< March 23	March 25 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As trivial. Several other such "sideprojects" categories have been deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_9#Category:Mike_Watt_project_bands —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. Lugnuts (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is way too narrow; Only one page in category — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; subcategories are meant to simplify navigation, not to extend it by forcing us to go through an extra level of hierarchy. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have added the appropriate parent-cat to the main article. That article (from its headings) has ambitious plans, but we are unlikely to be able to populate the category with anything that could not go in the other parent "Oran". Accordingly the category is useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless category containing nothing but a pointless head article:History of Oran is just a series of section headings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation when it has more articles potentially. Oran for a time was under Spanish rule, while the rest of modern Algeria, at least north of the desert was under Ottoman Rule, so there is some potential here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of Category:Oran, which already contains the one article, History of Oran. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2012 (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: No consensus to delete/upmerge - jc37 03:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, because it's overly specific. See the Crawford County section of National Register of Historic Places listings in Indiana — the sole article currently in this category is the only National Register property in the county, so it's impossible to have any more articles in this category. I've proposed deletion instead of merger with Category:National Register of Historic Places in Indiana because the article is about an archaeological site, so it's a member of Category:Archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana and shouldn't be in the parent statewide category. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep as part of a pattern. See Category:National Register of Historic Places in Indiana by county for the complete category strutures. Small number of articles here is not relevant. Hmains (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very well aware of the parent category. You'll observe that most counties don't have their own categories, so there is no relevant pattern: the only pattern present is that it was created by Bedford, whose reasons for creating categories for some counties and not others is unexplained. Category:National Register of Historic Places by county will show you that the pattern is to give only a few counties their own categories; even Category:National Register of Historic Places in West Virginia by county, for a state in which every listed place has its own article, has only a few subcategories compared to the number that it would have if perennially minimal categories like this one were created. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- maybe the categories reflect the facts--as they should. Not all counties have registered historic places. Hmains (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have a category that only has one potential article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as part of a pattern per WP:SMALLCAT. There are plenty of other one-article or 2-article subcats of Category:National Register of Historic Places in Indiana by county, such as Category:National Register of Historic Places in Adams County, Indiana‎ (1), Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ohio County, Indiana‎ (1), Category:National Register of Historic Places in Pulaski County, Indiana‎ (1 page). Either upmerge all the small categs, or keep them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the small cat rules do not mean that every category in a patter that could exist with one possible entry needs to be created. The small cat rules seem more to allow currently small categories, not ones that it is impossible to expand them without a change in the real world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all subcategories of Category:National Register of Historic Places in Indiana by county to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Indiana. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: having recently been working on the categories for the NRHP properties in IL, I find it is very helpful to have the categories by county, instead of having them in the main NRHP places category for the state. I don't think the fact that some counties only have 1 NRHP property should be a reason not to have that category. For the IL NRHP properties, they're placed into the by county categories, and not duplicated in the main NRHP category for the state. I'm still working on putting the ones left in the main cat into the by county cats. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2012 (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: No consensus - jc37 05:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Islands of the Republic of China to Category:Islands of Taiwan, Delete/Upmerge Category:Archipelagoes of the Republic of China and Category:Taiwan island group

Nominator's rationale: Merge & Delete/Upmerge. The decision has been made to rename the Republic of China article to Taiwan and this is meant to reflect that change. I thought this would be an easier place to start then the broader nomination because there are no pre/post 1949 issues; these are islands curently controlled by the ROC. The Archipelagoes & Taiwan island group categories never made sense and are being nominated here for cleanup purposes. Although not part of my suggestion, I’ve also tagged the Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan for consideration as part of this nomination. (I probably should have waited to create that until after this discussion because, while the logical grouping is sound, I'm not sure of the naming which is in contrast to Fujian Province, Republic of China.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background on what these cats include:

