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. Category now has three members so a discussion that started with one member could be misleading. No problem with an immediate new nomination based on the current contents and the discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Vote above unchanged) According to British usage the navy and air force are NOT military. Jordan was a British protectorate, so that I expect that British uisage is appropriate. However we certainly have too many categories here and they need to be rationaliused somehow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2013 (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.
Keep We have long accepted very small categories for holders of majorly important international offices. and these Roman Emperors (that was their real title) clearly qualify as the top international leaders of their time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That we could accept a very small category because they were emperors does not mean we should. Not seeing a purpose to such a small category that obviously cannot grow. Resolute21:12, 7 July 2013 (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.
do not rename Create a new category as actually both categories are needed. One to hold the subsidiaries and one to hold the non-subsidiary articles as well as the subsidiary category. Hmains (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2013 (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.
Per our article: "The European Capital of Culture is a city designated by the European Union for a period of one calendar year during which it organises a series of cultural events with a strong European dimension" So, at best, this is a "current category" because if the designation is defining for a city, why does the city lose the title after year? Apparently, Brussels no longer thinks the city worthy of being denoted as a capital of culture. Moreover, each city seems to have to come from specific countries with no recognition that London or Rome has never won, but Luxembourg has won twice shows the non-defining nature of the award, unless the consensus here is that Luxembourg has twice the culture of Antwerp, and London and Rome are culture-less. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous CFD was withdrawn after the nominator was told that ECoC is a big deal in Europe. IMO, in the UK at least, thats dubious - a news item about an event may mention that it's part of ECoC activities, but I don't see much in the national news about ECoC itself. Even if it was a big deal, "a year-long series of events accompanied by ... promotion of a city" (quoting from one of the keep votes in the previous CFD) isn't (in the long term) a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. DexDor (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see no distinction from the Olympic category, which we have now deleted. I am not sure whether to say it is an award category or a perfomrance category, but it is certainly in that area. A different city is given the title each year (which is an award). This comes with a lot of funding to enable it to improve its cultural assets (effectively a prize). It is certainly highly defining in the year and shortly after, but not permanently. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely not defining, they change yearly - so is the capital of culture suddenly devoid of culture once it's year in the limelight is over? very similar to various US things like Tree City USA or All American City. Meaningless, other than getting a few euro out of Brussels and throwing a party with it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have come to understand a bit more about this status since I started the last nomination. As I look through news reports etc. about it, it seems to be a relatively big deal in Europe during the year the city holds the status. After the time has passed, however, it pretty much ceases to be defining for the city and is rarely mentioned. It's a transient definingness, if anything, which to me would suggest that it's not really defining in the timeless way that that term is usually meant. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify - We should not categorize people & places by association. Here it's a sort of roving tourist festival season. Eventually and in theory every European city could be so classified. A list would be much better, since it can group the cities by country, or era, or theme, or other relevant indexing attributes. --Lquilter (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2013 (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.
Oppose -- It is NOT fiction. The Illiad purports to be history; we do not know of quite what date or how accurate the tradition embodied in it. The Iliad, as one of the few surviving narrative works of the ancient world is such an important work that the normal rules on this should not apply. Robin Hood is not a good precedent, because there is no single literary work incorporating the tale. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Iliad is a work of history, "(real) places mentioned in <book>" isn't a category structure that should be encouraged. The Second World War (book series) is an important work, but we shouldn't use it to categorize every place it mentions. DexDor (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put one or two or twenty ancient works in a separate class. ... In its original, there's only one, but that might be said of many myths -- that there is one original source work. Then it gets adapted into many others. ... And even if there were only one text, the real places referred to it have changed name, geopolitical identities, and so forth over time ... --Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Mythological locations in the Iliad" would be OK (in WP categorization mythology is a subset of fiction). It would still enable real places to be removed from the category. DexDor (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other than the Bible, I don't think we have a cat like this. The Iliad may (or may not be) the next most read book in English translation. But, we ought go no futher. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. People do not approach and treat the Illiad as a work of history, they treat it as a literary work, mentioning fictional places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People do approach the Iliad as a historical work. It has an ancient religious framework. Comparing the Iliad with the Bible is imbalanced due to different historical scope. A comparison with the books of Samuel might be better. Are the Books of Samuel fiction? Is the Iliad fiction? These questions are better left to article, and it is better to leave categories silent on asserting that something like the Iliad is fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(still oppose as vote above). The Illiad purports to be a hisotrical work, not fiction. Comparison can appropriately be made with the two great Hindu epics, such as the Mahabaratha; the history books in the Bible; and several other national epics. These claim to be history, though how far the story has been altered in oral trnasmission before it was writtne down will always be a matter of debate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to fictional locations per nom - Whether you consider the Iliad historical or fictional or ancient myth or whatever, we ought not categorize real places by cultural associations. --Lquilter (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2013 (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.
