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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History books about British America
• Category:History books about the French and Indian War

Delete. Two categories for a single book. Just move the book to Category:History books about the United States and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/upmerge. Makes sense. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not quite. British America apparently refers to land owned by Britain in the whole of North America during a certain but not the whole of their colonial period. There's also British North America and Category:British North America Mayumashu (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but this is not about "British America", but about "History books about British America". The limits are broader than this, topics about the 13 colonies are topics about the history of the United States. Get into a library and seek books about the French and Indian War, will you find them at the "American history" shelf, or at the "British history" shelf? And, in any case, we do not need two levels of categories to find a single article. If there were many articles about books on the British America, and then even more articles about books specifically about the French and Indian war, then it would be an acceptable subcategorization, to avoid having a very crowed parent category. That's not the case here. Cambalachero (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question rather depends what country you are in - no doubt in Canada they are under "Canadian history" and in Britain "British history". Most American bookshops just have "American" and "Other" shelves. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categories contain only one book. The article British America is for the most part a list. gidonb (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drishtantoism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for a philosophical school of little apparent significance; only page so categorized (and only page mentioning the school) is a userspace draft. No indication that we will ever have multiple pages belonging to this category. Huon (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insignificant. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (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 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 to Category:Best of century awards (lowercase) and remove all articles which are not specifically awards but are merely subjects of those awards.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Best of Century accolades to Category:Best of Century awards

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#AWARD, categories which group together award winners are to be discouraged -- doubly so in this instance, which covers both the awards and the winners; and where they are not winners of the same award, but of different awards based around the same concept. I would therefore propose either:

• Renaming to Best of Century awards (for standardised naming), perhaps moving into Category:Awards by subject, and depopulating this category of award winners (1953 French Grand Prix, Ford Model T, Pelé, etc.)

or

• Deleting outright and merging into the applicable subcategories of Category:Awards by year (they'll all be either 2000 or 2001, I would imagine).

I think I'd prefer the former, as this is potentially a reasonable category. But I'm far from well versed in CFDs. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the category is renamed to include the word "awards", I'd recommend removing "winners" such as 1953 French Grand Prix, who/which didn't actually receive an award (in the case of the 1953 French Grand Prix, the race has just been referred to by some people as the "race of the century"). DH85868993 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this was certainly my intention :) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave as is It can't be an 'awards' category. The 'fight of the century' Ali v Frasier doesn't have that title through an award, it was -promoted- that way. Also, the chess match(es), Ball of the Century, motor race(s), horse race(s), go match, and football match(es) supposed as 'Best of the century' are not so as the result of 'awards' but more so through journalistic consensus and the coining of a catchy evocative flattering term of reference.HeteroUltima (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why I'm suggesting depopulating it of non-award winners. Per WP:OC#AWARD, this does not make a suitable intersection for a category -- to me, linking things such as a Grand Prix, a car and a footballer does not make for a very cogent category. I guess you could argue that the award criteria doesn't apply as it doesn't cover just award winners, but the general point surely remains.

And if we're talking things that were given the tag of "best of century", that seems to be covered by WP:OC#TOPTEN -- their selection was subjective and/or arbitrary (mostly subjective in this instance), and that, too, doesn't make for a great category. Again, you could argue that because it's not covering a single list that it doesn't apply, but surely the spirit of the point is that we should not group things that were subjectively given these accolades by entities. And it raises the question of where you draw the line. Take music, let's say Rolling Stone (magazine)'s best album of the century? Logical. What about the BBC's, who are much less well known for covering music? Contentious. After all, that was given the tag. Or even a celebrity who says that xyz is their favourite album of the century? Okay, sure, probably not, but this highlights the problem: where to draw the line is incredibly subjective. And if we cover everything from every notable publication/critic, we'd be inundated with entries, and when the category contains multiple albums along with multiple films, Grand Prix, businessmen, domestic products... what use has it become?

