Category:Superman: The Animated Series characters[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:Speedy keep. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Permanently small category as there is little or no likelihood that any iteration of a character character from this series will become independently notable. The single actual article is not specific to the series. I see no need to categorize the two redirects but if there is some value in it they can be placed in an appropriate parent or parents instead of fractured off. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2011 (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: created by error Gnevin (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2011 (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.
Support rename, no reason for this one to be different from all the others.--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wojdyr (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Consistency. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2011 (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:speedy delete (CSD G7: author requests deletion). -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by error. Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (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: There can only be two articles in this category, which seems to me to be a classic case of WP:SMALLCAT. Moreover, it is not part of any overall categorization scheme that would make us want to overlook WP:OC in this instance, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2011 (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:Merge this and all sub-categories. This seems rather redundant; we do not have "alleged" splits for other crime-related categories. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree that it's redundant. If a topic is disputed enough to make it unable to bear the label "police brutality", we shouldn't be using categories to label it "alleged police brutality". Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This proposal goes in the opposite direction from "Murderers -> Convicted murderers" just below. As it is not possible to attach a citation to a category inclusion, care must be taken to only add the label when the justification is apparent in the article. Sussexonian (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2011 (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:French baroque Gardens à la française[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:Rename per the main article, which is now at French formal garden, revisit if unsatisfactory. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is a bizarre pleonasm. Baroque gardens in France are genuinely "à la française". In this combination "à la française" misleadingly suggests that they would be an imitation of themselves. Elekhh (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming — as original creator of this category. I simply used the lead wikipedia article title Garden à la française - which is also the title French Wikipedia uses - that in the mode à la Ancien Régime perhaps means "Baroque gardens of France." The proposed simplification-translation is clearer.
I do not support the proposed renaming of the Garden à la française artIcle to [French gardens] - and suggest [French Baroque gardens] instead. [French gardens] is awfully vague and could include any garden created across French history in France.
Close let's establish a name for the main article first, before renaming this. The main article on this type of garden is under a requested move discussion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The article is about a style, the category contains notable examples from a period. Regardless how the article is going to be renamed in a few days, categories do not replicate article names (as they contain many articles), but follow consistency with category names. --Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category contains gardens from a period in that style (as opposed to gardens of other styles from that period); the naming of the style is under discussion, so the category would also be renamed according to the naming of the style used for the article (or with a disambiguator in addition to the name of the article, since "French garden", one of the proposed names, is ambiguous; ). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Styles are always ambiguous as different art historians would use different classifications. Individual gardens might be altered over time, accumulating characteristics of different styles. There might be convergence about the central characteristics of a style (i.e. scope of the article) but the extent to which a particular garden is representative of that style (i.e. scope of the category) are far less clearly defined. Regarding the alternate proposals for the article name, "French Baroque gardens" would be very ambiguous for a category, and I believe is preferable to keep the scope more objective, therefore "Baroque gardens in France" (i.e. at least a clearly defined geographic area). Also please note that the guidelines for category names are distinct from the guidelines for article names. --Elekhh (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that this be renamed to match the article, since that wouldn't make sense as the article covers a broader subject than this category, I am suggesting that the category should include the article name as part of its name (with appropriate disambiguation, and additional adjectives and descriptors, etc) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename the more general name makes sense. The gardens are baroque and in France. There is no reason to make the category more specific than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Categories placed in articles of persons, especially living persons, should be objectively verifiable, rather than creating a back door to insert inflammatory and controversial material in a conclusory manner. In other words, categories of the form "murderers"---rather than "[X] convicted of murder," etc.---should be container categories only. As a corollary, because of diminishing returns, the former need not exist for every permutation. The added value from a categories for hyper-specific types of murders is so small, that these categories should exist for those who are convicted (or otherwise objectively categorizable) only. Savidan 00:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename two and three, merge the first one to an appropriate parent. BLP concerns suffice for renaming the latter two. For the first, it is a category that pushes the POV that murdering a child is somehow quantifiably worse than murdering someone who isn't a child. The age of the murder victim is irrelevant to the conviction. Harley Hudson (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Rename all All murderers go through the justice system to be convicted, which in the popular media, we get the term "Foo murderer".Curb Chain (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some murderers commit suicide, are shot by police, or otherwise die before being convicted in court. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Good Olfactory. --Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Good Olfactory. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. However we should put a warning that non-convicted living people should not be put in the category. This way we stay in line with biographies of living people rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (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.
