Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Category:English-language films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Same as proposed deletion of English-language albums; this is an example of overcategorization. In an English-language encyclopedia, most of the films will be in English and thus it's not a defining characterisitcs. Take a look at the page for this category: the scrolling navigation bar is a clear indicator that the category is useless. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A scrolling navigator bar is not a reason to delete. This may be an English encyclopedia, but it is an effort to compile knowledge about everything that is encylopedically notable, English or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Language shouldn't matter; if we have cats like Category:Japanese-language films, we should have this... it might not be super useful, but are the other "-language" films categories? Does anyone really look at those categories, either? (I know page views don't really matter, but I feel that it is still valid to bring up in conjunction with other arguments). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should be more or less language-neutral in its coverage. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The presumption that films (on Eng wiki) are in English unless otherwise noted seems a reasonable one. (There is also Category:English-language novels.) Occuli (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question How does that make sense? Why would you assume that the film you are reading about was spoken in English just because a web page was in English? If all of these articles got ported over to (e.g.) the Japanese Wikipedia, should we remove the Japanese-language film category and add in English-language films? This makes no sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a meaningful way to categorize films - the language in which they are spoken. Just like the rest of Category:English-language media and Category:Films by language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost all the above. And the size of the category is irrelevant to whether it;'s useful... has the nominator looked at a category like the 371,000 in Category:Living people recently? This one's small fry. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how such a category is useful. How would someone use it? Scroll through that list until you see three-digit alpha prefix that applies to the film you seek? Why on earth would anyone do that? It's far simpler to search.

Also, the films bear almost no relation to one another except that they are in English. The all have titles, too. Should we have a category, "Films that have titles"? How about "Films that have directors", "Films that have actors"?

The size is important because having a category with thousands and thousands of entries affects usability dramatically. I don't have the energy to push this any further, but I think the "Keep" proponents are kidding themselves. The category is useless. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both it and Category:Living people are of limited use from the point of view of navigation, sure. But that isn't the only purpose categories have. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No has described any other use. Why won't one of the editors in favor of keeping this category name such such a use? — John Cardinal (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the sub-cats of Category:Films by language and per all the above. Also, many of the entries of this category (and the other by-language cats) are populated via coding in the film infobox. Lugnuts (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the systemic bias this act of deletion would cause. "English-language films" happens to be the most populated category of the "Films by language" category. That's the nature of the setup. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for every reason cited above. FYI, this category automatically appends itself to the article when the film's language, whatever it might be, is listed in the infobox. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worth keeping, but given that the concerns about actual usability are certainly valid it might also be worth reorganizing: several world countries produce films in multiple languages and could potentially benefit from language/country subcategorization. And then, for the countries which produce films in English only, just stick the country category in here directly instead of each individual film. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, I was hoping you'd chime in on this one. Of course, most or all of the major Western English-speaking nations are multi-ethnic enough to have minority language or Aboriginal-language cinema, but we already have sub-cats to cover this. This category would become more of a top-level cat, with instructions to editors to move articles into subcats whereever possible. Of course, it would require turning off the automated entries from the film infobox, etc., as mentioned above. This idea would require a full discussion at the level of WikiProject Film to move ahead, I imagine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep within the well-defined structure of Category:Films by language. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having large categories are still very useful in the context of category intersection, which Wikisearch does now do effectively enough to make this worth retaining. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik. Alefbe (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:15, 20 May 2009 (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:English-language albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete – This is an example of overcategorization: the category is trivial. Given this is an English language encyclopedia, a very high percentage of albums will fit the category. It will hard to maintain, and essentially useless because being in English doesn't characterize the albums in a meaningful way. This is just a bad idea. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this more trivial than Category:English-language films? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Notice the scrolling navigation bar at the top of that category? How many people actually use it? — John Cardinal (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, categorizing by language is way, way, way too hard to maintain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Keep Ginormous, yes, but part of a larger scheme which I did not realize. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're broad categories, but I don't see that that's a reason for deletion. Also, how is categorizing by language any harder to maintain? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen no valid reason to delete, at least not yet. Sorry, but the scrolling navigator bar = "useless" argument is very weak, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not weak at all. There have been no claims about how the category is useful, and the scrolling navigation bar shows how unuseful the category is. How does one use the category? The answer is, you don't. You search for the (film/album) by title, or you use a category that is meaningful. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living people is also extremely large. It requires a scroll bar, too. By your logic, this and all such large categories should be deleted, right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your whole argument that because there are other large categories we should keep all of them? (Um, that's weak.) Living people at least has a WP reason to exist: we have to be careful with such articles because of BLP rules, etc. Perhaps BOTs that process articles via categories provides a reason for large categories. Still no reason for large categories from the "keeps". — John Cardinal (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my use of the word "weak" offended you. If so, I regret using it. Good luck with your efforts. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't offend; I thought it was wrong. I think I will need that luck, most editors are in favor of keeping the category. The thing is, I doubt any of them have ever used or would ever use ever use either "English-language" category to find an article. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons that I outlined in the keep !vote in the CFD right above this one. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given that we have Category:The Beatles albums (all of which are in English, if we allow Michelle (song)) why is this not done mostly by subcatting the 'XXX albums'? (If we have to do it at all. We could easily exclude English from Category:Albums by language. It is of very marginal interest on Eng wiki that something is in English.) Occuli (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Some artists - e.g. Celine Dion - release albums in multiple languages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not very many artists, I would think. Such would have to be added at the top level, but the vast majority of UK musicians (say) produce albums in English. It really would be much neater to include the subcat Category:The Beatles albums rather than have an arbitrary selection of their albums scattered throughout a vast and incomplete list. (I have categorised quite a number of albums and was not aware until today of language categories.) Occuli (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done for Category:Six Feet Under albums only. There are 526 pages in Category:English-language albums and 10,819 artist-subcats in Category:Albums by artist. It follows that there must be thousands of albums not captured in Category:English-language albums; that is, it is hard if not impossible to maintain. (Unless a bot went round looking at 'language' in say an infobox, and added a category as appropriate. But then looking at an arbitrary few albums, the language is not specified anywhere, so it cannot be a 'defining characteristic', so we shouldn't be categorising by it.) Occuli (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a meaningful way to categorize albums - the language in which they are sung. Just like the rest of Category:English-language media and Category:Albums by language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per my comments on the equivalent film category. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recent comments above about English-language films apply here. The size of the category matters because an huge category destroys usability and eliminates any claim that the albums have something important in common. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my recent response to those comments also applies here - along with the added query of why the number of items sharing something in common makes it any more or less likely that what they share is important. It's vitally important for zoologists to know that bees and ants are both insects, even though there are hundreds of thousands of species of insect. The sheer number of members a category has has absolutely no bearing on the importance of any similarity or otherwise of that category's members. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep within the well-defined structure of Category:Albums by language. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining characteristic: an album is seldom made in a language (exceptions aside, such as Mekanïk Destruktïw Kommandöh); individual song lyrics can be in differing language, even differing within a song, each of which blurs usage of the category. AllyD (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined category (based on a meaningful way to categorize albums). Alefbe (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (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:Images of Wikipedia barnstars[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: Deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard per WP:CSD#C1. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. I have moved all the images previously here to Wikimedia Commons, where all images of Wikipedia barnstars should be, and removed the category from the handful of images that are on Commons but were also categorized here (images don't need categories in both places). Any images that would be added to this category are going to be either A) Free images that should be moved to Commons or B) Copyright violations which should be deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C1 Empty category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that, but thought that I would bring it here since it isn't your standard article category and I wasn't sure if there would be opposition to this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that all its contents have been moved to the WP:Commons and as per the nominator. IZAK (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2009 (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:Films shot in stereoscopy[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 (already merged). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for a little-used film technique. Category does not seem to have much in the way of growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not exactly! Category:3-D films, which is exactly the same thing, has 112 entries, & we are told is the next big thing. But this one is now added there, so Delete. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod, but it should be a merge to Category:3-D films, no? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the only article there, so it comes to the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:17, 20 May 2009 (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 crews in film and television[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) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - science fiction series that involve a "cooperating crew" are so commonplace that the existence of such a crew is not a defining characteristic of the series. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus none of these articles are about the crews per se. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2009 (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.

