Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Chat show[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 already redirected. Kbdank71 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chat show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: there is a better category called talk showsObina (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Category:Television talk showsObina (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category was empty anyway; speedy-redirected to the existing category to reduce likelihood of recreation. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 20 December 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:Leeds United A.F.C. Club Captains[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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. Kbdank71 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Leeds United A.F.C. Club Captains to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorized, and as per previous discussions: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 11#Category:Newcastle United F.C. captains and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 12#Category:Captains of Norwich City F.C. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge OCAT. –Pomte 02:57, 24 December 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:Flora of the Mojave Desert[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 relisted on dec 26. Kbdank71 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert to Category:Flora of Southwestern United States Category:Desert flora of the Southwestern United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Over categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Flora of the Sonoran Desert and rename something like Category:Desert flora of the Southwestern United States. A small step in the movement away from political or geographic bio-cats to biozone ones, which has long been agreed as desirable, but nothing seems to happen. But why nominate this category, when the "by state" ones are more objectionable? Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated this one since I found it looking for something else. Yes, I know there are flora and fauna concerns, but if we start eliminating some of the cats we are at least moving forward. I still think the upmerge is the better way to go, but if that does not fly, your suggestion would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least it keeps what little by biozone category content we have, rather than removing it; on a quick look many plants seem shared between the deserts, & (it seems) endemic to them, as nowhere else was mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hmmm. My estimate is that the overlap between these two desert flora categories is at most 15-20% -- which strikes me as sufficiently distinct to merit separate categories. If they do wind up being merged the contents definitely should be listified. Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 20 December 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:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 transwiki to commons. Kbdank71 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia featured widescreen desktop backgrounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category doesn't really help the encyclopedia, a certain aspect ratio doesn't make an image better or worse, and might induce a risk of cropping featured pictures, just to be able to fit into the category. This would also apply to Category:Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds. →AzaToth 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of the category I have to admit, it doesn't make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. However, it does make wikipedia a better website. Furthermore, wikipedia is can be accepting of things that do not directly help the encyclopedia: For example, Category:Wikipedians in the European Union doesn't improve any articles, Wikipedia:Userboxes don't improve articles, and so on. That said, as my creation of the category is an obvious conflict of interest, I will remain neutral. Mike1024 (t/c) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amendment 1 to rationale The category would be suitable on commons (a set of categories for pictures with specific aspect ratios), but not here, as this is an encyclopedic project, not an image repository. →AzaToth 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I did take the opportunity to save a few of my own favourites to my desktop to restock my own wallpaper collection, this category really belongs on Commons instead. Can we say transwiki in a category discussion? Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Since all our featured pictures will end up on Commons anyway, eventually. But I believe a separate widescreen category is essential, which has everything to do with the 1920px monitor I just got. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect example of a picture in this category that doesn't contribute to the encylopedia in any way. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would argue that cropped featured pictures aren't featured pictures. Therefore cropped featured pictures don't belong in this category. Do miscategorised files reflect on the category they're miscategorised into? That's up to you... Mike1024 (t/c) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki. As a frequent user of both wallpaper categories, I'm aware that this vote verges dangerously close to WP:ILIKEIT. One of my favorite things to do on Wikipedia is find FPs to add to these categories, especially when the FPs are about to be featured on the Main Page. But I would agree with Mike1024 that while these categories don't help Wikipedia encyclopedically, they don't do any harm either. A crop of an FP uploaded specifically for the category is not in itself an FP, and therefore doesn't qualify for the category, and I've removed the WideWallpaper tag from Image:Cumulus clouds wallpaper.jpg. That said, while I'd prefer to see these categories kept here, moving them to Commons would also be acceptable. Would such Commons categories include Wikipedia FPs, or Commons FPs? --Herald Alberich (talk) 06:36, 23 December 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:Plants poisonous to equines[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 and listify. Kbdank71 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plants poisonous to equines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of most of these plants. If I were describing potatoes to someone, the fact that they are poisonous to horses would not be something I would mention. There are no other such categories, except Category:Poisonous plants, which is supposed to be restricted to plants poisonous to people. This is interesting information, however, so I would support listifying. LeSnail (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or certainly listify It is highly defining for many - the only thing I know about ragwort is that it kills horses. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allergies. Is ragweed not a hideous allergen on your side of the pond? Who cares about horses, when ragweed is so much more defined by its effect on my sinuses! --Lquilter (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ragwort - different species (also from the american one of the same name. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahchoo. Sometimes my late night reading comprehension is a little low, apparently. --Lquilter (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Categorization of one taxon by effects on another taxon seems like a significant potential source of overcategorization. Chocolate would have to be categorized as poisonous to dogs. And there are questions of dosage, and part of the plant, and method of ingestion, and so on. Think of all the categories that the human species could be affixed with. Also, see Dangerous spiders 2007/10/25 for relevant arguments. --Lquilter (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and an awful lot of irrelevant ones as well! Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least listify, as many common and apparently innocuous plants, particularly common ornamental trees such as red maple, are poisonous to equines, and the losses (and cost of treatment for animals that are saved) to a $9 billion industry (USA annual estimate) are significant. After all, the goal of categories, at root, is to help people find related, relevant info. Things can be overclassified, but not, IMHO, when it is in assorted categories that are not directly related (such as a subcategory under Category:horses). If I read an article that says that, for example Black Walnut is highly toxic to horses and click on the Poisonous to Equines category, it might save my animal's life to realize that other plants are also a threat. By the way, the user who created this category only checks in on wikipedia about once a month these days, so she may not be able to defend this category for a bit. I also urge patience. Montanabw(talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the bit about the user who proposed the category. ... As for your points, you know, the significant costs you mention are certainly true (and I care more about the horses' lives than I do about the $$) but, with respect, I think that this makes it work better as a list than as a category. A list can be clearly linked from the article on red maple; for instance, "Red maple is toxic to some animals; horses in particular. (See List of plants toxic to equines.)" Or if there's more info than that there even templates for linking to related articles within the article. That's going to draw more attention to it than the "category" which, frankly, is often missed. And, for those of you who will edit that list, you can police the list to make sure that people do not add materials to the list, or take them out of it. You cannot police a category (at least, not without a lot of effort). So if by chance someone does end up browsing a category and vandalistic (or even good faith but erroneous) deletions of articles from the category has gone unnoticed as it all too easily can with categories, then that person will get bad information without realizing it. I note that a list can also be organized with information such as dose, season, which part of the plant is actually toxic (maybe the flowers but not the leaves or vice versa), remedies, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify - I'm a strong proponent of categories, and I've often argued the case for keeping both categories and lists. But some things should only be lists, and this is one of them. Lquilter has covered that aspect pretty thoroughly, so I will address another concern, which I think was hinted at in the rationale: I don't think we want to embrace this approach, because we could end up with categories relative to a whole slew of domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, etc., etc). I would much rather see lists for all of them, if deemed important. Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 20 December 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:Fan translated video games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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. Kbdank71 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan translated video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete A list consisting of games UNOFFICIALLY translated by ROM Hackers. It is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Newspaper98 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyrighted works that have been hacked or pirated are not for that reason notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of an unofficial translation is a significant feature of a game, very significant with RPGs - which translations center around, which are unusable in a foreign language, and which almost all entries in this category are. The only avenue for international availability is definitely worth noting, and definitely a significant feature for games officially released only in Japanese. Not to mention that these things are huge, practically ubiquitous with emulator-using rpg players.
    The nominator seems to completely reject any legitimacy and significance unofficial translations may possibly have, but I can't grasp why. There are something like 1.5 million gamers willing to disagree, I don't know. It's a fact that unofficial translations can achieve and surpass the quality of commercial releases (Phantasy Star II being a particularily heinous example). That something "does not belong in an encyclopedia" is not an usable argument. First, we're the 8th most popular site on the Internet - if we allow that as a legitimate reason, we might as well save some time by blowing up the website and going home. Second, it's a tautology: it encompasses all possible problems, resolving to "this does not belong in an encyclopedia because this does not belong an encyclopedia." "Notability" applies only to determining which subjects should have articles - this isn't an AfD on Final Fantasy V fan translation or something - and I can't find him using any other definition. Noteworthy is another thing, but I believe I've just argued pretty well for these translations being that. --Kizor (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kizor misses the point. These games may be notable, the act of fan translation may be notable, but having been translated by fans is not a defining characteristic of the games. LeSnail (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Kizor's argument and LeSnail 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 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:Fictional racecar drivers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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, purge at your leisure. Kbdank71 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Purged all bandicoots, dragons, Mortal Kombatants, and Pac-People. Left in all podracers and Transformers (both stretch definitions of "car," but are clearly racers).--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional racecar drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete First of all the whole subject seems very broad and secondly the many characters listed here seem to here solely on the basis of being a playable character in a spin-off game or mini game from thier original series.
  • Delete some of these are usually connected with race car driving, but alas, any character who has driven one race car in any of its canon seems to fit the cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, but do not delete. This is a fine category for people like Dick Dastardly, Speed Racer, and even Anakin Skywalker (a podracer seems like a car, anyway), but not for Crash Bandicoot and other video game characters who only incidentally drive fast cars. So it should get a thorough scrub and a new header.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's clear the category of the entries that don't belong, then see what's left. I can't imagine there are too many fictional racecar drivers that are notable enough to have their own article, but I'll withhold judgment until the cat is cleared. Pagrashtak 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge - This is a legitimate category that may interet somebody, but should be purged of Video Game characters etc. I would suggest that the category page should be provided with a headnote indicating its proposed scope, which should be literary, film, etc. persons for whom racing is a major activity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:48, 19 December 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:Bitter-masking[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 to Category:Bitter-masking compounds. Kbdank71 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bitter-masking to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be for compounds that, when ingested, result in a masking of the taste known as "bitter". I would have suggested Category:Bitter-masking compounds, but some of the similar categories in the parent Category:Flavors use the term "flavor", as in Category:Cooling flavors, Category:Pungent flavors, or Category:Astringent flavors, which makes me think this one should be called Category:Bitter-masking flavors. However, this doesn't seem quite right to me, since it is the flavor "bitter" that is being masked. Is "bitter-masking" or "anti-bitter" a flavor? Willing to go with consensus on either of these or any other good proposals. Snocrates 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Bitter-masking flavors. While it may not be totally correct, it would be clear what the intent is and it would appear to follow established conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose perhaps I have read too many Agatha Christie books, but bitter-masking to my mind is not making your medicine taste good, but to mask a bitter taste (say, Strichnine) with something stronger but also likely to be bitter (a la Christie: oysters, coffee, and "tinned fish paste" have all worked). So while it's hard to describe "Oysters" as a flavor, "Coffee" could be (there are candies and cakes with that flavor), it wouldn't want to restrict it to "flavors" because the current contents aren't flavors in the normal meaning of the word: ever ordered a Homoeriodictyol ice cream? Coffee ice cream, yes, but not Homoeriodictyol. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do these compounds block the bitter taste receptor, or tie up the bitter agonist on bitter compounds? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:46, 19 December 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.

Chart Position at Christmas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 all per below. Kbdank71 18:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete — These categories are non-notable. A song's chart position at Christmas does not appear to be any more notable than it's chart position during any other week, including other holidays. The group of categories includes songs that were in second position, which is even less notable. If we have a category for second, why not third, too? Following that logic, the group of categories would be overly broad. The original editor has done a lot of work to create the categories and associated templates, but unfortunately, I don't think the effort is warranted. John Cardinal (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the Christmas number-one single and Christmas number-two single is an annual event in the United Kingdom for which both the single and performer receive much accolades for the rest of the year. To quote from this page "Having the UK Christmas number one is very prestigious", Christmas number-twos (known as the 'runner-up Christmas single' by the British media) have similar levels of prestige for both song and artist. This Google News search shows how much press this topic is getting at the moment. In my opinion, this means all four cats are notable and should be kept. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Christmas number one is a significant event in the UK. It gets major attention. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very odd nomination, and I find the reasoning in the nominator's rationale quite strange. Of course a song's chart position at Christmas is more notable than it's chart position during any other week, Christmas is the most competitive time of the year in the music industry. I can only assume that the nominator is not British and hasn't realised the significance of the Christmas No. 1 and 2 in British culture. --Hera1187 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Current category names don't indicate UK-focus of the categories so at minimum I think the categories should be renamed. I am not convinced that reflecting media discussions aimed at maximizing holiday sales is necessary content for WP, but I acknowledge that WP does use media coverage as one factor to indicate notability. On the other hand, I think noting songs that have sustained sales popularity via yearly awards is sufficient categorization of sales popularity for WP. Also, whether I am british or not doesn't matter. We can't assume that readers are British and would understand the categorization. John Cardinal (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You're right, the cats names should reflect their UK status and if they are kept I think they should be renamed, it's just that when I see 'Christmas Number One' I automatically think of the UK charts, which is a prejudice I shouldn't have on an international encyclopedia. Also, of course it doesn't matter if you're British or not, I was merely assuming good faith as no Brit would think a No. 1 single at Christmas was the same as a No. 1 single at any other time of the year. --Hera1187 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — OK, after the above discussion, perhaps concensus could be reached on a rename. I would change my vote if someone proposes good names that indicate UK focus... John Cardinal (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename:
--Philip Stevens (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The standard naming convention is "in the country" so it should be Category:Christmas number-one singles in the United Kingdom, etc. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — I think the suffix "in the United Kingdom" is a little long but I presume that "in the UK" is not acceptable due to the abbreviation. In any case, I change my vote to rename. SilkTork, do you agree? It seemed you do, given comment above, but I am trying to make sure. If you go for the rename, then everyone who has commented will be in agreement. John Cardinal (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial instinct when I first saw these was to bring them here, as well, but I read the article and learned that this is actually considered a significant distinction in the British music industry. Rename. Delete the associated templates as WP:TCREEP, however. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename including Uk somehow. I also think the templates are One Step Beyond. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to come here to nominate these as well, along with the templates for number 2 singles. My opinion is Keep number one singles (it does indeed have some prestige and importance in the UK). Delete number two singles, otherwise where does it end? Why don't we categorise number 3 hits as well? PLEASE delete the performers categories - it's awful overcategorisation. We don't categorise actors in film x for example, so we shouldn't categorise artists who've had a number one hit in country x during festival y. Just categorise the records - they're all notable so they should all have or get articles. --kingboyk (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC) PS: Of course, I support renaming. --kingboyk (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 2 templates nominated for deletion here. --kingboyk (talk) 17:18, 21 December 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:Celebrity politicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 per strength of arguments. It was generally agreed that this category became weakened by the changing of criteria for inclusion. Kbdank71 18:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Notability is one of the defining attributes for creating an articles.How is celebrity defined here? Vague category that could included any number of "Celebritys" Gnevin (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe listify. Not a defining characteristic for most, or is that any, of these. Celebrity here is basically used to cover anyone with an article who is also a politician. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cirteria in the page itself says it's generally for people who were celebritioes before they were politicians so no, it does not cover all politicians.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment - Delete because it's redundant. Comment: Oh, no, again? --Lquilter (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC) (And, really, because it's trivial as Bearcat says.) --Lquilter (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedents of the recent hard-fought debates, but prune drastically - apart from the sub-cats, I doubt there should be more than ten of these articles here, though many other writers especially should be added Vargos Llosa etc . Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the nomination is missing the point a bit; the real idea here seems to be "people who were already famous for something else, and then went into politics". So it's not so much redundant as it is overcategorization by trivial intersection. Having been an actor, a musician or a stand-up comedian before one went into politics is no more inherently notable than having been a lawyer or a dentist before one went into politics. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who said redundant, and although I knew what the cat was supposed to do I was actually being a bit arch ... but I'm told that my sense of humor doesn't always convey. Good point re: clarification. --Lquilter (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these people weren't notable as celebrities to begin with they would've never been able to enter politics. That's kind of the point. I can go into detail how each and every one was a celebrity before they entered politics if you like.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people have successfully entered politics without being celebrities to any notable degree. Established fame might confer a bit more attention on a person's political activities than they would have achieved otherwise, but it's neither a guarantee of success (several of the people in this category lost) nor is it a prerequisite for being able to get into politics in the first place (lots of people who weren't established celebrities have won elections too.) So is it really true that "If these people weren't notable as celebrities to begin with they would've never been able to enter politics"? Clearly not. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The definition, along with the contents, of this category were recently expanded greatly by one editor, Dr who1975, which is why it now contains all manner of people in addition to those it had at the times of the recent CFD discussions (CFDs that resulted in keeping the two current sub-categories for actors & athletes, and deleting/merging the one for comedians -- all of which I supported). I'm not absolutely certain that we need this category, which is perhaps mainly useful as a container for the two sub-cats. But at the very least, the inclusion criteria need to be drastically tightened, with most of the recently added articles taken out. Cgingold (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we want to discuss changing the criteria then we should on the categories discussion page. Whatever your outlook on the definition of celebrity, this is a useful category as it highlights two areas of notability. Celebrity and Politicians, celebrities often use their celebrity to become politicians. I recall in the last discussion on one of the sub categories. That an editor pointed out that this information should be useful to a child writing a book report. Let's say the subject of the book report was military heroes who became politicians. The person could use this category to see the intersection of those to areas of notability. This category is a valuable research tool.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem at this point, Dr who, is that you've widened the "definition" of celebrity so much that it no longer has a useful definition in terms of what makes for a good functional category. It was originally intended to be used as a "container category" for a handful of celebrity sub-categories, one of which has now been deleted. So by loosening the definition you've upset a delicate balance -- too delicate, I suppose. I'm beginning to think that this particular category may be more trouble than its worth. It might be better to just have a few ungrouped actor-X-occupation subcats, which at least are clearly defined. Cgingold (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I have long fought for these categories, but these additions weaken the case. Personally I would favour an ex-Generals elected politicians cat, although there are difficulties, but how was Ross Perot a celebrity (does NOT = prominent businessman) before he went into politics, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are only well-known policians, who have become well-known through politics (that the US calls one area of politics "civil-rights" is a parochial consideration). Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note Tom Hayden as somebody who wasn't a celebrity before entering politics; with the exception of dating Jane Fonda, prior to entering elected politics he was known primarily as a political activist. And Kinky Friedman is really more of a cult figure than a celebrity (they're not the same thing). And while I may be wrong, I don't know that Tom Ammiano ever achieved any significant degree of celebrity in his prior career as an entertainer; his article doesn't cite anything except his hosting of a purely local comedy club night in SF. And if this category were to be kept, shouldn't Jesse Ventura be in it too? Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody seemsto be interested in criteria. Fine, let's have that discussion. In order to have that discussion the category should not be deleted. As I wrote above, if there is a debate over certain individuals then we can discuss that on the categorie's discussion page. Ventura is in Category:American actor-politicians which is a grand child to this category so he wouldn't be in both.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyers, doctors, political activists, trade union organizers, chamber of commerce presidents, etc., also regularly use their careers as a springboard to politics. Unless you're suggesting that we should have a separate category for every conceivable "(prior career)-politicians" intersection, I don't see how there's anything uniquely notable about having been a comedian, a professional wrestler or a television commentator prior to standing as an electoral candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyers, doctors, trade union organizers and most political activists are not celebrities. No one has used this category in that manner.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Bearcat's point is why are celebrities who use their careers as springboards more defined by that behavior than any other person from some other profession who exhibits the same behavior? --Lquilter (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's of interest and this is an encyclopedia. In some cases there are enough people for a list or category but for the individuals I have added, there's 2 few for either,another reason why it's notable... it's rarer than people who were, say lawyers and became politicians.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Of interest" sounds like "notability", which relates to the content of the information, not the need for a "category". A category is simply an automatically-generated index, and it's appropriate for some kinds of information and not others. "Of interest" suggests a list, not a category; things that are "of interest" are good topics for articles (including lists). Categories are used for a limited number of attributes that are defining of the person. (Needless to say, "this is an encyclopedia" is not a helpful criteria.) --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Liquiter, you have not thouroughly read the guidlines for categories, notability is indeed an important factor for categories. ... please read WP:Overcategorization, you'll see the phrase "categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life". Also, if you read the whole arguement, you'll see I use the term "notability" all over the place, I am not trying to weasel word out of anything.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're wordy but that sounds like a decent idea. If that is deided, I'd still like the comedian's to stay where they are since that category was listified. We should also have Astronauts and CEOs who became politicians.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 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:Felines → Category:Felidae[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 no consensus. Kbdank71 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats#Move proposal for name uniformity. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, please discuss it here. A category is not the property of one WikiProject, and should be discussed in the correct forum for the discussion of category name changes. That is this page. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the {{cfr}} notice. Since this discussion involves a broader sense of consistency between the cat here, the stub cat and stub template which have gone through SFD, and article which has gone through RM, it's not outrageous that it's taking place at a WikiProject. –Pomte 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As is standard practice in such cases, the SFD discussion is in abeyance, pending the discussion here at CFD. Which necessitates having the discussion at CFD. In any case, having what amounds to a CFD discussion at a wikiproject defeats the purpose of centralising category changes at a CFD page. We may as well not have a CFD page, and just let each wikiproject conduct its own discussions relating to individual categories in that case. It's also exclusivist. Sure, there's a link here to discussion at the wikiproject, but having the discussion under the auspices of that project is already likely to bias the outcome one way or another (no offence to the Cat project - the same would be true with any discussion moved to within a specific wikiproject's pages). Having it here means it's far more likely to be seen by people connected with other, more laterally related subjects, too - it's more likely to get input from people working, say, in categories dealing with other sections of order carnivora. And what happens when this discussion is logged? it can't be logged as a CFD discussion along with other CFD discussions, since it's not a CFD discussion - it's a WikiProject discussion and would get logged there. Basically, if one individual CFD-style discussion is to be held on a WikiProject's pages rather than in the correct forum, then it will become a precedent that other WikiProjects are likely to want to follow. The centralisation of category discussions will be significantly reduced, and it will become more and more difficult to maintain uniformity between them, or any type of overview by individual editors (which is easier, to visit CFD to check all category discussions, or to visit the pages of 20 or 30 WikiProjects to see what the latest is in individual category discussions?) I wouldn't describe it as outrageous, but I would describe it as a dangerous precedent to set. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 24 December 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:Women's political advocacy groups in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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. Kbdank71 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Women's political advocacy groups in the United States to Category:Feminist organizations
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I fail to see how this category is significantly different from Category:Feminist organizations, other than its regional focus, leading to a lot of superfluous double-categorization of a number of articles. Since the majority of articles in the category "Feminist organizations" are US ones, I think a simple merger of the two categories is in order. However, if regional categorization of feminist groups is justified, the category should be renamed "Feminist organizations in the United States" and made a subcategory of "Feminist organizations". The articles in "Category:Feminist organizations" that are about US groups should then be moved into that subcategory and removed from the larger category. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge - There is a difference between "women's organizations" and "feminist organizations". Consider Concerned Women for America which should be in WPAGITUS but should certainly not be in FO. And consider NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism) which is a men's feminist group. "Women's organizations" refers to the membership (women); "feminist organizations" refers to the political ideology (feminist). --Lquilter (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lquilter. cats are similar, but not identitical. --Soman (talk) 10:35, 19 December 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:American gay porn directors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American gay porn directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:American porn directors and Category:Gay porn directors. Narrow intersection and neither of the parents is populated to the point where splintering by nationality makes sense. Otto4711 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per nom. Neither parent category is sufficiently populated with differing nationalities, so subcategorization is not called for. If this situation changes, this category can be recreated, along with categories for other relevant nationalities and/or porn genres. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. The most notable ones aren't included anyway -- umm. And per Otto4711's & Iamcuriousblue's helpful analyses of both parent categories, which is very helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 05:14, 20 December 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:Auto-erotic performers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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. Kbdank71 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Auto-erotic performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - if I'm understanding the purpose of this category, it's for people who have masturbated in a performance environment. This is performer by performance overcategorization and if it's actually for people who've jerked off on-camera technically almost every male porn performer and a good chunk of the female performers would qualify. Otto4711 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undefined and therefore non-defining category. Doczilla (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 20 December 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:History of medicine by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 relisted on dec 26. Kbdank71 16:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of medicine by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale

Recreation of deleted material. This category tree is a duplicate of Category:Historical medical landmarks by country, deleted per an October 24 discussion. The geographic subdivisions and articles contained are virtually identical between the two cases. Both category trees were created and populated by the same user.

Lack of a clear and/or useful scope. These categories lack a clear and/or useful scope as they lump together articles about everything that is related to medicine and history in a particular place. They contain articles about everything from burial structures, paintings, scientific texts, sculptures, libraries, research institutes, museums, roadways, hospitals, and even people.

Overcategorisation through unneeded duplication. Due to the fact that these categories contain articles about every type of object, they unnecessarily duplicate other existing category structures, including but not limited to Category:Medical museums, Category:Hospitals by country, Category:Medical researchers, Category:Medical research institutes, and Category:Medical literature.

Suboptimal basis for categorisation. The history of medicine has involved international collaboration and cooperation, and categorising on the basis of boundaries is inefficient and, in some cases, downright awkward. A more natural basis for subdivision is branch of medicine, for instance as outlined at History of medicine#Special history of medicine.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and categories are not appropriate for developing such guides. The original Category:Historical medical landmarks by country – again, the content of the two category trees is almost identical – contained a notice stating that the category tree could be used "to easily locate ... important places to pay a visit to in every Country or Town" and even included talk of a "map" of such locations. While the category title is different, the purpose is still the same.

  • Delete as nominator (all of the articles are already otherwise categorised). – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This tree is significantly overcategorized. All of the subcategories that I investigated were populated with one article on the topic itself; a few of the categories had some historical medical institutions additionally. There's no question that Category:History of medicine needs to be cleaned up, as do the history by topic and by region cats generally (many of them are basically random collections of articles about things that are old or people that are dead). But this isn't the way. --Lquilter (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep countries, merge cities to country It is early days for these categories, but international co-operation or not, I see no reason why this tree should not have national categories like most large ones. If the articles in the rest of of the parent Category:History of medicine were diffused, the categories would look a lot better. The main division there is by theme or medical specialism, which is fine, but as there are many of these a by country split seems perfectly reasonable. Of course the category contains people, buildings (or rather institutions) and books! What would you expect a history category to contain? There are several categories - Germany, India etc, that should be added. On the other hand, the city categories are a step too far, & should be merged to the countries. If these go, things like Apothecaries Act 1815 - not diffused yet - will forever clutter up the main category. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category really shouldn't lump together people and objects, as it diminishes overall navigability and utility, and certainly not for a topic as broad as "history of medicine"... – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Trees should not, but this is standard in end of the line history cats - see Category:Anglo-Dutch Wars, Category:History of Catholicism in England & hundreds of others. You & LQ need to make up your minds whether these cats are "broad" or overcategorisation! Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be both! I can contain multitudes and so can this CFD. HOM is broad. Categorization by city is way too narrow. Categorization by country might be justifiable, but I think this leads into the bigger question of some of these subject history categories -- they just serve as a rather random aggregation of things and people from the past. --Lquilter (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is what history tends to be at the bottom level. The existing subcats of HOM are no different. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tidy up - many subjects need to be categorised by country or place. Because the diffusion of knowledge is not instanteous, such categorisation is perfectly legitimate. I would agree to upmerge cities, possibly also US States, but that will depend on the population of the categories (which I have not investigated). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 23 December 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:Brewing (beer)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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. Kbdank71 16:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brewing (beer) to Category:Brewing
Nominator's rationale: It used to be Brewing. It was changed to Brewing (beer) as a disambiguation with Brewing (tea) - but there is no Brewing (tea) category so this is an unnecessary and ugly disambiguation which doesn't fit the way that people think nor any of the article or subcat names. There is a Master Brewers Association of the Americas - but not a Master Brewers (beer) Association. There is a Homebrewing subcat, not a Homebrewing (beer) subcat, etc. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is clearer 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom. I cannot find a category Category:Brewing (tea), and it is not needed. The article Brewing (tea) redirects to Tea. Accordingly, the most that is needed is an "otheruses" template to be placed at the head of the category page. I note that the related main article is now Brewing, and the category should match. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 23 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_19&oldid=1141928623"