 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:Women visual artists
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: Category with very little practical or substantive distinction from the target. We use the
Category:Artists tree to contain visual artists, with the result that almost everything here is a subcategory of both this and
Category:Women artists at the same time -- and there are very few if any subcategories of Women artists that genuinely don't belong here as well. In actual practice, all this ever really contains is either redundant categorization of artists who are already subcatted as women photographers or women painters or women sculptors anyway, or undercategorization of people who should be recatted that way. Given that visual artists are who the "artists" category generally contains in the first place, there's no real need for a separate "visual artists" subcategory.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose It looks.to me that there are over 20 sub-cats that are contained in this category. This category needs to stay to allow for growth and expansion.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
10:59, 4 April 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:Visual artists
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: While there is a distinction here in theory, there really isn't much of one in actual practice. While musicians are sometimes referred to as "recording artists", for example, Wikipedia does not use the "artists" tree to contain musicians -- we use it to contain artists in the painter, sculptor, illustrator, photographer sense of the term, with the consequence that literally almost everything filed here is simultaneously a subcategory of
Category:Artists by medium. In practice, all this ever really attracts is redundant categorization of people who are already subcatted as painters or sculptors or photographers or designers anyway, or the occasional undercategorization of people who should be refiled in the more specific subcategories. And about the only things here that can't be added to
Category:Artists by medium are a "child" category that could be upmerged to
Category:Artists without difficulty, a
Category:Women visual artists category that effectively just duplicates
Category:Women artists unnecessarily, and
Category:People in the video game industry. This just isn't really serving any substantive purpose different from what
Category:Artists and its subcategories are already doing.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am afraid I reject your assertion that art is the same as visual art. There are a number of arts for which the perceptual mode is not visual, or not wholly visual.
Conceptual art,
Process art,
Textile arts,
Culinary art are some examples. If Wikipedia does not use the "artists" tree to link to musicians and performance artists, I consider that kind of cultural bias to be a bug, not a feature. --
Mark viking (
talk)
22:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Textile arts are still visual, because the end result is a tangible, viewable product. Performance art is visual, because it involves performing an action for an audience. Process art still has a visual aspect, because it's about the making of a thing. Literally the only thing that can be classified as art but not as visual art is sound art, and one distinction is not enough to warrant two separate category trees for two almost-completely overlapping terms.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Agree shouldn't someone looking for artists see painters and a choice, rather than trying to figure out navigating to visual artists? simplicity is preferred.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support removing an un-intuitive category layer, and if even visual artists is slightly narrower than artists it won't harm if they all come together in one artists category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - reductionist arguments might help things fit - but the semantic difference between the usage of the two terms is enough to have separate - the same works on the other side - project tags on talk pages suffer from the same conflation - my dictionary Visual arts: the arts of painting. sculpting, engraving etc as opposed to music, drama and literature Urdang, Laurence; Wilkes, G. A. (Gerald Alfred), 1927- (1979), Collins dictionary of the English language : an extensive coverage of contemporary international and Australian English, Sydney Collins,
ISBN978-0-00-433079-2{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)- in distinction to Arts imaginative, creative, and non scientific branches of knowledge considered collectively JarrahTree10:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That may be a case for renaming our "artists" tree to "visual artists" — but our artists tree is not being used to contain artists in the musical, dramatic or literary senses, but artists in the painting, sculpting, photographing and engraving sense. Again, there may be a distinction between the two in theory, but there is not a distinction between the way the two categories are actually getting used in fact.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:50, 3 March 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:Moveable holidays (US Thanksgiving date based)
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: This was caught up in a
previous discussion which was inconclusive due to differences over multiple nominations. As with discussion over Easter-based holidays I have omitted "moveable" as implied.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:53, 17 February 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:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments
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's actually WikiProject assessments, so it's a redundant separate category. Furthermore it's not just "1.0" but simply not related to any version of Wikipedia.
Fixuture (
talk)
01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Jc37: Not sure what your point is here? I know of that page but as said the assessments don't have much to do with their initial use anymore. The page you linked just documents the historic set up of this, not its current use. --
Fixuture (
talk)
09:43, 12 February 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.
The reason this was a bad idea is that 1.0 bot relies on the category to function. This change has broken 1.0 bot for all projects. Brad 21:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
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:History of Ukraine (1569–1795)
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:History of Belarus (1569–1795)
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: Normally I would at most have proposed renaming this category to
Category:Early Modern history of Belarus so there's no fundamental objection against the category. The problem however is that the category doesn't contain anything about the (local) history of Belarus. It just contains a random selection of articles and categories from the tree of
Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. So delete in the spirit of being an empty category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:47, 17 February 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:Songs about Argentina
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.
Oppose: We have several other categories about songs about countries. I don't see why Argentina should be excluded from this. Plus: there was already a category about songs about Buenos Aires.
User:Kjell Knudde, 9:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
Comment: I'd need to understand what "about" means here, - is it another word for "related to", or does it mean songs with a focus on Argentina, of what? I have doubts if any of such unprecise and ambiguous categories should exist, and don't believe that just because others exist, this one should. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: A song about a country is a song about a specific location in that specific country or about the country as a whole. If there are enough songs about a specific city in that location than they can be subcategorized, but this isn't always the case. --
User:Kjell Knudde 9:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Delete per
WP:SHAREDNAME. These songs aren't about geography, they just contain the name of the country. This may be different for other country categories (or maybe not), so I think we should discuss them one by one.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't get the problem. What do you have against Argentina? All the categorized songs are about Argentina or locations in Argentina, so they fit the category perfectly. And of course they'll namedrop the name of the country or an Argentinean city. Otherwise we couldn't name them "Songs about Argentina". --
User:Kjell Knudde 9:10 9 March 2017 (UTC).
The problem is that they just mention the name of the country, but aren't about the country. And by the way I've nothing against Argentina.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Whilst I would oppose deletion of this category, I think it is poorly named. The songs are not necessarily about Argentina, they are more related to aspects of Argentina and its culture. Except, of course, the song about The Malvinas, which those of us who had friends who fought out there know is British and not Argentine!!--
Egghead06 (
talk)
16:04, 9 March 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 women bloggers
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 women bloggers don't blog differently than men bloggers. The don't compete separately like in tennis or golf, or receive separate slews of awards at an established high level (like Oscars, Tonys, Grammys, etc., where winning one basically makes you per se notable at WP) that are sex-based.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If somebody wants to propose the entire
Category:Women writers tree for renaming to
Category:Female writers, I'd be willing to consider their arguments in good faith — for starters, the tree is currently located at "Women writers" rather than "Female writers" but the parallel one for men is located at "Male writers" rather than "Men writers", suggesting that one of the two categories should probably be renamed for proper parity. But as long as the parent is still at "women writers", the nominee has to stay at "women bloggers".
Bearcat (
talk)
16:03, 22 February 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:Houses completed in 662
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
WP:SMALLCAT. These are the only by-year subcats of their respective centuries. It is highly unlikely that wikipedia will ever have enough articles on houses of that era to make a by-year scheme worthwhile. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. There are not nearly enough millennium-old houses actually surviving in the world today to justify categorizing them by individual year of completion rather than by century.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:23, 23 February 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.