Taiwan and surrounding island in Taiwan Province
Several small islands physically separated from the island of Taiwan and politically part of Fujian Province
Pratas Islands and Spratly Islands which are physically separate from the island of Taiwan but adminstered under Taiwan Province.
The People’s Republic of China claims all of the above. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all into Category:Islands of Taiwan. Subdividing by province gives one just a few entries, falling under WP:SMALLCAT. CMD (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Is your intent just to delete Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan and the 2 I suggested or do you also favor getting rid of the pre-existing Category:Penghu Islands, Category:Matsu, and Category:Quemoy?RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you genuinely expecting an answer? Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm honestly not sure what CMD meant and he/she has been regularly updating on these discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above only applied to the ones you suggested in the opening. The others I think need to be more organised. I'd support merging Category:Penghu Islands if it wasn't for the trickiness of what to do with the county subcat (perhaps that could be removed as it exists in Category:Counties of Taiwan?). The Matsu category faces a similar problem, although the category is in this case so small it really isn't a good category. The Quemoy (rename to Kinmen?) category seems to cover the island more than the island group. CMD (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment: First I'd have to point out that Taiwan as a geographical, historical and cultural concept covers the province of Taiwan, as well as the five province-level municipalities that were split off from this province between 1967 and 2010, less the faraway Pratas and Itu Aba, which are administratively placed under the municipality of Kaohsiung. The two remaining counties of ROC's province of Fukien aren't part of Taiwan.
Second, it's important that for the sake of easier navigation, category titles have to be consistent across different topics. While this category appears to have no pre/post-1949 issue, changes to it may lead to undesirable spillover effects to those having the 1949 issue.
Third, while this category appears to have no pre/post-1949, it still has to follow what the root categories (i.e. Cat:ROC and Cat:Taiwan) are going to be renamed as.
For these reasons I don't think it's possible to proceed (unless we regard CfD as a simple vote). Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My creation of the Fujian subcat (though horribly named) is a compromise that attempts to address exactly the concern we share about islands that are really not in "Taiwan" (the province) but are under the control of the Republic of China while still accepting the new naming convention. So far, it's not making anyone happy! RevelationDirect (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may end up with no category for the ROC, and something like "Cat:History of Taiwan" (for the ROC) and "Cat:History of Taiwan (island)". But of course "Cat:Foo of ROC" and "Cat:Foo of Taiwan (island)" is going to be more accurate and more capable to achieve consistency across different topics. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the time being, per my comment above. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because the proposed name is quite confusing; except for Taiwan itself, none of the articles in this category are on Taiwan. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it makes a difference, all of the islands (except for the ones in the sub-Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan) are in Taiwan Province. I'm hard pressed to claim my suggestion doesn't confuse a very clear current category though; it is a good effort to bring over a very confusing consensus from the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting it's "Islands of Taiwan", not "Islands on Taiwan", and so it applies to all islands under the control of Taiwan. CMD (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The islands near Taiwan Island are a different geographic group from Kinmen and Quemoy, which are islands next to Mainland China. That doesn't even cover those distant islands that Taiwan has in the Spratleys next to Vietnam. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a geographic grouping, but a political one. CMD (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan island group appears to be geographic, but there's an upmerge request on it; as is Archipelagoes of the Republic of China. So whatever this is, it is both political and geographic, so should be sorted in different CFD nominations, this group nomination just makes a mess. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my previous vote, I would like to vote for upmerge Category:Islands in Fujian Province, Taiwan to Category:Islands of the Republic of China, and to rename Category:Islands of Taiwan to Category:Islands of Taiwan (island) (or "(island group)" or "(islands)" or whatever). Jeffrey (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. --KarlB (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2012 (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 & reconsider if the rest of the tree is not changed. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Salvador Dalí paintings to Category:Paintings by Salvador Dalí

