Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literary characters Should be merged with Category:Fictional characters and the former deleted, levaing all the entries in the latter. Any distinction between a "literary" character and a "fictional" one is at best PoV, but in practice the distinction seems to be more random than not, and to depend on which category a particular editor had heard of or had in mind when editing a particualr article. Some of the articels in Category:Fictional characters are at least as "literary" as most of those in "literary". All this does is ensure that a user must look in two places to find an article, with no obvious indication of which one to try first. Delete. DES ^(talk) 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Literary characters (i.e. fictional characters in literature) is a subcat of Fictional characters. Theres no real reason here that I see for deleting. What about Category:Film characters, Category:Computer and video game characters, and the two dozen or so others? Deleting this would only overwhelm Category:Fictional characters. K1Bond007 03:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • By "literature" do you mean "written fiction" (as say, opposed to film or computer-based fiction)? If so i think the term is misleading, as many people assume that "Literary" refers to "high quality" or "serious" fiction. If the meaning is to be "any written fiction" then many entries are wrongly placed in Category:Fictional characters. In this case that at least there need to be explanations of the purpose in each category, and perhaps this should be renamed to Category:Characters in written fiction. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Literature's definition is "written works". I don't think it's ambiguous. If it's a problem over fiction vs non-fiction then perhaps rename "Literary fictional characters", although I feel listing Bill Clinton under "Literary Characters" because the category could imply something else is just silly. If there are articles under "Fictional characters" that are from works of literary fiction then obviously I think they should be moved to the appropriate article. That's not a fault of this category. I don't feel deletion is proper in this case. K1Bond007 22:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • The vast majority of the content of Category:Fictional characters is fictional characters in written fiction. Do I understand you to say that a real person who appears in a work of fiction should be a member of this category? That makes it even less useful, IMO. Also, if cahracters in written fiction are to be in this category, and characters in comics and film and computer games each have thre own category, just what is suppoed to be in Category:Fictional characters, anyway? DES ^(talk) 22:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you've definitely misunderstood me. Category:Fictional characters is an umbrella category similar to Category:Fictional, Category:Films by year etc etc. Note Comic books/strips have their subcat as well as computer and video game characters. K1Bond007 22:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • I understand you are saying that Category:Fictional characters is intended to be an umbrella category. If so, most if not all of the 154 articles now in it are misplaced. And if so, there is no text on the category page to indicate this to anyone. And If so, IMO, Category:Literary characters is confusingly named. While it is true that one meaning of "literature" is "written works" that is not the only meaning, and i don't think that is what is suggested by the title. You also haven't responde to teh question about real people mentioned in written works -- is it appropriate to list such people in Category:Literary characters or not? DES ^(talk) 04:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I said you misunderstood me, I thought the answer to your question would be implied. That said, "No". The subcategories were created after "Fictional characters" and apparently no one has taken the time to do a proper sort. You can't blame that on Category:Literary characters. I still haven't see a good clear reason to -delete- this category. Perhaps an argument for renaming, but I'm still not sure why you think people would be confused over the word "Literature/Literary". If you think the category needs to be defined, then edit the category. K1Bond007 06:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Rename I'm already in the middle of just such a sort as is mentioned above as being needed. The category Fictional Characters (FC) is indeed horridly over general and over populated. I'm in the process of moving as many entries as possible out of FC and into sub categories. That said, I beleive we do need a subcategory for characters of written literature. And currently Literary Characters is the only place that fits that bill. So as of my current, and ongoing sort effort, that's where characters from written literature are going. I would have no problem with renaming the category to something clearer, but IMHO it serves a vital place in the scheme of subcategories under FC, and removing it would just make things worse for the already messy FC parent. TexasAndroid 15:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I proposed deletion for Category:Literary characters on the assumption that it was intended to include characters only from literature in the sense of "fiction of high artistic merit". If that was not the intention, than i was confused, and i conclude that others could easily be confused also. (See the discussion on Category:Literary characters Category:Literary science fiction characters under August 5). I just consulted a few online dictioanries. M-Webster defines "Literary" as "1 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of humane learning or literature b : BOOKISH 2 c : of or relating to books; 2 a : WELL-READ b : of or relating to authors or scholars or to their professions", the Cambridge online dictioanry defines "literature (WRITING)" as "written artistic works, particularly those with a high and lasting artistic value", and Your Dictionary.com defines "Literary" as "1. Of, relating to, or dealing with literature: literary criticism. .... 4. a. Appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing. b. Bookish; pedantic" and defines "literature" as "1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture. 2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value". I think you can see from this how I got the idea that this category was intented to indicate charcters in "works of of recognized artistic value". If that is the intent the Categorty is PoV and should be deleted. if the agreement is that the intent is "characters in written fiction" than i think it should be renamed to avoid this confusion, say to Category:Fictional characters (written) or to Category:Characters in written fiction or soem other version that does not use the terms "literary" or "literature". I hope that makes my views clear. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok. All three of us chatting here seem to be at least willing to accept a rename, so the next question is, what would be an appropriate rename? And what is the proper venue for such a discussion. Here?

