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.
Same could be said for hentai. Anyway, the English-language industry uses the term eroge so it does fall as a "common name".陣内Jinnai 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominated (if we do this at all), because the article is at Eroge, so the we should be consistent. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2010 (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.
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.
Delete. Just about all Egyptian writing was "scribal". Even writings in which a non-scribe speaks (like autobiographical texts) may have been dictated to or copied by scribes, and we have no way of knowing the difference. The article on Ancient Egyptian literature covers all Egyptian writing, so all articles on Egyptian writing should be contained in the corresponding category. I'm not sure what purpose Category:Egyptian inscriptions serves, either. When I think of "inscriptions" I think of things written on permanent media like stone, so under that definition the category could be a subcategory of Category:Ancient Egyptian literature. However, that's not the dictionary definition of "inscription", nor is it the definition the category itself uses. A. Parrot (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, and at least 2 of the 4 supposed inscriptions are papyri anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ancient Egyptian texts. Deletion should not be an option, as text on papyri are not inscriptions, nor vice versa; inscriptions are not exactly literature (save in a pedantically technical sense). What we need is a parent for all kinds of texts, and I think this is the best. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The single member is in fact only covered with gold leaf. I suppose it could be made a category for structures where this is partly the case, of which there are enough, but is it defining? Best just to delete I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Structures are not made of gold leaf, it is a decorative finish. Like paint. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt there has ever been a structure of significant size made of solid gold. Of the two members this category now has, one is clearly just covered in gold leaf, and for the other I can't quite tell from the article whether it's solid gold (though I highly doubt it), but anyway it's really just a part of a structure, not a structure in its own right. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This structure is not solid gold, nor do I think there are any. I'm not an engineer, but gold is so dense I would expect that a structure of solid gold would collapse under its own weight. (One cubic metre weighs 19300 kg, according to the article gold.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no engineer either, but one cubic metre of steel weighs about 8,000kg, so gold is only twice the density of steel. Gold is softer, but even so the gap in density doesn't sound like enough to make a gold structure impossible; it would just need to be designed differently. If the one article in this category doesn't belong here, then it's a speedy-delete-as-empty, but I don't know either way whether there are any actual structures made of solid gold. (I saw a huge gold model of St. Peter's basilica somewhere inside it, but I dunno if it was solid gold, or if a model counts as a "structure"). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can I argue that there's not enough gold in the world to build a structure of solid gold? Can I make something else up? Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article gold says that there is at least 161,000 tonnes of the stuff, which is more than 8,000 cubic metres. Assuming you use something else for the roof, that's enough to make a square-building measuring 200 metres on each side with 1-metre thick solid gold walls, 10 metres high. Et voila! Your solid-gold aircraft-hangar. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're shooting me down left and right here. Personally, I'd rather have a solid gold aeroplane. To keep you busy for today: are there engines powerful enough to allow a solid-gold airplane to get off the ground? Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, because you have already used up all the world's gold to build the hangar. The gold aircraft will have to remain on your wish-list until you have mined some more gold. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 18 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many lists here contain drawings, sculptures, prints etc - some only contain non-paintings. I think it is enough if a category page note explains only lists of works of visual art belong here, but a more precise name could be used. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is bad art-historical practice to segregate paintings in this way (as so many of our categories in fact do), and some of the lists with painting in the title may also contain drawings (many used to, but have been renamed). A note could be added at the paintings category. Since the vast majority of works in "works/artworks" lists are in fact paintings, the rump of a paintings category would be rendered misleading and rather useless, containing only a small minority of the listified paintings we in fact have. Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know sod all about art-history, but if you know your stuff, then I'm happy to take your word on that, so I won't oppose renaming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Support rename to match category contents, which are all over the place in terms of medium. There may come a time when there are sufficient lists dedicated only to paintings to justify this kind of specificity, but at present some are paintings, some are works generally, some are other 2-D mediums... postdlf (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (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:Presidents of the congress of Colombia[edit]
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. Jafeluv (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (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.