The parent category is Category:Works by artist (IE Works by foo) and the sister category Category:Sculptures by artist have the format "Sculptures by foo"‎. Other works by categories also follow the same structure (eg, Category:Films directed by David Lynch and not Category:David Lynch films). I'm using this as a test case (I don't fancy tagging 180+ categories if this ultimately gets opposed). If the consensus is to rename, then the others can be tagged for speedy, unless there's some bizarre naming convention for paintings by artists category I'm not aware of. Lugnuts (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I certainly can't see any reason not to apply the parent category's x by y structure to all the subcats. This has become the template for reasons of greater clarity and consistency. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Rename~~ sinc this is an accepted naming convention, I'd speedy it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking! Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose No, I just read the nomination backwards. The subcategories for Category:Paintings by artist do have an established format but this one already matches it. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose There has been endless dicking around with these categories - I think you will find the present standard of "Salvador Dalí paintings" follows previous decisions here, which should be referenced. Obviously the parent category cannot use the same construction, so there is no logic to the nom. The current form makes it easier to find categories on the page, and should be kept. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to any of these previous decisions that you refer to? And how does keeping the current form makes it easier to find categories on the page? Lugnuts (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at "What links here" but there are dozens of them.... Looking at the front ends of a list of names is easier than looking at the back ends. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point your making. "easier than looking at the back ends" what does this mean? Is it policy related? Lugnuts (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is a bizarre nom as everything in Category:Paintings by artist uses 'Foo paintings' (and as Johnbod says, 'Category:Paintings by artist' has to use the phrasing 'Paintings by artist' ('Artist paintings' being a non-runner), much as Category:Albums by artist uses 'by' without any implication that it should be 'Albums by The Beatles'). Oculi (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the opening paragraph? The bit were I state "I'm using this as a test case"? Lugnuts (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move per nom. We should have consistency in our category naming, and the positions advocated by the opposers aren't enough to overcome that: you can run a simple text search, and when all of the entries in a category have the same three words at the start, it's not materially different. Oculi's point really isn't relevant, since Category:Works by artist and all of its other genre-related subcategories use "___ by artist" but still have "____ sculptures" and similar formats. I would have preferred a batch nomination rather than a single one, but this is a workable idea. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks a bundle! Some of us actually USE these categories, and would prefer to do so without having to "run a simple text search"! Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the proposed rename prevent you from USING these categories? Lugnuts (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I'd generally support changing the format for these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the target name is less ambiguous. The current name could be painting of the listed individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - this is clearly a tree where "X of Y" should be the preferred category naming format. Yes, right now the subcategories of Category:Paintings by artist are "Y X", but we don't keep something that's wrong just because they're all wrong; the change has to start somewhere. (And the rest of "P by A" should be nominated for renaming posthate lest somebody try to C2C this back). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The current name implies "Paintings of Salvador Dalí", which it is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (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, manually recategorising its contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Special administrative structures

Nominator's rationale: What is the point of this category? What need is it meeting? It is a pot for stewing the most eclectic mixture of articles ever assembled. They bear no relation to one another. There is no unifying theme. Away with this randomness I say. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Redundant I don't see this as that random but Category:Public benefit corporations already serves the intended grouping and is better defined with a lead article. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction was merge to :Category:Government bodies, which is a parent, but its main article is Quango and some of the bodies in this category (and indeed that one) are not quangos. Indeed Quango is "quasi non governmental organisation", which ought to exclude any "government body". It may bee that the answer is to merge a whole string of categories and then devise a new way of splitting them, according to the nature. We do not have Category:Public benefit corporations (at least not by that name) in UK, but perhaps they need to be merged too. Except "Port Authorities" and "Government rail authorities", all of its content relates to US and it should be renamed and purged accordingly. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and delete. This is such a broad category that it doesn't help anything; there's no real benefit to having a category so broad that it can include the Jacksonville Aviation Authority, Quaker yearly meetings (via the Christian group structuring subcategory), and regional parks. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sort and empty (which might be a difficult task) and then delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of the above and because it is ambiguous and broadly construedCurb Chain (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2012 (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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Billboard Hot Dance Airplay number-one singles to Category:Billboard Dance/Mix Show Airplay number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the renamed chart and the article which has already been renamed to Dance/Mix Show Airplay. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:38, 24 March 2012 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge The original categories Category:Erotica and Category:Pornography were perfectly named and clear. Stefanomione created Category:Erotica by medium and Category:Pornography by medium back in 2008, and has now had them speedily deleted in favour of a new works/media scheme (via G7, which I find dubious on a procedural basis for a category dating back 4 years). At any rate, I argue we don't really need any of these, and they are simply another ill-advised works/media scheme that does little or nothing to aid navigation. I suggest we put these categories back where they were prior to Stefanomione's 2008 intervention, into the main categories Category:Erotica and Category:Pornography, where films, books, magazines and the like can all be easily contained, with a little help from the sort key. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I suspect this is a test edit by a new editor. Jalandhara Bandha can be used in any asana, thus this is a trivial intersection.Curb Chain (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's reply: It is true that this is my first forte into Categories, but I'm still not sure that this bonda is appropriate for all asanas. Perhaps the Catagory for could be held for "Asanas in which Jalandhara Bandha is a suggested variation"?

