Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26[edit]

Category:Official documents by Sweden[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Official documents by Sweden to Category:Official documents of Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other sub-categories of Category:Official documents by country. Tim! (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename; the new name is a more common construction Hmains (talk) 03:08, 1 October 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:Local eccentrics[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) 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I found this category when browsing the Bay Area WikiProject; most of the people in it are residents of San Francisco. While I can't argue that everyone here has been described as an 'eccentric', the concept of the category still seems inherently POV; Category:Eccentrics was deleted for that reason back in 2006, and I don't see how this one is any different. Terraxos (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator of category - but may be renamed if a better name is found. It is an encyclopedic concept that the phenomenon exists of colorful people closely associated with a specific locale. There are articles about the concept as well, and I think it tells us something both about each place and also about how we look at sense of place. It is useful to a reader wanting to know more about a place to be able to navigate to the people from the place (one can do a cross search between this category, once populated, and the locations category). The category's definition sets specific inclusion criteria and asks for sourcing (hence not POV or any BLP issues):

Local eccentrics are people who are famous locally or beyond as notable eccentrics, and whose lives are closely associated with a specific locale. For reasons of Wikipedia's policies of WP:BLP (respect for living people) and verifiability, please do not add people unless their main article contains a sourced description of their behavior and source of fame that may reasonably fit this category and, in the case of living people, please do not add them if in the context of their overall biography the category could reasonably be considered derogatory.

- Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category itself addresses the nominator's issue by providing well-defined inclusion criteria for what is the defining characteristic of individuals included. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listify if anyone wishes. If the introduction needs to be that long to clarify what should be included, clearly we need citations to show that the articles qualify. This is clearly a case where a list is the better solution. The current name is also ambiguous as to the meaning of local. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whats an eccentric anyway? And whats the point of having a category of characters of solely local interest? --Soman (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - define eccentric? One's persons idea of eccentric is another's normal and another's barking mad, and if they are local, how are they notable? Snappy56 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 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:Stories which show something of Kipling’s attitudes to race[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization, nondefining, based on opinion. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categories. I took the liberty of adding the second category to this CFD since it is virtually identical to the first. In both cases these are fairly described as articles in the guise of categories. I urge their creator, User:MacAuslan, to favor us with the creation of an article dealing with these subjects -- provided, of course, that it be a properly written and sourced article as distinct from a personal essay. The stories listed in these categories would, of course, be linked to from the text of the article -- a much more sensible approach than using categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I protest against these deletions. I would urge their value to an ongoing project to classify Kipling's short stories, of which there are many hundreds. For serious study of any similar writer, it is helpful to have different kinds grouped for quick reference. It appears to me that an encyclopaedia is not the worst place to make this possible, and given the technology of Wikipedia's categorizations to be potentially one of the best. You will see that I have also created categories which group stories involving certain characters and places. The two that are nominated for deletion are simply two that cover certain themes of importance and interest to readers of Kipling. I am particularly surprised to be told they are 'overcategorisation', when I had deliberately left their names in general terms to allow readers of the articles to make up their own minds as to what precisely was meant, and indeed to judge the importance or otherwise of the article to their own needs and interests. May I add a bit of background? Kipling has frequently been attacked on the grounds of racism and imperialism. Both charges are at least arguable - though I would deny them, myself (in the confidentiality of a discussion page, at any rate!). It does not seem from the evidence of his own writings that he was either a simple racist or a simple imperialist. That is why I created the categories: they group stories that 'show something' - I do not judge what or how much - of his attitudes to the topic. Readers, therefore, who want to follow up K 'as a racist' or 'as an imperialist' may follow the links and find evidence on which to make up their own minds. Isn't that a legitimate function of an encyclopaedia? I may draft an article(/s) on these matters in due course; but my primary goal is to work through his stories, a project which will take several years...

So I ask for these categories to be permitted to survive. MacAuslan (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both categories. I agree with Cgingold's admirable alternative suggestion. I also fear that quite a few subcats of Category:Short stories by Rudyard Kipling are not viable. Occuli (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge to Category:Short stories by Rudyard Kipling, if not already present. Highly subjective category, although articles on Kipling's attitudes on race and on Empire might be appropriate if adequately sourced. (See Cgingold's suggestion above.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories aren't substitutes for articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about critical interpretations of Kipling's writing would be eminently appropriate content for an encyclopedia, as long as they're properly sourced. But we shouldn't be categorizing the stories in this way. Delete, but strongly encourage MacAuslan to put their obvious interest in and knowledge about the subject to creating what has the potential to be an excellent article or three. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are thesis statements, not classifications. Simply not a proper use of categories. Postdlf (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the points mentioned in the discussion above indicated those categorys are not needed. abf /talk to me/ 19:33, 27 September 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:Irish speakers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Cat doesn't meet WP:CAT norms. Cat attributes should be specific, neutral, inclusive and verifiable. This category under the name Irish (Gaeilge) language speakers was deleted on 12 May 2008, see discussion here. Same reasons apply here. This cat (and it's contents) fail this. Other problems with this cat are:

Relevance - Cats should be relevant to subject's notability. Being an Irish speaker is not a notable attribute.
Verifiability - What standard of Irish would warrant a subject's inclusion in this article? And how do we verify it?
Over-population - Anyone who went to school in Ireland since 1920s was taught Irish for normally 13 years. Ostensibly approaching 100% of Irish people could be included - depending on their "proficiency" with the language. (See problem 2 above).
Precedence. We have no category for Spanish speakers or English speakers or similar. For the same reasons. It's just not appropriate. Snappy56 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy56 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content, otherwise delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asap, per Otto. Occuli (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content. And per rationale in original CfD discussion. Guliolopez (talk) 14:18, 29 September 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.