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.
Nominator's rationale: That's what it is. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 22:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Support highly ambiguous, not about the film, not about the country. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 07:19, 22 March 2013 (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:Empire of the Sun (band)
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--one article, two subcats of content (which are interlinked), and one subcat of media. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - there is sufficient content here for the subcategories to have a parent, at the very least. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 06:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Response How is this enough? There are only two subcategories of content, both of which are interlinked, and one article, which is linked from both of the subcategories. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 09:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep per the Bushranger. There are 5 items here, which is enough for a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment One is the main article, one is the navbox, two are intelinked subcats (which link to the main article) and the last one is for media. What could possibly be too little content? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 06:55, 1 April 2013 (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:Wilmington Hammerheads (USL Second Division) players
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. –
Michael (
talk) 23:31, 27 March 2013 (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 a New Zealand Knighthood
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 10:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Those issues are all easily resolvable through re-ordering of the parents and subcategories within the pre-existing scheme. You have created a new scheme for which there is no need or benefit. With what existed prior to the creation of the nominated category, it was easy to discover those who had received a New Zealand knighthood by referring to the appropriate subcategories of
Category:New Zealand Order of Merit. It would be helpful if you stopped making further adjustments to the category scheme until this issue can be resolved one way or the other.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. As GO points out, this duplicates the existing knighthood categories, and includes women (who are ineligible for knighthoods). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
The intention of the category is to group together all receipts of a New Zealand knighthood (as distinct from a British or Australian or Canadian or Jamacian or Papua New Guinean knighthood). so we need to limit our viewpoint to the
New Zealand Royal Honours System (and try not to get involved in the British Honours System).
On the point about "women (who are ineligible for knighthoods" you are referring to the term "damehood". Nowhere is this term used within the
New Zealand Royal Honours System or in the Statutes of The New Zealand Order of Merit
SR 1996/205SR2000/84 or
SR2009/90. Please remember that
Category:Recipients of a New Zealand knighthood is *not* part of the British Honours System which has used the term damehood at least twice in the last fifty years so even in Britain the term is rarely used.
it was easy to discover those who had received a New Zealand knighthood by referring to the appropriate subcategories of
Category:New Zealand Order of Merit: Your point is irrelevant because the intention was to allow categorisation of recipients of a New Zealand knighthood separate from the British Honours System which impossible when the NZ Order of Merit points to the British Honours System which is the problem I'm trying to fix.
It would be helpful if you stopped making further adjustments to the category scheme until this issue can be resolved one way or the other: The outcome of this discussion is not going to change the fact that the old/pre-1996 British Honours System is no longer part of the New Zealand Royal Honours System after the 1996 reform. Separating out the distinctive New Zealand knighthoods from the old British System reflects reality. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sinesurfer (
talk •
contribs)
Delete duplicates the existing, better defined trees.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:42, 6 May 2013 (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:MADtv
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 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:2007–08 2009–10 in United States ice hockey/ice hockey by league
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 by weight of precedent. The new Northern Ireland category mentioned below is the only one in
Category:Sports by country and year to use the country name rather than the adjective, apart from New Zealand which doesn't have one. –
FayenaticLondon 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: American sports seasone usually use the adjectival form “American” not “United States” eg see
Category:2010 in American sports for football, rugby union, soccer and motorsport. NB: 2007-08 seems to be the only season to date, but is intended to be one season of a series.
Hugo999 (
talk) 12:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep and open a CFD to get most of the rest renamed. "American football" is different because it's the sport's name, but having "American" in front of the names makes it sound as if "American ice hockey" is a sport distinct from the world's version of ice hockey. "in United States [sport]" is better than "in American [sport]", but it still sounds awkward; better than either one would be "in [sport] in the United States".
Nyttend (
talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is there any support for renaming the various categories for American rugby union, soccer and motorsport by year? And presumably renaming also “American sports by year”? Saying “2012 in sport in the United States” with 2x “in” seems awkward to me, and I am not convinced that “2012 in American sports” is any different from “2012 in British sport” or “2012 in Canadian sports” (“sports” rather than “sport” in North America and a few other countries). Note that there are now two names for rugby union seasons: American rugby union for 2009-2012 eg
Category:2012 in American rugby union and for 2006 & 2008
Category:2008 in USA rugby union.
Hugo999 (
talk) 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For the record, the latter was speedily renamed to "American", see
[1]. –
FayenaticLondon 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Suggestion: “2012 in American sports” could become “2012 in United States sport” which pretty straightforward. I have recently started “2012 in Northern Ireland sport” under similar circumstances.
