Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 6

==August 6==

=== ===

rename -- 13:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, Literary characters (i.e. fictional characters in literature) is a subcat of Fictional characters. Theres no real reason here that I see for deleting. What about 03:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC) **By literature do you mean written fiction (as say, opposed to film or computer-based fiction) If so i think the term is misleading, as many people assume that Literary refers to high quality or serious fiction. If the meaning is to be any written fiction then many entries are wrongly placed in 15:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC) ***Literature s definition is written works . I don t think it s ambiguous. If it s a problem over fiction vs non-fiction then perhaps rename Literary fictional characters , although I feel listing Bill Clinton under Literary Characters because the category could imply something else is just silly. If there are articles under Fictional characters that are from works of literary fiction then obviously I think they should be moved to the appropriate article. That s not a fault of this category. I don t feel deletion is proper in this case. 22:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC) ****The vast majority of the content of 22:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *****No, you ve definitely misunderstood me. 22:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC) ******I understand you are saying that 04:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *******When I said you misunderstood me, I thought the answer to your question would be implied. That said, No . The subcategories were created after Fictional characters and apparently no one has taken the time to do a proper sort. You can t blame that on 06:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep or Rename I m already in the middle of just such a sort as is mentioned above as being needed. The category Fictional Characters (FC) is indeed horridly over general and over populated. I m in the process of moving as many entries as possible out of FC and into sub categories. That said, I beleive we do need a subcategory for characters of written literature. And currently Literary Characters is the only place that fits that bill. So as of my current, and ongoing sort effort, that s where characters from written literature are going. I would have no problem with renaming the category to something clearer, but IMHO it serves a vital place in the scheme of subcategories under FC, and removing it would just make things worse for the already messy FC parent. 15:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

*I proposed deletion for 15:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. All three of us chatting here seem to be at least willing to accept a rename, so the next question is, what would be an appropriate rename And what is the proper venue for such a discussion. Here

:: Possibilities tossed out so far include: :: 1) Fictional characters (written) :: 2) Characters in written fiction :: The pattern of the rest of the subcategories is XXXX characters , so the first option is closer to comforming to the existing subcategories. Not sure if the (written) conforms, but it certainly gets the point across. :: Then there s the issue of the literary subcategories of Literary Characters. (Literary Fantasy and Literary Science Fiction. Any reasoning to rename FC would apply equally to these two. 16:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

***As I understand it, category renames are also discussed on this page, so doing this here seems fine. I would be ok with any name that a) does not include the word literary , b) does include the word written or soem form of it, and c) deos include fiction or fictional . On the subcategories, note that i nmominated the Literary Science Fiction for deletion the day before I nominated this category, and the only person responding so far agreed with my reasoning. I agree that all three should be handled in the same way. Thanks for taking time to discuss this with me. 16:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC) **** Ok. You definitely appear to be in the Rename camp now, so would you mind changing your vote at the top of this to Rename, to make it clear for whatever Moderator eventually processes it Same on the Literary Science Fiction CfD. And finally, are you willing to set up a Rename CfD on Literary Fantasy as well I ll definitely support that one as well, and I have not set up a CfD myself before. 16:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to any name that gains consensus which fits the restrictions in my comments above. This is a change in my vote from my nomination vote, which i have struck out. i will also start a CfD-rename for the fantasy sub-cat. 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *I still don t really know whats wrong with the word Literature/Literary , but if it needs to be changed to be more clear, why not something like Fictional characters in books or Book characters - something to that effect I don t like the whole (written) deal. 17:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC) **It seems to me that using Literature/Literary is implicitly making a claim about quality, which is PoV an inappropriate. Yes, the original meaning of Literature is simply writing, but that is not how it is most used, i think. Go into any bookstore and see what is in the Literature section. When a college has a class in Literature , see the kinds of works being covered. As to using Book/books writtn fiction includes short works that may not have appered as a book and includes electronically published fiction, so i think written is better. But I wouldn t fight book . I do think that fiction or fictional should be included if possible, as it makes more explicit what this category is supposed to be about, IMO. 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. The category currently has characters from short stories and poems. Characters that are from written sources, but not necessarily from books . So I m not too enthused with Books . Let me grab the Thesaurus, and see if I can come up with an alternative wording. 17:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Strike out. Nothing jumps out at me from the Thesaurus as a good alternative word. Sorry. 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

