Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13

1491:, also, like it was done with town names. The five categories should stay as they are, and be applied to all Germans born there, no matter when. A better definition needs to be given in order to prevent edit-warring. There is enough work to do, fixing the damage already done. And then, cluttering the categories into many more according to changing administrative borders is a can of worms I am not going to touch, and hardly anybody else. What's next, hundreds of categories for German principalities during centuries of the HRE? Ridiculous, that would put many in a category of their own. What we need are about two dozens regional categories, along present 16 German state borders, plus some regions outside present Germany for the historic Germans from there. I don't oppose additional bean-counting subcategories, but insist on straightforward regional categories for an overview, and calling a German spade a German spade. -- 3245:) before they were noticed, but I needed to take a break (for dinner, etc). At any rate, since Johnbod has now saved me the effort with his explanatory paragraph, I will simply add that I went with "Colossal" for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, because the very meaning of the term had its origins in an enormous statue; and second because it is clearly an adjective, whereas "Giant" is also a noun and "Giant statues" could suggest "statues of giants". I did consider "Gigantic", but in the end, the derivation of "Colossal" was probably the deciding factor for me. That being said, if there is a concensus for another word for this particular category, no problem. 1747:

asap, with the current choice of 8 "German natives of" being fine for the undisputed German figures from there (of course, some try to dispute everybody and his dog). I have to remind again that many other categories call a national spade a spade, either "Xish people by state", or "People by Xish state". As the term "German state" gets often disputed for anything before 1871 (let alone Royal Prussia), this leaves us "German People of", as dropping all "German" from categories intended for Germans is not an option. I'll skip the issues with Bohemia/Moravia (German, Austrian, Czech?), and remind about the city famous for a vote:

1805:

Swiss-Germans, or Austrians their ethnicity and if you get a uniform "German" response I'd be surprised. The alternative suggested by nom is a little better because those born in Kaliningrad wouldn't be from East Prussia - but that designation didn't formally exist apparently until 1772, then was defunct in 1829-78, so are births or formative years spent during those periods a basis for exclusion from the category? Basically, there cannot be a non-arbitrary objective standard for inclusion or exclusion that is defining, so the category is improper.

1410:, citizens of modern German states are categorized under "People from ..." Citizens from German/Prussian states/provinces no longer part of Germany, however, have been categorized as "German natives of ...", although the ethnicity of many individuals has often been disputed. As such, it would be better to change the "German natives of ..." to "People from ..." Relevant alternative categories will be created for people who lived in the same geographic region, but at a different time from when the actual administrative units existed (ie 1868:. However, he self-identified with the Polish Masurians. Under the current system he would be incorrectly categorized as a "German native of East Prussia", while a possible categorization under "People from the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" (where his birthplace is now located) would be unacceptable. He would, however, correctly be categorized under "People from the Province of Prussia". My goal is not to categorize German citizens under ethnic categories, but to categorize people from Prussia (regardless of ethnicity) by province. 1680:, not used). We don't know what citizenship Mr. & Mrs. Heidelbergensis had, nor do we want to insist on a subcategory only for the notable persons born in (extraterritorial?) US-Bases in Germany. If there is a bio stub to be categorized, spotting the birth place on a modern day map and finding the proper one of 16 Bundesländer should be good enough as a start, no need to demand further historical inquiries. Within present-day Germany, it's hopefully uncontroversial, at least for a start. 1656:(regardless of ethnicity) from German states", as nobody is a citizen of the modern day Bundesländer - "resident in", "native of" or "people from", but not citizen, which exists only on national level, in Germany since 1913. Regarding former states and principalities, it's hard or impossible to determine citizenship in hindsight, for Knowledge (XXG) purposes it can mostly only be guessed based on birth place and time. If it's known without violating 3351:

combining two categories. Actually most of our visual arts articles are massively undercategorised, apart from Wikiproject Biography clutter & datecruft, compared to most areas of the project, but new categories still get this sort of response. There seems to be a specific objection to all attempts at classifying works of art as works of art, rather than as things in a place, or produced on a date, etc etc. Why? I find it really odd.