That's why I think it makes a lot more sense to limit this category to the actual awards themselves, similar to, say, Category:Music awards among others. At the very least, mixing awards, award winners and accolades is bad idea, surely. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as 'Best of Century recognition' and that should achieve a name which is no longer unsatisfactory of scope in encompassing these people, feats, polls, events, conferrals et al HeteroUltima (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The creator of this category has been blocked as a sock puppet of banned user SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs). Normally, I would speedy delete the category, but I will leave to the community as to what to do in this situation as there is a rename involved. –MuZemike 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Best of century awards or something of the sort. Both the current name and the proposed name create the impression that "Century" is an organization that gives the awards. This is not the case. gidonb (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2011 (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 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/upmerge as nominated. Someone should have a look at the other categories applied to Late Victorian Holocausts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History books about the British Raj
• Category:History books about The Great Game

Delete Too much structure for just 2 articles. Remove the category from Late Victorian Holocausts, as it is a book about famine, and India is merely a "famine in foo" section. Upmerge The Great Game (book) to Category:History books about India Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2011 (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 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; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WPTL articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was being used by two different WikiProjects, WP Theology and WP Theoretical Linguistics, resulting in a rather strange list of articles. I separated them into the new categories Category:WikiProject Theology articles and Category:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics articles, so now this category is obsolete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for the moment) You should have proposed this at the wikiproject talk pages, and do the change if there was consensus (or if nobody else replied). You have open this discussion and told the WP of the problem in the same day. I would tend to support the change, but the autonomy of the wikiprojects goes first Cambalachero (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I probably would have done that, but both WikiProjects don't seem very active at all. WP Theology only has three participants, and WP Theoretical Linguistics looks like it will be merged into WikiProject Linguistics in the next few weeks. (See the discussion on WP Linguistics for more details.) Being the proposer of the latter is how I came to notice the mix-up, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as it is now empty (and there is no Category:WPTL). Occuli (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – but Category:WPTL articles should not have been already emptied; next time propose this and let us judge with the category still intact. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 16:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – as above. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete good job. -- Francis Tyers · 21:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems like an entirely necessary technical change. I can't imagine it being controversial among WikiProject particpants. Cnilep (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics participant)[reply]
• Speedy delete, please close This is completely uncontroversial. Although--as pointed out in the first comment--it may have technically been poor show to do this on your own, I think it's great and I'm glad that you were bold. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 15 October 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Books on art to Category:Books about visual art

