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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the topic and to avoid confusion with other types of heritage sites. Note that the category did have a scattering of articles which I have since removed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This provides the category with a robust test for what should (or should not) appear. A list of Listed Buildings in the UK would qualify for the current name, but only a few are World Heritage Sites. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (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 to delete - jc37 03:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. All the Manitoba rural municipalities categories are going to be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. The number of articles on most rural Manitoba categories is between 1 and 4 articles. They were all not enough articles on all categories. Most of the categories or maybe all categories are going to be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT and it's growth. Steam5 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few points:
It's not a great idea to come to CfD saying that the categories "are going to be deleted". You propose that they should be deleted, but the next step is that there is a discussion here to see if there is a WP:CONSENSUS to delete, or or rename, or merge, or whatever.
These categories are indeed all small, but have you investigated to see whether they have any reasonable prospect of expansion? WP:SMALLCAT refers to "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members"
Comment: User:Train2104 already put some of the rural Manitoba categories for speedy deletion. I did not Canvass any user for real. It's just me and you, BHG. Maybe, If User:Train2104 or any user looks at the other Manitoba categories. Then Train or any user will decide to support deletion per small category. Steam5 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- These are all very small categories, but several are not single article categories. Most relate to very small settlements, so that they will always be small cats. However, we do need some kind of navigation aid to link related articles. A "see also" section is not wholly satisfactory for this. I wonder if the solution is to convert the cats to navboxes. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, could you relist it here until a consenus to be reached for other users? Steam5 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, these categories should be removed. There has been a slow clean-up of material relating to these categories. This will result in the content in said categories being eliminated because the Rural Municipalities have all been renamed to eliminate locations such as Siglunes, Manitoba. Stormbay (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stormbay, I see some of the rural Manitoba categories are already empty. If I remove the categories from above that the categories already empty, then we can switch it to another template for exchange for "speedy deletion". Does that OK Stormbay? Steam5 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever will move this along is fine with me. Thanks! Stormbay (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Stormbay. I already remove a few categories that is already empty and I exchange the template for "speedy deletion", Stormbay. Steam5 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators, as a result of this quiet discussion with a lack of users did not participate in this discussion, I have decided to close this nomination and this result will be a "no consensus". Steam5 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2012 (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.
Rename per nom. Wikipedia should not use American-specific terms that ignore the existence of the rest of the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Civil War" isn't American-specific. Rather the opposite: it's ambiguous because England also had a civil war.- choster (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2012 (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: Oppose speedy. All Canadian soccer related categories will still be speedy renamed per C2C and per Category:Soccer clubs in Canada. Steam5 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nomination Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2012 (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: When is a "time period" an "historical era," and when isn't it? That's one question I guess the community will need to help me with, at this CfD. I noticed the target category, created by me just weeks after the source cat by Stefanomione, through the sweeping and much-needed discussion about works by years and decades of setting. I believe there is more work to be done, and I offer this as an example of where we might continue. I don't especially care which way the merge goes, though I've proposed merging into "my" category as I do prefer the "in popular culture" naming structure to the more opaque (imo) "works by period."But maybe I'm not being objective. And again, maybe time periods and historical eras are two distinct things, but if so, how they are distinct is not clear to me, nor, I suspect, to other readers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the contents of these categories? These are not for "fine art works," these are for books, films, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click the link to find out what fine arts actually are considered to be? Things like books, films, etc.... - jc37 01:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a poor substitute for the current terminology, a) because literature ("books") doesn't seem to be mentioned and b) the lead states that there's a built in ambiguity to the term, with some meanings restricting it to the visual arts. I see you've opened another CfD to address the "creative works" scheme as a whole, and I think that's a better course to follow than to try to haphazardly slip in the term "fine arts" as a synonym for "works" or "popular culture" in some obscure mid-level category. It's only going to cause confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(rubs eyes) I thought I saw writing (literature/poetry) listed as a fine art, my apologies.
