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: seems like the two categories are semantically identical Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.Support reverse merge per Dimadick below. Also merge the parenting.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:Prehistory in fiction which is about fiction set in prehistory. The other term sounds like it is fiction produced in prehistory. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Dimadick these are two different topics. If the setting is prehistory, it should use the first category, if it was created in prehistory (predating the written word), it should use the second. There should be many tales originating before written history that can be categorized into the second category. Since written history begins at different periods in different regions, we should have many tales to fill it. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All content of the both categories is about fiction set in prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would only be the current contents, not possible use of the second category. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep empty categories. But if you want to populate the category with fiction from prehistory, please go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not while a CfD is going on. When we clean it up and add {{popcat}} then it would be time to add tales from prehistory. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge or Category:Fiction set in prehistory. Prehistoric fiction should be fiction written in prehistory, but that is probably an oxymoron. Such ancient works as might possibly be claimed for this are usually regarded as myth. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an oxymoron if you create the story in prehistory, but write it down afterwards. An illiterate person can still create stories, without writing it down. The chronicler who writes it down is not the author of the story. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source story behind The Flood and Epic of Gilgamesh was an orally told story predating the written forms which all diverge from each other, academically conjectured to be dating to the flooding of the Black Sea before writing was invented anywhere in the world
All stories from all cultures that did not develop their own methods of writing which originate prior to contact with written cultures or introduction of writing
Sorry for not specifying my question more clearly. What I meant was, do you have an example of an article that would fit in the category? Article Gilgamesh clearly doesn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge although I still think Category:Fiction set in pre-history would be even more clear. Labeling as fiction what is held by members of an ethno-religious group to be accurate recontings of the group origin, such as the creation accounts and migration accounts of various Native American groups would be problematic. So I think we should avoid labeling anything as pre-historic fiction. Plus, the definition of pre-historic is somewhat fuzzy. As we learn from works like "Tell Them They Lie", just because we have little to no direct evidence of a written word among a group, it is at times problematic to assume the group lacked such. The account in "Tell Them They Lie" Makes a lot more sense then the standard story of the origins of the Cherokee Syllabary, which do not explain such devotion to a system invented less than 10 years before. That it was a closely gaurded secret for generations made public by Sequoia makes a lot more sense. On another note, just because the Spanish burned many codecies while they were invading Meso-America does not discount that the people of Meso-America were keeping records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 26 March 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:Publications and organizations using Oxford spelling[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The particular style guide or English spelling format used by a publication or organization is not a defining characteristic of it. There is no existing category tree that categorizes in this way. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: Oxford spelling deviates from dominant British spelling in a very specific way (-ize vs -ise). Its use has become rare (not a single UK newspaper uses -ize). In addition, its use is controversial because -ize is often incorrectly considered to be an Americanism in Commonwealth countries. It is the only (minority) spelling standard within a national variety of English that was a assigned a subtag by IANA (en-GB-oed, or en-GB-oxendict). Summary: Oxford spelling is specific, rare, controversial - this does make it a defining characteristic.Grammmarrr (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic. DonIago (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've changed my mind (see above). I had a different understanding of defining characteristing. After reading the Wikipedia guide line about it, I agree that the category should be deleted. Grammmarrr (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please strike your prior comment? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether one uses -ise or -ize is hardly defining..Next we'll categorize people on how they pronounce tomato. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Oxford English dictionaries are the standard for British English. "-ize" is often given as a variant in OED, because it is acknowledging the alternative usage derived from Webster. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I know this is pedantic of me and not central to this discussion, but what you wrote is not correct about OED. OED sets out "-ize" as the English standard in every case, and then also includes "-ise" as British variants. "-ize" did not derive from Webster—as set out in OED, the "-ize" forms are older, more "original" English. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 13 March 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.
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:no consensus. — ξxplicit 06:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The first member is not about "buttocks" but about an insult to "Comic Dog" (according to the article. Categories are supposed to be defining, but "songs about" relegates defining to mere mention without reference in the article, confirmation by third party and ignoring use of metaphor, allegory, parable and every other linguistic trick used as in "this is scraping the bottom of the barrel." Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found 3 entries in this non-existing category, so I created it. There might be other articles which could appropriately be there. I haven't looked. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, this discussion should be closed in conjunction with the larger discussion about the whole category tree of Songs by theme, to be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Since consensus in the other discussion is growing that every song theme category should be nominated separately, this nomination can be closed independently of the other after all.Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least listify. The nominator does not identify the article he refers to; it is presumably "Ass Like That", in which case he has not read it – it says the song impersonates Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog ogling booty; NME's review "groin-levelled doodle" confirms the subject matter. The category now has 11 member articles, for most of which the topic appears to be clearly defining. – FayenaticLondon 22:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The discussion linked by Marcocapelle above indicates that there is no consensus that the subcategories of Category:Songs by theme are inherently non-defining. Questionable inclusion of a single category member is not grounds for deletion, and no other arguments for deleting this particular category have been advanced. Ibadibam (talk) 00:53, 29 April 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.
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. What specifically is a "belief character?" Why have JC, Buddha and a few others been omitted? (that's not a theological question, people and children do believe). And I can't find much to support the inclusion of "Childhood" in the articles I checked. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now I'm actually open to a category for childhood folklore that is told to children as true but not believed by adults, as part of the standard transmission of the stories. But it really needs main article to explain the concept and provide inclusion criteria. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriately links together mythological and folkloric figures from various cultures. Cupid is a Roman deity, the equivalent of Greek Eros. The Easter Bunny is a German folklore figure dating to the 17th century. Father Time is a personification of time and might be connected to Chronos, the Greek personification of time. Jack Frost is a personification of winter weather and part of the wide-spread Deities and personifications of seasons. Leprechaun is an Irish kind of folkloric figure and may be connected to the Tuatha Dé Danann of older Irish/Celtic mythology. Man in the Moon legends are part of the human perception of the full moon. Mother Goose is the fictional author of French and British collections of fairy tales and nursery rhymes, the name likely deriving from the 17th century when it was used by Charles Perrault. Mother Nature is a personification of nature as a mother and likely derives from pagan deities like Greek Gaia and Roman Terra. Sandman is European folkloric figure which grew to a prominent literary character in the 19th century. Santa Claus is a Christian folkloric depiction of Saint Nicholas. Stingy Jack is a folkloric figure about a man who deceived Satan and was sentenced to roam eternally, denied access to Heaven and Hell. Tooth fairy is a 20th century figure of uncertain origins. The White stork is a very real species of bird with various folkloric associations. What the heck do they have to do with "childhood belief" and since when do adults stop transmitting folklore? Dimadick (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is currently formatted, it suffers from Western Bias since the description used specifically emphasizes Western Culture for no discernable reason -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I agree it is too nebulous and probably requires POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 13 March 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.