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per parent Category:Works about visual art and recent discussions here about the need to use "visual art" in such cases, to avoid the confusion over art/the arts. I've checked with creator User:Johnbod and he concurs, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, although the use of "visual art" in category names should be carefully limited. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, makes sense...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No objective way to define the scope of such a category. What would make an architect "green"? what is a "green architect"? Consequently current content is aleatory and meaningless. Elekhh (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – and thanks for 'aleatory'. Occuli (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It ain't easy, bein' green. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support subjective. Having categories for biographical articles on architects who had or have LEED certification would be OK. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No material is ever green/environmentally friendly because construction always has an impact on the environment.Curb Chain (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — there are 216,000 hits for "green architect" on Google and a significant number on Google Books and Google Scholar as well. There are Green Architecture Schools (e.g., see San Francisco School of Architecture). This fits under Category:Sustainable architecture and it is Wikipedia policy to WP:COP#Keep people categories separate. Therefore a subcategory is appropriate. There should be a reference to the architects' green credentials in the articles. Architects with LEED certification would be an appropriate indication in the US. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to say but this is really ridiculous: you are confusing architecture with architect, policy with guideline, blogs with reliable sources and marketing with encyclopaedic criteria. --Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It is standard Wikipedia practice to include people under an area or subarea of interest. E.g., Category:Architects under Category:Architecture, Category:Software engineers under Category:Software engineering, etc. There are plenty of WP:Reliable sources referring to green architects under Google Books and Google Scholar. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (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 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: Merged to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps. Deletion would result in removal of articles from this tree which is not a good outcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architects who died in Nazi concentration camps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining. There is no notable correlation between profession and cause of death. Elekhh (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps per WP:OCTrivial. I predict however that various editors will flock in shouting 'Keep' without any attempt to address OCTrivial: cf a recent similar cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious upmerge unless we can document that someone in the regime was having his rivals bumped off. Seems unlikely, though. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - clear-cut case of WP:OC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Same reasoning as before for the other "Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation". Occupation is one of the few clear ways to distinguish Nazi concentration camps victims from one another. It took a lot of work to put together, and it may be of great research use.Hoops gza (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about their name? --Elekhh (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole structure really ought to go as a non-notable intersection, and I see that it has been brought up twice in the last year already, with consensus shifting away from keeping. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until WP:CATI is available. If the consensus is delete, listify before deletion, along with others under Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation, which illustrates the range of people in Nazi concentration camps from different professions. Comments by a 20th century historian with WP:COMPETENCE in this area would be good. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial intersection Cambalachero (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial; I don't find the "keep" rationales at all convincing. I see no problem lumping all concentration camp victims together—or just dividing by country of origin, or something—but I don't understand the need to subdivide by occupation, of all things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now I welcome the scrutiny by the nominator, but would like to see a broader discussion of all subcategories of holocaust victims, to which the relevant projects are also invited. This discussion seems to be totally disconnected from the relevant trees and their main editors. It could lead to the strange situation where only architects - of all professions - are not allowed to have a subcategory. gidonb (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If on single category discussions opposes to change based on general reasons were accepted while also by mass nominations opposes based on particular reasons are accepted (current status quo), than we would never move forward. Regarding "only architects - of all professions - are not allowed to have a subcategory" does not match with the fact that there are currently 21 subcategories in Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation out of ca. 150 occupations with a category. The nomination was a result of a simple clean-up attempt of category:architects, and I hope that endeavour can move forward. --Elekhh (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elekhh, I saw that you are working on architects and appreciate the work that you do in this field! The information you bring, although correct, does not really address my concern: that the present discussion is too narrow in scope and participation and can bring about unreasonable results. As you said, it was born out of your work on the architect categories. My suggestion is to broaden the discussion in an organized manner and until then to keep the category. gidonb (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The experiences of Viktor Frankl within death camps makes me think that some occupations may merit categories, but in this case the question of prior occupation before being sent to a Nazi death camp is truly WP:OCTrivial, "two traits that are unrelated." I too would be more in favour of organizing by country, if necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2011 (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 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museum architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining, non-existent specialisation. Any architect can design a museum, all architects designing museums also design other buildings. Category is meaningless. Elekhh (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — the category is not meaningless, it is a specialism of some architects. The category is similar to other categories for specialised architects such as Category:Ecclesiastical architects, Category:Theatre architects, Category:Bridge architects, Category:Naval architects, etc. All of these are valid and defining qualities of some architects. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Jpbowen (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will come to some of those as well, but mass nominations are problematic. Specialisation is when a certain set of special skills are required. This can be significant by complex functions or difficult engineering (skyscrapers, bridges), but exhibition spaces are among the simplest, any architect can do and there is no special course or qualification for it. This is a clear-cut case. --Elekhh (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contest that designing a museum building is simple; where is your evidence of this? Take, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao and Tate Modern for example. The are important defining aspects of museum architecture, which is of increasing importance. See The Explosion of Museum Architecture for example. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say is simple, I said that it does not require specialisation and thus is covered by the basic skills of general architectural education. "Take the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao" for example, could be a concert hall or else, is not not the functionality (museum) what makes it notable but the architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You said "among the simplest" above. Does that not mean "simple"? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ok I'll try to be more explicit: In the above context I meant "among the simplest" functional requirements for an architect. It was relative and within the skills of an architect. Ask any architect. Than I meant, that does not mean that is simple in absolute terms, as you put it. Please read more carefully what I'm saying. --Elekhh (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• well.... One can argue about whether designing museum buildings is a distinction, but at least half of the entries seem to be about exhibit designers, which is a different and distinct specialty. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some weeding out. There is the related Category:Exhibition designers category for such people. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Don't most architects have certain specialties? For large buildings the same applies for firms that may limit their activities to a limited set of projects in certain areas. For buildings designed by large firms, doesn't this go to the various parts of the design? Does the lead architect actually design the entire buildings or do they create the basic concept and then a team of specialists does the actual design work for the building? If this is true, then what does a category like this actually mean? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In search of an easy metaphor, is like with an actor which gets to play mostly in comedies (because of abilities, producers' choice, "market demand", random circumstance, whatever) so it becomes than a "comedy actor"? It does not mean that other actors cannot take up that role, or play it better or that the subject actor couldn't play in a drama. So back to architects, what would make objectively an architect be a "museum architect" (any reference yet for the term?) having designed one museum? ten? a hundred? having designed only museums? more than 50% of works having been museums? At least 10% of projects being for museums? And concretely David Chipperfield is he than also "civic architect", "office architect", "hotel architect", "residential architect" in the same time? Do his museum designs make him notable because they satisfy functional requirements or because they are outstanding architecture? Why would we dump him in a category like that if he doesn't assume such an identity nor architecture critics attribute him such a narrow role? --Elekhh (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Yes, David Chipperfield (as an example) is a particularly noted museum architect and has won awards for his museum designs (e.g., the River and Rowing Museum). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody contests that he is the author of distinguished museum designs. That does not reduce him to be a "museum architect" though. --Elekhh (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of reducing him, it is a question of categorizing him as a notable museum architect. For example, a notable software engineer can be notable for other areas of computer science as well. Categories do not have to be all-encompassing. Pehaps you would prefer the term "Architects of museums", which would be acceptable to me too. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture is not software engineering! And most notable architects do not specialise in narrow fields. Certainly "Architects of museums" is much closer to what you are categorising, namely architects which designed museums, not architects specialised in museums. That would at least be more proper descriptor and objective as scope, however I would still contest usefulness, as than most articles on architects would be spammed by dozens of such categories. I think the real solution is what you started at Museum architecture which I was about to suggest to you to do. But please stop labelling architects as you wish. If an architect never called himself "museum architect", if no critic ever called him like that, than please don't do that. It sounds just like labelling people "left wing" or "right wing" based on ones opinion. --Elekhh (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could look at lawyers. In most, if not all states, they are lawyers who are authorized to practice law in any any area. Most states prohibit them from saying that they are experts or especially qualified to practice in one area. So we tend not to classify them by the type of law they practice. That does not mean that each lawyer does not have an area that they are more qualified to practice in since the knowing the case law and statute in a particular area helps their clients. I believe that architects are the same. But is this a defining characteristic for them or similarly for an architect? A lawyer may be notable for the cases they win. An architect may be notable for the buildings and structures they design. But is that distinction defining? Vegaswikian (talk)

