Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10 December 12 >

December 11[edit]

African Hockey 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: rename to Category:Ice hockey players of Black African descent. Kbdank71 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African Hockey players
  • Rename to African ice hockey players
An African hockey player is more likely to be a field hockey player (e.g. Kenyan, South African, etc. etc) than an ice hockey player. So, the category name is not just mis-capitalised but is also completely misleading (it actually contains ice hockey players, presumably playing in the various North American leagues). Did the creator mean 'African-American hockey players' ? Even so, this could still do with 'ice' in the title to make this completely clear. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ice hockey players of Black African descent Mayumashu (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt wouldn't be African-American. It contains people who aren't from the US. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ice hockey players of Black African descent per Mayumashu. Cgingold (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:African American ice hockey players to match the other categories in the recently recreated Category:African American sportspeople. Alansohn (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ice hockey players of Black African descent per Mayumashu and consider splitting into subcats for US and Canadian. (Category:People of Black African descent does not seem to include anything similar to this, but perhaps Ice hockey is a special case. Ice hockey is played in the Uk so perhaps there is a British subcat yet to be populated.) Occuli (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ice hockey players of Black African descent per Mayumashu Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Am I correct in assuming that Ice Hockey is not played at all in Africa? I know this would hardly bge feasible in the open air, but are there not a few ice rinks? Peterkingiron (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If what is meant is Category:Ice hockey players of Black African descent, why do we want a category for this intersection of sporting activity and ethnicity? Is it somehow notable? I would agree that it's "rare" or kind of "curious", but is it notable? Are ice hockey players of Black African descent treated differently than ice hockey players of any other ethnicity? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what research you've done on the subject, but I had no trouble finding dozens of articles. To provide a sample, the article "African-American hockey player drafted to NHL", which leads with "The NHL isn't known for having a large number of Black players in its ranks". Or the article "COLD COMFORT: BLACK HOCKEY PLAYERS OF PAST GENERATIONS PLAYED FOR LOVE OF THE GAME" from The Boston Globe. There's also this article from 1997 about Mike Grier, now of the San Jose Sharks, that wonders "COULD GRIER BECOME HOCKEY'S TIGER WOODS?" The purpose of categories is to allow readers to navigate through similar articles based on defining -- not notable -- characteristics, as I have often been reminded. While individuals or characteristics need not be "rare" or "curious" or "treated differently" to merit a category -- and I will also point out that African American is not customarily referenced as an "ethnicity" -- the answer to all of your questions is a definitive yes. How much more evidence do you need to change your vote? Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're confusing two distinct topics. We're not talking about "African American". We're talking about "Black African descent". Not all people of Black African descent are African Americans. Black African descent is an ethnicity. African Americans are Americans by nationality, i.e., United Statesians. Being an ice hockey player of Black African descent may be notable (though I have my doubts), but it's certainly not defining in my opinion, so your contrast of words only strengthens my argument ("definingness" is certainly a higher standard than "notability"). Two newspaper articles about African American ice hockey players is not enough to convince me that there is a distinct cultural topic surrounding ice hockey players of Black African descent. I see no article in WP about ice hockey players of Black African descent, e.g. If they were treated any differently, then it might be a distinct cultural topic. Since they are not, it is not. As just one example, one-time NHL scoring champion Jerome Iginla is of Black African descent (but as a Canadian is not an African American), but no one who knows anything about ice hockey thinks of him as being defined by the intersection of ice hockey player and Black African descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I'm conusing anything. As this category is a parent of Category:African American ice hockey players, it would appear directly relevant, as would the sources provided. Sure, you can complain about the sources I provided, but there are scores more if you do a search, as I did. I have access to far fewer sources from Europe, where most of these players play, but would hockey players of African ancestry in Europe be any less defining than individuals of African descent in the United States? Let me ask a far more general question: Is there some standard of evidence that will satisfy you based on any Wikipedia guideline that this category merits retention (and if so, what is that standard), or is this simply a matter of personal preference? Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're interpreting it as an "African American" category, we're not even on the same page. Your sources dealt specifically with African Americans, which as you pointed out, is not as "pure" an "ethnicity" as the term "Black African descent" is, since it also implies nationality. I've already set out my standards based on WP policy a number of times—perhaps you just didn't recognize them as such—here's one: where is the evidence that the intersection (of ice hockey player and Black African descent, i.e., not African American) is "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right[?] If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." (And if it is a distinct and unique cultural topic of defining-ness, why is there no WP article about it yet? Easy answer: because it's not.) None of this necessarily means that the subcategory for African American ice hockey players isn't justified. So, yes, you are confusing (at least in your exposition, if not your thoughts) the two issues. All of this said, we don't even know what the creator intended to create—a category for African Americans or a category for people of Black African descent, but it appeared to me that most users wanted to interpret it as an ethnicity category, and I'm just drawing legitimate questions about the appropriateness of such a category. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 15 December 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.

