Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 5 August 7 >

August 6[edit]

Category:Propaganda films[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:  Relisted at 2008 AUG 14. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Propaganda films to Category:to be determined by consensus
This proposal also includes renaming the subcategories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category title is inherently PoV due to the strong negative connotation carried by the word "propaganda", even if Wikipedia consistently uses NPoV criteria for adding films to the category. Possibilities for more NPoV names include "Films described as propaganda" (with a suitably broad interpretation for the category) and "historical propaganda films" (with a narrowing of focus to films that are considered propaganda by historians). Relevant discussion may be found at Category talk:Propaganda films (recent discussion), Category talk:Propaganda, and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3#POV.2FDispute Issues (older discussions) skeptical scientist (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per discussion on Category talk:Propaganda films. My choice is "Category:Films described as propaganda". Deamon138 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support concur with above. I think once again it would be prudent to quote WP:CAT: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Very few, if any, films are self-evidently propaganda, and such designations are usually controversial. This category has been, and in cases still is, rife with abuse. -R. fiend (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sorry to be a stickler, but would the nominator please tag the categories under discussion using {{cfr}}? Tim! (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's been done. Deamon138 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it hasn't. Tim! (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, all of those categories have the cfr tag on them. What categories are you looking at? Deamon138 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ones nominated which are not tagged. Which ones are you looking at? Tim! (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah I see they are on the category talk pages, which is not correct. They should be moved onto the actual category pages. Tim! (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, I've moved them all onto the right pages, I hope I did it okay (although the part where it says "add entry" links to August 9th, rather than the 6th, which I couldn't fix, can anyone else?). Sorry about the confusion Tim!, and thanks for clearing it up lol. Deamon138 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm obviously swimming against the current here, but Films described as propaganda seems too weasel-worded to me. Rather than change to that, I'd rather just abandon propaganda categories altogether. To whom do abdicate to describe something as propaganda? If any right- or left-wing journal describes a film it does not like as propaganda, is it included? Mainstream publications such as the NY Times often publish highly personal essays or reviews that are anything but objective or authoritative - does the NY Times film reveiwer now have the power over Wikipedia to define Films described as propaganda? I'm not bothered by the "strong negative connotation" of the word propaganda as defined in the wiki article; objectively applied, it's a useful term. Unfortunately, too many wiki editors apply the popular definition: "My favorite political film is God's Truth; it's only that other guy's film that is propaganda."
  • Comment. As has been argued on the talk page for this category, I don't think propaganda is a term that can be objectively applied. What is obvious to you or me, is not obvious to someone else. I am certain that even the most blatant piece of propaganda around will still be described by someone else out there (even innocently) as not propaganda. It makes sense to just include those films described as propaganda in this category, because a category called "Propaganda films" is POV (you might not see the negative connotations, but I do) is basically an assertion that a film in it is propaganda. It says on WP:CAT that, "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc." So in this case, Wikipedia itself would be saying, "Article X is a Propaganda film" when that is a POV. Remember, Wikipedia describes the controversy, not advocates it. In response to your other point, "To whom do abdicate to describe something as propaganda?" Well, the exact criteria for that hasn't been decided, but my personal view is that it should be mentioned in reliable, secondary sources (cited in the article of course). I originally wanted one source to describe it as "propaganda", but that would be a little lax, and would let in extreme views. If it has been in a few sources, then it is more likely that it belongs in this category. Thus if extremists are calling something propaganda, then it would need to be shown to have been called that in a few sources, which would thus show that the film is noted for being described as propaganda. Deamon138 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the proposal to rename to "Category:Films described as propaganda" is an utter and complete non-starter. Why is that? Very simple: Because so many different films have been labelled as "propaganda" by so many different people, that virtually any film with a POV might reasonably qualify. Hell, we might even be better off having a category for "Films not described as propaganda". So I Oppose renaming to Category:Films described as propaganda. Having said that, I would also suggest that there might possibly be a place for list-articles of such films, perhaps arranged in such a way as to shed light on the political motivations of both the filmmakers and those who consider the films to be propaganda.

