Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

August 26[edit]

Category:Hinder[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - after redirecting a couple of stubs, remaining material does not warrant a category. Otto4711 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Paul Dessau[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was recategorize, then delete. I created and populated the composition category, and all that remains are people that worked with Dessau.--Mike Selinker 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at that guideline, in that coverage of Dessau's life is not divided into multiple sub-articles that cannot otherwise be appropriately categorized. Inclusion of his works is improper person by project categorization and the people he worked with can easily be interlinked through his and their articles as appropriate. Otto4711 16:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise into usual composer categories - operas by, compositions by... Johnbod 16:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Category:Operas by Paul Dessau already exists. -- Kleinzach 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not the other works category/ies. Johnbod 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Category:Compositions by Paul Dessau should be created to conform with the Classical music project system (facilitating bot runs etc.). -- Kleinzach 00:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this.--Mike Selinker 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename into Category:Works by Paul Dessau. eponymous overcategorization standard gives sub-articles on life only as an example, not defining criteria. Inclusion of his musical works is standard means of categorization, re: Category:Operas by Paul Dessau; to describe his musical compositions as 'person by project' is misleading, since the guidelines talk of 'Performances by performer', not project; there is no suggestion that having composed musical works is not a valid basis for categorization of their individual articles. DionysosProteus 17:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're new at CFD. "Person by project" is just a different way of saying "performer by performance" when dealing with categories for things like people who've directed episodes of particular TV series or written novels for a particular franchise. I've added a bit to WP:OC to clarify that. Note that if this is renamed any articles for people would need to be removed. Otto4711 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is inaccurate to refer to a musical composition written by a composer as a "project"; that implies an on-going activity that transcends the individual author, as the examples indicate. DionysosProteus 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please Perfesser, lecture me again some more. Otto4711 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and reorganise into usual composer categories) per nom and Johnbod. This now the 6th or 7th DionysosProteus category that has been brought to Cfd in the last few days. Can DionysosProteus please stop creating these misleading and anomalous categories? Nothing is achieved. It's a waste of everybody's time. -- Kleinzach 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category to organise all of Dessau's work into one category; since I was visiting the pages of his wife, etc. I added a couple of people in too; that was before I was aware of the eponymous criteria. Being aware of it, there is every reason to create a Works by category. Dessau's artistic contributions are more substantial that operas alone; the categories should reflect that. As far as I can see, your objections in the main are ideological and arise from a lack of familiarity with the works themselves and the critical traditions associated with them. RE: Stein, the Lehrstücke, Brecht collaborators, the epic tradition; none of which, it is quite clear, you are familiar with. I understand and fully accept that there will be issues about integrating specialist knowledge into wikipedia's broader structures; in the main, however, your ill-informed and captious objections claim to comprehend specialist knowledge that you clearly do not possess. DionysosProteus 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's uncivil but more to the point it's misleading. If you are a specialist why have you never, in all these discussions, once referred to a single published opera source? (I have articles on my desk about Dessau and Weill by Stephen Hinton, Fritz Hennenberg etc. - evidently you haven't.) Note the 'Gastropod Rule': if you don't know anything about gastropods, don't write about gastropods. -- Kleinzach 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have. I remind you of the primary source material from Weill re: the lehrstucke. Secondly, it is the intersection between the muscial and dramatic aspects of the work that is precisely the issue. I have delineated my competence quite clearly. Thirdly, the request for cited evidence is a request for a degree of objectivity and reason, in place of the subjectivity and opinion that have dominated these discussions. The lack of familiarity with the works these categories refer to is clear from what you have said about them (the translation of title, for example, the history of composition, the generic designations given by the composer, etc.). That I find your objections captious is a reasonable response to your failure to marshal any citable sources that disagree with anything I have said. I am the one that is wanting to talk in terms of verifiable claims. If you have something to offer that disputes anything I have said, that is not your personal opinion, by all means identify it. DionysosProteus 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reorganise per nom. Moreschi ^Talk 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reorganise per Johnbod. --Smerus 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize to match related works-by-composer categories. Then delete Most artists do not require an eponymous category specifically to handle their various works. Rather, the main article typically serves as the central hub from which readers can navigate the related articles. This also applies to handling links to other people whose works are related to the individual. (Otherwise cross-collaboration and cross-associations of individual people could lead to a mass of "2 or 3 degrees of separation" type categories with no perceptible gain in article navigability.) Place the individual works within the related subcategories of Category:Works by artist, and remove the other people from the category since they should be reachable from the main article. Dugwiki 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganise per John et al, Tewfik^Talk 08:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fred Astaire films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the categorization of Films by actor just doesn't work. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there's a complete list in his article. Johnbod 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As described in WP:OCAT, films-by-actor categories are a bad idea because of the large amount of cross-population involved (films have up to hundreds of actors and each actors acts with hundreds of other actors over the course of their career). Also note that the main article on an actor always has (or should always have) the actor's filmography included or have an easy-to-access link to a list subarticle with the filmography. So films-by-actor categories are almost never needed. Dugwiki 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely. No WP:BIAS for Fred Astaire. Bulldog123 07:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Daniel Dennett[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at that guideline for an eponymous category. Following the recategorization of his books into Category:Books by Daniel Dennett per the convention of Category:Books by author, half of the remaining articles are simply for terms that he coined. Everything in the category is extensively linked to Dennett through text links and is all appropriately categorized, so thhis category is not warranted. Otto4711 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Tomorrow People[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Tomorrow People to Category:The Tomorrow People characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - with the exception of the article for the show, everything in the category is for a character. There isn't enough material to warrant an eponymous category for the series, so this should be renamed to reflect the contents. Otto4711 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As this category also contains the articel for the series it should not be renamed.--NeilEvans 21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that create a problem? It is still the main article for the characters. If that article is really a problem it can be removed after a rename or as a condition for a rename. Vegaswikian 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and remove the sole non-character article. In all honesty, the cat can be included as a link as "[[:Category:The Tomorrow People characters|List of characters]]" in the article on the show, which should be linked back from the characters anyway. - J Greb 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I understand the rationale for moving to a lower-level category... Tewfik^Talk 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nutshell? 8 of the 9 categorized articles are about characters in the show. The 9th is the article for the show. The name change would reflect what is in the cat, even if it does force out the show article. That article can be linked to the cat, if not directly to the characters, and the characters already link back to the show. - J Greb 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understood that much - I was questioning the utility in distancing the category by a layer. Although I do appreciate the issue of accuracy, I'm not sure that we gain very much by removing the entries not about characters from categorisation. Tewfik^Talk 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - At the moment, and in all likelihood the foreseeable future, the only article beyond the characters in the set is that for the show. Actor, writer, director, etc by show have gotten a resounding "undesirable cat" label, so there rally isn't that much else that would go into an overall cat. - J Greb 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Eponymous musician categories - J[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories is limited to one or more of the subcategories: albums; members; songs; along with the article for the band and in some cases a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. (note that Juli has some of their songs and albums but they're all in an appropriate subcat). Otto4711 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a huge Jethro Tull fan it saddens me to admit that as is often the case, Otto is right. -- Prove It ^(talk)
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ian Curtis[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline and material is appropriately interlinked. Otto4711 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a category for Joy Division. --Folantin 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent, Tewfik^Talk 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Vanity labels[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vanity labels to Category:Vanity record labels