3392:, but support some renaming if kept. Despite some good arguments, this is rather too small a category to be viable; I appreciate the arguments for this as a distinct form, but I think that might be better addressed by an article on the phenomenon of monster statues of Jesus, comparing the different statues and discussing projects which never got off the ground. I notice that 5004:. "Historical" is in the eye of the beholder, "landmarks" has a dual meaning in reference to "medical": is the first heart transplant or test tube baby a medical landmark, I think people would think so. So what are these things in this category that ties them together: they are medical buildings or facilities, whether they are historical or landmark is subjective. 5185:. The smallness of a category is not a reason to delete it when the category is part of a pattern, as it is in this case. Of course, the category also has possibility of growth: more museum ships can be added to this location. Upmerging loses the fact that these ships are all located at this one location and provides no category to place in the parent category 2922:, right beside Interstate 75. I'll go with colossal if we must, but it has no International Conference of Art Historians Defined Standard (no - of course there is no such body), and would I think seem in practice vaguer to most readers. If you are concerned about avoiding an impression of vulgarity, you are barking up completely the wrong tree with this lot. 2853:. However, "giant" is just random, non-objective, and weird. If indeed it turns out that there are many, many statues and sub-categorizing is needed, then surely there's some kind of standard nomenclature for all figurative sculpture -- i.e., "miniature", "life-size", and "larger than life-size" or something. "Giant statues" indeed. -- 3536:. Size doesn't matter, because it'll eventually be an arbitrary cut off (what's giant? larger than life? and precisely how tall is/was Jesus any way). As for Jesus Christ, Christ is a title/honorific not accepted by all, not a surname. Usually titles (particularly those not accepted by all) aren't used in article or category names: 3841:- sounds like the category's for movies that are rented, not services. I think using "movie" is fine, though, as all the services included in the category rent out movies. I like "video" better because it's more inclusive (like TV shows and other non-film things on DVD). Also, it's a stretch, but one can argue this includes 2219:

which our article without citation interprets "has to be understood as an appeal to the various German sovereigns to give the creation of a united Germany a higher priority than the independence of their small states" while others may thing that "everything in the world" refers to something more than just Germany.

3716:. Why restrict this to only DVDs? Do these outlets only rent DVDs and no VHS or Blu Ray? Also the introduction states it is for online rentals only and that probably needs to be changed but if this is kept without the proposed rename we at least need to consider a rename to include online in the category name. 3730:- Trademarked and proprietary names aside, wouldn't all 5-1/4" optical discs with video be DVDs? Anyway, I'm not sure that "movies" is right, though, since games, music, instructional videos, and other content on optical discs are also rented. "Media rental services"? It's ugly but accurate, I think. -- 4326:

You make a convincing argument, but I still feel that conformance to the article title adds more clarity than a parenthetical disambiguator would. (However, I've changed my opinion to "weak keep" to reflect my uncertainty on the issue.) I would gladly support the move if there was consensus to rename

4308:

Actually, "LDS Church" only applies to the church in question. Other Latter Day Saint denominations generally don't use the abbreviation "LDS", and "LDS Church" is widely recongised as applying only to this church, so the disambiguation actually would be denomination-specific. That's why it's used as

3471:

As to finding similar articles, I think that a template would be a good idea. There are far too many small categories created where templates would do the job just as well, and this looks like one of those cases: there is a limited number of these monster statues of JC, and the dataset doesn't change

3418:

I'm sure an article would make very interesting reading, but these subcats do serve the purpose of helping readers find items that are of interest -- which is, after all, the whole point. As for the choice of "Colossal", I don't really have anything new to add my explanation (above), but I think it's

3396:

has been created as a useful parent category, but I'm also not persuaded that we need this small intersection category. I'm also uncomfortable with the adjective "colossal"; it's better than "giant" or any other alternatives suggested so far, but surely there is some established term in the art world