Can the questions be narrowed down to: Does a museum design make an architect notable because it satisfies functional requirements (being able to hang a picture on the wall, etc) or because is outstanding architecture ? and are there any references in any of the articles in the category to support the "museum architect" term? --Elekhh (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer is notable designs can make an architect notable. And the other half, a notable design may not be a reason for a category. A common reason for deletion is that there is no lead article with the premise being that if there is no material for a lead article, then the category should not exist. Also consider that if you can justify a category like this, the name needs to be unambiguous and the inclusion criteria needs to be clear, so that the simple fact that someone has designed a museum, should not be the reason they are included. Architects should only be included if the buildings is defining for them. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed that a criterion for inclusion would be good. Winning an award for a museum building could be one such criterion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Than the category would be "Architects awarded for museum design" which is fine, except that the question would remain what awards are included (local newspaper award?, business award?), the heterogeneity resulting from the vast differences between awards and the bias resulting from having far more awards today than in the past. As above, I don't see how any category like this could work. Instead if you are interested in grouping together architects which designed museums notable in architecture history than Museum architecture is the right place to do that. Is still full of unreferenced POV but the topic is notable. --Elekhh (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the term "museum architect" is used in newspaper and other articles to refer to architects who have made their reputation in this area. I have added references in various places where appropriate. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. No need to repeat three times the same thing. Also no need to endlessly link to a redirect you created for supporting your idea. --Elekhh (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