And nod, I just think that any term we use is going to be vague or not quite a good "fit" in one way or other. - jc37 05:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, reluctantly - I understand the nom's reasons for wanting to merge the two categories but a merge in either direction is problematic. I don't think we should merge into Category:Works by period because, frankly, I think that much of that category tree needs to be pruned. I also don't think we should merge into Category:Historical eras in popular culture since much of the content of the 'Works' tree does not fall under the label of 'popular culture', as defined here. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the current name is bad, it looks like it is about works created during a period, instead of works set in a period. 65.92.180.188 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Category:Fictional works by historical period or Category:Fictional works by period of setting. This should be about historcial novels and their equivalent in film, TV, etc. I would suggest Category:Period pieces should also be merged into this. Possibly at the very top of the tree, the word "fiction" should be omitted, but history by period, whether books, documentaries or docu-dramas, ought not to be in a category concerned with fictinal works. There is a significant difference between attempts to build up a story based on documetned facts and litarery attempts to weave a story around them with the gaps filled by the author's invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to pick between those two, Category:Fictional works by historical period. The latter would open the door to fictional periods. (The Galactic Era, The Foundation Era, etc. Just to name two from Asimov's works.) - jc37 22:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would leave out a favourite area of mine, documentary works, which can be about historical eras without being fictional. But then we could just use a {{catrel}} tag to connect any such related categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, while not a fan of either term, I picked one, if I had to pick between only those two. That said, these are period pieces, and if categorised as such, should be under that name per WP:COMMONNAME. - jc37 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge because these two sets of categories are within different parents, Category:Historical eras and the whole years/centuries hierarchy. Add {{CatRel}} to link them instead. RenameCategory:Works by period to Category:Works by period of setting (or Category:Works by time period of setting to match some sub-cats, although I don't think any of them need the word "time"). To answer the nominator's question, a "time period" is an "historical era" for this purpose if it has a parent category in Category:Historical eras. So, looking at the five current sub-cats: Antiquity, Middle Ages, Tudor, Victorian – OK, but Indian history is not a historical era and should be removed after this CFD closes. IMHO, Category:Period pieces needs to be nominated for upmerger and redirect to Category:Historical fiction or Category:Works by period, and its TV and radio sub-cats should be renamed to match the sub-categories in the latter for films and novels. The three sub-cats of Category:Works by period for Roaring Twenties, Great Depression and Beat Generation should be moved down into Category:Works set in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s respectively, as these are a sufficiently close match. – Fayenatic L(talk) 21:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we move from an era name to a numerical decade which doesn't exactly match the era? For example, the great depression started in 1929, which isn't in the 30's at all. - jc37 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but IMHO it's a close enough match, which is allowed under WP:SUBCAT. Nevertheless, I would have no objection if another editor felt it appropriate to make it also a subcat of 1920s, or to move it up to 20th century. Even so, having flicked through the contents, I still think that 1930s is a very strong match. The goal of moving those three down was to leave Category:Works by period as a container for only two sorts of categories: by time period (century/decade), and by medium. Other specific periods are covered in the decade/century cats already. – Fayenatic L(talk) 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you disagree, but I strongly feel that categorising fictional works by presuming the numerical year of setting (even if the author tells us that it's set in a particular year) is just something we shouldn't be doing. So while to you, the eras should be removed and the numerical ones kept, I feel the eras ones should be kept and the numerical ones removed. Consider also that setting is more than time. It's also place. And as noted in the other currently running CfDs, the naming of an era typically indicates a particular region/culture and a particular time simultaneously. The numeric year ones, do not. And that is just problematic on several levels. This shouldn't be about our opinion or our convenience. This should be as precise and accurate as possible. And incidentally, I would think that it would be far more helpful to our readers to note that some victorian era author's work which was set in the victorian age, rather than to say that it was set in some particular year. And further, by doing this, we eliminate most or all of the writing about the future or past (such as 2001, or 1984, or 1889, or 1776, or whatever). - jc37 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You talkin' to me? I have not said we should presume the year; I said at CFD March 18 we should recategorise any unclear cases up to decade/century. I have not said the eras should be removed; I opposed merging them, i.e. IMHO the eras should be kept (as well as the years). I have not said anything that would disagree about place also being important. As for the year categories, do you not acknowledge any value in the WW2 films being subdivided by year of setting? – Fayenatic L(talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not, my apologies. I'll re-read the 3 discussions and see how I may have come to this mistaken understanding of your perspective. - jc37 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what happened, my comments weren't clear. I meant that you (presumably) prefer to merge to numeric years (roaring twenties to 1920s), and I prefer the reverse. I see this as accuracy over convenience. But regardless, that's a different nom than this one : ) - jc37 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't go for "reverse merge"; my !vote was "oppose merge", i.e. keep both. "Roaring twenties" is a cultural term, and IMHO should be a sub-cat of 1920s. Both should be kept, as they have different parent categories. – Fayenatic L(talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article period piece suggests that the term may refer to an earlier period of setting, or an earlier period of popularity, or (IIUC) year of creation. If the article is right, the term is obviously far too ambiguous to use for categorisation. If the meaning includes other arts than fiction, then Category:works by period (preferably renamed "works by period of setting") is where it should be redirected. (BTW, note that at the CFD March 18 I have suggested a new hierarchy of "YYYY in historical fiction" [renaming "YYYY in fiction"] as a subcat of "Works set in YYYY" - RSVP there.) – Fayenatic L(talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, it may be too broad. But even so, I would agree that it should still exist as a category redirect. As for works set in YYYY, as things currently stand, I am dead set against keeping any cat which uses a specific numerical date for fictional settings. You will likely have a difficult time convincing me that categorising by this is a good idea. But I'll go there and see what you have presented, comment further there. - jc37 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge the "period" seems to be the prefered term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the parent category Category:Historical eras? The options are either (i) merge that into Centuries or abolish it (surely not), (ii) take away any connection between historical fiction and each parent historical era, or (iii) just "Keep". – Fayenatic L(talk) 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BF, above, in that this really shouldn't be mixed with pop culture. - jc37 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the attempts to distinguish "popular culture" from "works" ends up building artificial and arbitrary lines that boil down to "my form of art is better than yours."John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see pop culture have a separate nom to discuss it. - jc37 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Ok, let's try to make this easier for the closer (if we can : )
Let's break this up into its parts.