2882:

I'm not, as I said just above. "Colossal" would be the technical term, but I think it is rather less descriptive here, and there is no precise cut-off for that either (any more than there is for miniature). What on earth is so wrong with giant, a word with a respectable classical etymology, used for

2743:

than life-size, showing Jesus as a baby. At the moment there are 2 lifesize adult statues. All are likely to grow (a Spanish giant has no article yet). This may seem like OCAT to those with no interest in iconography, but it isn't. The result of this debate should still be keep, and the other cat

5822:

I created these categories in September 2006 and consciously tried to avoid the kind of lengthy titles which are being suggested now. The present titles convey all the relevant information in a neat and concise way and have served their purpose well for over a year. There are also a group of similar

4455:

this recently created category that mostly includes characters best known for other media (e.g., comic book characters, video game characters). Is "action film" a clearly defined category? No. Because the films themselves are not consistently categorized as action films, the characters simply cannot

2798:

As always I am amazed by the way in which important distinctions in mainstream art history are regarded as of no significance here, whilst the minutest differences in popular culture categories are taken entirely seriously. If you can't see any difference between a string of modern concrete outdoors

6035:

This category has existed for roughly eight and a half months, but only has two member articles. Being somewhat familiar with the subject matter, I doubt that there are more; if there are, they would almost certainly be few in number, such that there still wouldn't be enough members to justify this

3350:

It is not about just subdividing to keep numbers manageable; these are different types of things. I go back to my complaint above. Too many editors think a statue is a statue is a statue. Yes we should have a Buddha sub-cat too. In both cases specific categories also remove category clutter too, by

3114:

has set it up (unbeknownst to me), making the giants this nom is about a subcat. I think everyone above (?) was in favour of having this cat, as I was, so hope no one objects. He has also cleverly unearthed 2 new Michelangelos (thus raising the tone of the category considerably), so we now have: 5

2872:

You yourself said there might need to be a category for miniatures, and miniatures is a standard term in art, as is life-size. I'm not sure what the right term for larger-than-life-size, but there are modern sculptors who do larger than life figurative work, and, yes, there are things that I might

2738:

If there were such a category, which there probably should be, it should still have sub-cats for the giant adult outdoor statues (now 6), and (maybe not yet) the miniature cult infants in churches (4 articles at present), who also form a very distinct group iconographically (a much more consistent

1804:

These categories are trying to bootstrap ethnicity from a 21st century perspective to people of the past. It seems pretty clear from the historical literature that people's sense of ethnicity in the past differed markedly from today. Some still differs today from what one may think: ask Bavarians,

1746:

to e.g. an East Prussian bio stub is okay as a starter, and certainly much better than having no category of provenance at all, as currently in many bios, due to relentless deletions by Mr. "10 Prussian Eagle kill marks on my Space Craft". Of course, a more appropriate category needs to be applied

2950:

would have to be added individually - this is a handy sub-cat of this also, which mergists should note. The idea that an exact definition, capable of resolving all questions about membership, is essential for a category name is just nonsense. Terms like medieval, renaissance, jazz, punk, etc etc

2145:

might be valid, but a simple context-less list is not particularly useful, even as just a starting point, in this case. Part of the problem is the subjectivity involved in determining the subject of a song (highlighted by Otto) and part of it is the lack of clear definition of exactly what "about

5779:

Each of these categories uses at least one non-standard character (either a ≈ character, or that and a combined fraction such as ½), which are difficult to search for and type into articles. These titles get the same point across without the fancy symbols and should be much easier on editors and

2218:

will tell us it's at least that much about it. Meanings of songs is often quite subjective and may change over time: take the (now unused) first verse of the German national "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt" (Germany, Germany above all, above everything in the world),

133:

This is a small category with little or no potential for growth. Although it currently contains two articles, both are miscategorised. One is about a cartoon episode and the other a motion picture. Although the plot of the cartoon and the motion picture center around bank robberies, neither the

