Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Category:McClatchy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:McClatchy to Category:The McClatchy Company
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove ambiguity and match the name of the main article, The McClatchy Company. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2010 (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:Papoose Mixtapes[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 (the category is now empty, so there is nothing to merge). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Papoose Mixtapes to Category:Mixtape albums
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, can be simply upmerged. If kept, rename to Category:Papoose mixtapes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I notice the article is also up for deletion, which would render this CfD moot. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2010 (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:Mixtape 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: Nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:Mixtape albums to Category:Mixtapes

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Mixtape. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Cjc13 is right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 24 March 2010 (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:UFO-related government personnel[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) 08:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:UFO-related government personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not even sure what the inclusion criteria for this category is supposed to be. It looks to me like it's a kind of proof by credentialism that even people in government believe in UFOs. However, categorizing people like this seems highly unencyclopedic to me. These kind of synthetic categories are essentially meaningless (we don't have categories for UFO-related doctors, UFO-related religious leaders, UFO-related criminals, or UFO-related musicians, for example) unless you're trying to promote some perspective. I think that what's going on here is a coatrack for asserting the legitimacy of UFO-belief. That's not what Wikipedia is for. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2010 (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:Shakespeare articles with comments[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. As comments subpages have been deprecated, properly processing (i.e., moving the content to the talk page) and deleting them qualifies as routine housekeeping. I will take care of the four pages which populate this category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shakespeare articles with comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Dubious category: unknown what types of articles it is trying to categorize. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a maintenance category (added by a template) showing articles with a comments subpage (eg Talk:A_Yorkshire_Tragedy/Comments in this case). These subpages have been deprecated and the category is deleted (as empty) when all comments have been moved to their talk pages. There was one of these at cfd a week or so ago. Occuli (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2010 (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:Isle of Dogs[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 Category:Isle of Dogs to Category:London Borough of Tower Hamlets
merge Category:Buildings and structures on the Isle of Dogs to :Category:Buildings and structures in Tower Hamlets
merge Category:Transport on the Isle of Dogs to :Category:Transport in Tower Hamlets — Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Isle of Dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures on the Isle of Dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Transport on the Isle of Dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Merge into parents. Through convention London articles are categorised by London borough (as this is the lowest level of administrative division) and then sub-categorised by classification rather than smaller informal geographic areas. The Isle of Dogs has no defined northern boundary, so the Poplar/West India Quay environs cause problems for defining its scope. It is for this reason we do not sub-categorise this way. Removing the articles from the parent categories reduces the usefulness of the parent category in identifying all articles of a particular type within the borough. Sub-categorisation of Category:Transport in Tower Hamlets is already started Category:Railway stations in Tower Hamlets etc. and this should be expanded to all articles. MRSC (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – these need to be upmerges, not deletes. (Eg Canary Wharf DLR station will not be in any 'buildings and structures' category if the nom is carried out, although it could be done by putting Category:Docklands Light Railway stations in Tower Hamlets into a 'buildings and structures' parent.) This apart, the nom seems entirely reasonable. Occuli (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge rather delete, per Occuli. I support the nominator's rationale for keeping categorisation at the borough, per WP:LONDON's consistent and well-managed approach, but Occuli is right about the need to upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I changed the nomination from delete to merge after these two comments. I meant for these to be merged into parent categories, but didn't make it clear enough. MRSC (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Isle of Dogs is a well-defined geographic entity, formed by a loop of the river Thames, which is cut off from adjacent areas by docks made across the isthmus in the late 19th/early 19th century. I think I am referring to the West India Docks and the City Canal. The term "Tower Hamlets" recognises that it is an agglomeration of earlier entities. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While the Isle of Dogs is a well-defined geographic entity, it is adequately covered by the article Isle of Dogs and the categories do not really add anything. There is already much duplication between the categories for Isle of Dogs and Tower Hamlets, so a merger of these categories seems sensible. Cjc13 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2010 (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:Transportation in Chile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Transportation in Chile to Category:Transport in Chile
