< August 19 August 21 >

August 20

Category:United States female military personnel impersonating males

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:United States female military personnel impersonating males (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I've just moved this category's only member, Cathay Williams, to the more-used category on the same theme, Category:Female wartime cross-dressers in the American Civil War. That category contains women who fought both for the Union and for the Confederacy, but I'm not sure "United States" in the category under discussion was meant to specify United States as opposed to Confederate States, anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open-ended game

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear what constitutes an "open-ended game" as there is no article on the subject. Therefore it would most likely be a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT until such time as a definition is nailed down in the form of an article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister:Considering Animal Crossing was in the category, and it doesn't have alternate endings, I'd say the implied meaning is "this is a game that never ends... it just goes on and on my friends". That said, the definition of an "ending" can differ as sometimes games can have an ending but still let you play afterwards in an open ended manner. So, still somewhat subjective.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, delete then. Brandmeistertalk 21:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kemono anime and manga

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: disperse. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Kemono anime and manga to relevant subcategories of Category:Anthropomorphism by media
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this category completely intersects with the target category and its subcategories, and is unnecessary. Although it might merit a split into new sub-subcategories in said target category, like Category:Anime featuring anthropomorphic characters and Category:Manga featuring anthropomorphic characters. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kemono

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: disperse. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Kemono to relevant subcategories of Category:Anthropomorphism by media
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this category completely intersects with the target category and its subcategories, and is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sophism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not in use (following the merge of the one page that was in it), and is effectively duplicated by Category:Sophists. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Frankish colonisation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 26#Category:Frankish colonisation. ℯxplicit 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Apart from the eponymous article, the other two articles aren't really about colonisation at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories should be about something. While the battle may have been at the start of colonisation, the article about the battle is not about colonisation (i.e. it is not about how the Franks ruled in Alamanni territory). Similarly, of course feel free to translate the German articles, but they are about language, not about colonisation. It's not even clear from these German articles whether these linguistic particles are really originating from Frankish language. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Row graves

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Apart from the eponymous redirect, the other article isn't really about graves at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dogs in paintings by Titian

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯxplicit 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT and there's no Dogs in paintings by artist categorization scheme. Brandmeistertalk 08:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then do the right thing, and write an article on dogs in Titian's paintings! That I should need such education (and we can skip over whether I agree with this stuff: as someone who has made art, I tend to be skeptical of interpretation, but that's just me, I'm sure, and besides, Titian is, sorry to say, not in a period I'm much interested in) shows that the category doesn't help: it comes across as a trivia collection. Again, I say, write an article, and link to the paintings in it: that's what's helpful. Mangoe (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have such an article, and indeed I have been writing a lot of Titian, including many mentions of his dogs, which was what led me to create the category. But as you know, the suggestion that an article on a specific category topic is necessary to justify the category goes against all WP precedent. Why am I not surprised to learn that you are not "much interested" in Renaissance art? I don't really see how you can judge what's "helpful" to the many that are in that case. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do, where appropriate! Take a look round the the tree. And this is entirely appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't attempt a general rule. Category:Trees in art, as a subcat of Landscape, would probably be inappropriate, or need tighter defining - there are in fact a number of notable "tree portraits" with articles. "Clothing in art" is not much help in general, but more precise categories might be helpful in some cases. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So saying this is entirely appropriate is pretty meaningless. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More ridiculous OR! Paintings are "about" what they depict. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not what paintings are about, it's what articles are about. They are about paintings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you proposing to do about the hundreds of other categories with the same issue in the "Art by subject" tree. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Just to be pedantic, I make it 9 dogs in the Pardo Venus actually - two roughly life-size hounds in left foreground, and 7 more in the right background (the same number as the humanish figures). Of course this would be easy to see in the very large original, where even the background ones are a decent size, but is not hard to miss looking at stamp-sized thumbs. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs a'plenty. Plus that Cupid kid who the guy is pointing out to the big dogs. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Christians by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. In support of deletion, users cite a trivial intersection between religion and location, which is a perfectly valid argument per WP:TRIVIALCAT. In support of keeping the category, users argued that American Christians has become too large, and these categories are being used for diffusion in accordance to WP:OCLOCATION. The discussion was split right down the middle, and as both sides of the argument were based on the overcategorization guideline, I can not determine the consensus to delete these categories. What will be implemented in the rename option, and these categories will follow the 'Fooian from state' format. ℯxplicit 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:American Christians by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:California Christians
  • Propose deleting Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Christians
  • Propose deleting Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Baptists
  • Propose deleting Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Latter Day Saints
  • Propose deleting Category:Texas Christians
  • Propose deleting Category:Texas Baptists
  • Propose deleting Category:Texas Latter Day Saints
  • Propose deleting Category:Texas Methodists
  • Propose deleting Category:Utah Christians
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. We don't categorise religions by sub-national intersections. Delete all sub-categories too. StAnselm (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StAnselm: Could you please tag the subcategories too? Users of the subcategories may otherwise not notice the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - sorry: I realise now I should have done that. And now I don't know how to do it. Because when I add Template:Cfd to the category page, it defaults to the current day. StAnselm (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: I've done it now but it's quite easy. You can just copy the expanded template script on Category:American Christians by state which includes a hard coded date, to the other categories. But preferably add the section title on this discussion page after |1= so that in this case it becomes |1=Category:American Christians by state. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've belatedly listed them here as well. Should help the closer, at least. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: "We don't categorise religions by sub-national intersections." — Not exactly. Note: Category:Christians by insular area of the United States and Category:British Christians by constituent country. Moreover, many American states exceed the populations of whole countries, such as Switzerland and Slovakia. Glacier2009 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as other here have said, except for Mormons in Utah there's no real meaning to the intersection of church and state (as it were), especially considering that Americans do move about. Denomination more defining, for the most part. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Thanks for your comment, and I agree with moving the subcategories, i.e. "Category:Methodists from Texas" rather than "Category:Texas Methodists". Glacier2009 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following how the colonies are related to this. Suppose the Episcopalian Church monopolized the Connecticut colony (just as a hypothetical example), how would that affect a 20th-century Presbyterian or Catholic person in Connecticut? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is a misunderstanding, we shouldn't categorize a large number of American Christians, we only ought to categorize those for whom it is a defining characteristic (e.g. clergy, writers of Christian books, performers of Christian music). For those for whom it is defining, it is highly likely that there is a more specific subcategory available. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geographic divisions tend to apply to clergy, not people in general, and usually those divisions (e.g. dioceses) are larger or smaller than states. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More