Disused brands[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 to Category:Defunct brands for now. Feel free to nominate again if a rename of the combined category is desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Defunct brands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Defunct brands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge to Category:Disused brands Category:Defunct brands These are two overlapping parallel categories, and WP uses "Brands" rather than "Brand names" throughtout Category:Brands. Now to belabor the target: I'm open to merging them into the existing "Defunct brands," but dislike the term "defunct" here as brand is not something that "functions," like an organization or machine. Category:Discontinued brands is another possibility, although brands are sometimes revived, and I infer greater permanence in "discontinued" than "disused." I considered Category:Former brands but do not want to risk it being populated with brands formerly of one company and transferred to another; trademarks are traded like currency nowadays. -choster (talk) 22:58, 11 December 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.

Molluscofcountry[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 DEC 17 per nominator's request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Molluscs of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (but not immediatelly. After making lists.) Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Snek01 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Molluscs of Argentina
  • Molluscs of Australia
  • Molluscs of Chile
  • Molluscs of Ecuador
  • Molluscs of Hawaii
  • Molluscs of Japan
  • Molluscs of New Caledonia
  • Molluscs of New Zealand
  • Molluscs of Peru
  • Molluscs of the Philippines
  • Molluscs of South Africa

Reasons:

  • overlapping WP:OC#OVERLAPPING (too many states, too many possibilities)
  • there should be no species in such categories (I have put template for discussion into categories of molluscs but there should/can be broder discussion about categorizing species.)
  • there should be lists of molluscs, see Category:Lists of molluscs by country
  • Molluscs of Europe can be deleted immeditaelly. Categories starting "Molluscs of ..." in Category:Molluscs by country can be deleted aftem making articles "List of marine/non-marine molluscs of ...".
  • detailed reason: Some species live in many countries. There can not so be many categories in articles about species. There are really many possibilities how a species can exist in one country, for example it can be native there, it can be nonindigenous there, it can be extinct there, it can be for example living in greenhouses only there and really many possibilities. Such information can and should be in lists in wikipedia. This matter was surely discussed many times. Does no matter if a list contains red links. Even category Molluscs of Europe is useless, because such information that a species live in Europe will be surely written in the article. There is no need categories with thousands of aticles inside and there is no need articles with tens of categories. Lists can be complete. But a reader can never be sure that a category is complete. It is not easy to make complete lists but it is possible and it is the only right way. For previous discussion see for example User talk:JoJan#List of molluscs... --Snek01 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Much of your rationale is simply repetition of your opinion, rather than reasons for deletion: e.g. "there should be no species in such categories", "there should be lists of molluscs", etc. Another portion is composed of spurious arguments that, if valid, would result in the deletion of every category we have; e.g. "category Molluscs of Europe is useless, because such information that a species live in Europe will be surely written in the article", "A reader can never be sure that a category is complete". When you filter out the dross, your argument boils down to "This is over-categorisation because two or more categories have a large overlap" (from WP:OC); you haven't presented any evidence for that premise, and I dispute it. Hesperian 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I am not very good at English and not good at this process. Are your notes formal or factual? What should be the solution? (For example if a species live in for example 50 countries, should I start 50 categories and add them to the article? Should there be ~1500 species in Category:Molluscs of Europe and few thousands of marine species in that category? and so on.) (Is there necessary to present and evidence for nomination? It is not easy to present an evidence that such categorization of species is untenabille. YOU - if you vote - should consider all possibilities. Would you vote to keep a Category:123456abcdstupid if I will not present an evidence?) --Snek01 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominators appears opposed to categories in general, rather than these categories in particular. That may be a valid view but CfD is not the place to progress it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the right place to discuss? Feel free to move it there. --Snek01 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC) This process in the only way how to delete any category at wikipedia. It is good place to discuss about deleting 12 categories. (I have put an information to 3 related wikiproject discussion pages.) --Snek01 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep, but restructure -- There is nothing wrong with the principle of this categorisation scheme. Many of the items listed are currently mere stubs, which describe them as "endemic to (e.g.) Austria". This suggests a split to categorise by country. However those occuring in many countries should not appear under every country, but only in the European one