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These cats cover the same topic, so let's use either "transport" or "transportation" but not both. Just from browsing Google.cl and Chilean gov't sites like the Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, I'm inclined to believe that "transporte" (1, 2) is more often used locally than "transportación" (1, 2), but it makes no real difference to me. - Ruodyssey (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator as obvious duplicate. I'm happy with the nom's evidence for Chilean usage, but whichever format is finally settled on, please make sure that the other tittle is re-created as a {{Category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 19 March 2010 (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:Cloud computing users[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. NW (Talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cloud computing users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. How exactly do we define 'entities who have verifiably significant cloud computing deployments in production'? This is seems like a sextuple intersection. Since inclusion is based on verifiability, then it would seem that a listify would be needed to source the fact that this criteria applies. The category is a hidden category, but does not appear to be a maintenance category as noted in Category:Hidden categories, 'In accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization, the categories that should appear here are the maintenance categories, that is, categories reflecting the present status of the encyclopedia article, rather than classifying the article subject.' Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2010 (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:Star Trek: Phase II episodes[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) 21:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Trek: Phase II episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is ostensibly a category of episodes of a television series that never existed. Star Trek: Phase II was sort-of/kind-of re-written as the first Star Trek motion picture (note: not a television series episode) and two of the plots that would have been episodes got re-written as Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 19 March 2010 (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:Squares and plazas by city[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, with no prejudice against creating Category:Public spaces by city as a top-level category if it is needed or useful. Manual recategorization or a separate nomination will be needed to split categories that combine squares/plazas with streets or parks. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Squares and plazas by city to Category:Public spaces by city
Nominator's rationale: This is a pretty tenuous name; I'm open to other suggestions. Right now, this category contains squares and plazas in X, but also squares; plazas; parks and plazas; piazzas; parks; squares, plazas, and circles; and streets and squares. Clearly, the naming of the subcategories is haphazard—some appear to be ethnic, like Category:Piazzas in Genoa and Category:Plazas in Madrid—so the of this parent should be inclusive of its subcategories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please clarify the intended scope of the category? Public = not private ? Will public parks, river and air space belong there? Where will you categorize city space which is actually private (Louisburg Square, Gramercy Park), or privately managed (Bryant Park) ? That said, I approve unifications of piazzas and plazas under a single plain English name. NVO (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) As for the parks - i'd rather keep them separately. Some small city parks may belong to Squares in ..., but others are just forest or jungle and should be kept apart from man-made landscapes. NVO (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question I guess I don't really know what exactly the defining feature is that categorizes streets, squares, plazas, etc. but whatever that is is what the name of this parent category should be. As I pointed out before, I'm pretty much at a loss myself about what to rename it, but if the parent articles is "Squares and plazas" and it includes roads, something has gone awry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 21 March 2010 (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.

Western Asia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Western Asia.
Considering the long-standing consensus that category titles generally should match article titles and noting that "Western Asia" is a UN-defined geographical sub-region (see [1]), I am relisting this nomination for additional discussion in lieu of a "no consensus" close, and notifying the relevant WikiProject in the hope of drawing attention to the issue of sourcing/evidence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Southwest Asia redirects to Western Asia (Note:the supracategory is already at Category:Western Asia) Mayumashu (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --Siberia is in Western Asia, but not Soutwestern Asia. We should be reversing this change, not encouraging it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll need to alter the article page then - both it's name and the map on it Mayumashu (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unreferenced assertions do not help.
    AIUI, the reason for this proposed change is that article Western Asia asserts that international organisations such as the UN have replaced Middle East and Near East with Western Asia. Unfortunately, the reference provided for this is just a link to the homepage of the United Nations Cartographic Section Web Site, which provides no evidence at all either of usage or of any rationale for it. The discussion at Talk:Western Asia suggest that the whole subject is controversial and complicated, and the move discussion as Talk:Western_Asia#Western_Asia was closed as move "per United Nations, World Bank, NASA and common University definitions, and WikiProject Western Asia" ... but nowhere in the RM discussion or on the article are there any links to those definitions.
    So, from what I can see, categorisation of sub-regions of Asia is being done without a solid evidence base. For that reason I oppose any change until we have an evidence-based consensus on a naming scheme which can be applied consistently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose per BHG. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (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:Transport in Los Lagos Region[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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transport in Los Lagos Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as empty. I've removed its sole page, Route 215-CH, as it was already in Category:Roads in Chile, which is itself not really populated enough to warrant subcat'ing. - Ruodyssey (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Keep/Nom Withdrawn - Ruodyssey (talk)[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:Inspirational fiction[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.
Considering this discussion in light of the top-level guideline concerning categories and categorization, which contains guidance to avoid categories "based on incidental or subjective features", the arguments for deletion have a better grounding in codified consensus.
That there seems to be no objective definition, which can be applied consistently and systematically across different articles, for what constitutes "inspirational fiction" was noted/acknowledged on several occasions, both by those who support the category's deletion and those who oppose it. Although allowing editors to place articles about books into this category based on their personal opinions (i.e., based on whether they feel the work is inspirational or intended to be inspirational) is certainly a tolerant and conflict-free approach, it does conflict with one of Wikipedia's core principles—namely, that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" (at least not in content pages, such as articles and the categories in which they are placed) and decisions concerning content should reflect information available in published reliable sources.
