Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:Real Madrid in Europe[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 per criterion C1 (empty for 4+ days). If I'm not mistaken, the category referred to in the discussion is Category:Real Madrid C.F. matches. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Real Madrid in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty, having been recently depopulated, and I see no reason for its continued existence. European cup final articles should be categorised under Category:Wikipedia F.C. matches, and articles on individual seasons of European competitions should not be categorised by clubs competing in said competitions or their finals. – PeeJay 22:31, 20 March 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:Government and politics of Tampa[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 - uncontested nomination. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Government and politics of Tampa to Category:Government and politics of Tampa, Florida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a city specific category so following the city article naming is the way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 20 March 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:Friday the 13th cast members[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Friday the 13th cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial list of actors in a particular film or film series. Categorization of actors by film discouraged, as I understand it. IrishLass (talk) 19:09, 20 March 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:Science fiction by writers of color etc[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. Two questions are of primarily relevance to this discussion:
  1. Is the racial (broadly defined) identity of the author a defining feature of a work of fiction?
  2. Is "persons of color" an appropriate basis for categorisation?

With regard to categorization by race, Wikipedia:Overcategorization offers the following guidance:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself 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. ... While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

Wikipedia:Categorization, moreover, states that "categories are for defining characteristics" of the subject.

Is the racial (broadly defined) identity of the author a defining feature of a work of fiction?

It is important to distinguish between a category for works of fiction belonging to a certain race-defined genre (e.g. Category:African American novels) and one for works of fiction written by members of a certain race (e.g. Category:Novels by African Americans). The former categorises articles based on a characteristic of the works of fiction and the latter categorises articles based on a characteristic of the writer. These categories under consideration are an example of the latter type.

A reasonable argument could be made that, in certain cases, there is a connection between the two types of categories (e.g. "experience of living life as a non-white in most of the countries where SF is written shapes and influences the works of these authors"); however, in such cases, WP:CAT, WP:OCAT, and ample precedent suggest that we categorise on the basis of the characteristic that is most defining for the subjects of the articles being categorised (in this case, works of fiction). Following from these considerations, one can conclude that the scope of these categories is not appropriate: if any form of this category is retained, it should have the title Category:Color science fiction, or something similar.

In summary, articles about works of fiction should be grouped by genre (including race-define genres), but not specifically by the race of the author.

Is "persons of color" an appropriate basis for categorisation?

The second question is whether "persons of color" is an appropriate basis for categorisation. Considering the broader context of the English-language Wikipedia, as well as specific standards of categorisation, it is safe to say that it is not. Literature produced by "African-American, American Indian, Asian, Caribbean, etc. writers" is not a distinct genre of literature, especially when considered outside the context of the United States. To borrow a quote from the discussion: it is problematic to assert that the "writing of Sun Tzu and those of Toni Morrison have some area of commonality based solely on the fact that neither author is white".

In the language of WP:CAT and WP:OCAT, these categories are not based on combinations that constitute "distinct and unique cultural topic[s] in [their] own right", they are not specifically defined, and they do not group articles on works of fiction on the basis of a characteristic that is defining to the works of fiction themselves. Though not directly within the scope of this nomination, I would suggest that the appropriateness of the related Category:Science fiction writers of color also be reviewed. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction by writers of color
Category:Speculative fiction novels by writers of color
Nominator's rationale: I'm "very" unsure about this categorisation by colour (very loosely defined). But am not sure about the real nature of my unease so I haven't tagged them yet. Just highlighted them here as I can't think of a better place. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think they should be deleted, tag them for deletion. If you want to initiate a discussion, start it on one or the other of the category talk pages. Should you decide to tag the categories, put me down for delete. "Of color" is far too broad of a categorization scheme, as, to be pedantic, everyone with skin is of some color or another. Otto4711 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to add to my comments above, this is redundant to existing categorization schemes such as Category:African American literature and Category:Asian American literature. Categorizing by the intersection of type of fiction and race is overcategorization and "...of color" is a mush-mouth construction. Otto4711 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Senator Obama used "black" a lot in his recent speech implying it's "politically correct" to use and so with that in mind Category:Black writers of speculative fiction should do while also being globally recognizable by English speakers. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I have a personal interest in the categories I took a look at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and am now leaning towards Delete as the race and gender of authors is usually not "notable" from an encyclopedic standpoint nor am I aware of communities or groups of black specfict authors. A secondary issue is that, unlike a performing artist, authors are normally only known by their name, or pseudonym, and not their gender, nationality, race, age, etc. While it's good to know of black authors of specfict using Wikipedia to construct a list of them (via categories) seems like original research that might be better done on a site such as the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Science fiction by writers of color[edit]
Category:Science fiction by writers of color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Two basic concerns here - Everyone has a skin colour it is an irrelevancy. Second it may have some relevancy on the biography pages, but what on earth does it have to do with their fictional output. It maybe a subject of the work but that is different from the colour of the author. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - It is hard to avoid the fact that the experience of living life as a non-white in most of the countries where SF is written shapes and influences the works of these authors. Could Robert Sawyer have written Brown Girl in the Ring? Would The Lincoln Hunters or The Year of the Quiet Sun have been different books if Tucker had been African-American? This is an effort to stimulate thought about how the life experiences of authors shape their works, in view of one of the most powerful forces in the Anglophone world. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you would go for a "rename" then - my colour affects what I write then? - but you don't know what colour! Also this would be material for the author bio article and maybe for content in the novel articles, does that mean a strangly named category relating to just one factor of the writers physiology be used to define their output. I could see that many writers would be offended by defining their work by such factors. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply - "Strangely named?" What are you talking about? And putting something into a particular category by no means assumes that said category is the only thing that matters about it. A book by Nalo Hopkinson is a book by a person of color; it's also a book by a Canadian, an SF book, etc. Are you saying that we should not have categories like Category:Russian science fiction novels because some writers would be offended by defining their work by such factors? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least use the categories mentioned by Otto below. "Colour" and lumping together anyone who is not "white" is what is strange. Are you saying the the Asian has the same cultural message additions to their work as say a Native American, Wow! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These writers, Native American, African American, Caribbean Canadian, Asian, etc... were mostly taken from the membership of one organization called the Carl Brandon Society. They seen to think that they can something in common enough to for a whole organization around. So your "wow" moment is irrelevant. Their commonality is that they write science fiction from a non-white point-of-view. Booksellergirl (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, specifically, is the "white point of view" to which these works serve as counterpoint? There is no monolithic "white point of view," in science fiction or elsewhere. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, the "white point of view" is the default POV of American culture (and, arguably, the culture of any country or culture of European descent or current occupancy). I'm assuming you are white, and you don't understand how the POV of the culture you are in is not universal. You should probably read up on racial theory before continuing. Theangryblackwoman (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm, thanks for the heaping helping of condescension! Could you pour me a tall glass of white guilt to wash it down with? "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand"-style arguments cut no ice with me, and neither does the "my oppression is worse than your oppression" game. Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio articles tagged with a cat for the "Carl Brandon Society" would seem more appropriate then. This category seems to me at least slightly racist in character, "i.e. anti white" :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's a completely ignorant thing to say. The category is racist because it doesn't include white people? No,. I'm sorry. No. A category to highlight people of color is not ANTI-white, it just doesn't include whites. And it's the height of entitlement to assume that when something excludes white people, it is negatively against whites. The category isn't about negativity, it's just about grouping together the contributions of PoC tot he genre. It's not a hate rally. Theangryblackwoman (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not racist to recognize the special contribution of a group of people. I would submit that it was racist for you to suggest that color was irrelevant. It was striking to me that so much of this work was missing from Wikipedia until this category was created. This category is not to exclude people out but to include people in. Booksellergirl (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better go quiet on this one - we seems to be talking past each other and not achieving much - any way I believe what you are likely to achieve is the opposite of this aim. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Better go quiet on this one" is right when you don't know what you are talking about. I have a few centuries of history and struggle backing me up on my contentions. All you have is your opinion.

--Booksellergirl (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite my comment I just can't let that go unchallenged. Primarily the "heat" appears to be yours (apart maybe from one comment earlier!). To say I don't know what I am talking about is really you just disagreeing with me. At its core, all I am saying that in a WP:POV free online encyclopedia there is no place for articles or categories that tote a particular opinion. Works by authors should be written up and described on the basis of the merits of their work not on their ethnic background "being coloured". And as such this particular category appears to be targeted negatively against whites. It doesn't even categorise "African Americans", "Latin Americians", "Romany literature" inclusively, it has either a very imprecise term "of colour" to include, or the character of excluding whites. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you can demonstrate to me that you are yourself 300 or more years old, the notion that you personally have an opinion (and yours is after all simply an opinion) is more valid because of your asserted ancestral heritage is unsupportable. Besides, why are you assuming that the person you're speaking with is white? Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Smoke! I think people are going a little crazy. And by the heat of the arguement it is clear that emotion over rationality is taking over here. The point of the category in question was the inclusion of writers that formally we not included. The supposed universality of Wikipedia excluded some very important writers. People doing research would not have found these writers. Children looking for science fiction writers who were not white might have been left with the impression that there were no such people. This would make Wikipedia an unuseful and illegitimate source of information. This category needs to stay. --Booksellergirl (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - Ahh, gee! You gotta be kidding me! In the attempt to be PC you are missing the whole point. For Wikipedia to be a valuable resource of information you cannot ignore the realities of life because it disturbs your sensibilities. To say that everyone has color is to deny that people of color, namely Asian, Black, Native American, etc. have a unique point of view and thus a unique offering especially when it comes to science fiction. I submit that this category should not be rename or removed. --Booksellergirl (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to existing categorization schemes such as Category:African American literature and Category:Asian American literature. Categorizing by type of fiction and the race/ethnicity of the author is overcategorization and "...of color" is a mush-mouth construction. Otto4711 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A three-way intersection in a place where one isn't needed. Just to make the point a little clearer, I have absolutely no problem with Category:African American literature. However, I do not buy the rationale that works by Chinese, African American, and Indian authors should be put in the same category, or that the science fiction nature of these works is something that should be connected with the race of the author. But categorizing fiction works in general by the race of the author is fine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Though white people may feel that a category for fiction written by African Americans or Asians is redundant, people of color do not feel such. Fiction is a lens through which readers get a peek at a view of the world through the author's eyes. And the views of People of Color are different -- not just in the ways that all views are different, but sometimes in very fundamental ways -- and that is reflected in their fiction. You cannot tell me that The Color Purple, Black Boy, The Joy Luck Club, and One Hundred Years of Solitude, just to name a VERY few, are not the books they are by the very fact that their authors are People of Color. People of Color often write fiction that tackles the concerns that only People of Color have. And because of all these reasons, and many more, categorizing fiction, whether genre or not, as African American, Asian, etc. is important. because it helps to give an overview of the concerns of Black Folk, to borrow from more literary allusions, but how those concerns play out in literature and over time. The only reason I can see for not wanting this category is that certain members wish to deny that People of Color have concerns different from the concerns of white people. And that simply is not true. Theangryblackwoman (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason why you are assuming that the people voicing opposition to this category are not people of color? Is there some reason why you believe that the fiction written by African Americans you list above are not adequately categorized in Category:African American literature, which no one has suggested touching? Is there some reason you are failing to assume the good faith of those who disagree with you to such a staggering degree and you feel it necessary to cry racism? Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason is, sadly, that I'm cynical. I've had to deal with enough people who are, not necessarily racist, but completely clueless about race and ethnicity who use this complete ignorance to make decisions and statements about how "the color of a person's skin doesn't matter" in terms of their fiction. And considering the exchanges going on above this, not to mention the nominator's stated reasons, I'm not sure my cynicism is unfounded. Beyond that, if we have a classification for African American fiction, and we have a classification for Science Fiction, why shouldn't there be a category for SF by Writers of color? We already recognize that African American fiction is a legit category, and no one is insisting that SF doesn't need a category, that it is "just literature", so it's logical that PoC SF should be a legit subcategory of SF just as African American Literature is a legit subcategory of literature. Theangryblackwoman (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because we already have well-established categorization schemes in place for literature based on the race/ethnicity of the author. Because splitting a limited number of articles into ever smaller and smaller subcategories based on ever-increasing numbers of factors hampers the overall effectiveness of the categorization system. Because People of color (redirects to Colored) is not a widely used or accepted or POV neutral term for purposes of categorization on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - The naming of the category reflects current usage in the United States, at least, where "person of color" is a polite way of saying "nonwhite person" or "person outside the cultural majority." As a genre writer myself, I know how a person's fictional output is influenced by their gender, period of birth, social class, and yes, their race, especially as it relates to one's feeling of being an insider or outsider. The category is useful for people researching the impact of race on genre fiction, in much the same way that Category:African American writers is useful to people studying American literature. And given that there are already 42 articles in the category, it doesn't strike me as a case of overcategorization. Stepheng3 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "of color" does not reflect current usage in the United States outside of politically correct circles, and even if it did, Wikipedia is global, not limited to the United States. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Gender and race are things we key in on instantly when we meet someone and so gender/race related categories seem entirely appropriate. I'm not sure how finely we want to slice the categories but speculative fiction by writers of color is of interest to me as it gives me a window into the “colored” universe while also not being reined by the bounds of standard literature. I would recommend that Category:Speculative fiction novels by writers of color, Category:Speculative fiction writers of color, Category:Science fiction writers of color, and Category:Science fiction by writers of color be merged. While I’d personally prefer the category name be Category:Speculative fiction by writers of color as it’s more inclusive I know that the term “Science Fiction” is far more recognizable to the general public and it may well be a large enough sub-genre of speculative fiction that it should have it’s own category. I'd also go with "of color" as something like Category:Black speculative fiction is ambiguous (is it about the dark arts?) and Category:African-American speculative fiction excludes writer outside North America and is also ambiguous in that it's not clear if the authors or story subjects are African-American. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Selinker's and Otto's comments above. This essentially groups writers into "white" and "non-white", which is generally an unhelpful/divisive form of binary thinking and categorisation. This style of categorisation is also U.S.-centric, which WP should at least try not to be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as highly unnecessary overcategorization. A gender/race category for the authors, maybe. But for the works they produce? Seriously, this basically attempts to categorize things as "white books" and "black books", etc. Pointless. Resolute 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain "People of color" is a widely recognized and significant term used worldwide in English. For example, a search on the term "people of color" in Google returns over a million results. The concept is defined in Wikipedia here, [1] and has been in use for over 40 years. There are many significant international organizations that use the term, for example [2]. In short, it is hardly an obscure or specialized bit of jargon. Also: I agree with the other editors who find it useful to be able to list and find the contributions of people of color to the field of SF, just as I find it crucial to be able to identify the achievements and contributions of women. The power to collect information by identity is a key part of empowerment and is one of the lovely highlights of Wikipedia. --Lizzard (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points still stand unchallenged that the phrase "...of color" is not used for categorization anywhere on Wikipedia that I can locate other than these few categories. It is not a widely accepted categorization scheme, it is not as the brand new article Person of color (started yesterday quite possibly in response to these discussions) demonstrates, POV-neutral and it is redundant to other widely-accepted category schemes. "...of color" simply casts too wide of a net. It captures literally every non-white writer who ever lived and asserts with no possible foundation that the writings of Phillis Wheatley have some encyclopedic connection to those of Hase Seishu simply because neither of them is white. You say you want a list of SF by non-white writers? Great. make a list article. Categories are not lists. Otto4711 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Speculative fiction novels by writers of color[edit]
Category:Speculative fiction novels by writers of color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Two basic concerns here - Everyone has a skin colour it is an irrelevancy. Second it may have some relevancy on the biography pages, but what on earth does it have to do with their fictional output. It maybe a subject of the work but that is different from the colour of the author. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been emptied out, and will be deleted soon anyway, as an empty one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain (this is the same reason as above, but I thought it bore repeating.) Though white people may feel that a category for fiction written by African Americans or Asians is redundant, people of color do not feel such. Fiction is a lens through which readers get a peek at a view of the world through the author's eyes. And the views of People of Color are different -- not just in the ways that all views are different, but sometimes in very fundamental ways -- and that is reflected in their fiction. You cannot tell me that The Color Purple, Black Boy, The Joy Luck Club, and One Hundred Years of Solitude, just to name a VERY few, are not the books they are by the very fact that their authors are People of Color. People of Color often write fiction that tackles the concerns that only People of Color have. And because of all these reasons, and many more, categorizing fiction, whether genre or not, as African American, Asian, etc. is important. because it helps to give an overview of the concerns of Black Folk, to borrow from more literary allusions, but how those concerns play out in literature and over time. The only reason I can see for not wanting this category is that certain members wish to deny that People of Color have concerns different from the concerns of white people. And that simply is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theangryblackwoman (talk • contribs)
  • I cannot assume good faith when I see none displayed. And, as I've already pointed out, African American literature is NOT fundamentally the same as African American Science Fiction literature (because Science Fiction is not just subsumed into literature) and, furthermore, People of Color encompasses more than just black people and Asians. That you are making a case that African American and Asian covers all people of Color is problematic at BEST. Theangryblackwoman (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not making the case that the two schemes cover all of the territory that these PC "...of color" categories do. I am saying that we have developed a widely-accepted scheme for categorizing artistic works by the race/ethnicity of their creators and "...by people of color" is not it. Foo by people of color implies that the writing of Sun Tzu and those of Toni Morrison have some area of commonality based solely on the fact that neither author is white, and that is problematic. Otto4711 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Black science fiction - In the world of fiction, speculative fiction seems uniquely colored (ahem) by the author's subculture, and therefore I believe that it is not out of place for Wikipedia to contain information such as this. However, from a perspective of readability, the number of subpages that Booksellergirl has created to supplement "her" main page on Black science fiction is labyrinthine and counterintuitive. Specifically, it is awkward that the main page contains links to white authors, but you need to go to a different page to find the links to the authors of color. I recommend keeping all the information under the single page, while improving its breadth and scholarship, and creating category pages only when the original page is truly unwieldy.MatthewDaly (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Science fiction by writers of color or Category:Speculative fiction by writers of color as there are few individual novels notable enough for inclusion, as separate articles, on Wikipedia but broadening the category to allow for writers of color would make the category worthwhile. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category doesn't exist anymore -- Booksellergirl (talk) 20:38, 24 March 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:Historical figures featured in I, Claudius[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historical figures featured in I, Claudius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial. Not a defining attribute of these figures. Also Anglocentric and 20th century centric. Graves is hardly Shakespeare. Luwilt (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, not a defining characteristic of these historical people. See also the similar CFD for mytho-historical people featured as characters in Paradise Lost; as with the PL category, the articles here are not for the characters from the work but the actual people. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Portrayal in a work of fiction or artistic work is not a defining characteristic of the historical person. This is a type of overcategorization. --Lquilter (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Definitely not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:12, 21 March 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:Controversial literature[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. — CharlotteWebb 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This category is currently being used entirely for articles about antisemitic literature, all of which appear to be listed already in the appropriate sub-cats of Category:Antisemitism. So in that regard, it's superfluous. Moreover, the name is, of course, very problematic: as far as I'm aware, all categories of this sort (i.e. "Category:Controversial you-name-it") have been deleted whenever they've been discovered, as they're considered impossible to define in NPOV terms, as well as being subject to abuse. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irredeemably vague. Wide open to abuse, and currently being abused. Luwilt (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as a recreation of the thrice-deleted Category:Controversial books. Tagged. Otto4711 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Purely in the interest of "procedural justice", I'm not so sure this should be considered a "recreation" of that other category. It's a broader category, and I rather doubt the creator was even aware of the other one. I would rather see it dealt with through a full CFD. Cgingold (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; although not speedily per Cgingold, the ultimate result of a salt might be a good idea per Otto. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 21 March 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.

Years categories[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 per nom and precedent, with recreation permissible if needed. Kbdank71 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging

See deletion discussion for similar Ireland categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30 and endorsed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18, and also a recent discussion for similar Europe categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 14. One or two article categories are no use to anyone, as has been amply established by the discussions above, as has the pointlessness of creating categories as "placeholders" when sub-categories can be created as needed. At this moment in time there is no need for any of the above categories to exist, the articles can easily be placed in the appropriate year cat, eg Category:511, none of which are sufficiently populated to justify these recreations of deleted categories that contain exactly the same articles as before with just a different name. If at any point in the future those categories become sufficiently populated to justify the creation of sub-catogories then such categories may be justifiable, but as present they are not and the "give us more time" argument was rejected at the previous discussions. One Night In Hackney303 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep all Part of a wider system. In many cases there is no other suitable sharp category in the national menu. Luwilt (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, in which case stuff like Category:Years of the 5th century in Italy (3 members) isn't needed. In any case modern national boundaries don't work very well at this period. If people want to do timeline articles, that's a much better way to go. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the last nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and ample precedents. This seems to have been gone over a number of times with the same result each time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Categories such as Category:Years_in_France lose their effectiveness every time a merge like this takes place. Neier (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Neier - the proposed merge loses the country info. Occuli (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then put this in the nom - cfd decisions are supposed to be implemented by bots, not editors. The nom as it stands is a muddle and I can't support it. The nom loses the geographical info - period. (If the country is thought to be a problem, cf Johnbod above, then '10th century in Europe' might do, unless Europe is equally problematic.) Occuli (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories are part of an established system, and should be populated rather than deleted. Additionally, the nomination is poorly thought-out: deletion would remove country information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no overarching need to rationalise these that I can see and for a "few" widely used schemes such as these it is importance to retain structural consistency. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:14, 25 March 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:Blind African American Governors of New York[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. — CharlotteWebb 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blind African American Governors of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Perhaps a joke based on the super-minority status of the newly minted NY governor. Or perhaps not. In any case, this is overcategorization by triple intersection with little growth potential. But not a bad joke, if it was. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh. Sorry, VW. Guess that was a little too subtle! I thought the part about "other Blind African American governors" was a sure give-away. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, but I like Johnbod's suggestion of a specific subcat of the disabled politicians one for people like David Blunkett. Depending on your definition of blindness, you could probably add the British PM, too - he only has sight in one eye IIRC. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but made me laugh--Nobunaga24 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 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:Celebrities Appearing in Reality TV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Celebrities Appearing in Reality TV.
Nominator's rationale: Needs a rename at least for inappropriate capitalization. A wording change might also be appropriate, however, but I'm not sure what the best alternate name would be. Might even be deletable, I don't know. But it's at least an inarguable candidate for renaming. Bearcat (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from the College Station/Bryan, Texas, area[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: split as proposed by Vegaswikian and seconded by Kbdank71. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from the College Station/Bryan, Texas, area to Category:People from the College Station/Bryan, Texas area
Nominator's rationale: I don't know why there's a comma after the word Texas, but there shouldn't be, one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:10, 20 March 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:Companies in Chapter 11[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. Postdlf said it best with It's also about the worst thing you could inaccurately apply to a company article, and living people aren't the only entities that can be defamed. If we are going to categorize companies that have filed for Chapter 11 protection, it has to be done right, and there is no consensus as to what a good rename target would be. The temporary situation/difficult to maintain argument is also very strong. Kbdank71 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies in Chapter 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename to Category:Companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy; or possibly delete. While some readers may be familiar with the term, "Chapter 11", it is relatively obscure to the average person. At a minimum, the word "bankruptcy" needs to be included in the name to ensure that readers grasp the purpose of the category. However, I'm not entirely certain that the category should be kept, given that Chapter 11 is a temporary status in every case: some companies are restructured and survive, others go out of business. Cgingold (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming I agree that adding "bankruptcy" would make for a better category. However, given that we have Category:People currently in space, and people tend to stay in space a lot shorter than companies stay in bankruptcy, I don't see a problem with having this category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but keep - not a huge category, and most companies spend some years in C11 (a period unlikely to shorten just at the moment ....) so maintenance should not be too difficult. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or delete per nom. Chapter 11 is a temporary status. Or rename to "Companies that have filed for bankruptcy." But I'm not sure what the point is of a category. Is it defining of a company overall? Is there a reason to group corporate bankruptcy filers together? Postdlf (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes absolutely and yes absolutely! Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per Postdlf to make information more "timeless". But then in making it timeless (a company that has ever filed for bankruptcy), it becomes relatively non-defining and therefore I'm leaning more towards a delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To file under Chapter 11 is to file for bankruptcy protection, which is not the same as bankruptcy. The new category name should reflect this. It is also specific to the US, so perhaps Category:Companies in bankruptcy protection would be more universal. Bwwm (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Naming it "companies in" would once again make it a category of only temporary application, difficult to maintain. It's also about the worst thing you could inaccurately apply to a company article, and living people aren't the only entities that can be defamed. A sourced list would be the best way to handle it. Postdlf (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re Bwwm's comments about the precise meaning — then add "protection" to the end of the phrase "companies that have filed for bankruptcy". But again, once it become timeless information it becomes non-defining. And if non-timeless, it's too challenging to maintain per Postdlf. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify.Per Postdlf. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to Category:US Companies in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. I know "US" is redundant, but other countries have similar provisions, which may generate a category of categories. The incusion of "chapter 11" is desirable, as I think there are other classes of company bankruptcy. Note I am English. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 26 March 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:Hong Kong football 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: relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 26; the category was not tagged. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hong Kong football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Hong Kong football players to Category:Hong Kong footballers — to follow the other similar pages Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename unless football is ambiguous in HK, like the US or South Africa (I don't think it is; but, it doesn't hurt to check). Neier (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until the handover in 1997, at least, I think "football" meant pretty much the same in Hong Kong as it means in Britain. I doubt anything has changed since then. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 25 March 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:Competition sailplanes[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; also, as noted, the category is empty. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Competition sailplanes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It is possible to take part at least in competitions like the Online Contest with any glider. Thus, this category seems to be redundant.--Vierzehn (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unpopulated category. I agree with the nominator. Canglesea (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is totally superfluous. JMcC (talk) 08:49, 21 March 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:Angelo State University images[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Angelo State University images to Category:Images of Angelo State University
Nominator's rationale: Rename. So name will match format of other categories of this type, such as:

→Wordbuilder (talk) 01:39, 20 March 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:Progressive Universities[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, OR concerns, no viable alternative. Kbdank71 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Progressive Universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category's inclusion criteria is subjective and not well defined, and is probably largely a matter of opinion. I'm not aware of any organizations or publications that define universities as "progressive", nor am I aware of any objective criteria by which a university would be considered progressive. Also, the fact that this category is mostly populated by liberal arts colleges rather than universities would suggest that this is the creator's opinion, rather than some objectively verifiable fact. Natalie (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Experimental learning & grading systems etc - are there any in the category you don't think could be so described? Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. Natalie (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category calls for non-npov and/or OR - — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEMIV (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 10, 2008
Er, because? Most, perhaps all, of these describe themselves in these terms. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, though. This came to my attention because I'm an Antioch alum, and they don't generally describe themselves as a "progressive university". I don't recall ever seeing such in admissions materials or similar. I guess I'd also be a little hesitant about self-identification because the word "progressive" has several different historical meanings and it would probably be OR to determine which kind of "progressive" a school was referring to. As an example, there is a theory called Educational progressivism, but there is also "regular" progressivism, and the two appear to be somewhat different. Natalie (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "these terms" I meant my proposal, not the current name. I don't defend "progressive". I'm not stuck on my proposal, but I believe there is a valid category here, & will support any bertter suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. I agree that there may be a category here somewhere, I just think it's a little too hard to objectively define and thus might be more trouble than its worth. Natalie (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can be part of Antioch’s long-standing tradition of progressive education. [3] These schools are big P Progressive schools, being afraid to use word progressive because of its many connotations is like denying a school the name Liberal Arts because they are Republicans.
While there is no agreed upon philosophy for progressive colleges, they are generally institutions with close student interaction, student responsibility in determining the course of education, non-traditional majors, and left-leaning politics.[4]

The very nature of these institutions is that there is something different but they are bound by a loose and fluid definition. Call it something else if you need to, but I believe it's important for these schools (and others) to share a common category.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excessively vague, as explained above. Luwilt (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - highly subjective, non-global in viewpoint (most U.S. universities might look that way from some other countries' POV) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 20 March 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_March_20&oldid=1138390894"