From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 16 July 18 >

July 17

Category:Disambiguation pages with potential

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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It seems to me that Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles and Category:Disambiguation pages with potential are essentially identical categories. The latter has only three articles and probably could be deleted. Pariah24 ( talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Partially agree. Category was created as a direct analogue of Category:Redirects with possibilities, and I think it should have an analogous title. That said, I was not aware the other cat existed, so there ALSO seems to be a problem with visibility. Why the long name? Samsara 20:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, since the scope seems identical, and with potential should be the final name, since it's much shorter and since it's in accord with the R cat. Nyttend ( talk) 23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles and keep the older name, contra Nyttend. "With potential" begs "potential for what?" – the older name answers that. That more than justifies its length. — swpb T 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Swpb: Do you then propose renaming Category:Redirects with possibilities to a longer name as well? Samsara 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
      • No. I think, with a redirect, it's a bit more apparent what the "possibility" is – to turn the page into its own article. With dabs, it doesn't seem as obvious that "possibility" means "make a BCA with this title". It's a subtle distinction, and you might feel the line doesn't belong there, but that's where my instinct puts it. — swpb T 19:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Nyttend - "with potential" should be the final name. Samsara 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and keep the longer name. "With potential" is too vague. — Xezbeth ( talk) 07:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and keep the longer name. The harm of a longer title is less than the harm of an ambiguous title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like consensus to me, someone just needs to delete Category:Disambiguation pages with potential; I've already added the three entries there to the other category. Pariah24 ( talk) 18:21, 3 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:Deadpan comedians

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 22:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't strongly feel that this cat should be deleted or kept. However, we currently don't have any other cats sorting comedians by comedy style. I want to establish a precedent here. If this cat is kept, we should make other cats for other styles of comedy. However, I don't want to go through the process of making all those cats if they're just going to be deleted. JDDJS ( talk) 19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support deletion Keep: Update: I had not read WP:NOTDUP, but in light of it support keeping this. Although I originally made this category and spent a lot of time confirming that those in it belonged (it was split out of deadpan), @ Northamerica1000: also split off a list version which also features more accessible citations. I would not be opposed to deleting the category as long as the list remained, although I believe that your rationale, however, could also be applied to the list (unless there is already a precedent for this sort of thing by list?) which might require more discussion. Mehmuffin ( talk) 03:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – A useful category for navigational purposes, and complements the list article as per WP:NOTDUP. North America 1000 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING. Most comedians use a variety of styles and techniques in the course of their careers, and in most cases it is not WP:DEFINING that they sometimes made some use of a particular style.
I checked the first ten entries in the list of deadpan comedians ( Arden, Armisen, Arthur, Atkinson, Aykroyd, Ayoade, Barry, Bateman, Benjamin, Benny). I found
That's the problem, with his sort of category by style. Either it
  1. Lumps in somebody who used this technique with the mainstay of their career along comedians whee one reviewer somewhere has described one performance as "deadpan" .. or
  2. it relies on editors making an WP:ARBITRARYCAT or WP:SUBJECTIVECAT choice is needed about how much of the categorised attribute is needed for inclusion.
The list can be developed to explain more about a perfomer's use of deadpan, but the category cannot. Categories are un-annotated bare listings, with a binary choice between inclusion and omission.
Note that some of the editors commenting above have misunderstood WP:NOTDUP. It is merely a warning not to delete a category simply because there is also a list, or vice versa. It does not mean that every list axiomatically merits a corresponding category.
This is spelt out further up the same page: "there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used." -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl; this type of category is way too slippery to maintain usefully. — swpb T 13:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the girl with the brown hair, she basically said what I wanted to say with much more validity to her arguments. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:42, 24 July 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:Anime-influenced animation

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:Anime-influenced Western animation. If there are some works from Asia or Africa then feel free to split to an intervening parent Non-Japanese animation influenced by anime. – Fayenatic London 23:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per the recent discussion regarding manga-influenced comics, this category seems inappropriate to me because one could argue that all anime should be included since, well, anime is animation, and of course would be anime-influenced as well. Perhaps we could rename it to "Anime-influenced Western animation", but I don't think such clunky terminology is necessary. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We're not using the Japanese definition of anime where it means all animation. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • That wasn't my argument. Defining "anime" here as "Japanese animation", my point is that Japanese animation is influenced by Japanese animation, and therefore all anime is valid for inclusion in the category, which would render it useless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Changing above vote to Rename to Anime-influenced Western animation. Having such a category is still important than downright deletion. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The most common term for Anime in the Western world is that it originates in Japan. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The category as currently named, however, does not distinguish between Japanese animation and non-Japanese animation. At the most, it's a mere implication. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Some people like anime. America needs to imitate anime more often. - Jtarvin ( talk)
    • @ Jtarvin: That is not a valid argument. If you wish to express support for keeping the category, please explain, preferably using Wikipedia policy and guidelines, how it would benefit the encyclopedia contrary to my claim that it solves nothing for us. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Nominator is entirely correct that the category name contains a sort of a loop reasoning. However deletion may go too far, the second alternative of renaming the category to contain "western" may be better. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I will admit it would be more valid to keep this category compared to the one I linked to that was deleted - we do, after all, have an article on this category's subject, unlike the other category. That being said, while a rename would be preferable, I think "western" is a wee bit too eurocentric. I probably should have suggested something like "Non-Japanese animation influenced by anime" instead. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I agree on that as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
            • - in the sense that either is fine with me. Added for clarification, after having read the below comment. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Anime-influenced Western animation might be okay. Most of the titles there are from the Western world, either Europe or North America. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 06:49, 30 July 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:Fictional people by period and ethnic or national descent