The main questions are:

Can it actually be used with any asana?
Is this prescribed?

I don't have any sources (yet? - I'll look) which detail it's use in general, however, it's commonly used in a few particular yoga poses, and not notably used in all (though in theory it could be applied in all?). Can we find a source either way?

(I was actually just trying to update the Tadasana page, and this bandha was recommended, so I hadn't prepared to completely work on the Bandhas section yet ;) ) Supaiku (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Bandha is a lock (in this case the lock is the head adducting to the chest) so it can be used with any asana.Curb Chain (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Delete There are several objections to this category (1) it is too specific (2) It is in Sanskrit, not English - this is the English WP, not the Sanskit one. I wonder whether renaming to something more general like Category:Yoga poses might be better than deletion. I do not understand the subject, and may therefore be wildly off-course. I would however suggest that the creator might be better employed in writing a rather fuller main article for his proposed category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~Category:Asana~~Category:Asana~~Category:Asanas already exists so thisis should not be renamed. Bandha also already exists so Category:Jalandhara Bandha Poses should be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No prospect of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 1 April 2012 (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: no consensus. There wasn't really a proposal here on which consensus could be sought; this was instead an attempt to gauge opinion. Editors may want to take up the suggestion by to continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion; a WP:RFC may help to encourage wider participation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Creative works

This is to nominate all the Works by... and Works about... to Creative works by/about... per Creative works. ~~a legal term~~ The presumably includes the fine arts, rather than just any created work. So would not be opposed to clarify that some way in the names. I'm looking for discussion on the this here, to figure out how best to deal with these - so no categories have been tagged. - jc37 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, I might be inclined to support this, but it looks like the nominator is again expecting someone else to do the grunt work and tag these categories for him. Right now, this is so procedurally flawed and cursory that it doesn't merit serious attention at this time. sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging isn't the issue. it's to figure out what a good, but accurate but precise name would be for these. I've offered some thoughts, but in the spirit of consensus I was looking for others' thoughts as well. Once we figure it out, we can go from there. - jc37 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question is there a semi-automated way to tag an entire tree? My nomination of the hundreds of cancer deaths by location cats literally gave me wrist pains. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why?? We don't normally categorize things by the relevant legal concepts, which are anyway country-specific. Category:Creative works by Mozart? Forget it! Just stupid. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the aside that it's a legal term. Sorry for the confusion. - jc37 05:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think jc37 raises a valid point. The top level category is Category:Creative works. It's just one word, but I've always wondered if dropping it for the vast scheme beneath makes it less clear to a reader what kind of "works" belong? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I would withdraw this nomination for now, going to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to iron out the details, and then renominate with a more specific proposal. This is a friendly suggestion. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that. I think I'll also recommend to Stefanomione that he halt creating "works" categories if there is such a discussion, so he can't be accused of ignoring same, which could get him into trouble per his AN ruling. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Stefanomione (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – there is also Category:Intellectual works, to which Category:Works redirects. (I missed the cfd on Category:Works about creative works ... after a bit of experience one can spot a Stefanomione creation. I await Category:Works about intellectual works, Category:Intellectual works about creative works, Category:Works about works, Category:Creative works about intellectual works and Category:Creative works about non-intellectual works by paradigm.) Do we wish to subdivide Category:Works by Samuel Johnson say into creative and non-creative subcats ('Creative works' and 'Drudgery' perhaps - lexicographer 'a harmless drudge')? Oculi (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure where I stand on this, but one problem is that this category apparently excludes all engineering types of works. Also, if we are going to base this on copyright law, is this a law that applies around the world? I suspect that we are going to wind up keeping this, warts and all. Now, I don't see Category:Works staying as a redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2012 (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.

March 24

Category:Bad Religion sideprojects

Category:History of Oran

Category:National Register of Historic Places in Crawford County, Indiana

Category:Islands of the Republic of China and sub-categories

Category:Salvador Dalí paintings

Category:Special administrative structures

Category:Billboard Hot Dance Airplay number-one singles

Category:Pornographic and erotic works and media

Category:Jalandhara Bandha Poses

Works...