4296:

is not helpful either, since the term 'Mormon' is sometimes applied only to members of this denomination and sometimes to members of any denomination in the LDS movement. I think the best way to minimise ambiguity in this case is to ensure that the category name conforms to the article name. –

2862:

No all those suggestions are clearly much worse. If you can come up with a better one than "giant", I would be happy to support it. Most people would say I am rather pedantic about art terminology, but I am completely failing to see the problem here. If the category is renamed this way, the

1855:

Articles in the categories to be renamed will be dispersed into relevant categories if they do not currently correspond with the correct administrative unit. While individuals from the HRE's constituent states can pose a daunting task with regards to the number of potential subcategories, the

2799:

sculptures of over ten times lifesize, and another group of sculptures of a different subject that are about half life-size then I suppose it will be difficult to help you. Jimbo is right to say we are far too weak on visual art, but with these sorts of attitudes, it is hardly surprising.

3610:, since size seems to be a problem. BTW, this is not an article requiring references, so what is the problem with expressing an opinion? The heights of the statutes in question are well-known. Maybe the title should be Tallest Statues, etc. We seem to be able to define Tallest Buildings. 2146:

peace" implies (highlighted by BHG). Does it refer to the absence of war, or of conflict more generally? Does it refer to peace as a process or as an outcome? Is it a localised, specific peace or a more general 'peace on Earth'? Does it refer to inner spiritual tranquility? –

1571:

is widespread in WP. The current system of grouping ethnicity by sometimes vague geographic regions has and regrettably probably will continue to result in disputes over who goes where; categorizing biographies with citizenship by administrative subdivision would cut down on

3591:, you know, something objective, someone would have me at DRV so fast my head would spin, and today I'm a little tired of that. So someone else can rename it. (and no I won't play the "no consensus" game, as that is leaving it as the subjective "giant".) -- 1089:

should perhaps have been nominated as well. Actually I think at least some national sub-cats would be justified, but following similar categories, they should be national, not ethnic. Also most of these overlap with goldsmiths, maybe they should be merged?

3368:. Both of these sub-cats already pass the size test in my book, and in addition, both have potential for growth. As I've said elsewhere, I don't like to waste my time looking through lots of tiny sub-cats -- but I really don't understand the objection to 1660:, an additional subcategory might be applied just for the record. The current 16 "People from Bundesland" are useful first-step regional categories for any biography related to the area of present-day Germany, no matter what time-frame or ethnicity, from 5215:

and add articles to more specfic geographical categories as appropriate. Like the other museum-ships-by-port categories, this one is too small, and lacks growth potential: the other museum-ships-by-port categories should also be upmerged to state level.

3039:. I suppose the main issue becomes whether this is enough of a defining characteristic ... The fact of being indoors is probably not defining, since every church has a statue of Jesus inside, so the question becomes: is it different for outdoor statues? 736:' is not so unambiguous as to allow for objective categorisation. Moreover, these categories already overlap significantly with the "businesspeople" categories, so there is no value in maintaining two separate category trees. See also the precedent of 3123:

or the current (Giant) name (except with the small "s" for "Statues") are equally fine & am happy to go with concensus on this. The case for keeping a giant/colossal category is clearly greatly strengthened now it has a decent tree to fit into.

1626:

Your fear that individuals will be categorized by modern administrative units (ie Hilbert in Warmia-Masuria or Goebbels in North Rhine-Westphalia) is precisely what we want to avoid. Anyway, the preferred phrasing is "people from", not "natives

6073:

part of the games, it seems incorrect to place them there. I do agree that a category should ideally have more than two members, however, so perhaps it's best to simply delete the category as underpopulated and unlikely to get more populated.

2788:

have to point at a specific statue and say whether it is or isn't "giant." The point still stands that there is no specific objective definition of "giant" which opens the category up to misuse which can be avoided by using the generic name.