or a regional subcategory. For example "Southern Europe" might cover species occuring throughout the Mediterranean litoral. Marine molluscs will also not be endemic to a single country but to the seaboard of certain seas; I would suggest that these be categorised by the sea or seas where they occur. This category be a parent category to these but contain those molluscs that are common throughout the continent. I suspect that this difficulty has occured in relation to other kinds of fauna and flora, and would suggest that a similar solution should be adopted here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we should use this categorization scheme, there can be categories containing marine species according to oceans and/or seas. But it will not help to practically categorize all species anyway. Do you want to categorize only endemic species in this way? This categozation scheme could be good if a species would live on one or in very few countries. Such categories wear no much information, they can contain only those species which have articles in wikipedia allready, and they can be in alphabetical order in categories only. On the othe hand, a list can contain everything in whole the great diversity of possibilities - and such lists should be on wikipedia. Look at, for example List of non-marine molluscs of the Czech Republic. Should I add a (nonexisting) category Molluscs of the Czech Republic to all of those 243 species? If we accept a categorzation scheme according to a few areas, for example according to continents only, there should not be geographical categories for smaller areas for species. (Such large categories will be ovepopulated.) If we accept to categorize species according to all states, that will be too many categories in articles (containing too small information). If we accept combination of large areas and small areas categories for species, then such categories can not be complete. So why to waste so much time and resources to make something incomplete and unhelpful? There is no reason to categorize molluscs according geography. It is unsustainable, unmaintainable, it brings no much information to a reader. It is no possible to categorize all 80.000 species of gastropods in this way! (For example there is no categorization of Bacteria according to country. They are very different from molluscs, but you can see, that there no necessary to categorize everything according to country.) I would like to categorize molluscs in usefull way, but usefull way does not exist for mollusc in this case. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In fact the categories seem to be more usefully arranged than the articles, as most of the categories are for islands or groups of them, while the list articles cover mostly smallish East European land-locked countries - no doubt molluscs do show little respect for the borders of Latvia, but I expect categories on New Zealand and Philippines molluscs make some sense. There is in fact little overlap between the two groups. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they SEEM useful for somebody, there is no reasoning to keep them. You EXPECT something from categories, but they have no value if their content is incomplete and chaotically organized. You can not recognize marine and non-marine species in category Mollusc of the Philippines, you can not recognize indigenous and non-indigenous ones, you can not recognize extinct and living ones, and so on. You can not check content of categories if you do not check all of its articles. There are very few categories meantime and they really are mainly for islands. It is because nobody tried to make a category for any other country, beacuse nobody supposed its usefulness. So does it mean that we should to have categories for islands only? Could not I rather do a List of non-marine gastropods of New Zealand and List of marine gastropods of New Zealand - there can be some additional useful notes. I can do such list. You wrote "some" sense. What the sense exactly is? Especially when I will make these two lists? --Snek01 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but not immediately) I apologize for being late weighing in on this, but I do tend to agree with Snek on this. There are not many lists yet, but those that do exist are well-organized. They are very clear as to what is what when you look at them. The Categories however, (especially for marine faunas) will steadily become larger and larger until they are extremely unwieldy to consult, (non-marine species in the hundreds, marine in the thousands) and worse yet, the names will be organized only alphabetically. Thus it will be impossible, when you consult a category, to know if you are looking at a name of a marine bivalve, a land snail, a freshwater limpet or an octopus. And the point that Snek makes about what to do when you have a species of snail that occurs in 30 different countries is a good one: are we going to list 30 countries as separate categories at the foot of most of the species articles? To me it seems to make more sense to have country lists; there are far fewer countries in the world than there are species of mollusk by at least one or two orders of magnitude. Mollusks are really a huge group. What might make sense for birds for example, does not apply so well to mollusks. Hope I have been able to make the points more clearly. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 14 December 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:Fictional tyrants[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional tyrants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete How would one go about defining a fictional character that is not specifically described as a tyrant? This is a matter of overcategorization with little clarification for what would qualify an article for inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fictional foo category, again categorizing fiction by elements of the fiction rather than real-world aspects, with nothing in the way of inclusion criteria. As with previous categories of this ilk, the motiviation appears to be to categorize fictional characters according to the opinions of Wikipedia editors, which in inappropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like IllaZilla, I think it's an overly-subjective foo category. ThuranX (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so but I'm undecided as to whether it should be deleted or not. On one hand it could be construed as slightly POV or even ORish but on the other hand, defining a tyrant isn't really all that difficult. After all a tyrant is essentially a disagreeable ruler. But by those standards I suppose difficult bosses could be described as tyrants. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per IllaZilla. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:40, 14 December 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:Boxers who have ducked mandatory challengers[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 DEC 21. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Boxers who have ducked mandatory challengers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorization, surely? Also seems to imply cowardice. Might be suitable for a list if this is a recognized phenomenon involving more than two boxers. — CharlotteWebb 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is clearly a NPOV violation. Rvk41 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Consider Rename This is a strong defining characteristic of a boxer, being stripped of a title due to failure to comply with rules requiring that he face a challenger in order to retain his crown. Sure, this is a negative, but anytime this happens, the title loss is well-publicized and supported by reliable and verifiable sources. While small now, this covers scores of boxers. The term "ducking" is a standard in the industry, as evidenced by the World Boxing Council's use of the term in listing "Purse Offer Rule, to avoid the procedures of the past in boxing when champions would 'duck' the most meritable challenger" on its list of "Rules that have changed the History of Boxing" (see here). While the title is accurate, I would support considering a new title. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only two people in this category. Do you know if this has this happened more than twice? — CharlotteWebb 15:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is a head note that deals with the scope of the category. Possibly this should refer specifically to the World Boxing Council. It is thus not a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this category related to Category:Presidents who have ducked flying shoes? Cgingold (talk) 14:40, 16 December 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:Showgirls appearing as Ziegfeld Girls[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:Ziegfeld Girls. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Showgirls appearing as Ziegfeld Girls to Category:Showgirls
Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. As it stands this is overcategorization by performance/venue. Renaming will broaden the category to allow for the categorization of any notable showgirl, a category that, surprisingly, is missing. If desired, current contents can be listified. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the nominator feels that there should be a general category for Showgirls, he can create that and make this a sub-category. There was a unique aura to the Ziegfeld Girls and that was maintained and honored annualy at the Ziegfeld Ball. Many went on to other successful careers, in part from what they gained as a Ziegfeld Girl. --Doc ♬ talk 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category meaningfully categorizes articles by a defining characteristic. As it exists, there are ample articles to justify the category. Categorizing them as Category:Showgirls would dump them into a catchall that omits vital and useful information that would allow readers to navigate to similar articles. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why a list, which will allow much more vital and useful information (such as the dates each woman was a Zeigfeld Girl) to be included, was suggested. I have yet to see an explanation as to why this category is different from, for instance categories for Star Trek actors or performers who appeared at Coachella as overcategorization by performance and/or venue. Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we had a deal. You made your case, I made mine. I am hereby ending this conversation per our agreement. Alansohn (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept it should be renamed to that. Otto4711 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Ziegfeld Girls. the current title seems to be like a narrow commonailty sliver on a venn diagram, instead of one of the two bigger circles. Make a Showgirls cat, subcat ZG, and be done with it. ThuranX (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah. I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one who had that reaction. I thought I was missing something! The Ziegfeld Girls were a singularly well-known group. So Rename to Category:Ziegfeld Girls per Vegaswikian & ThuranX. Cgingold (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename as ZG per others. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Vegaswikian and others. This sounds to me more like girls who "came out" as debutants into London's aristocratic society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It does not really sound like a performance category to me, but I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with debutantes. The category is capturing women who performed as showgirls at a particular show, the Zeigfeld Follies. Thus it is no different from the hundreds of other categories that we have deleted for performers who appeared in a particular show. How is this any different from deleted categories for actors who have played in Wicked or Hairspray or any of the hundreds of other performer by production categories we've deleted? Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article, not previously linked from the category, Ziegfeld girl, will give some help here. More a way of life than just a performance. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, they showed up at the theatre, they danced, they went home. No more of a way of life than any other chorus line. Again, how is this different than any other Broadway cast category? Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They showed up at the theatre, they danced, they got in all the papers, they married a millionaire. Right. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Louise Brooks didn't marry a millionaire. Eve Arden didn't marry a millionaire. Any number of other Zeigfeld girls didn't marry millionaires. Again, what's the difference between this Broadway cast and any other Broadway cast? Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 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:American film dancers[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) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American film dancers to Category:American dancers
Nominator's rationale: Merge - Dancers can appear in many media and breaking them down by media doesn't seem useful. Yes, I know we have actors by medium and I question the utility of that breakdown as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 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:Solid Gold Dancers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Solid Gold Dancers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization of performer by performance, no different from the many other performer by TV series that have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete -- This is the normal solution to performance by performer categories. However an upmerge may be needed to an appropriate dancers category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all listed in the show's article. Two of the three are in at least one other dancer category and the third has no mention of dancing on Solid Gold or elsewhere in her article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 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:Atlanta, Georgia[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 current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per article title Atlanta and per below. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The category title should match the article title. Unlike our recent discussion re Category:Plymouth, there is no other article that competes with the city in the U.S. State of Georgia for general recognition and awareness. Alansohn (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the pre-eminence of the Atlanta in Georgia (as opposed to other US Atlantas) is not globally known and so the disamb is necessary. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case the overwhelming trend in cfds over the last year or so has been to add state names, not remove them. Eg this one and even Los Angeles (which is globally known). Occuli (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Neutral While I disagree that the pre-eminence this Atlanta is not known either within or without the U.S., the comments made below have me thinking if we shouldn t, for category pages, remove all ambiguity everywhere and consider having Category:London, Greater London, Category:City of Glasgow, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An encyclopedia should not presume what its readers know; an encyclopedia is supposed to inform its readers, not make things more difficult for them. And the article renaming that lost the State name is a mistake that just leads to this type of unhelpful action. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the clearer name should be preferred for categories, since people just tag articles, and you'd then need to clean up ambiguous category names. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We already have a solidly established naming convention for US cities that developed over the course of many CFD discussions (viz Category:Chicago, Illinois). It would not be helpful to start making exceptions. Cgingold (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:NCCAT (Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.), and per Cgingold and the large deal of prior consensus he mentioned. The category naming convention has been upheld even after the fairly recent Americanization renaming of most large city article names (based mainly on an American news agency's own style guide). Unlike articles, which have hatnotes at the top directing to other uses, our category names must stand alone and should not go out of the way to make it harder to understand exactly what is being categorized. Neier (talk) 12:34, 13 December 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:Atlanta, Georgia rappers[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 to rename, though I must say that the precedent for keeping the "CITY, STATE" format for U.S. cities in the context of categories has been very solidly established. Further exploration of the "prepositional object vs. compound attributive" issue could be worthwhile, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Atlanta, Georgia rappers to Category:Atlanta rappers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because the article about the city of Atlanta doesn't include ", Georgia" in the title, I believe that this category should omit "Georgia" for consistency; think the city Miami article and the category Miami rappers. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, see also above. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An encyclopedia should not presume what its readers know; an encyclopedia is supposed to inform its readers, not make things more difficult for them. And the article renaming that lost the State name is a mistake that just leads to this type of unhelpful action. Hmains (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-English speakers would, if anything, be less likely to know that Atlanta is in Georgia. Every other major project has used "Atlanta" from the beginning. Surely many Americans (idling in the City-Comma-State-Always paradigm) are initially surprised to see the unqualified use of Sofia or Florence in reference to major cities rather than disambiguation pages or girls' names (and even when sharing the name with lesser-known cities), but there has been no significant outcry. Why does this suddenly become confusing when it involves U.S. cities? — CharlotteWebb 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As I said above, We already have a solidly established naming convention for US cities that developed over the course of many CFD discussions (viz Category:Chicago, Illinois). It would not be helpful to start making exceptions. Cgingold (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Atlanta, Georgia rappers" just sounds awkward; that's a reason why I started this CFD. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Rappers from Atlanta or Category:Rappers from Atlanta, Georgia. I do not think the addition of the state is necessary in this case, becasue it is the only significant place of the name. That would also apply to Chicago, but I am not an American. The addition of US State is unnecessary, because there is no Atlanta in the Caucasus! Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggested rename, and any other rename without the ", Georgia" disambiguator per above. Category:Atlanta rappers could suggest that these rappers were all cross-over artists performing in the C&W band. Category:Rappers from Atlanta, Georgia is an acceptable alternative. Neier (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's been suggested, I would much prefer to rename to Category:Rappers from Atlanta, Georgia per Peterkingiron & Neier. Cgingold (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I would agree that the postalese ordered-pair format is less awkward as a prepositional object than as an compound attributive . — CharlotteWebb 18:48, 15 December 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:Republican culture[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Republican culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete {1} The present description of the category (as named by the creator) points to a disambiguation pate for which Republican Party it refers to. [fixable] (2) It might logically refer to culture of adherants to the republican form of government, rather than that of the Republican Party. [not fixable under that name]. (3) Newly created category, and the only present member is Freedom fries, which doesn't belong in this category, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV-pushing; Freedom fries is easily found in its five other categories; and lowercase-r republican culture is the primary subject of Republic and no separate category is called for.-choster (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Republican Party has culture? And it consists entirely of eating Freedom Fries? I question both the definition of the category and its narrowness. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedily, so more can enjoy the joke. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't about the culture of the Roman Republic, or Oliver Cromwell's England. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Culture is not defined in this usage so it is open to abuse and POV. Republicans, as do Dems and Libertarians and Socialists, take showers, baths and dumps, so is that part of their "culture"? If there was a main article on Republican culture, then there would at least be an idea of a guideline for inclusion in the category. --Tombstone (talk) 08:02, 15 December 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:New Wave revival[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. An article of the same name now exists. Whether or not it is a correct term is another issue. Feel free to nominate again if it is still thought that the article and the category are mis-named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Wave revival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete We (Wikipedia) have no reason to believe it exists. Please wait for the parent article New Wave revival to be created and sourced before we create a category for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 11 December 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:Anti-Islam activists[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 to delete. Feel free to renominate for renaming if someone comes up with a suitable proposal for that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Islam activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Flagrant abuse of WP:BLP, invitation to POV-pushing and edit-warring. Previous CfD passed on the basis of, I think 2 keep votes. This really needs to go as soon as possible, almost speedied it... IronDuke 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LINK to last CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_30#Category:Anti-Islam_activists