User:DjlnDjln (
talk) 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think the use of "United States" is preferable to "American" for the same reasons as Nyttend outlines above. I appreciate both phrases are interchangable but I think the former reduces disambiguation and is why I chose to use it when intially starting these and similar categories.
User:DjlnDjln (
talk) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename. The overwhelming balance of "(year) in (country)(sport)" categories use the demonym, not the country name. All the American ones do too. This should be no different.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:50, 30 April 2013 (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:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture in the United States
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:split.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 10:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I had proposed a down merge but that suggestion led to more support for an upmerge since the proposed target is likely to only have this as the content.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Split into "Bungalows" and "American Craftsman" [picking whatever name formats are best], because "Bungalow/Craftsman" simply means that the place has stylistic elements of bungalows and stylistic elements of the American Craftsman style. Both categories should be applied to each article in the category and in its subcategories. All of these designations, as far as I can see, come from the database of the
National Register of Historic Places, which can be downright quirky on architectural styles sometimes. It called
this house both Greek Revival and Italianate, but if I wrote an article on the house, it wouldn't be appropriate to create "Greek Revival/Italianate architecture", "Greek Revival/Italianate architecture in the United States", or "Greek Revival/Italianate architecture in Ohio" categories for it.
Nyttend (
talk) 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Not "Craftsman architecture" but "American Craftsman architecture"; see
American Craftsman. Might as well put them into "Bungalow architecture" and subcategories, but "Bungalows" would be substantially better, since (unlike the other style names) "Bungalow" can be used as the name of the house itself — we can talk about "three bungalows along the street", but "three Greek Revivals along the street" sounds like a party for historical reënactors, and "three American Craftsmen along the street" sounds like a group of carpenters.
Nyttend (
talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Calling something a bungalow does not make it bungalow architecture. We have generally included architecture in the category name to make this point clear. I did fix my stupid typo on American Craftsman.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Although the related articles aren't very clear on the subject, another point is that a bungalow is a house type, not an actual architectural style. Analogous to an
I-house having
Federal architectural details. The
California bungalow is treated as a specific architectural style, but they too are essentially just bungalows built in the American Craftsman style and popularized in California. There are bungalows in the American Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and a few other styles. The best rename may be simply
Category:Bungalows or
Category:Bungalows in the United States.
Altairisfar (
talk) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think the conversation is missing recognition that architectural styles of many NRHP-listed houses are MIXED, and that the nominators and/or the National Register staff are doing the best they can with labels. "Bungalow/Craftsman" is one of the top 40 common labels used, that have a separate defined code in the
National Register Information System. Like "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals" and "Mid 19th Century Revival" and "Mission/Spanish Revival" are others of the top 40. These are not narrow terms like some would prefer. There are many houses which indeed include elements of many styles. During mid-19th century for example there were many pure "Revival" styles going on, and some houses were purely Greek Revival or purely Egyptian Revival or purely some other named type. But many others, probably many more, were mixes of the many styles going on. The somewhat vague label "Bungalow/Craftsman" and the other labels found to be useful, reflect the fact that out in the real world, architects and builders mix and match. And there are some common mixes, such as Bungalow/Craftsman, for which it is useful to have a mix-label. --
doncram 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose changing to 'Bungalows' or to 'American Craftsman' I expect there are many NRHP-labelled "Bungalow/Craftsman" buildings that are clearly Craftsman with details reflecting craftsmanship, but expect there are others that are clearly Bungalow without having clear Craftsman details. It would be wrong to assume that all would fit a narrower name than the name chosen and applied systematically by the National Register. --
doncram 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
About the explicit proposal to change
Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture in the United States to
Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture: There's no need to consider it. Of course, those in one geographic area are a subtype of the general. You need the general parent category to hold the more specific child category. Even if there are currently no non-U.S. members, I think the parent category should exist. Put a tag on it that says this is a "container" category or whatever, and there should be no members except sub-categories, if you like. Nothing for editors to consider in this explicit proposal, however, IMHO. --
doncram 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
However, if there will only be one subcategory and this is a small branch, there is no need for 2 categories when 1 will work. Note this discussion was opened when the reverse discussion was proposed and strongly opposed in favor of this.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:17,: 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just added a link at the top of this CFD to the previous discussion that I guess you refer to. I am confused by your statement here. The need for the parent category is that it is obviously needed, it is the parent for a more specific child category. It is likely to be used by editors, there will be occasional additions to it, which may all be properly re-categorized more specifically, but it is needed to receive the additions. Some editors will not know of the more specific "in the United States" name, so you would have to create an article or a redirect or something at the parent name, in order to direct them to the more specific. There is negative value to removing the parent. This is not worthy of many editors' attention, to eliminate one category that will then cause future confusion and require restoration, IMO. --