Possibilities tossed out so far include:

1) Fictional characters (written)

2) Characters in written fiction

The pattern of the rest of the subcategories is "XXXX characters", so the first option is closer to comforming to the existing subcategories. Not sure if the "(written)" conforms, but it certainly gets the point across.

Then there's the issue of the "literary" subcategories of Literary Characters. (Literary Fantasy and Literary Science Fiction. Any reasoning to rename FC would apply equally to these two. TexasAndroid 16:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • As I understand it, category renames are also discussed on this page, so doing this here seems fine. I would be ok with any name that a) does not include the word "literary", b) does include the word "written" or soem form of it, and c) deos include "fiction" or "fictional". On the subcategories, note that i nmominated the Literary Science Fiction for deletion the day before I nominated this category, and the only person responding so far agreed with my reasoning. I agree that all three should be handled in the same way. Thanks for taking time to discuss this with me. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. You definitely appear to be in the Rename camp now, so would you mind changing your vote at the top of this to Rename, to make it clear for whatever Moderator eventually processes it? Same on the Literary Science Fiction CfD. And finally, are you willing to set up a Rename CfD on Literary Fantasy as well? I'll definitely support that one as well, and I have not set up a CfD myself before. TexasAndroid 16:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to any name that gains consensus which fits the restrictions in my comments above. This is a change in my vote from my nomination vote, which i have struck out. i will also start a CfD-rename for the fantasy sub-cat. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I still don't really know whats wrong with the word "Literature/Literary" , but if it needs to be changed to be more clear, why not something like "Fictional characters in books" or "Book characters" - something to that effect? I don't like the whole "(written)" deal. K1Bond007 17:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that using "Literature/Literary" is implicitly making a claim about quality, which is PoV an inappropriate. Yes, the original meaning of "Literature" is simply writing, but that is not how it is most used, i think. Go into any bookstore and see what is in the "Literature" section. When a college has a class in "Literature", see the kinds of works being covered. As to using "Book/books" writtn fiction includes short works that may not have appered as a "book" and includes electronically published fiction, so i think "written" is better. But I wouldn't fight "book". I do think that "fiction" or "fictional" should be included if possible, as it makes more explicit what this category is supposed to be about, IMO. DES ^(talk) 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. The category currently has characters from short stories and poems. Characters that are from written sources, but not necessarily from "books". So I'm not too enthused with "Books". Let me grab the Thesaurus, and see if I can come up with an alternative wording. TexasAndroid 17:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike out. Nothing jumps out at me from the Thesaurus as a good alternative word. Sorry. TexasAndroid 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete, I understand the reasoning behind it, but if we can't find a clear name for it then it should go (and the current name isn't clear). Radiant_>|< 09:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have no problem with this one either. --Kbdank71 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Feel free to rename it. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see much wrong with this. -Splash 21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename this and its subcategories: "literary" is easily misinterpreted. Category:Characters in written fiction seems reasonable to me, and avoids using the awkward parenthetical. -Sean Curtin 07:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with this. This would allow the sub-cats to be Category:Characters in written science fiction and Category:Characters in written fantasy. DES ^(talk) 12:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have a consensus to rename to Category:Characters in written fiction? does anyone who supports a rename object to this? DES ^(talk) 17:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I support this given a couple people above believe "Literary" to be misinterpreted. If it has to be changed to be more clear, then this is the best naming proposal I've seen. K1Bond007 17:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • My only problem with this name, and it's not a strong problem, is that this name does not fit the pattern of the rest of the "Characters" category structure. The rest are pretty much done uniformly as "XXX Characters", not "Characters in XXX". If people can live with this. My other concern is with the "Literary Science Fiction characters" category. I asked that the delete/rename Cfd on that one be suspended until this one, the parent category, is finished. It was instead closed with no descision. That category has identical issues as this one. If this category is renamed, would it be improper to reopen the Cfd on the Lit SF char cat in order to see it kept in sync with it's parent's name? TexasAndroid 17:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sent a msg to the closer, and he basically said that as it stood there was no consensus. If this is closed as a rename, i plan to re-nominated that one citing this decision, explicitly asking for a parallel rename. As to the "characters in foo" vs "foo characters" the only for we came up with like the latter used the parenthetic comment (written) which was not warmly recieved. I am open to other ideas, if anyone has any. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can live with your name. My concern with the consistency is not that strong, as I mentioned before. So, in order to settle this all out, consider me a voice of acceptance of "Characters in written fiction", and, for the two children, "Characters in written science fiction" and "Characters in written fantasy". TexasAndroid 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep, but fix cap problem) --Kbdank71 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation issue is obvious, but it needs the hyphen, strictly speaking (though I could live without it if other editors thought it too fussy; there's no real danger of ambiguity in this case). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not likely to be filled with much items ever. Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC) This vote was intended on other item and I somehow messed it up, sorry. No opinion here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Number one singles". I'm not really sure if a hyphen is proper? K1Bond007 03:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - a hyphen isn't really necessary. More to the point, assuming this means "Number one singles in the U.S." then the title should make it clear. Other countries have singles charts as well. JW 10:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the hyphen is desireable. If the category is open to top singles from all countries, that should be made explicit. If not, then "U.S." should be included in the category title. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to [[:Category:#1 singles]]. Neutrality^talk 01:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to hyphenated, per nom. (And specifically oppose Neutrality's suggestion; the hash is horrific!) -Splash 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, as every other country's category is titled in this way. -- Necrothesp 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator and observe that
  Wikipedia:Category titles is probably out of scope here. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Agree with Splash's assessment. ∞Who?¿?
• Rename. Neutrality^talk 01:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for consistency, unless there is a good reason to not do so. MicahMN | Talk 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created more than two weeks ago, and the category still has no content. If there ever are enough articles about Polish oil companies to fill a category, then by all means recreate this category. But until then, I say delete. Aecis 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any relevant companiy-articles can be placed in Category:Companies of Poland. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. But on a related note, please call by
  Wikipedia:Category titles which is trying to work out whether these would be Oil companies of Poland, or Polish oil companies. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question: isn't this just example of overcategorisation? Is the TV product really so notable to have category and even such long one? Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) This was intended for another item and I messed it up (or perhaps IE was guilty). For Oil companies of Poland I recommend merge per Mel Etitis. Pavel Vozenilek 16:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 16:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Mel Etitis. -feydey 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per above MicahMN | Talk 15:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Category:XML-based standards. ∞Who?¿? 01:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name of this category is ambiguous, we must clearly make a distinction between XML standards now in category:XML and XML based standards. --Khalid hassani 12:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the alternative name proposed Category:XML-based standards --Khalid hassani 18:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know enough to comment on the need for a move, but if it is moved, the new title should be Category:XML-based standards. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:XML-based standards per Mel Etitis. The cat does indeed contain standards based on XML rather than the set of documents that comprise XML itself. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:XML-based standards per Mel Etitis as above. DES ^(talk) 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mel Etitis. Pavel Vozenilek 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:XML-based standards. Neutrality^talk 01:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename ∞Who?¿? 01:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed it here rather than speedy-renaming it because, first, I'm not 100% sure about the capitalisation, and secondly, because I'd like some help transferring the large number of articles in the category. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination. I think we go with capitals for things like this, it being the name of an award. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category, there is still the possibilty to dye hair. --ThomasK 10:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, way too broad a category (even with comparative rarity of naturally red hair). (Also misnamed, their hair is red not their head.) Such a cat doesn't extract any useful encyclopedic information from the article, and we don't have Category:Brown-haired celebrities or anything. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 16:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Useless category, Wikpedia already suffers from over-categorization. --Khalid hassani 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash MicahMN | Talk 15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently both were created just for

• Delete redundant. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for me too --Khalid hassani 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 16:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was suspend until category titles discussion is complete --Kbdank71 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, and appears to be an incorrect redirect to

• Defer to
  Wikipedia:Category titles which is discussing (and now straw-polling) this very issue. -Splash 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete If the wrong "consensus" is reached, this clumsy category will doubtless be recreated. Osomec 02:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:American singers into Category:United States singers DES ^(talk) 15:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend per Splash.
  siafu 16:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.