On a personal note, I would like to suggest exploring the possibility of including the information in the article Inspirational fiction itself. If a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) identifies a particular book as an example of "inspirational fiction", then the fact of that evaluation could be noted in the article—though it should probably be presented as the opinion/evaluation of the source or its author, rather than as a simple fact (for details, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Inspirational fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. A work of fiction which inspires one reader may bore the next person, repel another, and bewilder someone else.
About 25 years ago there was a lengthy review of the Dublin Bus timetable (in the Sunday Tribune, I think), in which the author struggled with the dilemma of whether to categorise this best-selling tome as romance, as travel literature, as detective work ... but rejected all those genres and AFAICR eventually settled on inspirational fiction on the grounds that anyone who could write a work which had such a loose relationship with reality was clearly inspired, and had created a magnificent fiction. Since no objective definition is possible, there would be no reason to exclude the newspaper as a reliable source for including the bus timetable in this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha. That's a funny story. But seriously, is "inspirational fiction" a separate genre? I get the impression from the article that when used in a non-sarcastic way, it essentially is equivalent to Category:Christian literature. If that's the case, we can delete it as essentially a duplicate of that category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who started inspirational fiction, but based on BrownHairedGirl's comments, would have no problem if it were deleted. However, I checked AMAZON and they do break down books by categories, including Inspirational Fiction. And I think I have been in book stores that do the same. And, while any book can inspire some, there are some books that just seem to fit into this category easily.... Still, no argument with deletion. However, I have to disagree with Good Ol'factory, since something can be inspirational without being Christian. (Ask any Jew, Buddhist, or Humanist, to name just a few other groups!!!!!). Resnicoff (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't my opinion, it was gleaned from the article inspirational fiction: "The most common use of the term in the United States and Canada is as a euphemism for 'Christian fiction'." I didn't say it couldn't apply to other religions. No need to OD on the exclamation marks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the "OD" on exclamation points. Still pretty new to wikipedia, and learning the ropes.... Resnicoff (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say that is "common use" isn't surprising, since Christianity is the majority religion, but "most common use" (the article's phrase) is different from "essentially an equivalent term" (Good Ol'factory's phrase). When I look at the books in the wiki category now, they are Mitch Albom books, and he as an individual is not Christian, nor can his writing be classified as Christian. Inspirational fiction seems to fit.NearTheZoo (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Maybe "Religion-based fiction"? Maurreen (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the problem still exists (and I say this as a member of the clergy) that there is a difference between religion and faith, and people can have faith without belonging to any particular religion. Mitch Albom's books, Five People You Meet in Heaven, and One Day More, each deal with the idea that you can spend more time (eternity, in the first; one day, in the second) with someone you knew and loved. Both of these books are currently in the category of inspirational fiction, but neither would fit in the category of christian literature or religion-based faith.... I still tend to think it's a category for books, and it's a category that book stores (and certainly, amazon) use -- even though BrownHairedGirl is absolutely right to say that we never know what book might inspire us or someone else. Still, there are some written "almost" entirely with the hope of inspiring its readers, including (I think) the two Albom books I mentioned. Still, personally, even though I created the category on wikipedia, keeping it is not so important to me that I would "fight" its deletion. The question, I guess, is whether having it would hurt anything, or having it might help at some point. I don't know. Resnicoff (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checked the Barnes and Noble site, and they list 602 books as "inspirational fiction," out of thousands and thousands out there. Since it is still a category used by book sellers, I vote to keep it in. BrownHairedGirl says no objective definition is possible, but maybe we could use the decisions of the big booksellers? Floridarabbi (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what exactly is their definition? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahah! You didn't notice the way I purposely changed from agreeing with you that there could be no objective "definition," to suggesting that perhaps we could use the "decisions" (not the definition) of the big booksellers.... In other words, if a book is advertised and marketed as "inspirational fiction" by Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Boarders, etc., then maybe that should be good enough for us.... It's like Justice Stewart Potter and pornography, when he said he couldn't define it, but he knows it when he sees it. :) Maybe we're over thinking it. I just think that a book like "The Five People you Meet in Heaven," or "For One More Day" doesn't fit into any particular "brand" of fiction, if we don't have something called "inspirational." And I think it helps to have some categories..... My two cents. Floridarabbi (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are several problems with that approach. First, since the booksellers are selling