doncram 23:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with Nyttend that the categories should be split into two categories: one for
Category:Bungalow architecture in the United States (which already exists, and which should not be renamed to California Bungalow architecture), and one for
Category:American Craftsman architecture, which is part of the March 19th proposal. The article at
American Craftsman explains that the style originated from the generally-international
Arts and Crafts movement, whereas the
Bungalow article dates back to the times of the
East India Company and refers to one-story houses with large verandas. There may be some overlap stylistically in certain buildings, but the "Bungalow/Craftsman" classification in the National Register database really never made a lot of sense to me. Of course, separating the different buildings would have to be done on a case-by-case basis for existing articles, but I think that would be the most accurate way to do things. --
Elkman(Elkspeak) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Split per Nyttend and Elkman: Bungalow architecture to the existing category
Category:Bungalow architecture in the United States and other Craftsman architecture to
Category:American Craftsman architecture. Both are American architectural styles, so the U.S. scope of the categories makes sense. The fact that the National Register database has some entries that join the two words "Bungalow" and "Craftsman" at the hip should not be misinterpreted to mean that all bungalows are Craftsman style, nor that all American Craftsman-style buildings are bungalows. As I documented at one of the other discussions of this topic,
this explanation of "bungalow" uses the term "Craftsman-influenced" for some specific bungalow designs, but does not combine the terms otherwise;
this explanation of the word describes the bungalow style as an evocation of the Arts & Crafts movement and the "Craftsman movement", but emphasizes the diversity of "bungalow" styles and never joins the words "Bungalow" and "Craftsman" together;
this article about mail-order houses discusses "bungalows" but never mentions the word "Craftsman"; the
Britannica entry for "bungalow" doesn't mention "Craftsman"; an online magazine(?) about American bungalows
describes the style generically and presents a
guide to over a dozen different styles and sub-styles of American bungalows (including "Craftsman" and "California", among others). --
Orlady (
talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)reply
It is unfortunate that many of the pages in this category are minimal stubs that name "Bungalow/Craftsman architecture", but have no additional information to allow anyone to discern what that label describes.
Durham School (Durham, Arkansas) is an extreme example of this problem. If an article has no illustrations and contains no information about architecture other than the name of this style, can we justify putting it in an architecture category? --
Orlady (
talk) 05:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)reply
It turns out that the Durham School example I mentioned above is described in its National Register document as a "Craftsman" building (no hint of "bungalow"). This suggests to me that "Bungalow/Craftsman" is nothing more than a descriptor used within the National Register Information System database for buildings described as either "Craftsman" or "Bungalow", and that it is not treated as a distinct architectural style by the keepers of the National Register. Descriptors used for convenience in database development should not become the basis for Wikipedia categories, much less for authoritative statements in articles. --
Orlady (
talk) 15:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Split per Nyttend, Elkman and Orlady. I think the discussion presented here shows another instance where using the NRHP database for our category naming is flawed. Given these arguments, I fail to see how we can support using the NRHP nomenclature as supported below.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Editors can dislike the fact that the National Register has assigned "Bungalow/Craftsman architecture" label to hundreds of NRHP-listed properties in the U.S., and can prefer something less vague. But, as one editor above notes, the reassignment of each one to more specific ones would have to be done on a "case-by-case" basis. Let me note this would require more information than is available in many of the current articles having this category. So deleting the category doesn't make sense. It is a fact that there are many existing articles in Wikipedia, and more coming in, where the items are reliably sourced by the National Register to have "Bungalow/Craftsman architecture". Go ahead, find more info in specific cases, and categorize some out of this category. You don't need a CFD decision for that. And, the CFD needs to keep the category. --
doncram 01:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Leave as is with both parent and child cats. This name reflects actual designation and should be kept. We categorize things by what they are commonly called, not what they "are" according to some person's idea about how things ought to be.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The National Register doesn't officially designate architectural styles. See the intro to the
bungalow article — bungalows are houses, by definition. The current state of thing is basically one person's idea that "bungalow/craftsman" ought to be a single style, as Orlady's comment of 15:41 on the 28th shows.
Nyttend (
talk) 23:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Given the
article which clearly states that one term is a style and the other is a building type, how can we keep this? We categorize by likes and rarely do we categorize by multiple terms. I can't think of a case where we have elected to keep two terms for such different concepts.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (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.