Nominator's rationale: Rename - To bring in line with other categories in the Category:Record labels tree. There is a suggestion on the talk page that using the word "vanity" is perjorative. I have no opinion on that so merely mention it for consideration. Otto4711 12:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - Vanity is the standard term for this sort of thing, equivalent to "Vanity publishing". It is not considered perjorative when used in that context, merely descriptive. Cgingold 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & Cgingold. Johnbod 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to achieve a clearer name but this is a rather ill-defined category under either name. Some labels are close to major status (Reprise Records). Others are doing important reissues (Honest Jon's with Moondog etc). Both types are far from the usual definition of vanity publishing. The category should be reserved for artist-financed publishing - in which case it would often fail notability (but not always - Sun Ra's El Saturn Research, Harry Partch's Gate Five)? AllyD 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per hierarchy convention, Tewfik^Talk 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Homage superheroes and Category:Homage supervillains[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete category lacking useful inclusion criteria. Too many superheroes are based on other superheroes. To decide which counts as "homage" and which does not invokes POV. Plus, this just isn't useful. Doczilla 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also delete Category:Homage supervillains per Zythe (see below). Doczilla 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Stephen Day 08:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BOZ 08:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and Category:Homage supervillains per the same rationale.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete both per nom(s) and because they constitute something of a runaround of the consensus behind the deletion of the similar "Legacy characters" category. Otto4711 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Poor inclusion criteria. Also categories created by sock puppet of disruptive editor, both accounts have now been banned. This is part of the long clean-up process. (Emperor 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete both as per above. --Tenebrae 05:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:People from Sherbrooke[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category, Category:People from Sherbrooke is a duplicate from the other category, Category:People from Sherbrooke, Quebec. This category People: from Sherbrooke, Quebec has the most articles on this category, on the other category, People from Sherbrooke had only got the fewest articles. I will transfer the articles that has a category Category:People from Sherbrooke to it's new category home Category:People from Sherbrooke, Quebec. Now here's what I'm going to tell you those two duplicate categories, Delete this category Category:People from Sherbrooke and Keep the category Category:People from Sherbrooke, Quebec cause the other category got the most articles and it's new category home. And once again, please make the category Category:People from Sherbrooke to be deleted. Thanks. Steam5 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Sherbrooke, Quebec. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but check that there is not another Sherbrooke somewhere else, whose residents are included. Peterkingiron 16:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it turns out, it's empty. So merge and delete are really the same, in this case. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per naming convention, Tewfik^Talk 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:List of Family Matters characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Family Matters characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge misnamed and redundant per convention, Tewfik^Talk 08:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Gertrude Stein operas and plays[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Libretti by Gertrude Stein. This category contains three items, none of them either operas or plays by Stein. One is about a libretto by Stein, the other two are about operas to which Stein contributed texts. Kleinzach 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this relates to an on-going disagreement about what an opera is and the nature of authorship of dramatic-musical works. The categorization is consistent with all published descriptions of the art works described within the category. Stein wrote a very large number of operas and plays - see:

Stein, Gertrude. 1922. Geography and Plays. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1999. ISBN 0486408744.
---. 1932. Operas and Plays. Barrytown NY: Station Hill Arts, 1998. ISBN 1886449163.
---. 1949. Last Operas and Plays. Ed. Carl van Vechten. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1995. ISBN 0801849853.

Although at present there are only three individual articles, this category fulfills the criterion that it can expect to be populated with articles on the very large number of plays and operatic dramas that Stein wrote during the course of her lifetime. Your objection, as far as I can tell, relates to an ideological refusal to recognise that an opera is not merely a musical score; the Oxford English Dictionary offers the following (complete, since you suggested elsewhere I was taking advantage of editing) current definition of the word opera:

"noun: M17. 1). a dramatic musical work in one or more acts, in which singing forms an essential part, chiefly consisting of recitatives, arias , and choruses, with orchestral accompaniment; a performance of such a work; a libretto or musical score for such a work. M17 2) the place where an opera is performed; an opera-house. M17 3) Such works as a genre. Also the opera."

All three of the articles are on operas by Stein according to this standard definition; two of them had a musical score composed contemporaneously, and Dr Faustus, about which I objected when you removed it from the 'Operas' category, has been performed at the Edinburgh Festival, as an opera (that is the certain performance I saw; there have been others); According to the dictionary definition, which is an objective measure of current language use (in contrast to the subjective categorizing whims of editors), therefore, it is an opera as "a performance of such a work" (definition 1(b)). It is ALSO an opera according to definition 1(c): "a libretto OR musical score". I agree that it is debatable in terms of 1(a), but there are three all perfectly valid, current and mainstream definitions, two of which this third article fulfills. That Stein contributed texts MEANS that she wrote operas, according to: a) the dictionary defintion, b) the published works themselves and c) all critical commentary on the works. Furthermore, Stein always grouped her entire dramatic output together--the plays and operas. The suggestion for a Category:Libretti by is non-standard. Her operatic pieces have been performed both as theatre and as opera works; the present category is the most appropriate to the subject-matter. The criteria for categorizing should not be the prejudices of the editors but rather the way works are described in the wider critical community. These citations and those on the Gertrude Stein main article indicate that the proposal is not in conformity with that. DionysosProteus 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. DionysosProteus is playing linguistic games. The term "libretto" far more popular and widespread than the term "opera", when "opera" is used in this sense, and per Wikipedia:Naming conventions we should reflect that. Moreschi ^Talk 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - in WP I note that the Humpty-Dumpty formula ('when I use a word, it means what I want it to mean') does not apply - even when used by someone as distinguished as Gertrude Stein (and her redactors). These are essentially literary works. Some may have been set to music (and some were not) after they were written - in no case was this music written by Stein herself. These works are therefore actual or putative librettos, whatever Stein called them. The operas, according to common usage and common sense, are or would be listed as the works of the relevant composers (see e.g. Four Saints in Three Acts, where the WP article actually begins 'an opera by [...] Virgil Thompson with a libretto by Gertrude Stein'). In the same way I would expect to find Don Giovanni in Category:Operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and in (if it existed) Category:Libretti by Lorenzo da Ponte. Smerus 08:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and naming conventions. Otto4711 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are not linguistic games, I refer current language use in English, and the dictionary is a far more objective and reliable guide to that than your subjective opinion and to the use of the terms in the critical literature; if you want to cite something that contradicts that use, that is a useful way of proceeding, but to set these citable usages with your personal opinions is to compare chalk and cheese. Secondly, to say that these are "essentially literary works" is profoundly ill-informed about these works of art. Again, I refer you to the critical literature. Thirdly, they were conceived in collaboration with Thompson, not "set to music afterwards". There is no reason why you should not find the operas by searching under their composers. You should also be able to find them by searching under their dramatists. To be unable to find The Threepenny Opera by searching under Brecht would be absurd. These works are operas by objective and citable sources, which is the criterion for inclusion I believe. The opening line of the Four Saints article is being imprecise; a more accurate rendition would be "an opera composed by .... to a libretto by ..." DionysosProteus 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something, though i would prefer Category:Gertrude Stein dramatic works, which is what Brecht has. Johnbod 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that a "dramatic works" category would accomplish that isn't already accomplished by Category:Works by Gertrude Stein. If there is a specific name available (such as "libretti") then it should have preference over a less-specific name (like "dramatic works"). Otto4711 03:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Bizarre! --GuillaumeTell 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Folantin 10:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Moreschi. Good find. Bulldog123 07:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Simpsons episodes named after songs‎[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Why are Simpsons episodes named after songs notable? What about "Simpsons episodes named after films" or "Simpsons episodes named after popular sayings"? As well, there were similar categories that were along the lines of "The Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson", which were deleted. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing!/Delete One of the funniest catergories I've ever seen. Can it be moved to that Bad Jokes... section? Lugnuts 08:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a flavor of overcategorization by coincidence of name. Simpsons episodes are more than sufficiently categorized without this. Otto4711 12:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorization by name. See also discussion of July 6th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Gran² 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ukrainian Nobel laureates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep. If some articles have been removed from this category, they should be restored.--Mike Selinker 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: none of these people are either ethnic Ukrainians or were born in country named Ukraine. I think this category should be deleted. Being born in the territory of today's Ukraine doesn't make them Ukrainians. Drouch 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per other Ukrainian people categories. I'm not sure about Simon Kuznets being in the category though - born Pinsk. Johnbod 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless articles are somehow categorized under other nationalities Regardless of the politics involved, the bottom line is that at the moment Category:Ukrainian people is included as part of Category:People by nationality. Also, Category:Nobel laureates by nationality is a complete subdivision of all Nobel winners by nationality, meaning that since Ukranian is considered a nationality. So basically as long as there are articles which fall under Category:Ukrainian people which also are for Nobel lauriates, then this category needs to be kept. Now that being said, it might be the case that some or all of the articles included here are people who don't actually belong under Category:Ukrainian people. Therefore my advice is double check the nationalities of the people in the category, and if necessary change the nationality tags if they're not correct. If that review results in emptying this category, then it will be deleted as empty. Dugwiki 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the usual problem that none of these people probably ever had a Ukrainian passport or ID, living or being born in what was then Poland or Russia. Many probably did not identify themselves as Ukrainian. Some should probably be eligeable for 2 categories. But at the end of the day, & as we do with Irish etc people, we should go with the modern borders (at least). Johnbod 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Somebody needs to empty the category. The Ukrainian nationality/ethnicity wasn't even really developed until recently. Most people living in the territory of Ukraine during the time of these people would identify as Polish, Russian, or Jewish. Very, very few would say, outright, that they are Ukrainians. Bulldog123 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not agreeing with me at all. Anyone born within the modern borders should qualify for a Ukrainian category, otherwise chaos breaks out, with impossible decisions as to what people might have thought they were at the time being required. Johnbod 11:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a recurring problem: ethnic identities, national and internal borders, and such changes over time making categorization based on them problematic. The compromise as Johnbod points out is often to use modern borders however, in Central and Eastern Europe that is probably not satisfactory: most people would bristle at Immanuel Kant being categorized at various Russian categories because he was born in territory once Prussian/German but now Russian. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - East Prussia has it's own categories, which we should not do for everywhere. But Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington is rightly in several Irish categories despite his well known comment (on his being Irish) that if he had been born in a stable it would not make him a horse. Johnbod 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty then hopefully Delete for the reasons I outlined in the comment. Bulldog123 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:People by nationality working consensus on these types of issues, as outlined by Carlos. Tewfik^Talk 08:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People in this category are already included in Nobel laureates by country. From my understanding of Nationality, none of these people were actual citizens of Ukraine. This category must be emptied, it confuses the reader who is not familiar with the history of Ukraine. Drouch 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Someone has largely emptied the category since I first commented. Can this be restored? It is worth remembering that the Ukraine has had a seat in the United Nations since the UN was founded. Johnbod 02:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found & restored some, but I think not all. Drouch & MarkV had removed all the Jewish ones, so I can't but suspect POV of some kind. Johnbod 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[subst:cfd bottom}}