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. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category, it has four subcats by period. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 17 July 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:Fictional post-classical people

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. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename for more clarity. While the term post-classical history is used as a 'global' parallel of the 'European' term Middle Ages, in this case the content of the category refers to fictional medieval Europeans anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • support rename especially since it is a child of Category:Medieval people. Mangoe ( talk) 20:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support, given the current contents. A category of this name could include non-mediaeval people, e.g. characters in a book set in a post-classical Maya community, but everyone in the category is clearly meant to be mediaeval. However, we need to purge it of the fictional knights, since Sir Joseph Porter, KCB is a fictional knight set in the 19th century, and Sir Grapefellow is a fictional knight set in the 20th century. Maybe a subcategory of "fictional mediaeval knights" or something like that? Nyttend ( talk) 21:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • oppose rename Medieval only applies to fictional people lived in Europe during the Medieval Period of Post-Classical European history, and does not represent a non-Eurocentric world view. "Prehistoric", "Ancient", "Postclassical" and "Modern" are deliberately broad and inclusive umbrella terms, as all cultures have their own histories and calendars. If "Fictional medieval people" as a category is needed, then falls as a subcategory of Postclassical. (See: History of the world) -- Atvica ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And that's why I said "given the current contents". I don't see a fundamental problem with a category for all fictional post-classical people, as long as it's defined to exclude people from times/places that happen to use the name for a non-concurrent period of time. Nyttend ( talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The only members who aren't medieval Europeans are in the fictional Huns subcat, and that category is extremely problematic: one character is actually Turkic, the other a Disney Mongol under an assumed ethnicity. It ought to go away anyway, but more to the point, the parent Huns category doesn't participate in any sort of "post classical" categorization, and even then, if we had such a category level, "medieval" should exist underneath it. Mangoe ( talk) 13:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming Pariah24 ( talk) 02:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment the fictional Huns subcat has been deleted so there aren't any members now except medievals. Mangoe ( talk)
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:Fictional HEMA practitioners

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 11:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, "HEMA" is a non-defining characteristic and the category is largely overlapping with Category:Fictional swordsmen. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:42, 17 July 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:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire

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. – Fayenatic London 23:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This was just at CFD a few weeks ago under its old name of "Montgomeryshire Architecture". Whether to use Montgomeryshire or Powys was disputed, but as everyone seemed fine with "Buildings and structures" and as it's clearly the naming convention in this area, I decided to close it as a "move successful" to this new name, and then to start a new discussion. Basically, Montgomeryshire is a historic county located almost or entirely within a larger extant government area, Powys. The previous discussion appears to focus on whether we should go by current jurisdictions (thus supporting this merger suggestion) or whether splitting by historic counties is better in this case (thus opposing). I'm neutral. Nyttend ( talk) 04:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think this is a borderline case. However, if this category is merged its subcategory should be merged too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support the merger. It's normal practice to categorise existing things, particularly solid immovable things like buildings, by their current location. Powys is the current county/principal area and Montgomeryshire has ceased to exist. Granted Powys is a very large county, it doesn't stop buildings being categorised by town or other existing subdivision. Sionk ( talk) 23:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is no need for an either/or choice between current geography and historic geography. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Powys covers much of three historic counties and is too large an area. The current geography of Wales is a reflection of the concentration of population in the industrial areas of the south and is ill-suited to historic subjects. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
It's smaller than Lincolnshire and several English counties. Seems a strange precedent to start categorising current things by historic areas. Sionk ( talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support the merger. Readers want to know where things are, not where they were. I had a similar, arcane, debate over H. H. Asquith's grave, which was in Berkshire when he died but is now in Oxfordshire. However attached we might be to the old ways, it's idiosyncratic to try and maintain them in the face of clear, legal, change. And I say this as an editor who once tried to argue that Tredegar House should remain in Monmouthshire. KJP1 ( talk) 20:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Peter I. Vardy, Nev1, p.s. It may well be worth asking Peter Vardy for a view. He's doing incredible work on lists of listed buildings in the North West. I note, as an example, Grade I listed buildings in Cumbria has an overall Cumbria Category but then splits the list by district. But I don't think Peter uses historic districts, otherwise I'd expect to see Cumberland/Westmorland in there, and I don't. Nev1 has done something similar for Listed buildings in Greater Manchester, but again, I don't think he'd use historic counties - I'm not seeing the West Riding as a sub-division. I can see considerable merit in having consistency of approach in this area. KJP1 ( talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks KJP1 for your comment (particularly welcome as I am suffering a not very good day today - but that's personal). Of course we have to use the current districts, etc., anything else is archaic. References may be made to historic districts, etc. and in the future it may all have to be changed (again). I offer no comment in this debate, other that we have to live with the present, and to move with the future present, whatever that may be. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per my comments in the previous debates. The category is not too large to need subdividing. The rest of Wales manages without a scheme for buildings by historic county. Categorising buildings by the county that they would have been years ago is inappropriate. Bencherlite Talk 06:58, 1 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_17&oldid=1138410915"