Returning to the question at hand, although this category tree is very problematic, I would not support complete, across-the-board deletion, because there are certain categories of films that are unquestionably "propaganda". I would give serious consideration to restricting Category:Propaganda films to use purely as a "container category" for specific sub-cats devoted to the two groupings I mentioned above -- historical and governmental -- because those films can far more persuasively and verifiably be demonstrated to be clear instances of propaganda. At present we have about a dozen sub-categories that would come under this umbrella. Cgingold (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please relist for further discussion. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 13 August 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:Mononymous persons[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. Mainly because it's recreation of an already deleted category, but also based upon the arguments below. Many of the keep arguments were based upon the fact that the people in this category were related simply because they are known by one name, and for no other reason. Cosmic Latte helpfully provides a link to WP:CAT, which states "The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where readers are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up." CAT also goes on to give an example that a useful category for Michael Jackson would be Pop singers, while a not useful one would be "Musicians whose first name starts with M". This category falls under the not useful variety. Good Ol'Factory describes this perfectly, as this is not only overcategorization, but equates it to Category:People named Buddy. Kbdank71 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mononymous persons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is the 2nd nomination. The first nomination (July 12 2008) was closed with no consensus.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Although this was CFDed fairly recently and closed no consensus, the deletion of its subcats Mononymous entertainers and Mononymous porn actors at CFD indicates that consensus has formed that the number of names a person has is not a defining characteristic. There is no encyclopedic relationship between Colette (whose name was Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette so she doesn't belong here anyway) and Tutankhamun. Otto4711 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I normally disapprove of quick re-noms, this one is so hopeless & confused I'm happy to make an exception. There is an enormous list, covering most people. Did any ancient Egyptians have surnames? Do we even know? Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was upset at the way those two previous discussions were conducted and closed (not the previous nomination of the presently discussed category), and I am considering requesting a deletion review. I almost missed one of them because the category page was only tagged with a notice about a renaming proposal. There was no clear consensus to delete in those two discussions. Nevertheless, closing admin gave his weight to the issue and decided they had no merit. Closing statement clearly shows this. This may not be wrong per se, but I do not think it is correct to assert that consensus has changed on this issue. As for the Tutankhamun issue, I am willing to see how a delineation can be defined, I'm certainly not going to agree to a premature conclusion that this proves the category is inherently untenable or unsustainable. __meco (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why this category is defining for people? That is a common factor that editors look for when developing consensus to keep people categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the previous category was tagged for renaming and the discussion turned to deletion is not relevant. Once a category is brought to CFD, all options are on the table. Otto4711 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the world in modern times, it is unusual for an individual to go by a single name (mononym). It will surely strike anyone with the slightest curiosity as singular — if it is brought to his attention — that Molière, Voltaire, Stendhal and Colette all chose to use mononyms on the title pages of their writings: the first three, invented ones; the last, the author's actual surname. Similarly, many artists, entertainers, athletes have likewise deliberately employed mononyms though they had not been deprived of given names at the time of their christenings. At least one, Teller (magician), has actually gone to the length of legally discarding his given names.

This is a coincidence of perhaps more import that those that are enshrined in such categories as "Category:Deaths from tuberculosis" or "Category:Burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery."

The fact of the use of mononyms has not escaped the broader world — a Google search yields "about 2,000" citations — but it has, till now, been overlooked by Wikipedia. The article and category "Mononymous persons" have sought to remedy this oversight. I must therefore, in the present deliberations over retention of Category:Mononymous persons, vote:

  • Keep. Nihil novi (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why people want to delete this category. Category:Mononymous persons is an interesting category and many editors have already pointed why this category shouldn’t be deleted. It was nominated for deletion in July 2008 and many editors argued against deletion. Please read the arguments by editors who voted “keep”.[1] I don’t want to repeat the same arguments again. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it doesn't distinguish between stage or pen names by people who used their normal full name in real life, people from cultures where everybody just had one name, people who were referred to by other people, often after their death, by one name, but used their normal name themselves, and so on. Confucius and Tutankhamun are both 3 (or more) words in their own languages, treated as one in English. It currently has 18 members; the list of one-word stage names has hundreds. Its just crap. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point about Tutankhamun and Confucius is well taken — I've deleted them from the category.
Teller (magician), as mentioned, has deliberately reduced his name legally to a mononym, which means that he uses the latter both for public and private purposes. Voltaire, on inventing his mononym, likewise used it for all purposes.
The other persons mentioned earlier chose to present themselves to the public by a mononym, and that suffices for recognizing them as mononymous persons.
"Mononymous cultures" are another matter. Some prominent examples (Sukarno, Suharto) are included chiefly to educate readers that, while many prominent persons voluntarily choose to be known by mononyms, in some instances mononymity is culturally determined. Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clear overcategorization. This is also a re-creation of a previously deleted category. The reason people want to delete this category is because it doesn't follow our guidelines. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a non-trivial characteristic of the categorised individuals. As in the last CfD, commenters here make the mistake of thinking that if a person has a legal non-mononymous name, they cannot be a mononymous person. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify people with other names but known by only one (ie. Madonna) into one list, and people actually with only one name into another one. 70.55.203.50 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Into which category would you place polynymous "François-Marie Arouet," who became mononymous "Voltaire"? Or "Raymond Joseph Teller," who now legally goes exclusively by the mononym "Teller"? Nihil novi (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't put them in any category based on the format of their names because it is trivial and non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as re-created material and (as long as we're reconsidering) because its overcategorization by form of name — not dissimilar to categorizing everyone named "Buddy" in the same category merely for the reason that they had that name. This classifies people together merely because they had or used one name only. (Most Indonesians still only have one name, so do we include all 200 million-odd of them in the category?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would propose that, for purposes of eligibility to this category, in principle only such persons should be included who use a mononym but come from a polynymous society. Exceptions would be considered for individuals originating from a mononymous society who become prominent in a polynymous society. Nihil novi (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's somewhat intricate. I have my doubts that such a rule of inclusion would be adhered to, let alone "enforceable" without constant vigilance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eternal vigilance is the price of intellectual clarity. Nihil novi (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: To claim that the deletion of "Mononymous entertainers" and "Mononymous porn actors" implies consensus to delete a more general mononymity is to commit a serious slippery slope fallacy. It's analogous to an argument that because a "green beans" category and a "green grapes" category are unnecessary, than so is a "green foods" category"--and, for that matter, it's proportionate to an argument that because "beans" and "grapes" categories failed, then a "foods" category shoud be deleted, too. A second problem with the two-part nom: the claim that there is no "encyclopedic relationship" between Colette and Tutankhamun. This raises the obvious question, "what, exactly, amounts to an 'encyclopedic relationship'"? Well, surely there is some culturally homogenizing force going on when, say, entertainers or porn actors are inclined to go by single names. (So on account of some sort of notable relationships, I guess that "Mononymous entertainers" and "Mononymous porn actors" should have been kept, eh?) But what's the relationship between two people unrelated in time or by occupation? Simple: they are related by mononymity itself. When different people, in different places, and of different dispositions all do the same thing, then there are two potential explanations. First, the relationship could be "coincidental fluff" (as one user has called this category). The second possibility is that it is a noteworthy historical thread of psychological, sociological, political, etc. makeup. I have yet to see a convincing argument that this is not of some historical merit, and the burden of proof is ultimately on those wishing to discount the concept. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a clear relationahip between varieties of beans and varieties of grapes, so Category:Legumes and Category:Grapes are legitimate and would not be challenged. The analogy is extremely poor, as it seeks to conflate things that are legitimately related to one another (types of beans and types of grapes) with things that have no relationaship to one another (people who have one name, or who have more than one name but choose to use only one of them or choose to use a single false name). Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people "have one name" at birth, it's because they were given that one name--by people, in a society, who are aware of social conventions regarding names. If people "have more than one name but choose to use only one of them or choose to use a single false name," it's because they--people, in a society, who are aware of social conventions regarding names--have made a decision. The relationship between the two is, once again, individuals' inclination, whether or not in accord or not with social conventions, toward mononymity. Does Madonna feel as important as Socrates? I don't know, but that's a possibility--an "encyclopedic relationship," if you will--allowed by the umbrella term of "Mononymous persons." Or, let's look at the flip-side. There are some people who did have last names, and probably used them, but are not referred to by their last names. For example, it's possible that Jesus's last name could have been "ben Joseph" (son of Joseph). Without meaning to be blasphemous--and meaning, instead, to point out yet another "encyclopedic relationship" concerning the very nature of fame--if I say Brad, Angelina, Britney, or Paris, you probably know whom I'm talking about, even though these people use their last names professionally. (By the way, speaking of conflation...you seem to be conflating your own previous arguments with one another. You originally said that A) there was consensus to delete similar categories, and therefore we should delete this one too; and B) this category seems to encompass unrelated people. My analogy addressed only point A: consensus to delete two specific food-related categories does not imply consensus to delete a general food category. I don't know why you're bringing in the "relatedness" of point B. Categories are not valid simply because they are related. I never made such a claim, and I don't see its relevance anyway. "Mononymous entertainers" and "Mononymous porn actors" certainly are related categories, but I never said that they were valid on account of their relationship with one another; I simply said they were valid because they imply intrinsic relationships, e.g., Entertainer A and Entertainer B, or conversely Porn Actor A or Porn Actor B, may choose to be mononymous for comparable reasons. In any event, I ended up defending those categories in a parenthetical statement, because they're not the category that we're dealing with here.