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: Anything written before the invention(s) of printing could be called a scribal work, I suppose. If the term has a real meaning, it is not reflected in the random category contents, which are properly covered by dozens if not hundreds of other categories. If the intention was to capture works not included in a more narrow definition of "literary works", hardly any of the current contents reflect this. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is correct, but I do not think that is a reason to delete. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the nom. Are there any reasons at all for keeping it? Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a hotchpotch of ancient literature. All the works would be better categorised elsewhere. All pre-1400 literature (except in China) could properly be included in it. The one sub-category is the subject of a discussion further up this page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member apart from the main article, which is not a catalogue raisonné. Wikipedia should not be pretending it is in the business of producing catalogues raisonnés. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. His reasoning is subtle, but correct. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands as its sole member begins "there is no catalogue raisonné of Eakins' works". It should be Category:Catalogues raisonnés anyway. Occuli (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no need for merger as the only included article is already otherwise appropriately categorized. The only possible valid use for this category would be to group articles that are about notable catalogues raisonné (if there are any), in which case the category should be pluralized. No such need at present apparently. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Attributed to" is wrong from various points of view. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I still think you should elaborate what you mean. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more accurately describe the category and its contents. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The lead article is at Relics attributed to Jesus so the cat would normally stay there. I also found that the main article was renamed to fit the category after this discussion ! Sussexonian (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that! Main article now moved to Relics associated with Jesus. Did none of those 2005 dudes have access to a dictionary? "Attributed to" manages to suggest both or either of: a) Jesus made them, b) Some plausible recent scholar has backed, as a matter of fact, that Jesus either made them or used or was at least associated with them in some way. None of these are remotely the case for the great majority of them. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and to conform with the head article now that it has been correctly titled. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod.- choster (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Complete duplication. There is a well-established convention that plain "artist" means "visual artist" in category names, see note at the head Category:Artists. Before anyone asks, Category:Artists by culture and Category:Artists by ethnic group are both well established and among the parents here. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The next election must take place on or before 3 June 2010, at which point a new group of MPs will enter Parliament. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is premature. Wait until the Parliament is dissolved, and the renaming can easily be done then, in plenty of time before a new Parliament meets. It is of course highly unlikely that the election will be postponed, because to do so would require a suspension of the Quinquennial Act (see Septennial Act 1715), but that can happen: it was done twice in the 20th century, during the two world wars. The fact that a postponement is unlikely does not mean that it is impossible, and there is absolutely no urgency which requires this change to be in advance of the election being called. We will have three weeks between dissolution and the election, and even if a CFD runs for the full 7 days rather than being an early WP:SNOW closure, that's still plenty of time for the renaming to happen, because once the CFD is closed it will only take the bots a few hours to do the work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I expect BHG has the cfd already prepared to paste in on Dissolution Day. Occuli (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename At this point in time, it's far more WP:CRYSTAL bally to start worrying about the occurrence of an event that would trigger the suspension of the Quinquennial Act, than to make the assumption that it will be dissolved in 2010 following the normal course of events. We can play this game unceasingly with any date or event scheduled to take place at any time in the future. Given that the article United Kingdom general election, 2010 not only exists, but contains extensive details predicated on the assumption that an election will take place in 2010, the WP:CRYSTAL issue is far greater with the concenr that an election will not take place this year. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, we agree that the probability of the election not happening in 2010 is small However, until the election is called, the possibility of postponement does exist. There is no reason for renaming now, when there is still a tiny degree of uncertainty: the current name of the category is neither misleading nor inaccurate. When the election is called, the category can and should be renamed, but there is no need to rename it now. What exactly is the problem with waiting until the election is called? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous century, the only postponements were related to world wars. If that's what we're worried about here, we have a major WP:CRYSTAL issue. The event is planned, has a parent article and falls well within the guidelines of WP:CRYSTAL as occurring in 2010; The possibility of its postponement fails that standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer why a renaming should happen now. What exactly is the problem with waiting until the election is called? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, "2005-" implies that this parliament will last ad infinitum. Elections will be called in 2010 and that year is already here. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"2005-" does not imply infinity in my reading of it; it implies "2005 to some point in the future". But if you want to read it as ad infinitum, then that's a reading which could have been applied at any time since the category was created in 2006, and it doesn't seem to have caused concern for the last 3½ years. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Doesn't a non-closed dash just mean "not ended yet"? If you saw "George W. Bush (1946-)", it doesn't mean we think he will live ad infinitum, it just means he's not dead yet. To have "2005-2010" implies that the Parliament in fact ended in 2010, which is not yet true. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why the rush? Simply wait until the election is called. Snappy (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature. I'm sure there will be a rush to do this when the Parliament in fact does close; I see no reason to jump the gun since "2005-2010" implies that it has in fact ended, which it hasn't. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (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:Actors involved with the Disney Theme Parks[edit]
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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of preformers by type of performance. We don't have categories that list the actors that participated in the project—not for films, not for TV shows, not for advertisements or endorsements, and not for participation in Disney parks and resorts. The reason we don't do this is that if we did it would lead to incredible "category clutter" on many actors' articles. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This a classic performers-by-performance category, and there has been a long-standing consensus to delete such categories to avoid clutter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OVERCAT. Do you include now famous actors who swept up vomit before they were famous? Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-defining characteristic. The articles may mention that the individual appeared at a Disney park, but the fact that the person appeared inside a Minnie Mouse costume does not make this defining. Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really have enough articles on ancient Roman farmers to need a category for them? The only article in this category is Cato the Elder, who was notable for his military and political career rather than for his agricultural talents, and should probably be removed from the category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was also notable for making a big fuss about retiring to his estate to live the simple life of a country gentleman etc etc, a very common trope among Roman politicians supporting the "old Roman virtues" - probably too common to be defining, though Cato was the main exemplar. The majority of notable Ancient Romans probably had a country estate, so Category:Ancient Roman landowners is hardly defining. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. And what is the criterion for "ancient" anyway? Debresser (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have dozens of "Ancient Roman" categories. Don't start on that tack. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing a particular civilization, not a time period; different chronologies are used for different civilizations. Ancient Rome is traditionally defined as Roman civilization from the 8th century BC to the 5th century AD. - choster (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. I added Cincinnatus to the category just to show it's not totally pointless, and because he's the one who immediately comes to my mind when I hear, "ancient Roman farmer." Glenfarclas (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, all mentioned so far had loads of slaves to do the actual labour, except possibly Cincinnatus after he lost nearly all his money. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (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.
Relisted at CfD 2010-01-25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)