  • Could you point out which of the articles in your view represent "Flagrant abuse of WP:BLP, invitation to POV-pushing"? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "invitation to POV-pushing" implies future acts. But just take the first two. According to her article, Nonie Darwish advocates against Islamic extremism--as do many Muslims. Babu Bajrangi is just an attack stub with one sentence. I don't think there ar ever going to be enough prominent people to fill this cat, and it's not worth the BLP hassle. IronDuke 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename Delete, unless consensus can be reached on a title that does not violate WP:BLP to Category:Critics of Islam to match parent article of Criticism of Islam. That article lists a substantial number of individuals, who could be included in this category. The title of the existing category is far from ideal. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid the alternate name you've suggested won't help us, because we basically eschew "Critics of Xyz" categories and favor "Anti-Xyz activists" categories. There have been other examples, and Category:Critics of Islam itself was already rejected at CFD because it was considered too broad in scope to serve as a category. In fact, Category:Anti-Islam activists is the name that we've settled on after a series of CFDs for previous related categories, and it's probably the best we're gonna come up with, so I'm inclined to say "Keep". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then toss in all of the other anti's into this nomination and make them all "critics of". Someone who criticizes Islam is raising issues about the religion, which is very different from working actively against Islam, which is what being an "anti-Islam activist" means. I sincerely hope that "anti-Islam activists" is not the best we're gonna come up with. Every once in a while, we ought to think and rethink about what we're doing rather than keep on trying to shoehorn all issues based on past decisions. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, your description pretty much reverses things, Alansohn. There's no "shoehorning" going on here. It's precisely because we (collectively) have rethought things that we've arrived where we are with regard to these sorts of categories. This isn't something that was decided on in one fell swoop, and then mindlessly applied ever since. It's more of a "trial-and-error" sort of process. Various names have been tried out and found wanting for one reason or another, which is why I'm doubtful that we're gonna come up with something better. The problem is that merely being a "critic" is generally considered to include far too wide a swath of people to serve usefully as a category, whereas "activists" focuses on people -- including "critics" -- who have devoted substantial time and effort to advancing their "cause". Cgingold (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, your description sadly confirms the issue I'm raising. Apparently, there was a discussion at some point in the past that the word "critic" was too broad, the decision was to use "anti-" to focus on those who have devoted substantial time and effort to their "cause" for any and all causes raised at any point in the future, regardless of their characteristics or if the anti- label is an article or a self-description. How do we determine who has "devoted substantial time and effort"? How much time and effort has to have been devoted? Is it a certain number of hours per week or years of activism? Are we basing this on the fact that these individuals have chosen this term to describe themselves? After all we use Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists, not Category:Anti-choice activists and Category:Anti-life activists)? And we have Category:Film critics, not Category:Anti-film activists (no matter what the producers think of their reviews). The "anti-" solution appears to only create far larger problems than it resolves and the word "activist", appropriate in Category:Anti-Vietnam War activists, is extremely hard to justify here. As currently named, this category systematically labels all the people included therein as against the religion of Islam in its entirety, not disagreeing with aspects thereof. The category defines itself as "People whose anti-Islam activism is an identifying characteristic or whose notability is related to it", referencing a supposed parent article that does not exist. Though it does indicate to "See Criticism of Islam and Islamophobia", both of which exist, hence my recommended title. If we are using reliable and verifiable sources as a basis for this label, a Google News / Archive search for "anti-Islam activist" turns up two articles, and neither of the individuals mentioned are included here. With this kind of POV labeling in this category, I would tend to agree with the nomination that labeling someone as an "anti-Islam activist" represents "Flagrant abuse of WP:BLP, invitation to POV-pushing". I would lean to deletion without a far more neutral title. Trial and error is OK, but this name is an error. Alansohn (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alan, I'm afraid that you're reading things into my remarks that are completely at odds with what I actually said. I went out of my way to preemptively allay your concern that "there was a discussion at some point in the past that the word 'critic' was too broad, the decision was to use 'anti-'... ". To reiterate, "This isn't something that was decided on in one fell swoop, and then mindlessly applied ever since. It's more of a "trial-and-error" sort of process. Various names have been tried out and found wanting for one reason or another..." That was simply an ad hoc attempt to summarize (imperfectly, I'm sure) how things have evolved. I not suggesting that it's the "perfect" solution, nor that there's some sort of unwavering, universal concensus about this -- merely that it seems to have more support among editors than other options that have been tried. The central issue is activism versus merely expressing a critical opinion, and there is very little support among editors for categorizing on the latter basis.