Detroit, Michigan 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: do not rename. In a sense, both sides of this debate are "correct". There is a general convention to match category names with article names. And yet there also is a convention that has developed for categories for U.S. cities to use "city, state" in all cases. When the two conventions clash, as here, I think it's relatively obvious that the convention that is more specific to the situation at hand needs to take precedence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Jewish film and theatre[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure about this category, which doesn't seem to correspond to any existing category tree, lumping as it does film and theatre. We have Category:Jewish films: so we could create a Category:Jewish cinema if we wished to have a master cat for films, actors, festivals, etc., as we do for other ethnic cinema cats. Similarly, we have Category:Jewish theatres, for actual stage companies, and could create a Category:Jewish theatre master cat if we do wished. Do we really want this combo-category? Perhaps it's outlived its usefulness? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we do have a handful of Fooian/Foos in film and television categories so this dual structure is not entirely without precedent. I wish whoever had created this would have written a category description to give us some idea of the intended scope. At the moment it seems to be a catch-all for any film or play that includes a Jewish character or a Judaism related-plot, which in and of itself isn't necessarily problematic, but it also includes theatrical productions written by Jews that otherwise do not have "Jewish content" (Show Boat is "Jewish theatre"?) along with Jewish theatrical and film performers. My feeling is that in the absence of some clear inclusion criteria the category should be deleted as being overly broad and advancing the synthetic position that having a Jewish creator makes a film or a play "Jewish". Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's also Category:Asians in film and theatre. Moreover, Show Boat may very well be the archetype of the genre: performed in both theater and film, a Jewish author's novel, Jewish composer, Jewish lyricist, dealing with prejudice (a classic example of the long-time, well-known, collaboration between the Jewish and African American communities). Don't you know musical history?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Bene: My mother played piano and sang Bill (and many of the other tunes) to me as a child, I was a professional musician (trombone) at the age of 15, started university as a music/electrical engineering double major, I'm a bass (voice) and have performed Ol' Man River (in concert form) many times, was involved in high school, college, and professional theater, and now have a mixed race niece who is also involved in musical theater. Perhaps I'm "overly well-informed", but was flabbergasted by the utter ignorance that would choose Show Boat as being wrong for the category! See also Porgy and Bess.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which character in Show Boat is Jewish? What storyline within Porgy and Bess is about Jews? Declaring for Wikipedia purposes that being written by a Jew makes something a "Jewish film" or "Jewish theatre" opens up an enormous can of worms. The definitive film adaptation of Show Boat was directed by a gay British atheist. Is Show Boat thus a gay film, a British film, an atheist film? Should everything written by a Jew be considered "Jewish", whether it deals with any aspect of Judaism at all? Is everything by an LGBT writer LGBT-related regardless of contents? Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there may be too many articles, in this and several sub-cats, as Otto says, there is certainly a role for some overall category here. Ideally film and theatre should be separated under different head-cats, ~~and maybe (or not) united in a top-level "Jewish performing arts" category, along with ballet etc, but not music.~~ Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that in other ethnic groups "culture" has been top-level cat, such as Category:Inuit cinema and Category:Inuit culture.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do have an underpopulated Category:Christian performing arts cat. However, I see that Performing arts does not include film (though I think it should). Anyway, I rely on all your good judgement, as always. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just cats for "film" & "theatre" under the "culture" cat seems best. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because: (1) there really was a very big "Jewish film" and Jewish theater industry, especially Yiddish films and particularly among secular Jews for a very long time in the 20th century and it still exists in Israel now mostly in Hebrew. (2) In the absence of anything remotely similar to it, it is a useful parent category for now for both the well-founded Category:Jewish films (which could indeed be improved by fine-tuning to become Category:Jewish cinema) and Category:Jewish theatres (which could indeed be improved by adding Category:Jewish theatre). (3) Another reason to keep this category is that over the years many of the related articles and categories have been placed in it for safekeeping in good faith, and they should remain there until such time as more specific categories come into existence. (4) The advice of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built would seem to apply in this instance and should be followed. (5) This CfD vote should be dropped for now and a discussion started with interested expert editors either at WP:TALKJUDAISM and/or at WP:MOVIES and WP:THEATER and get some input from the experts in the subject category by placing the {{expert subject category}} template on this category page and its sub-categories and and/or the {{expert-subject}} template on key related articles to draw attention to this effort to improve the parent categories and sharpen its component sub-categories. IZAK (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be agreement that some sort of categorization should exist that covers "Jewish media". This category is such a mess, though, that from a technical and labor standpoint it may be easier to delete it and then, once a categorization scheme is figured out, rebuild from the ground. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the articles, a high proportion seem either to unnecessarily be in both this cat and a sub-cat, or not to be in a sub-cat they should be in, at which point they could come out of here - I have adjusted the cats of several along these lines. I, & I think many here, don't like "knock it all down & hope someone redoes it better" solutions, as this rarely actually happens. Better to set up the flim and theatre cats for which there seems to be a good degree of consensus, and then allow some time for the head cat articles to be allocated before revisiting the matter. There are certainly too many show-biz Jews not really associated with work for specifically Jewish audiences - the Selznicks etc. These should go. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This union has been part of the organization since ~~1994~~ 2004! Just because Category:Jewish media (created about an hour earlier in ~~1994~~ 2004 by the same editor, IZAK) exists, and Category:Jewish culture exists (created in ~~1995~~ 2005) doesn't mean that all the subcategories should be merged there.... I agree that there should be a statement for using the category, and a main article would be nice, too. To that, we leave the experts.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia didn't exist in 1994. And no matter how long a category has existed, consensus around how to organize things can and does change over time, so the length of time something has already existed on here is irrelevant to the question of whether it should continue to exist in its current form or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a mistake, I meant 2004 (as I'm sure you knew). I'm so incensed about the idiotic notion that Jewish film and theater industry should be limited to only Jewish content that my fingers got ahead of the brain. Thanks for the gentle correction. However, categories that stay a long time become well known, and changing them should have a very high barrier. Most of all recent category reorganizing has been thrashing by various gangs of vociferous editors, not any consensus for improvement. It's a lot of work to undo.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reorganize a category that is far better defined than the purely subjective Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which has overwhelmingly survived CfD on two separate occasions in the past few months (in November 2008 and April 2009), where consensus was near unanimous in agreeing that there is no issue whatsoever with being overly broad and advancing the synthetic position that having a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transvestite character or mention thereof makes a television episode "LGBT-related", and we ought to follow a similar methodology here, which would exclude authorship as a criteria for inclusion. This category dates back some four and a half years, making it one of Wikipedia's oldest, and splitting it into film and theater categories, with subcategories for performers, seems far too obvious to have been ignored as a solution to deal with any perceived problem. The fundamentally disruptive suggestion that the only way to save the village is to destroy it made little sense even in wartime, and there are far better ways to deal with reorganizing this category. The argument from misplaced, questionable or borderline entries also carries no weight; The solution of discussing or fixing the problem is far too often ignored for the option of tossing out the baby with the bath water. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, nothing like taking one category and trying to apply it to every situation regardless of how analogous it is to what's actually under discussion in hopes of pushing one's own agenda, is there. There is a definition for LGBT-related television episodes. Specifically "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantially cover such issues" (which varies greatly from your phony "it's got a gay character or makes 'mention thereof'"). Is there such a definition here? No. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is not a category about Jewish "-related issues" — it matches a well-known, well-documented, confluence in history.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm clear: so is it your view that any theatrical piece or film that has Jews in key creative positions, per Showboat, belongs in this category, regardless of whether there is explicitly Jewish content or not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated the opposite. This category includes media with Jewish-related content, not Jewish actors, producers or directors. All we need to do is stick "Jewish-related" in the category definition and then all problems are solved. As part of my agenda, I will keep on trying to see some sense of consistent standards established for all categories, eliminating the arbitrary ILIKEIT / IHATEIT / I know it when I see it approach that reigns at CFD. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it currently contains both types, about 70/30 I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another race/ethnicity/religion category with no objective criteria for inclusion - are Seinfeld, Maude, and Star Trek Jewish TV shows and films because someone in them was Jewish? And Porgy & Bess? Why not Gone with the Wind - there were Jews in that, too. C'mon, unless you're trying to parse the Nuremburg Laws or something, its not a meaningful intersection. We have Category:Yiddish-language films for the appropriate linguistic component. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because of the age of this cat, it contains a very high proportion of articles that actually belong in eg Category:Yiddish theatre performers, but are not there. Until this nom started, this cat had many more Yiddish-language films than were in that cat, & I'm sure it still has many that need moving. This should all be done before deletion. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carlossuarez46. Alefbe (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above, Keep and set up Film & Theatre sub-cats, allocate valid articles but remove Seinfeld etc then revisit to delete. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a case where sub-categorising by ethnicity is relevant; there are such things as 'Jewish films' and 'Jewish theater' (though obviously, not every film or play made by a Jewish person would fit in those categories). At least, the National Center for Jewish Film and Association for Jewish Theatre seem to think so... Robofish (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (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.

Film series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Already deleted. When I was looking at this they were all red links, so my first comment on this still stands. While looking at this after my close, some of the categories reappeared and I did not understand this, but I looked at the discussion and agreed that they should be delete. But then I went in to change the close comment I found that my comments had been removed. Seems someone pointed out that the first closer may be in some way too close to the discussion and my comments were removed in restoring the discussion to open. So since I had decided on how to close this, that is what I'm going to do. Close as Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - these are all small eponymous categories for film series that are never going to have more than a handful of articles. Each of the series has either an article for the series overall, a navtemplate or both so the contents of each category are well-linked. For those who prefer to navigate film series by category, the film series articles should be housed in Category:Film series for navigation through the lead category. There are many additional similar categories but rather than get bogged down in a gigantic nomination I've put these up as a representative sample. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too restrictive to be useful. Nav temp is adequate for the intended purpose. Rodhull andemu 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I see what you're saying, but I don't see the redundancy as problematic. See e.g. Barack Obama and all the ways there are to navigate to other presidents. It seems odd to me that a movie that's part of a film series would not be categorized as part of a film series. This would be more problematic for those film series that have categories but no article for the series overall. It's true also that these are not particularly large categories, though they may hold more than just the movies in the series and include articles about characters, locations, etc. It's true they may not grow, or grow by much more. WP:OC#SMALL does say small categories may be acceptable if they are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." I think this exists, that subcategorization by film series has been heretofore accepted. I do think the style guide for film series needs to be discussed though Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Film_series. Шизомби (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is some precedent for deleting film series categories. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_2#Category:Poltergeist_films, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Stuart_Little (not exactly a film series category but served much the same purpose), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Charlotte.27s_Web (ditto), and there are others but I'd have to dig pretty deep to turn them up. As I said here, there are some film series that benefit from categorization and I would not suggest dismantling the entire category structure, but if all that's ever going to be in the category is the film articles plus maybe an article about the series, there is really no need for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly narrow; policy has long held that this kind of thing is the job of navboxes, not categories. In addition, I should point out that I clicked on Category:Beethoven films at a complete loss as to whether I was going to see films about an American family and their St. Bernard puppy, or films about a German classical composer. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-defined and well-populated categories that allow navigation within a well-structured organization of film series. Categories do not compete with navigation boxes, and the categories allow other means of navigation across various film series. There is no evidence that navigation is improved through the deletion of any of these categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete links cover these, they're not needed or useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established navigation categories are of some use, and redundancy is not harmful. At this point in the growth of Wikipedia , we should not be deleting things that help navigation. They can indeed include articles about other things than the films. I see a certain parallelism between the deletion of articles about fictional elements and of categories which would contain--among other things--such articles. The common denominator is that the effect will be to facilitate the reduction of the Wikipedia coverage of fiction. DGG (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the many discussions regarding fictional elements at AFD, there appears to be little desire on anyone's part to wholesale reduce the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia. Rather, there is a desire for those fiction articles that do exist meet policies and guidelines, specifically notability. Otto4711 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly narrow. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Шизомби (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2009 (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:English coast and countryside[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest ~~merging~~ renaming Category:English coast and countryside to ~~Category:Landforms of England~~ Category:Coast of England

Nominator's rationale: ~~Merge~~ Rename. This category seems to be paralleling Category:Landforms of England and Category:Geography of England. Suggest merge of the categories to Landforms, but with Category:Ports and harbours of England and Category:Seaside resorts in England being moved to Category:Geography of England. The articles appear to need moving to Geography rather than landforms. Also applies to Wales Category:Coast of Wales which is already linked to landforms. Also applies to Scotland which has both ‘Coast’ and ‘Coast and Countryside’. But nothing for Ireland! Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – merge doesn't work, as Category:Agriculture in England is not a landform. There might be something to be said for splitting off coast and non-coast but I don't think cfd is appropriate for this sort of discussion. (Category:Landforms of England and Category:Geography of England seem well-organised and it would be a pity to dump Category:English coast and countryside into either without the sort of scrutiny which cannot be given at cfd.) Occuli (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The better solution might be to split coast and countryside: some coast is urban, but that is not a change that the closing Admin can be expected to deal with. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator changing merge to rename. I can see a need for 'coast' but was not happy with the way that it was. This seems to be a better solution (and I will undertake to move all the wrong ones e.g. agriculture to geography). Or is there a better solution? Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coast and countryside have no meaningful reason to aggregate; why not English cities and mountains or English agriculture and lakes? or any other random two-some. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2009 (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.

American people and topics[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: Selective Rename. Consensus supports a selective rename. There was a lack of support for deletion and the keep opinion that this worked well seemed odd to me since we have multiple naming forms used in practice. Personally I find mixed forms confusing and contrary to the category naming conventions. For those items that were not changed, they can be renominated in a simpler nomination. The items that were recommend for deletion did not receive much discussion so there is no consensus on how to deal with those. The inclusion or exclusion of the word 'topics' is eligible for an immediate nomination if there are strong feeling that this should be included. A focused discussion on that point might help to see if we really need that word in the name. I think that we would be well served if this class of category names was addressed by a working group somewhere so that we could arrive at a single comprehensive consensus solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming (and deleting) various Category:Ethnic groups in the United States:

Category:Alaska Natives → Category:Alaska Native
- super-category for topics
- Category:Alaska Native people → Category:Alaska Natives
  - only after above, in sequence
Category:Native American topics → Category:Native American
- following Category:African-American topics → Category:African American (2007 CfD)
- reversing 2008 CfD
- Category:Native American people → Category:Native Americans
  - reversing often-populated {{Category redirect}} (2005 CfD)
Category:Native Hawaiian
- super-category for topics, exists, no change
- Category:Native Hawaiian people → Category:Native Hawaiians
  - as above
  - Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent
    delete
Category:German-American topics → Category:German American
- following Category:African-American topics → Category:African American (2007 CfD)
- Category:German Americans
  - exists, current CfD

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Common naming scheme. Match main article names.

This proposal conforms to current policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), specifically:

For a pre-existing category, the article of the same or similar name and (rarely, or) on the same topic should be added to that category. When creating an article one should, only if appropriate (especially horizontally), create a category of the same or similar name on the same topic.Topical category names should be singular. Examples: "Law", "Civilization"If a category contains pages which are each about a kind of X or an individual X, the name of the category is plural. For example, "rivers" is a category of pages that are each about a river and/or a kind of river; similarly for "writers".Note that there are a growing number of category pairings, where the singular category (of related topics) and plural category (of its instances) both exist (for example, Category:Opera and Category:Operas). When categorizing articles, be careful to choose the correct variant.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the ones (3 of them) that remove 'people', to conform with nearly everything in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Oppose the removal of 'topics' and support the addition of 'topics' per the discussion in the later 2007 CfD as the addition of topics clarifies an otherwise confusing name. Occuli (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While agreeing that singular versus plural is obscure, I'd already listed that 2007 CfD, and it is inapposite to (does not support) your position. Do you mean the 2008 CfD? I'm trying to clean up a mess, and there are various conflicting decisions. This was proposed as a grammar issue, changing the fewest categories. Otherwise, there are lots more to handle!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I meant the 2008 CfD. (This comes from lazily copying and pasting in edit mode.) Occuli (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a mess. A suitably named super-cat for Category:Fooian-American (topics) doesn't appear to exist so it's difficult to gauge relative amounts of work. (Singular v plural is sometimes not obscure but here it seems to be, to me at any rate.) Occuli (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was viewing Category:Ethnic groups in the United States as the super-category, and noting the effort needed for Category:Arab Americans and Category:Asian Americans (reorganizing and renaming their subcategories) to match Category:African American (singular for topics). Obviously, the Category:German-American topics is ahead of the others in Category:European Americans, but all those could change, too!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support all. This change will clarify what ought to be in each category and follows naming conventions used in similar categories. It also follows common American usage which does not add 'people' when referring to ethnic groups in the US Hmains (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your position on Occuli's desire to add "topics" to the hyphenated singular adjective, as in the existing "German-American topics"? It seems slightly awkward for "Native American topics" — and "African-American topics" was decided the other way.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All. Streamlining and uniformity in category names will help out quite a bit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Query to both Occuli and Hmains -- What about giving up and merging singular into plural, and doing away with topics altogether?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, let us not give up. Category:Alaska Native people (name negotiable) should be a list category of articles about individual people (as it is, subcat eventually of Category:People), and there should be a parent topic category called 'stuff related to Alaska Native' for topics (name negotiable). I suppose I could see what other countries do about this. Occuli (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately find evidence of the same problem: Category:Xhosa and Category:Zulu topics, Category:Hausa. And Category:Kurdish people where everything is mixed up together and subcatted under 'People' amongst other incorrect and incompatible parents. Occuli (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am supporfing what I wrote. When we have categories that are not in form of having one about the 'stuff related to a people' and one about the 'individuals of the people', then we should create them. To do otherwise makes hash of the upper category structure leading down to these cats. Hmains (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we seem to have minor consensus on splitting the two, but not on the naming of them.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Category:People by race or ethnicity always ends with "people", with very few exceptions, for example: Category:African Americans, Category:Jews (Category:Jewish people redirects), and Category:Jewish ethnic groups. Why the latter separation? See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 29#Subcategory pages of Category:People by race or ethnicity for the failed rename.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we also have Category:People by nationality where it is always 'Fooian people'. I would say that 'Fooian American' is a completely robust phrase (for many Foos) in global usage, whereas in the UK (say) there is no corresponding phrase for Fooian British; eg Michael Portillo has a Spanish father and there is no accepted abbreviated way of expressing this. So the US is an exception. I have no ideas re the Jewish case. Occuli (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People of Native Hawaian descent is a legitiamte category of a kind of which hundreds exist. I do not understand the logic of the proposed move to "Alaskan native", but you might have "Alaskan native topics" for matters other than people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 2009-05-18 00:53:21
Delete all categories dividing people by some subjective view of their ethnic/racial bloodlines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this new scheme, which is illogical and unnecessary. Our current categorization system works eminently well. Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Existing policy added to nomination as a reminder to closer. Hmains is correct. The "topics" suffix is incorrect. We seem to have strong support for removing the "people" suffix on these ethnicity umbrella categories.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2009 (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:Books by Gurdjieff[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) 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books by Gurdjieff to Category:Books by G. I. Gurdjieff

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Include initials in name per main article G. I. Gurdjieff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes sense . Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:22, 20 May 2009 (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:Parodies of Wikipedia[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow, prone to original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. The first one (Encyclopedia Dramatica) is an imitation not a parody. Wikipedia should have the strength to be able to cope with this sort of attack(?), and propably should be welcoming these. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument to keep. My concern is that the category is too small. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern that it could easily be interpreted as censorship, which would be very bad advertising for wikipedia. There are never going to be many for this category so it is always going to be small. If it is simply size that matters, then obviously delete, but just be aware of the consequences. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category capable of growth. DGG (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic capable of growth. If we keep up with the Bizarro-world inanity at CfD, we are asking for more parodies if this hasn't become a self-parody. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2009 (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 torturers[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) 02:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with no criteria for inclusion, as this contains both characters that have tortured or only hurt someone and characters that commit tortures as a job. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are any of the articles in the category for professional torturers or just characters who have tortured or hurt someone? If we have articles on fictional professional torturers then this could be a valid subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by occupation. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are not professional tortures: Jack Bauer (who indeed uses torture but is a CTU agent), May Wright (a mad doctor), Jabba the Hutt, Le Chiffre and Johnny Allen (who are more like crimelords or gangsters rather than a professional torturers), Lord Voldemort (the main antagonist in Harry Potter who uses a "curse" named Cruciatus that causes terrible pain to the victim), or even Dante's protrayal of Satan. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The people quoted appear to be 'evil'; if so, then that is an attribute of their character, and not an occupation. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to distinguish what a torturer is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2009 (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:Alabama lawyers[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 Fooers from Bar may have precedent, but there are valid points brought up regarding "are these lawyers practicing in alabama or lawyers from alabama who are now living/practicing elsewhere?" Renaming this per nom may introduce inaccuracies into which articles belong. William Allan Simpson's idea of Fooers of Bar removes the problem, if that was to be used. Kbdank71 13:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alabama lawyers to Category:Lawyers from Alabama

Nominator's rationale: And the other 49 states as well, which I'm begging someone to add to this CFD for me because it's a buttload easier in AWB. Anyway, there's been a precedent to use "(occupation) from (state)", so I think the lawyer categories should be removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Alabama lawyer as the category defines it is one who practices law in Alabama. A "lawyer from Alabama" could now be practicing in another state or country. Do you mean to change it to that, or should it possibly be "Lawyers in Alabama"? Шизомби (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most other occupations are "X from Y". I fail to see how a rename would make it more ambiguous. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers might be a minor issue here. Is this for lawyers from Alabama, or lawyers 'of the bar' (or whatever those legal people call it) that can practice law in that state. Note, the introduction does say 'Lawyers mentioned in their article as practicing law in the state of Alabama.' Which probably needs rewording since a mention is clearly not defining for these people. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a challenge to the categories in Category:American lawyers by state? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unconvincing rationale. Additionally, I'm not sure what is meant by "the lawyer categories should be removed." Categorization of people by citizenship and occupation follows several forms, including (primarily?) Fooian Fooers (Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_nationality_and_occupation). Alabama lawyers is a subcategory of American lawyers. Perhaps it could be Alabamian lawyers, but the form as present seems to be correct also. And not that this should decide the matter, but Google "Alabama lawyers" versus "Alabamian lawyers"; the former is more common usage - about 113,000 versus 3. Шизомби (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and all other 49 states in the parent Category:American lawyers by state seem to work well with this title, which more clearly defines where they practice than the proposed title, which seems to describe their place of origin. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As an Englishman, I am unfamiliar with the American system, but I know it has 51 jurisdictions and presume that an Alabama lawyer is not qualified to practise in Lousiiana or New Mexico. On the other hand a native of New Mexico who goes to law school in Alabama and qualifies for the Alabama bar is an Alabama lawyer, but not a Lawyer from Alabama, since that is not his place of origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Peterkingiron's analysis, although I fail to see why being permitted to practice in one state (some states) versus another (others) is defining. Take Alan Dershowitz for example, he famous cases have been in many states: California, Connecticut, New York, etc., where he is probably permitted to practice, but of what value is that in trying to categorize someone? Practice in different counties of one state is probably sufficiently different as would be practice in another state altogether? I gather that practice in the District of Columbia in particular is considered so close to other states' practice that, without discrimination of which state a lawyer is licensed to practice in, he or she can be admitted to practice in DC without even sitting for an examination. Doctors, too, are licensed by state, and so are teachers credentialed, and prize fighters licensed, etc. and such, but we really don't want to start categorizing every licensed professional based upon the states in which he or she is licensed. If you want to find out what lawyers are able to practice in a state, look at their online databases, not WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- apparently, this is a continuation of:
Fooers OF Foo would have been better, and would better apply to this category, since the FROM designation is already used for Residence. So, let's redo all of those previous renames, too. And, after achieving consensus, update Occupation. Also, eliminate the "ethnicity-nationality occupation" form of Heritage. Then, renaming for the entire rest of the world! (Somebody seems really ambitious.) Perhaps this needs to be decided in a broader forum?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as this is a subcat of Category:People from Alabama the rename seems perfectly valid. (A lawyer practising in Alabama is clearly in some sense 'from' Alabama, if not originally.) Occuli (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (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:Americans living past the average life span[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) 02:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Try as I might, I cannot see the value of this category; it invites Category:Americans living less than the average life span, which if you include Vietnam War casualties, would be equally meaningless. "Average" here is meaningless, because it shifts over time, as does "median", "mode" or any measure of central tendency. When "life span" is given in years, does one day more or less define inclusion? Hardly. Categories are meant to be defining, and this one just isn't. Rodhull andemu 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the other category(ies) it would invite would be "Americans who lived less than the average life span" (if they lived less than it, they can't also be living) and "Americans who lived more than the average life span" (people in the existing category would have to be moved there once they've died). Are there similar categories for other nationalities? Шизомби (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Very subjective and requires original research every step of the way. (Who's to say what average is - doesn't it depend on when one was born? Where? Parents? Ethnic background?) If this sort of thing must be categorized - and I'm not saying I even agree with that - at least let's make it something neutral, like Category:octogenarians. Frank | talk 01:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some poking around finds there is a Category:Supercentenarians and a Category:Centenarians by nationality. However, a category less than that was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Nonagenarians. Шизомби (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion discussion is a very interesting peek into the ancient history of Wikipedia. I am confident such a category could survive CfD today. I am not advocating for its creation - nor was I above - merely saying I think it would pass muster today. And, more to the point, I think it is inherently more stable than this particular category we are debating here on this page. A nonogenarian is easily definable and verifiable; that's what makes the category workable (if less than strictly necessary). Come to think of it, a self-maintaining category could probably be whipped up by using the year of birth category that already exists in many biographical articles. Frank | talk 21:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliant on original research. Otto4711 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – about as undefining as possible. Might as well have Americans of average height. Occuli (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hopelessly ill-defined and potentially enormous category. What is average? As Frank says above, it changes over time. Also life expectancy changes with age. Most people notable enough to have Wikipedia entries are already adult, so their life expectancy is greater than the notional "average life span" at birth. With people barely into their 80s included (Shirley Temple, twice) this category could clearly include a vast number of people. Rachel Pearce (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meaningless category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone plans to create Category:Ridiculous Wikipedia categories, in which case this would fit perfectly. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half of all people live past average, almost no matter how you define it, which doesn't make this very meaningful for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- N.B. such would be the median, not the average, not that it changes anything... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per basically everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and those above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Average life span" is a moving target, making the category of extremely limitied usefulness. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:21, 20 May 2009 (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:Tornado[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tornado to Category:Tornadoes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard NC policy is to use plural forms (c.e. Category:Storms, Category:Winds). PS. My spellchecker wants tornadoes but GPrint shows tornados is popular as well. A native speaker may be of help here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus}

Oppose - first, the target already exists so this would be a merger rather than a rename. The singular category is being used for articles related to the phenomenon of tornadoes themselves. The target category is for specific tornado events. This seems a reasonable and useful navigational distinction. I acknowledge that having the singular category looks strange and there may be a better name for it (Category:Tornado phenomenon maybe? I dunno) but the srticles should be kept separate and distinct. Otto4711 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The same naming technique is used for several such categories - the plural for individual events, the singular for the science (perhaps Category:Tornado science would be better?). Compare Category:Flood and Category:Floods, for example. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is plain confusing; why no Category:Wind or Category:Storm? At the very least, we need to agree on a good, descriptive names that will clarify the difference between singular and plural; personally I still see no reason why not to merge all of that - for the same reason that tornadoes redirect to tornado and floods redirect to flood. KISS, people. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nominator does not understand the category structure in WP for this kind of material. Suggest study of WP categories not spellcheckers. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Category:Wine and Category:Wines is another; there are many, many examples. I would agree that the singular in some cases can be confusing, as in this one and as in the ones above such as Category:African American. I am not sure what I would expect to find in Category:Tornado or Category:African American ... 'XXX-related topics' perhaps. Occuli (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all. Category:Storms should be renamed, and Category:Winds split into "Wind" and "Winds". Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did Wind and Winds last night. Hmains (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Hmains was a bit too cryptic in his comments. The category split between plural and singular has long been a practice here. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns policy explicitly states:
Category names follow different pluralization conventions, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
In turn, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items policy states:
Note that there are a growing number of category pairings, where the singular category (of related topics) and plural category (of its instances) both exist (for example, Category:Opera and Category:Operas). When categorizing articles, be careful to choose the correct variant.
Some categories have been adding "topics" to the singular to prevent confusion, but that's relatively new and controversial.
See #American people and topics above.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2009 (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.