Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19

Dartmouth College alumni by decade

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: merge. I do not find sufficient support here to merge by centuries. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24#Princeton_University_alumni_by_decade. There is no scheme for Category:Alumni per decade--there are extensive schemes by school, though so Dartmouth's Law School or College of Dentistry or what have you. If there is really a need to separate them chronologically, then by century should be fine--decade is needlessly fine-grained. Bundling together the following categories:
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:Recipients of the Medal "For the Defence of Stalingrad"

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) 05:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OC#AWARD. Non-defining, issued to 759,560 people according to head article Medal "For the Defence of Stalingrad".
Populated by {{Medal "For the Defence of Stalingrad"}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 19 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:Recipients of the Medal "For the Defence of the Caucasus"

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) 05:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OC#AWARD. Non-defining, issued to 870,000 people according to head article Medal "For the Defence of the Caucasus".
Populated by {{Medal "For the Defence of the Caucasus"}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 19 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:Recipients of the Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"

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) 05:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, per
WP:OC#AWARD. The head article Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" explains that the medal was given to 14,933,000 people.
(Note that categ is populated via Template:Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 19 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:Whitman Fighting Missionaries categories

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: rename main category and three subcategories. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whitman College changed its mascot name from the "Fighting Missionaries" to the "Blues" in 2016. College teams have been using the new name for the majority of the school year. See confirmation here. Also nominating all subcategories. Rikster2 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Support, this seems like a no-brainer to me. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in the spirit of CFDS#C2D; if we had an article about this topic, it would be at "Whitman Blues". See addendum below. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming for top category, athletic directors category and the two baseball categories. Oppose renaming for the three football categories. Whitman's football program folded after the 1976 season, so relevant articles and categories should keep the Whitman Fighting Missionaries name. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming for the three football categories, Support renaming for all other categories, per Jweiss11. "Whitman Blues football" would be an anachronism. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose football per the others; I didn't notice that football no longer exists. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the football argument is valid - I withdraw the nomination for the three football categories. Rikster2 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming all but the football categories....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get closure on this one? There's no disagreement here. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: can we close this? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 5 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:People from Mineral, Virginia

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: merge both. While the discussion had little participation there are many precedents for this type of closure. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also ropose merging Category:People from Gordonsville, Virginia to Category:People from Louisa County, Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county communities with just one or two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 19 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:Hart family members

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 here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to create an additional layer here. We group Fooian family members in Fooian family categories.
talk) 14:07, 19 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:Grand Dukes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania

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: merge. I'll do this manually so as to preserve the history & parent categories of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, obviously a duplicate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Duplicate. Renata (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; if there's a grand duke, it's a grand duchy, and if there's not one, it's not. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- we obviously have an unnecessary layer. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 26 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:St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 30 and tag talk page with projects to generate alerts. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only an eponymous article and a subcat that is nominated below. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 19 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:Hegumens of Kiev Pechersk Lavra

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. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note that
    archimandrites whose category is much better populated. Since 1171 there are archimandrites in this monastery. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 27 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:Hegumens of St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 30, and tag talk page with projects to generate alerts. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 19 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:Marvel Cinematic Universe performers

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. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT: categorization of performers by performance. TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. Shakespeare isn't a "cinematic/theatrical universe" — it's an entirely different style of acting. Shakespearean performers typically require special education to master the diction and rhythm required, and have sometimes played only Shakespearean characters while never taking a non-Shakespearean role; Marvel universe actors don't do either of those things. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually know two Canadian Shakespearean actors - not well - and that is of course a completely different thing. Shakespearean verse and the performance thereof employs a different language, essentially. Don Cheadle getting cast as Rhodey, Pratt getting the gig as Quill, does not. Delete the nominated category as a textbook case of
    talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete -- A classic
    WP:PERFCAT case. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 26 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:Recipients of the Honour Chevron for the Old Guard

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. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, being an obscure decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The qualification for this is being a Nazi before they were in government. That might be a notable characteristic )albeit an obnoxious one). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and even if we would have a category for "early" Nazis it would have an entirely different category name than this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 1 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:Literary fiction

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) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined category ("a genre of fiction which claims to not be a genre"), which is impossibly broad in its potential scope. "Literary fiction" isn't a "genre" per se; it's just fiction that competes for awards and tries for the concept of
literary merit instead of being expressly commercial supermarket or genre fiction (and even genre fiction can still be literary.) So all this category actually contains is a random partial and unrepresentative sampling of literary subgenres and a random handful of publishing companies -- but what it would actually contain, if fully populated, is a significant percentage of all the articles Wikipedia has about novels and short story collections at all, a significant percentage of all the articles Wikipedia has about fiction writers at all, a significant percentage of all the articles Wikipedia has about publishing companies at all, and on and so forth. This is not a "specialized" topic -- it represents somewhere between half and two-thirds of the entire Category:Fiction tree, meaning that if properly populated it would contain somewhere in the tens of thousands of articles, and that's just too broad to be adequately maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oh and fwiw it's worth, in his seminal essay
    talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yeah, exactly. The
    Samuel Delany, Kurt Vonnegut, Doris Lessing and Margaret Atwood — very respected "literary" writers whose "genre" works were very much social or political commentary on the real world, and most certainly had plenty of literary merit. (And, of course, many other "genre" works are eminently literary too; I just don't necessarily know as much about them to single them out for mention.) Basically, in the real world "literary fiction" is just a catch-all term for any and all literature that can't be classified as belonging to any specific branch of genre fiction — anything beyond that is a POV value judgement, quite possibly infused with intellectual snobbery of the "well, I only read serious literature, harrumph harrumph" variety. It is, of course, entirely possible for genre fiction to be excellent work that has literary merit, and entirely possible for "literary" fiction to be crap. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_19&oldid=1074282934"