4142:

After previous nomination for deletion I disagreed with the nominator's first rationale (Self-agrandizement). However, after hearing better rationale and the later arguments, which make total sense, I request, as author, speedy deletion

3035:? This would address the problem of subjectivity, since drawing an outdoor/indoor distinction requires significantly less interpretation than drawing a giant/non-giant distinction. It would also allow the category to remain a subcat of 3756:"Media rental services" is conceptually on the right track, but unfortunately it sounds too much like like renting a TV station or a newspaper. How about "DVD and other media rental services"? It's not pretty, but it is unambiguous. -- 3423:(or something very close to that), and if he doesn't know of an "established term in the art world" that would be preferred over "Colossus", it's highly unlikely that there is one. On the other hand -- it would be totally cool to have 3329:. Would merging the two and creating 34 articles in the category be too much? IMO, of course not. Looking through the list now, there are at least 9 articles on "colossal" statures of Buddha (more than Jesus). So should we create 2157:

In most countries, songs about peace have a definite bias to the inner spiritual tranquility angle, frequently along the lines of "O glorious motherland, land of our birth//To your valleys and hills we bring peace//By killing the

4291:

lists 11 churches with a similar name, of which three are pre-disambiguated. I don't support a name change because adding "LDS Church" won't really introduce any clarity, since all 11 are LDS churches. Renaming the category to

4260:(without the 'The'), so it's once again a case of the category title matching the article title. I think we should also keep in mind the fact that the LDS Church is by far the largest and most well-known denomination of the 1888:

per Olessi. We don't need categories for so finely-grained intersections of location and ethnicity. Some of them are misleading anyway, especially with "natives" of places that did not exist at the time of a person's birth.

2951:

have no clear boundaries. The whole group of statues fall into "scale" groups of <1, 1, 10+; there is no middle ground between the last two, nor is there likely to be in the future. See my comment above just now also.

4238:, which has quite a similar base name, some sort of DAB should be added to this category name, as has been added to the Stangite one. -"(LDS Church)" is the DAB used for articles with a DAB specific to this organization. 175:. This cat would make sense if we had a few articles about fictional bank robberies themselves, but I don't think we have any of those. We don't want to get caught-up categorizing works by either plot element or title. 5843:

per nom. Use of non-standard characters should be avoided in article and category names. I'd wager that the vast majority of people don't even know how to make that wavy equals sign or those fractions. Would also find

4279:? That's why there is a dab page. There is a guideline that the category name make clear what the subject is. So, if there are several churches using this name then it would be appropriate to dab the category name. 2904:

and there's already plenty of sensationalism in religion so that people are on alert. While colossal is also subjective, if it's the usual term of art, I'd go with that. (It also sounds less roadside attraction IMO.)

2589:. I'm not going to touch the Jesus/Jesus Christ discussion, as it is possible to believe that Jesus existed and still not believe he is the Anointed One. Nominate the whole scheme if you want to pursue that one.-- 162:

category that's too broad. We don't categorize by every kind of fictional event. Imagine how many different events happen in a single story. Now imagine categorizing that story by every single event. Impractical.

5902:- I did not nominate those categories with ampersands, as those are at least easy enough to type with a standard keyboard (Shift-7). Perhaps for those we could create a category redirect that spells out "and". 2808:

People aren't ignoring important distinctions in mainstream art history; we're trying to come up with a useful and descriptive term. Were "Giant" the appropriate term of art (ahem) someone would have said so.

3468:

One thing at a time, I think. If you want to rename the categories, you would have to start with the main article and work out into the categories, but that would me the mother of all renaming discussions.

4235: 5193:

is the name of a museum, not a ship, so the natural cross references between the museum and its ships do not serve any point in the discussion here. It seams to be a natural method for subcats of the

3321:. If all of these were merged to the artist portrayals category, we'd still have under 40 articles. As for the parallel tree that Cgingold created dealing with Colossal statues, there are only 6 4859: 1419: 2184:

It truly takes a certain flair to saturate a matter-of-fact statement with such sarcasm, especially in a way that so succinctly captures the essence of an entire musical genre. And it rhymes!

