Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20

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 result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've just moved this category's only member, Cathay Williams, to the more-used category on the same theme, Category:Female wartime cross-dressers in the American Civil War. That category contains women who fought both for the Union and for the Confederacy, but I'm not sure "United States" in the category under discussion was meant to specify United States as opposed to Confederate States, anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 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: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.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Ok, delete then. Brandmeistertalk 21:28, 24 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 result of the discussion was: disperse. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, this category completely intersects with the target category and its subcategories, and is unnecessary. Although it might merit a split into new sub-subcategories in said target category, like Category:Anime featuring anthropomorphic characters and Category:Manga featuring anthropomorphic characters. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Category:Anthropomorphism by media can't be a correct merge target because it is primarily a container category. If there is a need to merge at all (which I'm not sure of), it would make more sense to merge to one or multiple immediate parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Disperse to relevant subcategories of
    WP:NONDEF, almost none of the articles even mentions Kemono. (Btw upmerging to the anime and manga parent is not needed since all articles are already in some anime and manga subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 29 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

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: disperse. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, this category completely intersects with the target category and its subcategories, and is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Category:Anthropomorphism by media can't be a correct merge target because it is primarily a container category. If there is a need to merge at all (which I'm not sure of), it would make more sense to merge to one or multiple immediate parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:COMMONSENSE I would assume that's obvious, but I'll edit the nomination to make it more clear.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @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]
  • Disperse to relevant subcategories of
    WP:NONDEF, almost none of the articles even mentions Kemono. (Btw none of the immediate parent categories are a defining characteristic of the individual articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 29 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 result of the discussion was: delete as empty (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not in use (following the merge of the one page that was in it), and is effectively duplicated by Category:Sophists. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:43, 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: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.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 26#Category:Frankish colonisation. ℯxplicit 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Apart from the eponymous article, the other two articles aren't really about colonisation at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Apart from the eponymous redirect, the other article isn't really about graves at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯxplicit 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NARROWCAT and there's no Dogs in paintings by artist categorization scheme. Brandmeistertalk 08:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • comment I am suggesting a split/renaming of the parent (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 25#Category:Dogs in art which, if carried through, would result in this merge going to Category:Paintings of dogs. I still think that almost all of the membership ought to be decategorized because the dogs in question are just part of the background. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 25 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,
    ISBN 9004171010, 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]
  • Delete we do not categorize paitings by all things shown in them, or even generally by any specific thing shown in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do, where appropriate! Take a look round the the tree. And this is entirely appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 28 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]
  • So saying this is entirely appropriate is pretty meaningless. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into article/list and then delete, per
    WP:NONDEF, the articles in this category are not about dogs. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
More ridiculous OR! Paintings are "about" what they depict. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not what paintings are about, it's what articles are about. They are about paintings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you proposing to do about the hundreds of other categories with the same issue in the "Art by subject" tree. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 28 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]
  • Keep, this category serves a purpose and fits very well into the scheme of Category:Paintings by artist. Concerning naming, it is instructive to look at the subcategories of Category:Paintings by Vincent van Gogh and Category: Paintings by Diego Velázquez. While Category:Vincent van Gogh paintings of Arles, Category:Velazquez portraits, and others follow a convention that puts the artist's name first, a few, such as Category:Mythological paintings by Velazquez and Category:Religious paintings by Velazquez do not, probably because the phrase "Velazquez Mythological paintings" is unidiomatic. If every category name had to conform to a single formula there would be some awkward, ambiguous, or misleading results. Titian's Pardo Venus is better described as a painting with a dog in it than as a painting of a dog, and Category:Dogs in paintings by Titian gives the reader a better idea of what to expect than Category:Paintings of dogs by Titian. Ewulp (talk) 05:01, 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]
Dogs a'plenty. Plus that Cupid kid who the guy is pointing out to the big dogs. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 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
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. ℯxplicit 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. We don't categorise religions by sub-national intersections. Delete all sub-categories too. StAnselm (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StAnselm: Could you please tag the subcategories too? Users of the subcategories may otherwise not notice the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - sorry: I realise now I should have done that. And now I don't know how to do it. Because when I add Template:Cfd to the category page, it defaults to the current day. StAnselm (talk) 09:11, 21 August 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]
I've belatedly listed them here as well. Should help the closer, at least. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: "We don't categorise religions by sub-national intersections." — Not exactly. Note: Category:Christians by insular area of the United States and Category:British Christians by constituent country. Moreover, many American states exceed the populations of whole countries, such as Switzerland and Slovakia. Glacier2009 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Another borderline indiscriminate, since exclusion from it is largely based on not researching the issue. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 20 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]
@Nyttend: Thanks for your comment, and I agree with moving the subcategories, i.e. "Category:Methodists from Texas" rather than "Category:Texas Methodists". Glacier2009 (talk) 00:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_20&oldid=1074283678"