For transparency wish to clarify that during this discussion I reverted the author of the category in several occasions for unreferenced categorisation of architects as "Museum architect". As expressed above I think this kind of categorisation will lead to spamming which renders categories useless. For example Herzog & de Meuron, as than for consistency the article would need to be also included in Category:Stadium architects, Category:Winery architects, Category:Single family house architects, Category:Railway architects, Category:Retail architects, Concert hall architects, etc. and again by I.M. Pei as than Pei would also be Category:Mall architects, Category:Bank architects, Education building architects‎, Category:Library architects, Category:Hotel architects, Category:Hospital architects, Category:Embassy architect, etc... --Elekhh (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but control carefully. I would mandate four bluelink museums as a minimum for anyone in the category, maybe more for large firms. Not all the present members meet this. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with that though. First, a bluelink does not mean that a museum is notable in architecture, it can be notable as a public institution. Then there are architects who only designed one museum (ex. Frank Lloyd Wright) which is significant for architecture history while others might have designed a dozen of architecturally not significant museums. There are also architects who designed maybe four museums but also hundreds of buildings of different function, where the above mentioned problems of reductionist labelling and category spamming will come up. Most importantly, does not answer the question why we would need to invent such a category and mislead our readers with a term which is not in use in architecture. Calling an architect "museum architect" because it designed a museum (or four) is like calling Robert de Niro a comedy actor because it stared in a number of blue-linked comedies, or a cook a "pasta cook" because once (or four times) it cooked pasta. --Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to use '4' does not fly since it is purely an arbitrary number. That has been rejected consistently in the past as a category name or criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't see the same level of specialization as I do in Category:Ecclesiastical architects, My own familiarity with Canadian architects who have designed notable museums such as Gehry, Safdie and Cardinal doesn't suggest that, in this day and age, there is a distinct and defining specialization. If there was in the past, perhaps an historic category could be created for that (though Elekhh who is active in this area doesn't seem to think so). Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly a smaller set, but it is not a non-empty set. Such architects are described as "museum architects" in references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through all the articles in your linked redirect to Museum_architecture#Architects and I really don't think it helps your case much. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the extensive discussion. I think consensus is that this category is not defining for every architect who has designed a museum. Keeping is going to require a detailed introduction to define inclusion criteria resulting in an on going maintenance problem. Better to delete then have someone always cleaning it up. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it is a case of universal vs. existential quantification and where you lie on that spectrum. It seems that the term/phrase "museum architect" has been and is used more in the museum field than the architectural field, e.g., see [1][2][3][4], but does that make it any less valid in this interdisciplinary area? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inappropriately tight classification of people which doesn't seem to happen in the real world. Polequant (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are references to the term "museum architect" that have been added to the appropriate entries. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that just because a local newspaper, once, uses that combination of words does not mean that the reference supports the argument. That newspaper title actually refers to Chipperfield being the 'architect of the River and Rowing Museum in Henley' and not some kind of specialist. Also note that the very same article generally refers to Chipperfield as "architect". --Elekhh (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note there are multiple references for different architects, noted for their museum architecture. This is not just an isolated case. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry but a random selection of links with the words "museum" and "architect" juxtaposed does not justify anything for me. Of course if you search for those words together things you are going to get some results, as architects design museums. However, if you look at the whole coverage of someone like David Chipperfield I can find very few sources which refer to him in this way. If you shove him in this category then you may as well put him in categories like "Office architect", "House architect" and so on for all the different sectors he has been involved in. As I said above, this classification is too tight, and the people in it are known for far more than just museums. It would be ridiculous to have categories for every type of building they have done. Polequant (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a category that overlaps too much with other types of architects to be useful. If we had architect categories for every specific type of building, many architects would be in five or more architect categories. This is not a useful way to do things. This is a clear cut case of overcat by creating a category that overlaps too much with others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dependently typed formal languages to Category:Dependently typed programming languages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all programming languages, not merely formal languages. —Ruud 09:55, 13 October 2011 (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 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: speedy rename, under the presumption that BYU doesn't have any venues for BASEketball.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BYU Cougars baseketball venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete per criterion 1 (misspelling/typo). Category now empty; content already moved to correctly spelled version, Category:BYU Cougars basketball venues. Dale Arnett (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2011 (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 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: do not rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Presidency University, Kolkata alumni to Category:Presidency College, University of Calcutta alumni — Reason for rename: All the alumni listed are alumni of the University of Calcutta, which awarded them their degrees and not the newly established Presidency University. Separate category required for alumni of Presidency University to emphasize this difference. An example is category on alumni of Hindu College, University of Delhi. Sidhu Jyatha (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving from speedy nomination. No opinion on the merits.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I agree that alumni should be categorised by the name of the institution when they graduated. Occuli (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is no article for Presidency College, University of Calcutta. Presidency College, Kolkata redirects to Presidency University, Kolkata. If the name of the school changes, we just categorize all alumni under the new name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I would like to see more consistency between articles and categories, not less consistency. gidonb (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ACAC aircraft to Category:Comac aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The company name changed a few years ago; the category name should change accordingly. Would C2D but it doesn't fit the timeframe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 13 October 2011 (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 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. (Category has remained empty.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History books about Paraguay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only article that used to be here was 1810 (book), a history book about Argentina, not Paraguay. Cambalachero (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion criteria C1 applies to empty categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 14 October 2011 (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 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. (Category has remained empty.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History books about Bolivia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only article that was here was 1810 (book), which is a book about Argentina Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion criteria C1 applies to empty categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 14 October 2011 (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 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; without prejudice to re-creation if any of them can be properly populated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History books about the Empire of Brazil
• Category:History books about Uruguay
• Category:History books about Brazil