era vs period vs age - While I prefer "era" (per Category:Historical eras), I think "period" currently seems to have the most support. (And matches "period piece", the common term for this.)
works vs fictional works vs historical fiction - If period piece is too broad, then "works" is even more so. I prefer "historical fiction" to match a parent Category:Historical fiction.
"setting" - this needs to be added to disambiguate between "set in" and "produced in".
Once this is resolved, we can decide whether to merge this to Category:Period pieces, or vice versa.
I welcome others' thoughts on this. (If a closer would like to relist this, I'm fine with that.) - jc37 16:48, 9 April 2012 (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:Wrong forum; discussion has already started in the appropriate place. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename per C2C: all other subcategories in Category:British comics use this naming convention. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2012 (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:Upmerge to both parents. This is the only year-specific toy category we have.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom - I doubt there are enough articles to truly make "toys by year" a viable diffusion of "toys by decade". - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge until it can be more fully populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- There are far too many attmepts to split everything of this kind donw to single years, when decades, or even centuries would be better. Fads in toys generally last a few years, so the the year when they first hit the market is not necessarily that of their greatest popularity. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2012 (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:The Ambiguously Gay Duo screenshots[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 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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to comply with similar categories on periods of modern Greek history Constantine ✍ 08:48, 23 March 2012 (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:speedily rename at category creator's request (CSD G7). -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: error by creator Constantine ✍ 08:38, 23 March 2012 (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:Universities in the People's Republic of China[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:Spedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category needs renaming in the same way, so I have added it to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection in principle but is there a distinction in Chinese tertiary education between unversities and colleges. If they are in fact all universities, do we really need to change it for consistency with the rest of the world? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three colleges in the Beijing category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2C and per Mike. Steam5 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2012 (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: At first glance, this single-member category appears to be for Khowar-language organizations – i.e., organizations which officially use the Khowar language. This characteristic is, in my opinion, not defining and should not be categorized (it's worth noting that we do not have Category:Organizations by language). On closer examination, however, the category also could serve as a container for organizations whose focus is the Khowar language. This would be defining, since it it relates to the purpose of the organization, but a new category title would be needed to identify the revised scope.
There are some specific institutions which are promoting only a language i.e. National Language Authority. So I think this category should not be removed. --ساجد امجد ساجد (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2012 (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:Rename. Rename to match the main article. This wound up at this title as the result of a problematic move of the parent category from metropolitan area to valley. This move changed the scope of this entire series of categories from about 8,000 sq mi or so to 600 sq mi. The move was based on a redirect from the metro area to the the valley article that is there only because a manual cleanup of around 4,000 links is still needed, not because in the long run that the redirect is correct. Most of the links should go to the valley, but a good number are really for the metro area. So it is a manual review and not a bot task. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No since the city is a small piece of what is called Las Vegas. The primary use of Las Vegas is for the Valley at 600 sqmi or the metro area which is what is covered by most statistics that are released by the government which covers 8,000 sqmi. The business center is the strip which is not in the city. Where the city breakout is needed, a disambiguator is added like for Category:Streets in Las Vegas, Nevada. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (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 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: unnecessary and broad category, what is considered as "midwest" DeleteSecretaccount 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMidwest hip hop is a genre--hip hop is divided into regional scenes (East Coast, West Coast, Dirty South, hyphy, etc.) and this is one of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:40, 23 March 2012 (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.