5197:

which includes all such ships world-wide. Thus, the subcats need to be completed for the rest of the physical locations where the ships are located (something I did not get back to work on)

1437: 42: 37: 2585:. This gives the category two logical parents (one of which was created in response to my argument here). Maybe DRV-able, but I think this is the only logical path given the existence of 4214: 1480:, leaving them uncategorized and lost in space. If "German natives of" is sacrificed for an unspecific "People from", the next thing that will surely happen is replacing the outdated " 737: 2687:(rename changed below). Nothing wrong with this. I have added one already. The statues are all over 67 feet tall. If Lugnuts disputes this being "giant", he needs to make the case. 2818:

No, "statues" is as far as some are prepared to go; other debates have seen a similar refusal to see any point in distinguishing between ancient and renaissance works for example.

3115:

miniature infants and 4 life-size adults in the new cat, plus 6 giants in the sub-cat. I am sure there are many more out there in fact. He has also found, and added as a parent

3792:

could be a good parent and then have sub categories for movies, games and whatever else there may be. However if we retain optical in the name, where do we put VHS rentals?

6143:

This set is unlikely to grow much larger, and the visualization software isn't really a defining characteristic of the programs. If kept, keep the current name per Hersfold.

3630:

many Statues of Jesus which warrant their own encyclopedia entries. When they do merit inclusion, it's usually because there's a story behind them and/or they're colossal.

2873:

call "giant" (like the buddhas destroyed by the Taliban). But since there's not an objective definition of giant, then I don't know why you're so attached to this term. --

1415: 1411: 3572:. Sorry, someone else is going to have to close this. Nobody has, nor could they, defined "giant" or "colossal". It is entirely subjective. And when someone states 1776: 2973:

in my book. They're not the normal statues found around or in public buildings, churches, etc. There is no comparison between these giants and the Infant of Prague, .

1102:

I'm not certain about the merge (is it a case of actual overlap or miscategorisation?), but I've initiated a discussion for the "Romani silversmiths" subcategory. See

3215:

Personally, I would much prefer to use "Jesus Christ". But that would mean renaming the other categories and articles, and I'm not sure whether it would get support.

2103:

per Otto. "About peace" is far to vague a concept to be useful, and can actually mean completely opposite things. One one hand it can mean "opposition to fighting" (

4276: 4253: 5287: 5279: 1378: 5784:

does not specifically mention fractions or approximate signs, but one could interpret them as "accent characters used only for emphasis". As such, I propose to

1823: 1396: 1610: 1838:

Foo"), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place.

3337:). So what I'm getting at is this category is simply too detailed. I think upmerging with "colossal statues" and "statues of Jesus" would be appropriate.- 5291: 5145: 2327: 1387: 5828: 5644: 5568: 1568: 1535: 21: 4218: 2775:

If you think any of the statues in the category might not be giant you need to say so, otherwise you are just splitting hairs that have not grown yet.

4288: 4039:, I think this category is unnecessary. I'm not too familiar with comic book articles, but this also seems pretty narrow as it's not even being used. 2946:

I don't have a problem with that, but this should remain as a sub-cat of that, especially as many of the article names are so uninformative. Also the

1677: 1669: 1586: 1458:

happen to have hometowns outside of present Germany, are strongly disliked by some editors who try to marginalize them, or portray them as non-Germans

2091:- "List of songs about Foo" are almost always too problematic to be sustained. How much about peace does a song need to be to make it "about peace"? 1605:

seems like a recipe for future dispute- what is the dividing line between a French Alsatian, a regional/nationalist Alsatian, and a German Alsatian?