    As for this particular category, you are quite right that it's restricted to people/activists who are "against the religion of Islam in its entirety". In other words, it's intended to exclude people who are merely critical of some aspect, since that would encompass a huge swath of people. That's undoubtedly why there are only about a dozen articles in the category, though I'm pretty sure there must be some other individuals who belong there.
    PS - I hope you were joking about having "Category:Film critics, not Category:Anti-film activists"! LOL Cgingold (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You modified your remarks after I had written a reply so I may have missed some of the changes you made. I do appreciate the concerns about the use of "Critics of" as being potentially too broad. I do understand what the title is trying to capture. My concern still is that most are not activists and that "anti-Islam" has a broad negative connotation that labels the individuals in a manner that none of them appear to have chosen in a manner that raises genuine BLP concerns. The solution here is far worse than the problem of a potentially too-broad category. We should endeavor to find a title that includes the same bunch of people but describes them in a manner that represents their views, not our shorthand label. "Notable critics of Islam" would be a much more accurate description. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note prior CFD here. No opinion on keeping this category at this time, but oppose rename to Category:Critics of Islam. "Critics" is far too broad and wishy-washy a categorization scheme, because it's essentially overcategorization by opinion. The use of Foo/anti-Foo activist categories has always been a compromise to try and focus on what article subjects do rather than just what they have said or thought. "Activist" is certainly not a perfect term to use for categories, but it's better at least. Postdlf (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the prior CfD. This CfD closes as a very muddled "no consensus". I don't think this prior CfD represents support for "Anti-islam activists" as it does the lack of something better. While the point was made that the term captures an action rather than an opinion, the comment that "the words 'anti' and 'activist' together in one expression are seldom used to mean anything positive" are well-made and define an issue that should be addressed. There was also a number of supporters of "Critics of Islam" even with the issues noted. We need to work harder to find an alternative wording that would more accurately describe these individuals and group them together appropriately using terms with some degree of neutrality. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep until someone finds a better alternative. Similar categories exist, e.g. Category:Anti-cult_organizations_and_individualsAndries (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable categorization. I'm not sure how best to resolve this one. Perhaps Opponents of Islamic Extremism or Opponents of Islamic Fundamentalism or Opponents of Radical Islam? The people currently in the category, i looked at four, seem to either be opponents of radicalized islam and the terrorists they support and sympathize with, or, like DeWinter who hates everything not like him, and I think he should be in 'Racists'. I didn't see any of the other three i looked at saying 'all of Islam is bad', which menas this category is a BLP violation. they do all seem to oppose radical/fundamentalist islam, however, so there might be a reasonable compromise there. Also, 'Anti-islamic fundamentalism activists' is a lousy title, because it sounds bizarre, cumbersome, and makes unclear whether it means the person opposes activists supporting muslim fundamentalism, or that the person is themselves and activist against islamic fundamentalism. The two aren't identical - a polemicist might write essays about it, but an 'activist' might be going out torching muslim property over it. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep various names have been tried for this and similar groupings, & this category has not in fact caused problems AFAIK. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A category for this is certainly needed. It may need to be defined by a headnote; I would assume that the category would cover non-Muslims, who oppose Islam or sigificant aspects of standard Islam. I would suggest that it should not include Christian Missionaries to Muslims, because they are not "activists", but soul-winners. We may also need Category:Muslim Opponents of Jihadist Islam (or soemthing like it). Some one will need to guard the category being used as an attack category, but the fact that it can be so used is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've just made a very interesting discovery that hasn't been noted in this discussion: it seems that we already have a sub-category of Category:Criticism of Islam called Category:Islam critical scholars that is being used for academics/scholars who are notable for their scholarly criticism of Islam, which is related to but distinct from the purpose of this category for activists. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if anyone is foolhardy enough to try to unite the two with a parent category they will certainly be turning up here :) That one does need a rename though. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all other subjective categories. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 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_December_11&oldid=1138389909"