*Merge/Delete, I understand the reasoning behind it, but if we can t find a clear name for it then it should go (and the current name isn t clear). 09:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I have no problem with this one either. -- 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Feel free to rename it. 21:18, 2005 August 10 (UTC) *Keep. I don t see much wrong with this. - 21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename this and its subcategories: literary is easily misinterpreted. 07:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC) **I would be fine with this. This would allow the sub-cats to be 12:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Do we have a consensus to rename to does anyone who supports a rename object to this 17:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC) **I guess I support this given a couple people above believe Literary to be misinterpreted. If it has to be changed to be more clear, then this is the best naming proposal I ve seen. 17:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

My only problem with this name, and it s not a strong problem, is that this name does not fit the pattern of the rest of the Characters category structure. The rest are pretty much done uniformly as XXX Characters , not Characters in XXX . If people can live with this. My other concern is with the Literary Science Fiction characters category. I asked that the delete/rename Cfd on that one be suspended until this one, the parent category, is finished. It was instead closed with no descision. That category has identical issues as this one. If this category is renamed, would it be improper to reopen the Cfd on the Lit SF char cat in order to see it kept in sync with it s parent s name 17:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

***I sent a msg to the closer, and he basically said that as it stood there was no consensus. If this is closed as a rename, i plan to re-nominated that one citing this decision, explicitly asking for a parallel rename. As to the characters in foo vs foo characters the only for we came up with like the latter used the parenthetic comment (written) which was not warmly recieved. I am open to other ideas, if anyone has any. 18:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC) **** I can live with your name. My concern with the consistency is not that strong, as I mentioned before. So, in order to settle this all out, consider me a voice of acceptance of Characters in written fiction , and, for the two children, Characters in written science fiction and Characters in written fantasy . 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

no consensus (keep, but fix cap problem) -- 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The capitalisation issue is obvious, but it needs the hyphen, strictly speaking (though I could live without it if other editors thought it too fussy; there s no real danger of ambiguity in this case). -- 22:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, not likely to be filled with much items ever. 16:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename Number one singles . I m not really sure if a hyphen is proper 03:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC) *Rename - a hyphen isn t really necessary. More to the point, assuming this means Number one singles in the U.S. then the title should make it clear. Other countries have singles charts as well. 10:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *I think the hyphen is desireable. If the category is open to top singles from all countries, that should be made explicit. If not, then U.S. should be included in the category title. 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 01:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC) *Rename to hyphenated, per nom. (And specifically oppose Neutrality s suggestion; the hash is horrific!) - 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename -- 14:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, as every other country s category is titled in this way. -- 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nominator and observe that 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom. Agree with *Rename. 01:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC) *Rename for consistency, unless there is a good reason to not do so. 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Created more than two weeks ago, and the category still has no content. If there ever are enough articles about Polish oil companies to fill a category, then by all means recreate this category. But until then, I say delete. 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Any relevant companiy-articles can be placed in 14:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete as above. But on a related note, please call by 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Question: isn t this just example of overcategorisation Is the TV product really so notable to have category and even such long one 16:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 16:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Mel Etitis. - 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above 15:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename 01:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the name of this category is ambiguous, we must clearly make a distinction between XML standards now in 12:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC) : I have no problem with the alternative name proposed 18:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *I don t know enough to comment on the need for a move, but if it is moved, the new title should be 14:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per Mel Etitis. 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 01:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename 01:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I ve placed it here rather than speedy-renaming it because, first, I m not 100% sure about the capitalisation, and secondly, because I d like some help transferring the large number of articles in the category. -- 10:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nomination. I think we go with capitals for things like this, it being the name of an award. - 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense category, there is still the possibilty to dye hair. -- 10:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, way too broad a category (even with comparative rarity of naturally red hair). (Also misnamed, their hair is red not their head.) Such a cat doesn t extract any useful encyclopedic information from the article, and we don t have 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy delete. 00:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 16:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Useless category, Wikpedia already suffers from over-categorization. -- 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Splash 15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently both were created just for 09:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Delete redundant. - 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete for me too -- 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 16:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

suspend until category titles discussion is complete -- 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Redundant, and appears to be an incorrect redirect to 08:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Defer to 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete If the wrong consensus is reached, this clumsy category will doubtless be recreated. 02:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Reverse merge 15:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Suspend per Splash. 16:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 01:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)