5720: 5682: 5606: 5243: 4850: 2337: 4293: 5944:. It would make things easier in terms of naming, but not in terms of usage. Nobody's going to search for these races in terms of kilometer(re)s. 5758: 4713: 4602: 4226:

Two issues: (1) "The" is superfluous and unneeded, even though it is part of the official name of the organization. (Similar example: category is

1743: 5304: 5283: 5058: 1609:

would be a better category, at least for individuals from the imperial era. I started a discussion about Bohemians/Moravians/Sudeten Germans at

5492: 5454: 5416: 5090: 4969: 4824: 1613:. Ethnic Germans from outside Germany should be categorized under place of origin (People from... categories) as well as a relevant category at 5212: 1920:? Just to make sure noone is left uncategorized, so editors can find and improve the article by applying better categories? There are articles 1729:

is not exactly where I would expect him, and as said above, "People by Xish state" is better than "Xish people by state" in the case of Alsace.

438: 5082: 17: 5885: 5322: 5268: 5225: 4981: 4954: 4349:

per Black Falcon - if dab is needed, a note on the category page is enough. The proposed name change will be no help at all in that respect.

4227: 3765: 3485: 3406: 2526: 2170: 2124: 1925: 811:

per nom and per precedent. As long as the categories are up merged into their standing countries businesspeople category, supported. Rgds, -

798: 654: 1827: 5735: 5697: 5659: 5621: 5583: 5530: 4424: 1606: 903: 5773: 5507: 5469: 5431: 5001: 2115:). An article on "songs about peace" could discuss the various diverse understandings of the word, but a bare list would be misleading. -- 5073: 4997: 1937: 1614: 5845: 5182: 2494: 2456: 2079:

per Grutness. We have deleted numerous "Songs about..." categories, which give rise to various problems, even without the intersection.

1698: 690: 1369: 1356: 1052: 5873: 5824: 5545: 5484: 5446: 5408: 4828: 3545: 3286: 3238: 3120: 2839: 2581: 2497:(cap'd correctly) has 80 artists, which seems like a reasonable grouping to separate from the general "Category:Cuban artists" cat. -- 1772: 726: 642: 390: 5750: 4846: 5712: 5674: 5636: 5598: 5560: 5186: 3980: 1365: 1352: 946: 582: 570: 4758: 4487: 3988: 2336:: This recently created category is redundant to the already-existing category, which is part of a larger categorization scheme of 5522: 4965: 4941: 1383: 5475: 5437: 5399: 4577: 3588: 3361: 2609: 2293: 1916:

figures which are not covered by modern Germany, without having to study history, geography, and Wikipedian categoriology? Maybe

618: 498: 474: 450: 402: 378: 5741: 4606: 3313:

to me, this is a clear cut case of overcategorization. There are 6 statues in this category. Currently there are 21 articles in

5703: 5665: 5627: 5589: 5551: 4937: 4586: 4415: 4231: 3971: 3504: 3437: 2617: 2301: 894: 714: 702: 678: 666: 630: 522: 486: 426: 414: 374: 2427: 1254: 1250: 261: 5513: 4314: 3891: 3878: 3862: 3834: 3684: 2112: 1921: 1465: 1455: 1361: 1348: 594: 546: 534: 4568: 4234:, even though the official name of the organization is "The George Washington University".) (2) Because of the existence of 3376:, bringing the grand total up to 50 articles -- and I'm quite sure there are more out there waiting to be found or written. 2600: 2323: 2284: 1748: 1693:

Now to the mine-fields outside present-day Germany. In that context, I consider the given references to harmless talk about

1488:", making undisputed German figures of the past look like modern Slavs - especially when the spelling of the name is altered 106: 4696: 3452: 3372:

sub-cats, which will serve a useful purpose for many readers. Furthermore, I've added a slew of new articles to the parent

3314: 2849:. "Statues of Jesus" is better than "Artistic portrayals"; we should keep statues separate from paintings and black velvet 2638: 2435: 747: 434: 366: 4705: 4573: 4310: 2510: 2486: 1756: 1374: 942: 938: 934: 650: 606: 558: 510: 462: 4582: 3330: 2418: 6023: 4257: 3476:

is worth reading here, particularly as it points out that a template allows for faster to navigation than a category. --

