< August 24 August 26 >

August 25

Category:Single-player-only video games

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. Please properly tag and nominate the other category in a separate discussion. ℯxplicit 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't see why this subcategory is necessary. "Single-player" implies it's singleplayer only, otherwise it'd be categorized under Category: Multiplayer and single-player video games. The same is true of Category:Multiplayer-only video games, both are unnecessary and only serve to cause confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:46, 25 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:Video game magic

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per the naming scheme of the other articles in the parent category (e.g. "Magic in film"). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:39, 25 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 art

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: keep. ℯxplicit 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a problem in that it's not really about dogs in art; it's the root of a tree of specific artworks depicting dogs. Paintings, for whatever reason, were not split out, and I am suggesting splitting them out, with ruthless pruning to eliminate those where the dog is simply part of the background rather than being part of the principal subject (there are a great many listed where I had to go to some effort just to find a dog in the picture— this is not "Where's Fido?".) Once those are split out, we have a main category of artworks with subcats by medium; presumably anything that doesn't fall neatly into one of the three principal media would remain in the main category. I'm open to a better name for the main cat. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "there are a great many listed where I had to go to some effort just to find a dog in the picture— this is not "Where's Fido?"." This would be because you are looking at a miniscule thumbnail image, or at best a postcard-sized full file on screen. In the vast majority of examples, you would not have this problem at all if you were looking at the actual picture, where most of the dogs are life-size or near. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pruning this fine category would remove many of the nice paintings of dogs that dog lovers would happily search for. One reason to include every painting with a dog in it ("dogs in art") is that dog species change through the years and centuries, and paintings - the "pre-photographic" record of an era - capture the look, sizes, and other features of species which may no longer appear as they did then. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a vast structure of inaccurate categorization, so what? In fact there appear to be two conflicting systems of categorization, so that we have Category:Art by subject which does not contain Category:Mammals in art (which is a bad category anyway—nobody really organizes art that way) and which appears to be severely underpopulated.
The problem I see in a quick survey is that, for the most point, almost everything belongs in the "subject" structure, and hardly anything belongs in the "in art" category, because almost everything is a painting or sculpture having the thing in question as a subject, and almost nothing is a discussion of how such-and-such a thing appears in art. The "subject" structure breaks out by medium first, so paints of dogs as subjects ought to exist as a category. But beyond that, dogs, like carpets and putti and (in paintings of Neptune) fish are often simply visual furniture. I don't think it would be hard to find citation of that, but I don't have both a library of art criticism which I have time to troll through looking for it, and I could just as well object that it's OR to claim that every painting that has a dog in it somewhere is a painting of a dog, any more than every painting with a tree in it (which is to say, pretty much any exterior painting) is a painting of a tree.
At any rate, I'm not wedded to the word "artwork" (though I find the not-invented-here impulses toward American English tiresome), and fi we have to live with "Dogs in art", the "subject" structure still implies that the paintings need to be split out. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is a completely wrong approach. I'm going to start ranting again! Yet again, CFD regulars show no understanding or respect for how art history works - very much of it is concerned with what is "just ... in the background". I could go on but I won't. I will repeat that most of the vast Category:Art by subject tree rightly includes stuff that is "just ... in the background". If you want to change that you should do a different CFD. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, because now it is getting completely arbitrary. Take for example Joseph's Tunic, the only subject by which it is categorized is by a dog, while (a) the article doesn't even mention the dog and (b) there are so many more (and more defining) subjects by which the article could potentially be categorized, but it isn't, e.g. "clothing" and "Old Testament people". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the badly named Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes, which may one day sprout a sub-cat for Joseph. You really think "clothing" is more defining?? That people haven't set up other potential categories is obviously no rationale for a deletion - that would lead to Catch 22 arguments over which needs to be set up first. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more and more inclined to think that the whole category tree by subject was a bad idea (as too subjective) and that lists would be a better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? No-one ever looks at lists - who would bother to link to these, or maintain them. There is no problem, so no "solution" is needed. There is nothing "subjective" about whether a dog is depicted or not, and if you are interested in dogs in art, why would you care whether the dog is the main subject of a work or not? Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whether lists are more or less popular than categories. More importantly, since the articles in this category aren't articles about dogs in art, this categorization goes entirely against the spirit of WP:V and WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEFINING is neither a guideline or policy. Either way, "Dogs in art" is self-explanatory, and if a dog is discernible as part of the painting or sculpture, there you have it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly the point. It's a Facebook-like tagging, not based on reliable sources about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, unlike Facebook tagging, the canine content of many works of art can be sourced if need be. See for example The Bellelli Family, where Arthur Danto's comments are quoted; more on this particular dog is found here, here, here, and elsewhere. Ewulp (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and over at the other discussion (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_20#Category:Dogs_in_paintings_by_Titian) I have said that many of the relevant Titian articles include referenced commentary on the dogs, and linked to a chapter & a half on Titian's dogs in a book. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see some sense in separating paintings from sculptures under "Dogs in art", but "artworks" seems unnecessary: are there likely to be representations of dogs in other media that merit their own articles? (dogs in collages, dogs in mosaics, dogs in prints/engravings)? prob not. Presumably the category is mostly used as a means of locating images of dogs: focus on dogs, not art, so from that standpoint a dog in the background cd be as useful as dogs as a main subject (not sure why "Dogs in art" is a subcat of "Dogs in popular culture"; art doesn't generally count as popular culture). Eustachiusz (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So true, but I'm not sure you'll find a very receptive audience for that view here. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 28 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:Critics of Brexit

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: procedural close, category has already been deleted per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per People critical of Donald Trump, this is a WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION and a WP:OPINIONCAT. --Nevé–selbert 11:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're absolutely right. I've removed the category. Edward (talk) 12:03, 25 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:1806 establishments in Poland

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. It appears that this nomination is out of the bounds of CFD's scope, and it may require a broader discussion to establish a proper naming and categorization scheme. ℯxplicit 05:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating-
Category:1803 establishments in Poland
Category:1807 establishments in Poland
Category:1809 establishments in Poland
Nominator's rationale: Category is an anachronism. Poland had been partitioned in 1795 and was part of other European powers- Russia, Prussia, etc at the time. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:05, 25 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.
More