Delete Category tree for a single article that does not even belong there. The Empire of Brazil was a former country that encompased the territories of modern Brazil and Uruguay, thus the structure. However, it is not a history book about Brazil, but a book about famine, and Brazil is just a "Famine in foo" section of it. And if we remove it, the Brazil->Empire of Brazil line is left without any history book to categorize. The Uruguay->Empire of Brazil line is even more pointless, as Uruguay left the Empire decades before the topic being talk about at the book section. By the way, 1810 (book) was also wrongly categorized here, as that book is about Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2011 (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 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 (meets speedy crition C2D). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Piscataway Township, New Jersey to Category:Piscataway, New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match the article name. See Edison, New Jersey where Township is not used in the category name. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Commerce Clause case law to Category:United States Commerce Clause case law

Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Dormant Commerce Clause case law to Category:United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In the last discussion it was pointed out that Australia might have a commerce clause (although not one that the article namespace currently gives credence to). Leaving that aside, we can still safely drop the word "Constitution" from both these categories. Within the US, the term Commerce Clause unambiguously refers to the clause in Article I of the Constitution. Savidan 02:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for brevity. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (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 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1976 Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary. Almost redundant to Category:1976 Formula One race reports (the difference between the two categories being that Category:1976 Grand Prix is intended to include all 1976 national Grand Prix auto races, not all of which were Formula One races, whereas Category:1976 Formula One race reports includes all 1976 Formula One races, not all of which were national Grands Prix). 1976 is this only year for which such a "national Grands Prix" category exists. If the category is not deleted, at the very least it should be renamed to "1976 Grands Prix" or (preferably) "1976 national Grands Prix" or perhaps "1976 national auto racing Grands Prix" or maybe "1976 national Grand Prix auto races". DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Totally unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there should probably be a national grands prix category tree. This could be the start of it. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already Category:National Grands Prix; and there is Category:Formula One Grands Prix. Category:1976 Grand Prix would be part of Category:National Grands Prix by year. However I suspect that the set-up is too complicated to yield to an entirely satisfactory system of categorisation. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• National Grands Prix per year should be a navbox, not a category, IMHO. Delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 15 October 2011 (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.