Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers centers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers centers to Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers football players
Nominator's rationale: Several specified categories of football players, all should be upmerged. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them also have a {{categoryredirect}} leading to it with every word capitalized (e.g. Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers Defensive Ends.)

  • Upmerge as nominated, and delete the redirects. We don't do this for any sport-team-position triple intersections.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Tameamseo (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artificial Life researchers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Researchers of artificial life. Kbdank71 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Artificial Life researchers to Category:To be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Rename to something. Originally I nominated this for a speedy change to Category:Artificial life researchers to fix the caps, but an editor suggested that there has to be a better name since the current one makes it sound like the researchers are composed of artificial life (which some women at the single's bar for scientists may be in total agreement with, but putting that aside ...). Someone else suggested Category:Researchers of artificial life. I'm nominating it here to get consensus on what name to use. Right now it is a subcategory of Category:Artificial life and Category:Scientists. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Researchers of/in/on artificial life ? 70.55.89.134 (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Researchers of artificial life. While this may not be the ultimate solution, it fixes some of the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Is there a standard for Researchers of whatever? Does this include scientists and historians and journalists with a special interest in artificial life? Do we mean Scientists working on artificial life? Just some thoughts. Peet Ern (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hebrew Bible cities and countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hebrew Bible cities and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Hebrew Bible places. This cat only has two sub-cats (you can guess them) and no other members. Maybe it had a purpose when first created as "Tanakh cities and countries", but it is clearly not necessary now. Fayenatic (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I remember now that there used to be a separation between this and what is now its grandparent, category:Hebrew Bible geography. Geography categories generally seem to be used for physical geography, excluding human settlement/construction -- is that an agreed precedent? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom; mixing cities and countries is somewhat a stretch, as for geography cats being physical only, the precedent is to the contrary: nearly all short articles about villages and whatever are stubbed with foo-geo-stub templates because cities, villages, settlements cats are usually subcats of geography of Foo... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cue sports celebrity amateur players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cue sports celebrity amateur players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Carom billiards celebrity amateur players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pool celebrity amateur players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These are all small categories with unclear growth potential and also suffer from the same sort of subjectivity problems as other "celebrity" categories. Also, what constitutes being an "ardent" cue sport player? Suggest we delete the parent category and merge the subcategories to the appropriate existing player categories. For a parallel, see Category:Poker players and its subcats which don't differentiate between professional and "celebrity" or "amateur" players. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom. I stumbled into the very same cul-de-sac last week when I took an extended stroll through the cue sports category tree. These categories were brought into the discussion in the course of an earlier CFD for Category:Snooker celebrity amateur players, which was deleted. These three weren't officially nominated, so they were left alone, although there was clear sentiment for deletion. It's been a whole year since then, and as far as I can see no additional articles have been added to any of these categories. I think it's now time for the coup de grâce (what, another French term?!?). Cgingold (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parent, upmerge children to carom billiards / pool players categories per nom and per my comments almost a year ago last time round, when I failed to add the categories to the nomination correctly, noob that I was back then.... BencherliteTalk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've already torpedoed equivalent categories for American football and poker.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Being an amateur player is not a defining characteristic worthy of categorization unless accompanied by notable tournament wins. Quale (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the various ways the idle rich idle away their time is not encyclopedic nor defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football in Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Football in Ireland to Category:Association football in Ireland
Nominator's rationale: per present proposals (below) for NI and the Republic -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Roundhouse0. Because of the huge popularity in Ireland of Gaelic football, which is widely referred to just as "football", the term "football" is ambiguous in an Irish context. The proposed renaming removes the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The current name is clearly ambiguous. Tameamseo (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Football (soccer) in Ireland, as ambiguous in this case. But "football (soccer)" is the normal alternative, already used by some of the articles, and we should be consistent with the many other categories using this, rather than the English-language-only term in the article name. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is (correctly) at Association football. I'm not sure where the clumsy 'Football (soccer)' formulation has arisen or why it should be used within 'these islands'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard for categories, and rightly so. Obviously Category:Association football in Brazil would be a bit ridiculous. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Presidents of the ABA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per Vegas (which, incidently, is what I was going to do anyway :). Kbdank71 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the ABA to Category:Presidents of the American Bar Association
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation to avoid ambiguity with any number of other ABAs. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian Walkley Award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus as to keep or delete; rename per nom, feel free to renominate it to deal with the OCAT issues . Kbdank71 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian Walkley Award winners to Category:Walkley Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The awards are called the Walkley Awards, not the "Australian Walkley Awards". Unless this is intended to restrict the category by nationality (which given the overall number of winners seems unnecessary anyway) the modifier is not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Silpathorn Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Silpathorn Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - contains nothing but the subcat for the winners and seems unlikely to expand. Otto4711 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:EA Sports soundtracks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:EA Sports soundtracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Has a grand total of one article in it, and I merged it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty cat.--Lenticel (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female pool players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female pool players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:CATGRS and WP:OVERCAT.
Outline summary rationale (skips maintainability and usability issues, and lots of industry background; added after some debate, due to misconceptions and missed points):
  • This fails WP:CATGRS as arbitrary, pointless gendering of categories: There is nothing rare or special about female players, and women's pool is not different in any notable, encyclopedic way from men's, nor discriminated against in modern times. It is not a male dominated sport, but simply one in which males predominate in numbers. Even the most difficult cue sports disciplines such as speed pool, trick shot competition, and three-cushion billiards have world-class female players who compete against men professionally and in notable amateur play. Women do not play the game in any known way, mentally or physically, differently than men.
  • It fails WP:OVERCAT as a trivial intersection: Women players are a normal, accepted part of the billiards world and on equal professional-opportunity footing; there is nothing notable or deeply related about "pool player" and "female" being juxtaposed).
  • The comparatively small number of articles on women players is simply an incidental effect of editor attention (the WP:CUE project, like most others, needs more female editors); in the actual pool world, women's pool is more media-successful, organized and stable than men's, and there are probably at least 200 current players notable enough for articles (plus many past players, including BCA Hall of Fame inductees); the implication that female players are rare and marginalized is false (also the case at the amateur level, where leagues encourage female players and mixed F/M teams).
  • There are more professional male pool players in the world (due to more young males taking up the game competitively at an earlier age, and the lingering macho perception of the game in the popular imagination), but that is irrelevant. There have been more Germanic heads of state in European history than Celtic ones, but any such category intersections would still be trivial, despite both ethnicity (like gender) and occupation arguably being defining characteristics when considered separately.
  • Pro competitions are either divided into M and F divisions, or open and ungendered; no major events bar either gender aside from the all-female WPBA and all-male counterpart USPPA (neither US-only) which are on good terms with each other and both BCA-sanctioned; this is simply the separate-divisions version of pro pool, a format common throughout the sports world. Pool is actually unusual in the number of events that are not gender-divided (due to the nature of the game).
  • A Category:Female ice hockey players would pass both guidelines on essentially opposite grounds: They are rare if they exist at all above the amateur level, the on average smaller frame and lower strength of females makes the sport challenging for them against huge male players (factors irrelevant in pool, a mental and motor-skills game), the sport resists their entry, and they would almost certainly face discrimination and barriers to advancement and professional success, making the intersection quite notable and a gendered category appropriate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long rationale (with various additions and updates following): CATGRS: "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. ... Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic". This is emphatically not the case here. Pool is not an especially female (or male) activity. Female pool players are quite common (including at the top professional level), so there is nothing special or notable about some players being women. At the previous CfD on this category (for renaming, where deletion was also raised), a rename proponent suggested that "women pool players hav[ing] separate and distinct competitions and leagues" is sufficient justification for this category, but this is not entirely true - women frequently compete with men, and some leagues have no women's divisions, while some even offer mixed-gender doubles/team competition and so on. The idea that women's pool and men's pool are separate is simply incorrect; there are some separate organizations and events, but this hardly trumps the CATGRS guideline. Also, the fact that we have a Category:Sportswomen by nationality and a Category:Sportswomen by sport in no way militates for the creation of "Women [x] players" subcategories for every known sport and game. The existence of those higher-up categories themselves would be very questionable, since there is nothing whatsoever notable about a woman being an athlete, except that they need to exist to contain subcats that DO make sense (Category:19th century female athletes, or a future Category:Female NFL players surely would survive CATGRS). It is a trivial intersection, in terms of OVERCAT ("Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits"; being a skilled pool player and being a woman are unrelated traits). Finally, because of the large number of female pool pros, more and more bios of whom are being created here all the time, this category will inevitably bloat, requiring a profusion of (mostly underpopulated) by-nationality subcategories, and who is going to maintain that mess? WP:CUE is overworked as it is (and I also note that creation of this category was not discussed with the project, which would have been strongly against it) .— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is actually worse than I thought, since it causes a confusing and non-intuitive, non-parallel category structure, e.g. Ewa Mataya Laurance being in Category:Swedish pool players and Category:Female pool players, both of them subcats of Category:Pool players. The average editor isn't going to figure this out. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On this last point: as I read the first sentence, I was anticipating something quite monstrous and unusual. Instead I found a perfectly ordinary group of categories that impose no particular burden on readers or editors. Frankly, I don't see any problem whatsoever in that regard. Quite to the contrary (see below). Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I've explained the issue in more detail below; it's a matter of having to double-cat all of those articles and all future ones, and then eventually have to recat them all, and it would probably be mostly my labor because no one else does maint in that corner of catspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: What I meant in the original last point above about editor confusion is that the odds of any editor (especially a new one, and most new player bio stubs are created by noob editors who want to fix the fact that their favorite player doesn't have an article yet) correctly guessing these categories is very low. What will probably happen is they will guess "Pool players" and that'll be that and WP:CUE will have to fix it. If they know that we do national categorization they'll guess "Swedish pool players" and get that half right. Maybe once in a blue moon "Female pool players", but almost certainly not both. If they try "Female Swedish pool players" they'll get a redlink. What this editor will do is up in the wind. Just add the first of the two real cats. that they guess? Against all odds add both? Add the redlink on the assumption someone will create the category later? Actually go and create the category (and probably not categorize the cat. itself)? Add nothing? The probability of any editor other than WP:CUE members (and probably me, since I do this maintenance and the others mostly work on either articles exclusively or articles and infobox/nav templates) properly categorizing a new female player bio in both "Female pool players" and "[Nationality] pool players" is very close to zero, which means that a large proportion of incoming articles will remain miscategorized for a long time and we'll be presenting incomplete categories to users. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I read the Nominator's rationale, I was impressed by its length, and by the thoroughness and vehemence of the arguments. I was assuming that female players must be closing in on equal numbers with males. But contrary to the impression that was conveyed, female pool players comprise only about 10% of the total number of articles (12 out of 111). I had to go through every last one of the 25 sub-cats, many with just a single article, to determine those numbers.
I think it's very misleading to portray this sport as not being heavily male-dominated. This sort of gender imbalance is a factor that is widely understood to justify categories like this in a considerable number of other fields. Why should readers have to go through all of those sub-cats like I did, looking for those female players? Even if they did, given the diverse array of nationalities and unfamiliar names, there's no way the average reader could identify who's female without looking at each and every article. In short, this category serves a valuable navigational function that would be lost if it were deleted. Cgingold (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is misleading is simply the number of articles. The 10 or fewer active editors of pool bio articles over the last 2 years have focused almost exclusively on male pros. In the real world, female pros totally dominate the mass-media coverage and general fan popularity (with the exception of the sideline events like trick shot competitions and speed pool, but they are making inroads there as well, and the top pool commentator in North America is a woman). The end result is an industry balance in which there are certainly many more male pros, and there are more male-dominated (but few exclusively male) tournaments (almost none of them televised), meanwhile fewer of the top males are well-known than the top women, and command much less public respect. The women's main organization, the WPBA, is also far more organized and stable than the male counterparts, which have a tendency to collapse and/or splinter every few years. Your perception that there's a big gender imbalance in pro pool simply isn't true at all. This is not Jean Balukas's era (really good article, by the way; likely to be one of WP:CUE's first WP:FA's).
Anyway, I'm unlikely to argue much on this further after this post, which should contain every point I'll want to raise; I find it a bit frustrating to have to respond to XfD threads a dozen times. Aside from the fact that this category will personally cause me a lot of headaches, because from what I can tell not a single other person on all of WP bothers to do anything to keep the cue sports category hierarchy in any kind of order, and this will add a lot to my work load, I'm just registering another voice among many against creating pointless gender-based categories. By your "valuable navigation tool" rationale, EVERY human category should be gender-split because they all have to be waded through looking for women (to what end? why would someone be looking for random articles about women?) and many of those contain orders of magnitude more articles than any of the pool player categories, yet they aren't gender-divided; this idea has already been soundly rejected by the community. That's why we have WP:CATGRS, why it is designated a guideline, and why it is so negative about the idea of going there. Convenience for an unlikely browsing pattern isn't enough justification to keep this category in the face of established precedent about categories like this when they are not really, really necessary. A simple list article would serve the purpose you seem to have in mind. WP:CUE's WP:SNOOKER child project uses list articles of this sort very effectively in lieu of creating more and more categories that 50, 100, 200 articles have to be manually added to.
There are easily 200+ additional articles that would be in this female pool player category eventually, if we (reasonably) decide that the top 50-100 WPBA pros are notable, and at least that many international WPA pros are as well, plus maybe 25-50 of the world's top amateurs, probably 25 or more greats from long before women's pool was an organized affair, and a few dozen unusual ones, like the Korean massé shot champ from the 40s whose name escapes me for the moment, some notable road hustlers, etc. We're only scratching the surface with the current articles. If I recall correctly only two of the women in the BCA Hall of Fame have articles yet.
The only way I'm not going to be really unhappy about this category surviving is if the articles in it are broken out into nationality subcats now, so that I don't have to recategorize a big pile of articles down the road and be double-catting them (and it almost certainly would be me doing it). If this thing is kept, the subcatting needs to be done pre-emptively, so that the women players are moved out of the X pool player categories into female X pool player subcats, all of which are also subcats of female pool players - 1 pool player cat per article. I could live with that, and pretty much insist that the consensus be to not attack those subcats at CfD as underpopulated if the consensus is to keep this parent cat. But I still think it's wrongheaded to do any of this, per CATGRS and OVERCAT, as already elaborated. We collectively arrived at those guidelines for really good reasons.
PS: Frankly, I'd like to hear from some women editors on this. If I were female I'd be really insulted that women are being put into special "girlie" categories; it just reinforces the notion that there are "real" athletes and then there are those women "athletes". That's my grandfather's categorization scheme.
Not sure I can really say anything further that isn't already covered here and above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Contrast this with Category:Female serial killers. That's a gender-based category that makes sense, because the intersection is very notable - such women are statistically quite rare (rarer than the category indicates; I note that it includes a number of women convicted of accessory to murder; they didn't actually do the mortal deeds, but just helped men do it, and I think a few of them also need to be reclassified as mass murderers not serial murderers. There really aren't many Countess Bathorys and Eileen Wuornoses out there). There are hundreds and hundreds of arguably-notable female pool players (present and historical). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: An important clarification has been added with regard to a misconception that popped up, and "keep" !voters arguing diametrically opposite positions - can't have it both ways. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary sex category - do they play differently? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To judge from US Open Nine-ball Championship women compete against women and so gender is significant (as with most sports). I am with Cgingold in finding nothing to deplore in the present system of categorisation. Occuli (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gender being "significant" in some way in some area of life is not grounds for forking out "Female X" categories, under WP:OVERCAT and WP:CATGRS. The things to deplore are redundant double categorization that will eventually have to be manually undone and which don't serve any actual purpose other than aiding people noodling around for random articles about women who do X, not a particularly encyclopedic duty, as well as the proliferation of useless gender-based categories, against two well-established guidelines. No point in it. I've already explained all this in [probably more] detail [than anyone really needs]. Note to closing admin: Simply repeating what the first keep !vote said in other words after that keep's points have been thoroughly addressed isn't a very strong !vote. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I am getting the impression that some respondents here don't understand how women's professional pool actually works. The high points of the pro life of a top woman player's year might look something like: Compete in some casino's or cigarette company's or whatever's one-off tournament, no gender divisions. Go to a women-only WPBA event. Next play in an ungendered speed pool competition. Get paid to do trick shot demos for some big corporate meeting. Another WPBA event. Do a WPA qualifier in the women's division. Enter an ungendered trick shot competition. Play another WPBA event. Spend a month on the road hustling, taking men's and women's money alike. Enter an ungendered world one-pocket championship. Do a week of demo events for your billiards equipment manufacturer sponsors. Play another WPBA event. And so on. The male pro's life looks exactly like this, with the gender flipped, other than women pros (cf. Jean Balukas) have successfully demanded to play in men's divisions, and no male player I'm aware of has ever pulled off the opposite. As far as I know (and I subscribe to all three of the major North American pool monthlies, and read their online competitors too), aside from the male-only USPPA pro tour (the mirror image of the WPBA one, except without WPBA's fatcat sponsors and major TV coverage on ESPN), there are no major tournaments that do not have either men's and women's divisions, or no gender division at all. I.e., there are no "open" tournaments that bar women. I'm also unaware of any national or regionial am, pro-am or non-invitational pro league (in North America anyway) that does not permit and in fact encourage mixed-gender competition; this includes BCA, VNEA (and VNEA-Europe, -Australia, etc.), APA/ACA, ACSA, ACSL, ABL, APL, TAP, and others. This entire idea that there is this put-upon, second-rate, basement-relegated world of women's pool is far from the truth. In closing, the "keep"ers can't have it both ways. The first keep argument is "keep because men dominate pool, and there are so few women players and poor them their articles will be lost among the men's", and the second is "keep because women and men have separate big-deal divisions that compete side-by-side, so women's pool is significant enough to have a special category". Both of these ideas misunderstand how the pool world operates. Sorry to go on at length again; I thought I'd covered everything in the first try, but I wasn't expecting this particular misconception to come up, nor for !voters to say "keep" for two totally opposite keep rationales. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whew. No insult intended, SM, but your verbosity has worn me out. So I will simply say that your comments about "girlie categories" and "poor them" were way off base. My only concern is that the women players not be lost in the male-dominated ocean of articles in this realm. If the women players really have parity with the men that becomes a lesser concern. I am completely unfamiliar with the world of professional cue sports, so I can only go by what I see in terms of articles, and what you've said in this discussion. So I will defer to the collective judgement of other, more knowledgeable editors. Cgingold (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Sorry to be verbose, but the topic is complex. The "girlie categories" thing is in reference to the pointless (as opposed to legitimate) gendered categories and how they can be perceived as reflecting a particular attitude, not your comments in particular; I wasn't implying anything about you, just this particular brand of overcat'ing. The "poor them" thing was me misunderstanding your argument; sorry, and I will strike and correct that. Understanding your argument better now, I don't want to be seen as just arguing with you for argument's sake; the following is simply to address the point since others are likely to raise it: It's unclear to me how F player articles would be "lost" among M ones, any more than F journalists will be "lost" among M ones. Looking at Category:American journalists, as a random choice likely to contain a lot of articles, it contains (not counting subcats) 2,714 articles as of this writing, and is not gender-divided. None of its subcats (nor any of their subsubcats) are gender-split either, not even Category:American magazine editors, Category:American newspaper editors or Category:American sportswriters, all probably male-dominated professions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of observations: There is, broadly speaking, a much greater degree of gender balance in American categories than there is among categories for most other parts of the world -- so it's not the best comparison. The other thing is that it can be very difficult to discern male vs. female names in mixed-gender categories when the language/culture is unfamiliar to the reader. I brought this up in another discussion a few months back, but it was too late in the CFD to factor into the decision. Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable point (the second one). From a devil's advocacy position I'll even bolster it by giving a real-world example. Of these two Turkish billiards pros (who are a couple), who is the husband and who is the wife (without looking at the article and the should-be-article redlink): Aygen Berk Saygıner and Semih Saygıner? However, looking at Category:Journalists (to get rid of the "American" component - I hadn't considered your first point, it was just a random selection), the category is not in actual practice a gender-divided category. There is a Category:Female journalists but it contains, including its lone subcat, a grand total of only 26 entries (i.e. it is a prime candidate for CfD - it is a disused whim category that is broadly ignored because no one sees any use for it). To return to your second point, yes, it can be hard to discern, but this is true of probably over 1000 categories that are not gender-divided; why should pool playing be a special exception? While I agree with your point about the US being more gender-balanced on average than the rest of the world, I'm not sure it's pertinent here, since for pool the US is the "center of the universe", as it were. Many (especially, for no explicable reason, Filipinos, who for a while dominated the game on the male side) excel at pool but are not from the US, the money and the glory and the prestige events are in the US, with the sole exception that the WPA (i.e. international) Championships have recent-ish-ly tended to be hosted in the Philippines more than anywhere else (with the decline of the Filipino dominance in the last 2 years or so, expect that to change). Cf. Sang Lee (M), Thorsten Hohman (M) and Gerda Hofstatter (F), among many other WPA champs that became/have become [Lee is deceased, and was principally a carom billiards player anyway] permanent or semi-permanent US residents because the professional "action" is in the US. While I wasn't consciously thinking of the potentially valid "US bias" issue you raise when I picked the journo category, I don't think the issue is actually at play in this case. I'm not being jingoistic here; the US really does organizationally (not necessarily champ-origin-wise) dominate pool in the same way that the UK dominates snooker and Italy dominates five-pins and France dominates three-cusion billiards. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind the gender guidelines at WP:CATGRS, if I may — the core criterion that needs to be met is that a properly encyclopedic article could be written to explain why the grouping in question is a valid encyclopedic topic.
For instance, the women writers tree is valid not just because writers exist who are women, but because women's literature is generally recognized as a distinct domain within the study of literature. Doctoral theses have been written about what makes women's literature a distinct phenomenon from men's literature. Entire university programs are devoted specifically to the study of women writers. There's an entire body of critical analysis comparing and contrasting writing by women with writing by men. There's a whole raft of academic literature studying the role that writing by women has played in social movements. And on, and so forth. That's what "unless gender has a specific relation to the topic" means: women writers are recognized by external sources as a distinct topic of social and encyclopedic study in their own right.
Similarly, a "female heads of government" grouping is valid not just because heads of government have existed who were women, but because there's a whole body of literature out there examining the still relatively-new phenomenon of women leaders, and studying whether they rule in different ways, have different political and social priorities, achieve in different ways, etc., than men leaders. Again, they constitute a grouping that is recognized by external sources as a distinct topic of social and encyclopedic study in their own right.
So, by the same token, the issue here is not whether women exist who play pool. The issue is whether women who play pool do so in a unique or distinct context in which their gender actually plays a role. Are there books out there about the unique issues that women face in the professional pool world? Is there a body of academic literature out there about what makes being a woman pool player different from being a male pool player? Is there a separate "women's pool" game that is played under different rules than "men's pool" is? Those are the kinds of questions that would justify this grouping — categories should only be gendered in cases where a meaningful and encylopedic distinction exists along gender lines between women and men within the same grouping.
As far as I know the answer to all of those questions is "no", so I'm inclined to go with the delete on this one. Though I am willing to change my position to keep if somebody can show some evidence to the contrary. For what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - neutral on the category itself, but a couple of observations. One, SMcCandlish's comments & complaints about doing an entire separate gendered structure are unavailing. It is perfectly fine to have one gendered parent category and not do the gendering through all the subcategories, and WP:CATGRS gives that situation as its example when talking about ghettoizing. Two, WP:CATGRS specifies that a head article could be written. This test would usually be met where gender plays a recognized role in competition or performance, or the history of a field was broadly gendered. --Lquilter (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - picking Allison Fisher at random, her successes in 2007 include US Open Nine-ball Championship (women's division), 2007 Billiards Digest Player of the Year (female), 2007 Pool & Billiard Magazine Player of the Year (female). It seems clear from this alone that awards and competitions in pool do take gender into account and so the intersection is perfectly valid. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold & Roundhouse; I'll keep it brief (!) - if the women compete separately they should of course be so categorized, like the rest of Category:Sportswomen by sport. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Much of the point of the material above is that the women do not appreciably compete separately. There is a women-only pro league, and a men-only pro league, but all other leagues, pro and am (IPT, VNEA, etc.), are mixed, and a great number of events, including on the pro side, are mixed. Really, the gender divide only seems to exist solidly at the pro level when it comes to nine-ball which is already on its way out as the pro game of choice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold & Roundhouse. If the sport itself is gendered, then we should have categories which reflect that. The nominator points in horror to a player being categorised in Category:Swedish pool players and Category:Female pool players, but there are many other examples of a category being sub-divided in more than one way, with players correctly categorised in two sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Bearcat and Lquilter: Replying here, since their original comments are above the relisting line. 1) There is no Female pool player article (or anything comparable – Women in pool, Women's billiards, etc.), and if one were written it would probably be deleted at WP:CFD as pointless. Very little could be said in it that would be unique to that article as opposed to pool articles in general. It could cover the founding and operation of the WBPA (but that is what the WPBA article is for), and mention a few prominent names with summaries, and little else, as there is not much to distinguish women's pool from men's, just as there is little to distinguish women's news anchoring or women's Frisbee playing from men's. This is a major indicator that WP:CATGRS and WP:OVERCAT are not being met by this category. 2) Women playing pool is not "generally recognized as a distinct domain within the study of" sports (or billiards more particularly), no one has dug up any doctoral theses or books written on the topic, there are no university programs studying women in pool, and nor is there a body of critical theory literature about this topic. 3) Books written by women players do exist; both Jeanette Lee and Ewa Mataya Laurance have written or co-written non-fiction books about billiards. In Lee's case, the book is promoted as a guidebook, but is actually mostly a "this is my life story" book (and is very interesting in this regard, because her life and success are quite notable; she picked the game up comparatively late in life at age 17 and was one of the top pros in almost a few years, but that's is about her as an individivual, not about women players in general; Laurance's book is a guidebook, but is not targeted at women in particular). 4) Women pool players are not recognized by external sources as a distinct topic of social and encyclopedic study in their own right. 5) Women do not play pool in a "unique or distinct context" from men; often they are playing against men at the same events, and when they are not their women-only pro league operates pretty much just like the men's counterpart, only more TV-successful (I guess people in the aggregate like to look at well-dressed ladies on TV more than hairy guys stuffed into tuxes). 6) I have nearly every pool-related book in print and many that no longer are and have never found one that examined whether the mental, emotional, physical or spiritual side of the game is somehow different for women than for men, so such a work probably does not exist. The closest I've seen is Lee's book (but it is about her personal journey to success, not the journeys of WPBA players in general) and a novel written by a woman about a woman pool hustler, but it was not successful and has gotten rather poor reviews, so it does not seem to be elucidating the public about the nature of the intersection of pool and women. 7) There is no special "women's pool" game that is distinct from men's. The closest I've ever found is a (quite sexist) informal game called "Mr. and Mrs." in a decades-old BCA rulebook (it has long since been dropped), in which the man has to make harder shots. This game has never been the subject of professional competition, and even most long-term players have never even heard of it. Women at WPA, etc., events that do have gender divisions play by the same rules as the men, and both WPBA and USPPA (the F and M pro leagues) use the same BCA/WPA ruleset. 8) In short, there is no meaningful and encyclopedic distinction existing along gender lines between women and men within pro (or notable amateur) pool. 9) Finally, gender does not "play a recognized role in competition" other than some players are members of gendered pro tours (and still play in ungendered events, while other players are not members of gendered tours and play exclusively in ungendered events) nor performance (there is no cited evidence anywhere in WP, nor anywhere I've ever seen, of a mental or physical billiards capacity difference between males and females), and the history of the field has not been broadly gendered more than any other activity of this sort - i.e. it was formerly totally male-dominated, because males didn't respect women players, and then all of a sudden after the 1960s the situation changed. I play competitive pool all the time, and none of the male players I know underestimate their female competitors; doing so would be very foolhardy and lead to a lot of losses. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fauna of Timor-Leste[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: renamed already. Kbdank71 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fauna of Timor-Leste to Category:Fauna of East Timor
and renaming Category:Birds of Timor-Leste to Category:Birds of East Timor
Nominator's rationale: Merge / Rename. Use alternate name of country which is always used in WP; main category is Category:East Timor and main article is East Timor. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to follow main cat and main article.--Lenticel (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). User:Koavf has again pre-emptively emptied a category undergoing discussion (Category:Birds of Timor-Leste) and created and populated the proposed target category (Category:Birds of East Timor). Could perhaps someone explain to him the importance of not pre-empting CFDs this way, even if to him the projected result seems obvious? I have tried a number of times to explain this to him on his talk page, but it keeps happening and maybe the voice of another editor would help impress him more than I can. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree, but the wording on the CfD page could make it clearer that this is not acceptable, as has been pointed out many times before. But if he persists in it, it is disruptive, and admins here should be willing to take it up. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a category I did create and initially populate, you're right. Again, I do not see how this will interfere with the CfD, but I can see how that might be frustrating for you. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You manually emptied the category under nomination. Many editors prefer to see a category in the state it's in at the time of nomination. It doesn't seem like much to ask to have editors wait a few days for the discussion to take place before messing around with things. If you can understand and see how it could be frustrating for other editors, perhaps you should consider not doing it anymore. This is not the first time, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Although I personally prefer the former, the consensus is clearly for the latter many times over. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football in Northern Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Association football in Northern Ireland. Kbdank71 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Move to as per parent article Association_football_in Northern Ireland and to disambiguateGnevin (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah , rename. The parent article is Association_football_in Northern Ireland and the category should be named after it Gnevin (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A parent category however is Category:Football (soccer) in Europe so it is not entirely clearcut. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Because of the huge popularity throughout Ireland of Gaelic football, which is widely referred to just as "football", the term "football" is ambiguous in an Irish context. The proposed renaming removes the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The current name is ambiguous. Tameamseo (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Football (soccer) in Northern Ireland, as ambiguous in this case. But "football (soccer)" is the normal alternative, already used by some of the articles, and we should be consistent with the many other categories using this, rather than the English-language-only term in the article name. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The parent cat UK, just football. Matthew_hk tc 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Association football in the Republic of Ireland. Kbdank71 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Move to as per parent article Association_football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland and to disambiguate Gnevin (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Evolution controversies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Evolution controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Ill-defined, tenuous and redundant category, whose creator has included a number of articles (many of which have since had this category removed) that are not directly about a controversy and/or not directly about evolution (but only related to evolution via Creationism). Members have included Islamic creationism[1], Hindu views on evolution[2] & Evolutionary theory and the political left[3] (as well as a grab-bag of other tenuously related articles). When challenged on this lack of a coherent definition the creator simply stated "The World without the controversies is dull and boring.We need controversies."[4] HrafnTalkStalk 11:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick note -- the category creator is repeatedly removing the CfD template from the category (apparently under the mistaken impression that this will halt the nomination). HrafnTalkStalk 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This "new" category overlaps several existing categories and has no value of its own. Its creator has offered no reasonable explanation for its existence (beyond, as noted above, being bored with the world). --Plumbago (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, redundant and too vague. ... dave souza, talk 13:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary and confusing. Snalwibma (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially redundant. Is there anything about evolution that some group doesn't currently or hasn't in the past found controversial? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only real controversies within evolution would be boring and likely inexplicable to the creationists who make these categories. Such a category would be better described as "creationist controversies" or "creationist arguments" insofar as that is what it captures. --Lquilter (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Denver[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: already renamed/merged. Kbdank71 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Denver to Category:People from Denver, Colorado
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency, in line with earlier People from cities without states mass rename. --Paul A (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Wikipedians who believe that account creation should not be required on Wikipedia[reply]
  • Comment Dear sir, for what it's worth, there were already members of Category:People from Denver, Colorado prior to me doing anything. It seemed silly to have both, so I merged one into the other as they are clearly redundant. I don't want to stop the CfD; whatever it's outcome, I will respect that, and should they be moved into something else, I check this page frequently, and would be happy to assist in moving. I don't see how this merge would dissuade anyone from speaking his mind and making a decision regarding the CfD. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You manually emptied the category under nomination, which is the point. The fact that you created the category prior to the start of the CFD could in fact suggest (under one interpretation) that you were trying to change the category name without having it undergo a CFD, which you've been known to do before. Also, many editors prefer to see a category in the state it's in at the time of nomination. It doesn't seem like much to ask to have editors wait a few days for the discussion to take place before messing around with things. However, this is, of course, not the first instance of you dramatically changing the contents of a category under nomination and I would suggest that in general it's a bad habit to avoid. (PS: It's best not to assume that editors are "sirs". Some aren't.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I didn't create the category prior to the start of the CfD and I have no idea where you got this information. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an assumption of good faith; I didn't think you would create it after the CFD had started and I took that meaning from you stating that "there were already members of Category:People from Denver, Colorado prior to me doing anything". If you created it after the start of the CFD, which the log dates confirm, that's worse, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hip hop albums featuring skits or interludes recorded through telephones or telephone answering machines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per User:BrownHairedGirl. Kbdank71 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hip hop albums featuring skits or interludes recorded through telephones or telephone answering machines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. Spellcast (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom OCAT and very unweildy.--Lenticel (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh dear. I'm afraid this would have insuperable problems with WP:VERIFY. I mean, in this day and age, it's so easy to make fake recordings, how would we ever know for sure that it wasn't just recorded on ordinary equipment, with electronic "telephone ambience" added later??? Cgingold (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try as I might, I have not been able to come up with a way to definitively verify and guarantee that these recordings are, in fact, what they purport to be. So if we're truly concerned about maintaining Wikipedia's reputation for the highest order of intellectual integrity, I guess the only real solution is to delete this. Cgingold (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very sorry, but I must respectfully disagree, BrownHairedGirl. I was unable to discern any statement supporting this contention in the NYT article that you linked for us. Perhaps you could specify the passage that you're relying on. Cgingold (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement:

    Faith Popcorn, the trend-spotter, said the brands doing well right now are those selling what she called authenticity. She said: “That’s the theme I’m getting from his kitchens. You look at someone’s watch and say, oh, that’s nice, stainless? And they say, No, platinum. While big show-offy things like the big S.U.V. would be uncool to have right now, the one thing it’s still O.K. to spend on is authenticity.”

    is clearly a reference to the changing nature of bling, which is so important to hip-hop and related genres, and was obviously communicated to the journalist by mobile phone. Besides, WP:RS says anyone called Popcorn is automatically a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhhh. I wouldn't have questioned your judgement on this, BHG, if I had known your source was none other than Faith Popcorn. She is indeed a highly regarded authority on pop culture. Cgingold (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Ahem), delete per triviality. I'm pathetic — even when sarcasm is at its thickest in written form, I still go and read the NY Times article that is linked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_10&oldid=1138389447"