Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

Category:Music writers[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 all to "[Foo] writers about music", per list below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is intended for people who write non-fiction prose works about music, but its name is ambiguous enough that I just had to clean it up for the erroneous addition of several songwriters and/or composers. While it's true that the majority of its sibling categories are named in the format "[Subject] writers", we do have precedent (e.g. "Film writers") for switching to "Writers on [subject]" in cases where the standard name carries this kind of "writers about subject, or writers of individual pieces of subject?" ambiguity. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Comics writers" is for people who write comics, not people who write prose analysis about comics, and "television writers" is for people who write television programs, not people who write prose analysis about television — and sportswriters and garden writers are irrelevant here, because there's no possible ambiguity. Sports and gardens are not things that can be written per se, but things that can only be written about as a subject. The problem here remains that people have been filing songwriters and composers in here despite the existence of more appropriate categories for those things — like film and television, music is a thing that can be both written about as a subject and written as a thing in its own right, and we do have precedent for shifting to "writers on X" or "writers about X" in situations where "X writers" is ambiguous because X is a thing that can itself be written. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bearcat's rationale, but prefer Grutness' idea, "about" as opposed to "on". @Warren: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I would argue that "sportswriter" is an accepted term per my handy dandy dictionary, and you can't really "write" sports - you can only write about them. Same goes for gardens and horticulture. You can, however, write comics and TV shows. I feel it should be judged as to whether the thing can be written into existence or written about, and for things that can be both, "X writers" and "Writers about X" categories should be developed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    English already has three words for people who author music: Composer, Lyricist and Songwriter. And Wikipedia has two matching category hierarchies for that: Category:Composers and Category:Songwriters. Wikipedia already uses the term "music writer" pretty widely, and there are plenty of reliable sources that use the term. A routine Google search (your friend, BTW) for "Dave Thompson music writer" turns up lots of hits. "Writer on music" though? Almost nothing in comparison. — Warren. ‘ talk , 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have such words — but that doesn't stop people from sometimes misfiling composers and lyricists and songwriters in here anyway, just as the fact that we have the word screenwriter for people who write film scripts didn't stop people from misfiling screenwriters in Category:Film writers instead of Category:Screenwriters. Not every speaker of English necessarily always knows the proper word for everything. Category names are not necessarily restricted to "what's the most common name for it in the sources" — we have lots of categories where we've shifted to an alternate wording, if the usual name for it actually leads to a lot of misfiling within the Wikipedia category system. Yes, people should know better than to file a songwriter or a lyricist or a composer here — but they don't always, and we do take patterns of consistent misuse into account when deciding how best to name categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2018 (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:Biblical art by medium[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer, the two container categories together contain only five subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2018 (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:Music lending libraries[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful distinction. Most of the music libraries lend material. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2018 (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:Fictional bullies[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bullies, bully is a subjective term. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.
As a for instance, Ghits for "biff tannen bully" number 83,000. I sure that there are plenty of others that get similar numbers. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment None of the characters included so far seem to be super-villains, and the only one who is from the superhero genre is Flash Thompson (an early Spider-Man foe, turned into a long-running supporting character and eventually a hero in his own right). Most of the ones I recognize are children or teenagers, often in a school setting. I am not certain why Joffrey Baratheon is included. The character is a particularly sadistic monarch in a war-time setting, but rarely gets his own hands dirty. He mostly commands others to kill, torture, or humiliate whoever he wants to target. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But trim. There's certainly one individual in that category that is defined as being a fictional character who is a bully. Haw! Haw!. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Key defining characteristic for Nelson Muntz and Biff Tannen Ribbet32 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many fictional characters, such as Draco Malfoy are chiefly characterized and known as bullies. Since being a bully in many instances is considered the chief or important characteristic in many of these fictitious individuals, this category should be kept. I am not however opposed to removing the articles that are inappropriately placed in this article, but that is not an excuse to delete the whole category. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harry Flashman who is a fictional bully Hugo999 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2018 (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:Queens regnant of Hungary[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The subcat was created by a nationalist banned user for no reasonable purpose. The merge will return us to the status quo ante of 2014. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- An important subject, but two articles is too few for w worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this category will never have more than 2 articles. – Alensha talk 22:10, 31 January 2018 (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:Films whose cinematographer won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award[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. If anyone feels like making a list, I have listed the category's contents at Wikipedia_talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#Category:Films_whose_cinematographer_won_the_Best_Cinematography_Guldbagge_Award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING. Films are not primarily known for winning Best Cinematography at the Guldbagge Awards, the field is not as important as directing or writing and, argh, I hate to say it because of the America-centrism in the film industry, but the Guldbagge aren't as big as the Oscars. Sadly, this seems like overcategorization. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No-one will first think of this specific award in relation to the film. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDEFINING. Films aren't known by this award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. To be fair, it's not so much a problem of Guldbagges vs. Oscars per se — the average non-filmgeek person couldn't actually tell you who won the Oscar for Best Cinematographer either, let alone knowing what film they won it for. The Category:Best Cinematographer Guldbagge Award winners parent is a perfectly acceptable and defining category for the people who won the award — but it's not a defining characteristic of the films they worked on. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - over categorization and non-defining. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the others, but even if we kept it, we'd have to rename it to make it clear that these particular films won this award. The same cinematographer could work on another film that doesn't win the award, and someone could fudge it and go, "Well, this movie's cinematographer is an award-winner for this that or the other film, and the category's name doesn't imply it should only be used on movies that actually won the award," and so put this category on an article for a film that didn't win the award. In future, on the very nonexistent chance this category scheme actually gains traction as valid here on Wikipedia, it should be named Category:Films whose cinematography won the Best Cinematography Guldbagge Award. This category isn't about people, it's about specific films, but the name of the category doesn't currently reflect that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after listifying, if necessary -- This is essentially an AWARD category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2018 (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/2018_January_24&oldid=1073191638"