2015: 2011: 1917: 1822:

discussion, Users Kusma, 52 Pickup, and myself supported the creation of relevant administrative subcategories (such as

1485: 1392: 1222: 686: 554: 114: 6167: 6152: 6135: 6123: 6107: 6087: 6059: 6014: 5998: 5974: 5957: 5931: 5915: 5890: 5864: 5852: 5835: 5814: 5801: 5385: 5369: 5345: 5298: 5273: 5250: 5230: 5201: 5173: 5152: 5136: 5120: 5066: 5047: 5023: 5008: 4986: 4959: 4930: 4910: 4898: 4886: 4868: 4837: 4813: 4789: 4774: 4762: 4745: 4722: 4683: 4667: 4643: 4628: 4615: 4558: 4542: 4518: 4503: 4491: 4474: 4460: 4408: 4392: 4368: 4353: 4333: 4321: 4303: 4283: 4270: 4242: 4205: 4189: 4165: 4152: 4114: 4098: 4082: 4058: 4043: 4015: 3964: 3948: 3924: 3907: 3898: 3885: 3869: 3849: 3825: 3809: 3796: 3779: 3770: 3751: 3734: 3720: 3692: 3673: 3649: 3634: 3618: 3595: 3564: 3522: 3490: 3463: 3431: 3424: 3411: 3380: 3355: 3343: 3303: 3294: 3274: 3249: 3219: 3206: 3175: 3160: 3128: 3088: 3065: 3054: 3045: 3032: 3019: 3010: 2997: 2981: 2955: 2941: 2926: 2909: 2895: 2877: 2867: 2857: 2822: 2813: 2803: 2793: 2779: 2770: 2748: 2733: 2709: 2700: 2691: 2671: 2657: 2593: 2570: 2546: 2531: 2501: 2475: 2411: 2395: 2371: 2356: 2344: 2278: 2262: 2238: 2223: 2206: 2190: 2175: 2152: 2129: 2095: 2083: 2071: 2057: 2030: 2006: 1990: 1966: 1951: 1898: 1872: 1809: 1790: 1718: 1694: 1635: 1630: 1628: 1550: 1502: 1446: 1426: 1334: 1318: 1294: 1279: 1265: 1206: 1190: 1166: 1151: 1133: 1112: 1097: 1078: 1043: 1027: 1003: 988: 974: 960: 882: 866: 842: 827: 815: 803: 781: 760: 722: 638: 386: 357: 341: 317: 302: 289: 276: 239: 223: 199: 184: 167: 154: 140: 97: 90: 74: 5118: 4432: 3036: 3003: 2947: 2214:

this "songs about" category suffers from the deficiencies of the genre: How much about peace must a song be, and what

1768: 1714: 1525: 911: 578: 566: 4564: 3626:

to Statues of Jesus (if there's still time to weigh in)... "Colossal" is equally unnecessary given that there aren't

2683: 2646: 1722: 1710: 1702: 1564: 1531: 1510: 1407: 614: 494: 470: 446: 398: 4945:. This a triple intersection (Boston/landmarks/medical) and it's small category with little potential for growth. -- 4591: 3802: 3789: 710: 698: 674: 662: 626: 518: 482: 422: 410: 5255:

I like the idea, but your suggested name feels a bit clumsy. Wouldn't it be OK to include the ship museums in the

4595: 4036: 1230: 1213: 590: 542: 530: 5256: 4122: 4105: 3701: 1908:. Is it possible to have a simple dispute-resistant umbrella category that can be applied to all stubs on somehow 1590: 1086: 1069: 602: 506: 458: 248: 5881: 5318: 5264: 5221: 4977: 4950: 4261: 3805:? This covers movies on any format, games which can be on DVD or memory cards and even down loadable software. 3761: 3584: 3533: 3481: 3402: 3393: 3373: 3326: 3318: 3242: 3116: 3107: 2990: 2844: 2720: 2586: 2522: 2166: 2120: 794: 6166: