Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17[edit]

Category:Fictional molecular physicists[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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sub is almost empty and is simply not needed. JDDJS (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support The lone article doesn't mention molecular physicist and to my knowledge there is not such a field in real life. Molecules are typically considered part of atomic physics or chemical physics. --Mark viking (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom A singe item category with an unclear definition. Dimadick (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2016 (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:Printing Revolution[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: merge the first; rename Category:Historians of the Printing Revolution to Category:Historians of printing; rename Category:Books about the Printing Revolution to Category:History books about printing (a better fit in Category:History books by topic); and delete the last. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as it's not clear how Printing Revolution is defined and how it distinguishes itself from History of printing in general. We do not have an article about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Printing and publishing are not the same.Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the three books in the category, two are actually about media in general, throughout history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mergers to "media". Instead Category:Historians of printing and Category:Books about printing history. Issues about other media largely relate to 20th century (possibly c.1880-present). I am profoundly unhappy with subsuming an important change of c.600 years ago into something that is generally so recent. The Works category is a redundant level of category, and should have a full upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, support this rename, because at least it avoids the term "Printing Revolution". Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more! Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not very clear. There is a redirect to a section of History of printing about the impact of the invention of book printing, is this supposed to be the Printing Revolution? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term usually refers to the books, but more their effects. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bottom line, there is still no article about the Printing Revolution, not even a mentioning of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what many people think, there are all sorts of important subjects we don't have articles on. I'd imagine only a small proportion of categories have a main article that exactly fits. I rather wish people would confine their new categories to things that do though, but there will always be exceptions. This is not a strong argument. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand we should avoid categories based on a non-notable topic. Trying to get a category for a term that hasn't passed (or wouldn't pass) a notability test is a kind of forum shopping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic clearly is notable - I suggest you read a few pages here - and so far from being forum shopping it has no article because no one has ever bothered to start one, because Wikipedians these days prefer to fiddle with categories & other gnomish tasks rather than actually write anything. The term seems to have been popularized by the title of the abbreviated edition of this book, from 1983 (see pp. 2-3). Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link. Chapter 20 of this book is about the Printing Revolution, where the term is defined as "the distribution of texts on a level unknown in the time of manuscripts". With this definition max one article might stay in Category:Printing Revolution, namely Global spread of the printing press (although this is actually about the spread of printing, not the spread of texts), and all the rest should definitely be moved to the parent Category:History of printing. So the merge is okay anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I certainly don't agree with thast. But no doubt it won't take you long to think up a new argument. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, especially the ones to "media". I think Printing Revolution, whose contents I have adjusted (removing some, adding more) is a worthwhile category. Our article summary is split over various articles, which is a pity. This has been a contentious area in the past, but now seems neglected & not very coherently covered. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (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:Capitalist books[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the header says that it's meant for books relating to (promoting) capitalism, this hardly differentiates it from its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The difference seems almost unintentional since it says "Books related to capitalism" belong in the subcategory as well. Surely any book "about capitalism" is also "related to capitalism". --Odie5533 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I don't see a difference between the cats either. --Mark viking (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- obviously they should be the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2016 (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.

A list of articles depicting celebrities which ought to be merged/changed into 'Category:Cultural depictions of...'[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: Merge/Rename all per amended nomination. There seems to be consensus that the distinction between the concepts of "depictions" and "cultural depictions" is confusing and possibly meaningless, but also that since the current category structure predominantly uses "cultural depictions" , these categories should follow the convention.
However, I note that we do have a Category:Depictions of people as a parent of Category:Cultural depictions of people, so maybe that aspect of the category hierarchy needs further attention. Pinging the participants in case any of them wants to direct their attentions to either annotating the categories to clarify the distinction, or proposing some wider mergers and/or renamings. (Pings: Kjell Knudde, Marcocapelle, Johnbod, Peterkingiron, Fayenatic london, Xover). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would be more in line with all the other categories about cultural depictions of historical people or celebrities. User:Kjell Knudde 11:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support, looks like a simple case of WP:C2C. The categories could have been nominated for speedy rename here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? SERIOUSLY???? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggghhhh!!!!!! Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I think this was the proper venue. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These all fit under the "cultural depictions" scope. Are there other categories covering depictions of Biblical characters? Dimadick (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mergers of the existing two category layers for Jesus, John, Mary, Shakespeare and Columbus, which serve as parents for separate categories for static art (paintings, sculpture) and cultural works (e.g. films, books). As for Muhammad, the lead article is Depictions of Muhammad. The others might usefully be split rather than renamed. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kjell Knudde: I have partly refactored your nomination to use the standard terminology for renaming and merging. "Deleting" categories would mean that we remove the member articles from the hierarchy altogether. – Fayenatic London 12:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: Just to double check, is your opposition based on an objection to consider art as part of culture? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I can't object to the merger on that basis. However, it seems worthwhile to me to maintain separate categories & hierarchies for visual representations and narrative representations. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not certain what the benefit would be. By having the "in art" category as a subcategory of "cultural depictions" it still remains a separate category, it just saves an extra layer of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for pointing that out. I withdraw my general objection. Let me ping @Johnbod: who has expressed a strong interest in this hierarchy in the past ([1]). The Shakespeare and Columbus ones should not be merged by renamed to follow "X in art", and made sub-categories instead of parents of "Cultural depictions". Category:Depictions of Adam and Eve should perhaps be split into Category:Cultural depictions of Adam and Eve and Category:Adam and Eve in art, but that could be done by a rename and then manual work afterwards to create a new sub-category. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, somewhat reluctantly. What exactly is a "non-cultural depiction" likely to be? The tree isn't actually all that standard. To be clear in most cases these "depictions" are an unnecessary layer with two sub-cats, one for art and one for "cultural depictions". The art sub-cats must be retained, with their other parents, but should be sub-cats of "cultural depictions", & "depictions" removed. The nom doesn't actually make this clear. Thanks for the ping.
Support Category:Gautama Buddha in popular culture to Category:Cultural depictions of Gautama Buddha - none actually seem to be "popular" in fact
Support Category:Depictions of Muhammad to Category:Cultural depictions of Muhammad - The many "popular culture" ones should be split out.
support effective delete, as above Jesus, John the Baptist, and the rest. Moses, Adam and Eve & others could do with splitting to sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What the heck is a "cultural depiction"? Are there non-cultural depictions? What's wrong with just "depictions"? I'm offering no !vote here since I haven't looked at it in the larger picture (I came here through the article alert for the Shakespeare category), and I'm not opposed to renames for consistency with a broader standard, but in this case the proposal seems both pointless and nonsensical from where I'm sitting (note: only my perception of it; not intended as a criticism of the nominator!). Also, this CfD seems to have been open for a month and a half, and the last comment was (I think) over a month ago. Someone needs to close it (I would suggest as "no consensus", but…) or act to get broader discussion. It's just accumulating dust as it is. --Xover (talk) 14:33, 1 February 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_17&oldid=1027665006"