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: P.S. By the way, I realize that "Brad," "Angelina" et al. are not currently in this category. Perhaps "Hillary" would be a better candidate. Anyway, I'm not seriously arguing right now that any of these names belong in the category; my point is that the category per se is especially meaningful insofar as it sheds some light onto the nature of fame. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entire comment amounts to original research by synthesis. You're making assumptions that are to the best of my knowledge unsupported by reliable sources about what it means to use a single name. One porn star may only have been given one name at birth while another may be using his or her real first name while another is using a single false name to conceal his or her identity. To say that the use of a single name sheds light on the nature of fame, in the absence of reliable sources on single-named people and the nature of fame, is unsupportable. As far as conflating my own arguments, I am not. I am not resting my argument for deletion of this category on the deletion of the other categories. I am noting the deletion of the other categories as evidence that since the last time this category was nominated consensus has emerged that the number of names one uses is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you! I'm flattered that you find my reasoning so original. Thank goodness WP:OR applies to articles. If we weren't allowed to say anything original anywhere on Wikipedia, then we wouldn't have talk pages (or user pages), obviously. Thanks again for the compliment. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Original or not, if you still object that my claim is too far out-there and want some sources to back it up, then this might be a good start. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR applies to categories as well as articles. In its very first sentence it states clearly, Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Publishing original research in the form of category names is still publication and we have certainly deleted categories before because of the OR required of editors to determine whether an article belongs. I fail to see what the linked article about some doxie in Britain who suckered a houseful of B-listers has to do with the encyclopedic utility of this category or how it overcomes the objections raised both here and when the all-but-identical categories for performers with single names were deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What I meant (and, I suppose, should have said) is that WP:OR applies to the mainspace; it doesn't mean that our reasoning in talk pages can't be original to some extent. Regardless of how original my reasoning was, it is backed up by the page I provided, which I deliberately called "a good start" in terms of sources. Yes, the page does go on about one person in particular, but that is a journalistic technique used to illustrate a more general point. And the point of that page is stated pretty clearly in the beginning: "It is a select band. Madonna, Maradona, Pele, Sting and even, possibly, Jordan. People who wear their fame with such confidence that they have dispensed with the B-list concerns of having more than one name. They are the mononym brigade." My supposedly "original" argument was that members of this category are united by the attachment of their names to the historical threads of fame. Fame (as well as the yearning for fame) and mononymity are intertwined, that is, in a culturally significant way. This assertion is completely consistent with the introduction and spirit of the page I cited. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting that discussions on talk pages can't be original. I'm saying that your assertion of the link between using a single name and fame or its pursuit is synthesis. You're saying that because some entertainers become famous while using one name, there must be a significant association between fame and its pursuit and single-named people. There need to be reliable sources that say so, otherwise this connection is something you've invented, otherwise known as OR. Not to mention that this supposed connection does not hold up for those notable people with one name who were not fame-seekers. And in point of fact, since the vast majority of famous people don't use a single name, weakening your thesis even further. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a good thing that "the vast majority of famous people don't use a single name"--because if they did, then that fact would be a plausibile deletion rationale, because this category would be, by and large, a redundant way to say "famous people." I am suggesting that it is possible to see some deeper-than-superficial relationships between mononymous persons, and have provided a source pointing in that direction; the burdon of proof is on those who think it impossible. My point is that I've yet to see a clear demonstration--I've seen only an assertion--that there is no clear psychological/sociological/cultural/political/etc. relationship between, say, Tutankhamun and Colette. However, I am perfectly willing to go along with Nihil novi's suggestion that, "in principle only such persons should be included who use a mononym but belong to a polynymous society." Here the relationships among category members is incredibly obvious, to the point that questioning this category seems...well, questionable to me. The relationship is that people have chosen to be known by mononyms; they've allowed mononyms to become part of their name-based identity (and I can readily provide psychological evidence that names and personal identity/awareness are intertwined), just as others allow new homelands or beliefs to define a significant part of who they are. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof should lie with the one affirming that there is a psychological/sociological/cultural/political relationship between Tutankhamun and Colette, not on the one denying. Besides, the assertion already given that Tutankhamun was not mononymous suffices, I believe, as a demonstration of the fact. The "mononymity" of King Tut is no different from the mononymity of my friends, since I always call them by one name, just like we modern Anglophones always call Tut by one name. I suspect that every living person with a biography here at Wikipedia is addressed mononymously by their intimate friends. Do they count? Or do we need the whole Anglophone world behind a usage? But, finally, your points about fame are just wrong. In mononymous cultures it may be polynymity that is an indicator of fame. Certainly the use of "de" and "von" to link first and last names have been marks of nobility in certain nations. As I asked below, what justification for this category is not an ipso facto justification for Category:Persons with five names? Srnec (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking about people who are known to some portion of the general public, and in general known to that part of the public at least as commonly by their mononym as by their polynym (if they have one).
And yes, conceivably in a mononymous society a polynymous person might stand out (if there are such polynymous persons in that hypothetical mononymous society). In which case, we might hypothetically look forward to someday establishing a "Category:Polynymous persons."
Can you point us to many persons who are commonly known to the public by "five names"? Even the proverbial "John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith" had only four. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Srnec: Given the appropriate use of policies and guidelines, the burden of proof is ultimately on the deletion side, per WP:DGFA: "When in doubt, don't delete" (emphasis in original). Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of Cosmic Latte. Having one name is clearly a notable enough connection. Deamon138 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the connection between Aristotle, who helped lay the foundations of Western philosophy, and Barbette, a drag queen trapeze artist and tightrope walker? Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty simple: they are both Mononymous persons! Deamon138 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So no relation beyond the coincidence that they both used one name. In other words, no significant relationship. Got it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are meant to assist in the pursuit of academically established topics. They are supposed to be defining characteristics of people -- things that you would find in the opening paragraph of an article. So I want to know what academician would be studying Aristotle because of his mononymous name? Do you think we should add that "Aristotle is known for having just one name" to his opening paragraph? This might be a worthy topic for Trivial Pursuits, but not a Wikipedia category. I would not object to List of people known by one name, but even so it might have difficulty surviving AFD. The bar for categorization is higher than AFD (or at least it should be). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Aristotle might not be known for that, but Voltaire is. As Nihil novi has correctly implied, mononymity in polynymous socieites is certainly of "academic," or at least educated, interest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Why does somebody feel so strongly about clearing the boards with this category? Leave it be, for gosh sakes . . it isn't hurting anybody, and seems like it could be useful at times. Raymondwinn (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the risk of repeating myself: I would propose that, for purposes of eligibility to this category, in principle only such persons should be included who use a mononym but belong to a polynymous society. Exceptions would be considered for individuals originating from a mononymous society who become prominent in a polynymous society. That is not "recentism," because there have always, so far as we know, been mononymous societies; and there have been polynymous societies (such as Rome), going back to ancient times. Nihil novi (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, that is not how this category was being applied. So who is going to police it? Mononymity itself is non-notable, only certain instances of it are. Your proposal does not quite line up with the category name, since you propose to exclude a large number of mononymous persons. (And it is recentism because polynymity is the rule in most of the world today, but, I believe, and I may be wrong, has been the exception in most of the world in past ages. Certainly neither has ever been universal.) Srnec (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could try talking more of the world's mononymous peoples into adopting polynymity. Nihil novi (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the criteria for entry into a category aren't agreeable, doesn't mean we should delete the category. It means you go and argue for different criteria and try and get consensus for that. Even if a large number of mononymous people are excluded, the category would still contain "Mononymous persons" by definition, just not all of them, so that is not a reason to rename the category either. And @Otto4711 above, yes probably the only connection between Aristotle and Barbette is that they use one name, but then a lot of people in categories are like that in only having that one connection. You may not regard it as "significant", but as that Guardian article above shows, it is significant in the opinion of a reliable source. Otto, you are not a reliable source, so the Guardian out-trumps you: the mononymous connection is notable. Deamon138 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A category that does not exhaustively cover all the articles that fit it is worthless. If I go to Category:Prime Ministers of Canada, should I expect to find some excluded on principle, as Nihil novi suggests? (As opposed to accidentally.) Srnec (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting. However, I see nothing in WP:CAT to suggest that a category must be perfect, or else it is somehow "worthless." Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one appears to be suggesting that a category must be "perfect" to avoid being "worthless." What is being said is that a category that excludes an enormous percentage of its eligible articles is worthless. As for people sharing categories on the basis of "only having one connection," that's a bit disingenuous. Yes, the members of Category:Particle physicists may only have in common being particle physicists, but that a pretty damn big thing to have in common. Having one name or being known by one name does not rise to anything approaching that level of significance. BTW, my Barbette example was a bit of a trap. Barbette's real name is either Vander Clyde (two names) or Vander Clyde Broadway (three names) but he was known professionally as Barbette (one name) and Vander Barbette (two names) but his passport read Vander Clyde Barbette Broadway (four names). What category should he be in and what is the rationale for excluding him from others? Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As before (1st nomination) and (in the interest of avoiding repetition) as per Cosmic Latte. — Athaenara ✉ 06:42, 12 August 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:Icelandic vocalists[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: out of process move, but nobody complained, so closing discussion as delete, empty. Kbdank71 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Icelandic vocalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The better categories for singers (vocalists) are Category:Icelandic male singers and Category:Icelandic female singers. This would be similiar to other singing nations, sorted by gender, occupation and nationality. I was bold and have merged all Icelandic singing people into the existing categories. So this categorie can be deletd Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:06, 6 August 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:Slipper and the Rose songs[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 13:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Slipper and the Rose songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No use. All songs prodded and redirected. Burningjoker (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is an empty category, except the headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 6 August 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.

Sports festivals by host country[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 all. Kbdank71 13:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per emerging consensus at a previous CFD discussion that the word "hosted" is redundant, I propose the following:

...and the following sub-categories (TL;DR)

(note that the "Cook Islands" and "Solomon Islands" categories are also modified to add the word "the", much like the previous Czech Republic nom. Feel free to fix any others I may have missed...) — CharlotteWebb 18:44, 6 August 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 associated with Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu Studies[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: listify, then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People associated with Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu Studies to Category:People associated with Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies
Nominator's rationale: In 2003 the name was changed from Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu Studies to Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. Wikidās ॐ 09:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm less concerned about the smallish number of articles (5) in this category than about the type of category this represents. Universities all over the world have various kinds of centers associated with them (I'm sure they number in the thousands). I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe this may be the first category of its sort. Are we sure this is a road we want to go down? I'm leaning towards "delete & listify" for this category -- but I want to see what other editors have to say. I'm open to persuasion. Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete per Cgingold. Actually there is most of the list in the see also part of the article so maybe that can suffice for the listify with a small expansion. If renamed, rename to Category:People associated with the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. If not renamed as nominated, rename to Category:People associated with the Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu Studies. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 6 August 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:National liberation movements[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: keep, without prejudice to a possible superior solution in the future, as referred to by Peterkingiron. The fact that there is an article of the same name and a fair number of subcategories and articles in it is a persuasive sign that the category is serving a purpose, as Hmains pointed out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National liberation movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: National liberation is too vague a concept. For example, the article describing the concept has only three citations. The category Category:Independence movements is more well-defined. The category "national liberation movements" also taks about regime change at home, but the Beer Hall Putsch would be an example of attempted regime change at home, and that doesn't seem like an act of national liberation to me. This category has previously been listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:National liberation movements Andjam (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and transfer most articles to category:Independence movements). Both categories are not far from refering to the same concept. As the nominator points out : second concept is more clearly defined. More, liberation is pov-ed while independence is more factual. When there is a disagreement or a conflict between two entities (a controlling power and a controlled population OR two communities), it is not clear to state if one is oppressed (and seek legitimately for liberation) or if it is a putsh and it uses pretexts (or even terrorism) to get rid of the other community (or to establish some sort of dictature and so even reduce people's liberty eg Iranian revolution is considered that way by many). On the other way, in all cases, all parties would agree considering this movement seeks independence whether from the other community or from the controlling power. Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not mean merge with Category:Independence movements? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I think a merging or a move is technically not possible for categories.
So, we have to transfer all articles and then delete the former category.
But indeed, I mean a move or a merge from liberation movement to independence movement.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Both the existing category and the related Category:Independence movements seem legitimate categories. There is a POV-issue in each case: "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"; but that cannot be helped. WWII resistence movements wanted to restore the legitimate pre-war government (or something of the kind). Since there was a Quisling government in Norway, it was technically not an independence movement. Similarly revolutionary movements, wishing to rid a country of capitalism and so "set the people free" as in the case of Che Guevara, as well as the Iranian Revolution (according to its own claims) were not. Both categories are something of a hotch-potch. I am not sure what the right answer is but am sure that the present nomination is not the right one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is the parent category of 22 subcats and 238 articles, none of which are proposed for deletion. There is also a main article. The reason we have categories to aid the reader in navigation and, to that end, to group similar articles together. This catgegory serves that purpose well. How can Category:Independence movements be considered 'well defined'? There is not even a main article. Consider even a reverse merge. Hmains (talk) 01:21, 9 August 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:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki books[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Burials in Exeter Cathedral[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: speedy delete, author request (G7). BencherliteTalk 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burials in Exeter Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. Substitute category in place billinghurst (talk) 07:06, 6 August 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:Independent albums[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Independent albums to Category:Self-released albums
Nominator's rationale: These are apparently redundant. If not, "independent" is too vague - are these independent labels? If so, the albums should be categorized by Category:RECORD LABEL albums. "Self-released" is less vague, so I propose merging into that one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 6 August 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.

