March 19
Dartmouth College alumni by decade
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. I do not find sufficient support here to merge by centuries. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24#Princeton_University_alumni_by_decade. There is no scheme for Category:Alumni per decade--there are extensive schemes by school, though so Dartmouth's Law School or College of Dentistry or what have you. If there is really a need to separate them chronologically, then by century should be fine--decade is needlessly fine-grained. Bundling together the following categories:
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1790–99
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1800–09
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1810–19
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1820–29
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1830–39
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1840–49
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1860–69
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1870–79
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1880–89
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1890–99
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1910–19
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1920–29
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1940–49
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1950–59
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1960–69
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1970–79
- Category:Dartmouth College alumni, 1980–89 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent at the Princeton Cfd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because the reasoning at the Princeton CFD doesn't seem to me to be good. Particularly bad is the comment about non-defining — if it's appropriate (as far as DEFINING is concerned) to have a category for Dartmouth College alumni, there's no DEFINING-related issue with a simple-to-apply split like this. With about 1,200 articles in this category and the decade subcategories, we should have some way to split up the folks who graduated from somewhere other than the schools of medicine, business, and engineering. I would be open to supporting a nomination to "delete the decades split and replace it with a split by X", as long as X is well-argued (if you want to give a fuller argument for centuries, I'll listen), but deleting the decade split and replacing it with no split would be unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge there is nothing about the decade that a person graduated that is particularly defining. And there is nothing saying categories can't be big when that is appropriate. The category does have several sub-categories that ARE defining – athletes, specific schools within the college, etc. This is overcategorization in my eyes and sets a poor precedent. Rikster2 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial merge by century. when the decade categories mostly contain less than 5 or 6 people, it doesn't make much sense. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Princeton precedent....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per precedent. Nyttend's argument that the parent category is too big does not justify how needlessly subdividing alumni into decades, which are the textbook definition of WP:NOTDEFINING, actually aids navigation to the casual user, which is the whole purpose of this. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge perhaps by century. I did not see the Princeton precedent when it was discussed and wonder if the merger may have been too hasty. The Dartmouth samples I looked at only had 3-8 people per decade, which is not enough to justify the split. However, very big categories are not an aid to navigation: a category with more than 100 (certainly 200) articles often needs diffusing. I came across an odd (English) case a while back, where an Oxford college had been founded in (say) 1680, but had a prior existence as a "hall", so that an alumnus of the hall appeared in the alumni of a college not "founded" until long after his death. In that case a good solution would be to allow an alumni category for the hall, but to make it a subcategory of that for the subsequent college, as siblings to a by century split for the college. However, we should not even have by century splits unless (1) the category has a large number of articles and (2) was founded well before 1900 (so that there are at least 3 subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Medal "For the Defence of Stalingrad"
Category:Recipients of the Medal "For the Defence of the Caucasus"
Category:Recipients of the Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"
Category:Whitman Fighting Missionaries categories
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename main category and three subcategories. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Whitman College changed its mascot name from the "Fighting Missionaries" to the "Blues" in 2016. College teams have been using the new name for the majority of the school year. See confirmation here. Also nominating all subcategories. Rikster2 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster2 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
—Support, this seems like a no-brainer to me. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in the spirit of CFDS#C2D; if we had an article about this topic, it would be at "Whitman Blues". See addendum below. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming for top category, athletic directors category and the two baseball categories. Oppose renaming for the three football categories. Whitman's football program folded after the 1976 season, so relevant articles and categories should keep the Whitman Fighting Missionaries name. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose renaming for the three football categories, Support renaming for all other categories, per Jweiss11. "Whitman Blues football" would be an anachronism. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose football per the others; I didn't notice that football no longer exists. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the football argument is valid - I withdraw the nomination for the three football categories. Rikster2 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming all but the football categories....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get closure on this one? There's no disagreement here. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: can we close this? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Mineral, Virginia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge both. While the discussion had little participation there are many precedents for this type of closure. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also ropose merging Category:People from Gordonsville, Virginia to Category:People from Louisa County, Virginia
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county communities with just one or two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hart family members
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: relisted here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There's no need to create an additional layer here. We group Fooian family members in Fooian family categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason I created the category was because the regular category was getting overcrowded with different forms of articles and that it would be nice if it was more of a consistent split between subjects. I won't shed a tear if it gets deleted but I think it's more convinent this way.★Trekker (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ★Trekker. It is indeed a big family! But there has at times been pushback over the proliferation of family categories - though at least one is certainly merited here -- and I believe a well populated single category is best. We'll see. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I should add we have another related subcat, Category:The Hart Foundation members. If there's a clear consensus that the Hart clan and its ventures are so large that we should WP:DIFFUSE in this way, I'll withdraw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely think the Hart Foundation members category is worth keeping since it includes members which are not related to the family.★Trekker (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that is a different case. I think it and its siblings should probably be added somehow to Category:Sportspeople by club or team, via some intermediary category, but this is not my area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I am not formally voting, as I do not know the context well enough. However categories like the subject are liable to pick up people who merely have the surname Hart, which is contrary to policy. I therefore tend to support. However, I work on the principle "one franchise: one category", and thus wonder whether we might merge all to Category:The Hart Foundation wrestlers. However, if I have the wrong end of the stick, please ignore my comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the articles in the general Hart family category are not articles about members, some people in the family are not wrestlers and some who have been in the Hart Foundation stable/tag-team are not related to the Hart family so I don't really see this working.★Trekker (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Dukes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. I'll do this manually so as to preserve the history & parent categories of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, obviously a duplicate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Duplicate. Renata (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge; if there's a grand duke, it's a grand duchy, and if there's not one, it's not. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- we obviously have an unnecessary layer. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 30 and tag talk page with projects to generate alerts. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery to Category:Christianity in Kiev, Category:Ukrainian Orthodox (Kiev Patriarchate) monasteries and Category:Shevchenkivskyi District (Kiev)
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only an eponymous article and a subcat that is nominated below. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hegumens of Kiev Pechersk Lavra
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Currently only having two articles is irrelevant in this instance. It could clearly have a lot more. As one of the most important monasteries in Ukraine, all of its abbots are probably notable enough for articles. A clear example of a perfectly viable category that could be filled very quickly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that hegumens are abbots of lower rank, less likely to be notable in comparison to the higher rank archimandrites whose category is much better populated. Since 1171 there are archimandrites in this monastery. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this category, given those included in it, is clearly intended to be for the actual abbots (i.e. heads) of the monastery. It may need renaming, but it shouldn't be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The category shouldn't be renamed to Category:Archimandrites of Kiev Pechersk Lavra because these two people just weren't archimandrites. The category shouldn't be renamed to Category:Abbots of Kiev Pechersk Lavra either because the main trees in Eastern Orthodoxy are Category:Hegumens and Category:Archimandrites. Unless the latter are merged to abbots (which may not likely happen) we're here in a situation of minimal potential of growth of this lower level subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hegumens of St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 30, and tag talk page with projects to generate alerts. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe performers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT: categorization of performers by performance. TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:PERFCAT. Actors are not defined by the fact that they happen to have had roles in a particular "cinematic universe", because they can also go on to have roles outside of that "universe" too. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While having roles in the MCU could be considered defining for some actor's like Chris Hemsworth, who was an unknown before playing Thor, having an MCU role is just a small part of the careers of actors like Samuel L. Jackson. JDDJS (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- what about Category:Shakespearean actors?--112.119.12.241 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples and oranges. Shakespeare isn't a "cinematic/theatrical universe" — it's an entirely different style of acting. Shakespearean performers typically require special education to master the diction and rhythm required, and have sometimes played only Shakespearean characters while never taking a non-Shakespearean role; Marvel universe actors don't do either of those things. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually know two Canadian Shakespearean actors - not well - and that is of course a completely different thing. Shakespearean verse and the performance thereof employs a different language, essentially. Don Cheadle getting cast as Rhodey, Pratt getting the gig as Quill, does not. Delete the nominated category as a textbook case of WP:PERFCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- A classic WP:PERFCAT case. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Honour Chevron for the Old Guard
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, being an obscure decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The qualification for this is being a Nazi before they were in government. That might be a notable characteristic )albeit an obnoxious one). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and even if we would have a category for "early" Nazis it would have an entirely different category name than this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Literary fiction
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined category ("a genre of fiction which claims to not be a genre"), which is impossibly broad in its potential scope. "Literary fiction" isn't a "genre" per se; it's just fiction that competes for awards and tries for the concept of literary merit instead of being expressly commercial supermarket or genre fiction (and even genre fiction can still be literary.) So all this category actually contains is a random partial and unrepresentative sampling of literary subgenres and a random handful of publishing companies -- but what it would actually contain, if fully populated, is a significant percentage of all the articles Wikipedia has about novels and short story collections at all, a significant percentage of all the articles Wikipedia has about fiction writers at all, a significant percentage of all the articles Wikipedia has about publishing companies at all, and on and so forth. This is not a "specialized" topic -- it represents somewhere between half and two-thirds of the entire Category:Fiction tree, meaning that if properly populated it would contain somewhere in the tens of thousands of articles, and that's just too broad to be adequately maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As someone with a post-graduate degree in the field, this is a terrible idea for a category. The main article has issues as well, with disagreements about biases going back a decade, but we need not concern ourselves with that here. The nonsensical category description -- what is "claiming" not be a genre, the works? -- is an indication of what a poorly thought-out concept this is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inherently POV category. The definition given in the main article: "Literary fiction comprises fictional works that hold literary merit; that is, they involve social commentary, or political criticism, or focus on the human condition." Who decides what has literary merit? On the topic of social commentary, I do not think I have ever read a crime, fantasy, horror, or science fiction novel that did not contain social commentary or did not express someone's views on society, politics, and humanity. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and fwiw it's worth, in his seminal essay The Simple Art of Murder, Chandler expounds on expressly this point: how there is no qualitative difference between true pulp fiction and works that are judged to have literary merit (such as his own). It's simply a question of the talent of the author, for works in the genre both great and mediocre can employ the same methods. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, exactly. The science fiction genre, for example, includes works by writers such as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Samuel Delany, Kurt Vonnegut, Doris Lessing and Margaret Atwood — very respected "literary" writers whose "genre" works were very much social or political commentary on the real world, and most certainly had plenty of literary merit. (And, of course, many other "genre" works are eminently literary too; I just don't necessarily know as much about them to single them out for mention.) Basically, in the real world "literary fiction" is just a catch-all term for any and all literature that can't be classified as belonging to any specific branch of genre fiction — anything beyond that is a POV value judgement, quite possibly infused with intellectual snobbery of the "well, I only read serious literature, harrumph harrumph" variety. It is, of course, entirely possible for genre fiction to be excellent work that has literary merit, and entirely possible for "literary" fiction to be crap. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or perhaps merge somewhere) -- There is no clear boundary between literary and pulp fiction, so that this is a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.