Lesotho, Basotho, Sotho?[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: option 1. Kbdank71 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to one of 3 options below. This is an attempt to bring some consistency to the "by-nationality" subcategories of Category:Lesotho. In short, we need an adjective for the people/things from or of Lesotho. Some of these categories use "Lesotho", some use "Basotho", some use "Sotho", and some use "Lesothan". I have ruled out using "Lesothan" since it appears to be a made-up adjective. The others are valid words, and the pros and cons for each of them are listed under each section. I'm not favouring one proposal over the other two but would like to see a consensus for one of the three for consistency's sake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. Use Lesotho
Rename Category:People from Lesotho to Category:Lesotho people

Category:Basotho people by occupation to Category:Lesotho people by occupation
Category:Basotho people by religion to Category:Lesotho people by religion
Category:Basotho royalty to Category:Lesotho royalty
Category:Basotho sportspeople to Category:Lesotho sportspeople
Category:Basotho athletes to Category:Lesotho athletes
Category:Basotho footballers to Category:Lesotho footballers
Category:Basotho Christians to Category:Lesotho Christians
Category:Basotho Roman Catholics to Category:Lesotho Roman Catholics
Category:Sotho culture to Category:Lesotho culture
Category:Sotho music to Category:Lesotho music
Category:Society of Lesotho to Category:Lesotho society
Category:Lesothan literature to Category:Lesotho literature
Category:Lesothan novels to Category:Lesotho novels

Merge Category:Lesothan writers to Category:Lesotho writers
Keep Category:Lesotho diplomats

Category:Lesotho politicians
Category:Lesotho writers

Pros: Clarity. It's fairly clear that "Lesotho Foo" means a "Foo from Lesotho". This is similar to the solution adopted for Trinidad and Tobago, Dominica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc.
Cons: "Lesotho" probably isn't really an adjective, strictly speaking.

Option 2. Use Basotho
Merge Category:People from Lesotho to Category:Basotho people
Rename Category:Sotho culture to Category:Basotho culture

Category:Sotho music to Category:Basotho music
Category:Society of Lesotho to Category:Basotho society
Category:Lesothan literature to Category:Basotho literature
Category:Lesothan novels to Category:Basotho novels
Category:Lesothan writers to Category:Basotho writers
Category:Lesotho diplomats to Category:Basotho diplomats
Category:Lesotho politicians to Category:Basotho politicians
Category:Lesotho writers to Category:Basotho writers

Keep Category:Basotho people by occupation

Category:Basotho people by religion
Category:Basotho royalty
Category:Basotho sportspeople
Category:Basotho athletes
Category:Basotho footballers
Category:Basotho Christians
Category:Basotho Roman Catholics

Pros: Strict accuracy: "Basotho" is apparently the "correct" demonym and adjective for people from Lesotho, according to the list on WP, at least, which is unreferenced.
Cons: Obscure: meaning may be unknown to people. "Basotho" can also refer to an ethnicity. See, e.g., the statement in Basotho that "most Basotho today live in South Africa". A Basotho person who is a citizen of South Africa will often not be a citizen of Lesotho, so it's possible to be "Basotho" but not be "from Lesotho". Category:Basotho people is used right now to categorize people by the ethnicity.

Option 3. Use Sotho
Rename Category:People from Lesotho to Category:Sotho people

Category:Basotho people by occupation to Category:Sotho people by occupation
Category:Basotho people by religion to Category:Sotho people by religion
Category:Basotho royalty to Category:Sotho royalty
Category:Basotho sportspeople to Category:Sotho sportspeople
Category:Basotho athletes to Category:Sotho athletes
Category:Basotho footballers to Category:Sotho footballers
Category:Basotho Christians to Category:Sotho Christians
Category:Basotho Roman Catholics to Category:Sotho Roman Catholics
Category:Society of Lesotho to Category:Sotho society
Category:Lesothan literature to Category:Sotho literature
Category:Lesothan novels to Category:Sotho novels
Category:Lesothan writers to Category:Sotho writers
Category:Lesotho diplomats to Category:Sotho diplomats
Category:Lesotho politicians to Category:Sotho politicians
Category:Lesotho writers to Category:Sotho writers

Keep Category:Sotho culture

Category:Sotho music

Pros: Compromise position between "Lesotho" and "Basotho" by using "Sotho". It is common for "Basotho" to be shortened to "Sotho", and since Category:Basotho people is already taken for the ethnicity, people from Lesotho can use "Sotho".
Cons: Obscure: meaning may be unknown to people. —— Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done, Good Ol’factory. I'd say a hearty round of Lesotho Fatse La Bontata Rona is in order here! :) That said, I really have to say that this is an easy choice, imo. It seems to me that Basotho is completely ruled out for use in this category name given its dual meaning -- it should be reserved strictly for ethnicity-related categories. Sotho is a non-starter on two counts: obscurity and the lack of a direct link in actual usage to the name of the country. That leaves Lesotho, which is the clear winner for clarity, even if its not the approved demonym. I don't think we have any real choice, given the defects of the other terms. Now, what would really make me happy would be to post the correct pronunciation of "Lesotho" on each of those category pages! (If I had a dollar for every time I've heard somebody say, "Leh-SO-THo", rhymes with "GO-THrow"... :) Cgingold (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost forgot -- care should be taken with the existing Basotho categories, in case some of those articles are, in fact, about the ethnicity. Cgingold (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries about that final issue — I created about half of the Basotho categories back in April, and I created them as being for "people from Lesotho". I've checked the other ones and they also seem to be composed of people from Lesotho, too. The only non-Lesotho citizen Basotho category I can find seems to be Category:Basotho South Africans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1 as per comments by Cgingold. 'Lesothan' may (or may not) be the proper demonym but certainly let s, at least for now, get consistently across the board with the name of the country (as separate from the ethnicity) Mayumashu (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lesotho -- I accept that Basotho is the correct name for the ethnic group, but the syntax involved where the prefix changes with the context is unfamiliar to English speakers, and therefore unattractive. This used to be the colony (Protectorate ?) of Basutoland, but at independence Lesotho was preferred. I think we should stick to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lesotho per G.O.'s well-reasoned arguments. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change them all to "FOO of/from Lesotho [by BAR]", Jesus. This is another case where demonyms are more trouble than they are worth. — CharlotteWebb 15:34, 7 August 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:Batman weapons[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 and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Batman weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains a single article and is very unlikely to grow beyond that. Preferably the article can just be upmerged into the two parent cats: Category:Batman objects and Category:Fictional weapons. J Greb (talk) 01:42, 6 August 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_August_6&oldid=1142606355"