the book, they are not independent of the topic and are therefore not reliable sources on the classification. Secondly, without a definition, there is no guarantee they are using the same definition of "inspirational". And finally, without a definition, editors will have unsolveable disputes over the categorisation: this reviewer on Amazon would put The Five People You Meet in Heaven into Category:Over emotional, American twaddle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I'll make a final comment, then pull out of this conversation. Sounds to me like you want to win an argument more than discuss an issue. I just don't see any harm in keeping the category, and think there is enough evidence that the category exists in the minds of many people who deal with books. If someone on wikipedia thinks a book fits into the category of inspirational fiction, I think that would be good enough for me. It's a category I think exists, even if it is subjective. If some books fit in because one person thinks they belong, I really don't think there would be a big argument. Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me your mind is made up. Your last comment doesn't make sense to me. Whether one reviewer likes or does not like the book isn't the question, because it is pretty clear that both the author and many of those who deal with selling, marketing, and reviewing the book do consider it inspirational fiction. By the way, I liked "Tuesdays with Morrie" and "Have a Little Faith" by Albom, which I found inspirational, but not fiction.... Floridarabbi (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:AGF, please. Lots of categories exist in people's minds but are unsuitable for use in wikipedia because of their subjectivity: love-rats, thugs, greedy bastards, land-grabbers, holy joes, sinners, and plenty more. These subjective categories don't work because they are unstable: one editor's negative view is just as valid as the other's positive view, so both have valid grounds for adding or removing a subjective category.
              I'm not surprised that the vested interests of authors, publishers and booksellers are happy to give some books a vague but positive-sounding label. They are hardly going to try to boost sales of a book by calling it "platitudinous pap", "over-emotional, American twaddle", or "mental junk-food". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: STRONGLY VOTE FOR CATEGORY TO REMAIN. I started the category, but originally (in response to BrownHairedGirl's comments about lack of objectivity), said it wouldn't matter to me to delete it. After reading the comments, I change my mind and strongly vote for it to remain. It's obvious she doesn't approve of it, but if it is a category of fiction, recognized by many libraries, reviewers and book dealers, including Amazon, even if it is not recognized by "all," then it is a category of fiction. If some books are put in that category that someone else doesn't think "inspire" them, so be it. I would never take a book out of that category if another editor thinks it should be in, and I can live with that situation. I'm sure there are works in the "poetry" category that some would argue do not qualify as poetry. The same can go for some novels that some readers don't even think belong in the category of "literature." But there is a difference between arguing about a specific work and arguing about whether there is such a category. Unless a lot more people think this category should be deleted, I think it should remain. Resnicoff (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree with deletion the article Inspirational fiction is poorly sourced and defined. i think that if this was a rigorously defined category, it would have a corresponding rigorously defined article. we also have Misery lit, redirected from inspirational literature. the category is obviously widely used in marketing books by publishers and by booksellers, but as a former bookseller, i can tell you its sort of a catch all and often a secondary location to place a book for better sales. its used to refer to christian works in christian bookstores, and more ecumenical works in general bookstores. the category contains only 2 examples? come on, this is ridiculous. if someone wants to start a list of inspirational novels, with sources showing they are commonly referred to as inspirational (NOT just by the sellers/publishers), maybe then we may have the start towards a category. but without an externally agreed upon definition of what constitutes inspirational fiction, this is hopeless. huck finn, finnegans wake, clive barkers books of blood,-all inspiring to some.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think I'm talking (writing) too much, but just a response to the above note. The reason that there are only two books using the category is that I just created the category...and I'm the one that added those two books. :) I thought this would be a start. But I just now googled inspirational fiction and saw many lists put out by libraries, not booksellers, including: http://www.madisonpubliclibrary.org/booklists/inspirational.html, and http://www.suffolk.lib.va.us/Electronic-resources/booklists-1/booklists-for-adults/african-american-inspirational-fiction.html, where the first address is a link to a list of general "inspirational fiction" books, and the second to a list of a sub-category, "African-American Inspirational Fiction." Anyway, since I started the category, I should draw back like some others in this discussion. I'm not sure how these matters eventually get settled? By a vote? I'll watch the discussion from here on in, but try not to say more, and just trust the system! Resnicoff (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • my apologies, i didnt check the history. regarding one of the lists provided, the madison public library. these are Christian books, not general inspiration. very few of these authors is a mainstream author like albom. one of them, Windswept House: A Vatican Novel by malachi martin, is absolutely not "inspirational" in the way mich albom presumably is. thanks for the links, but i dont think they help the case for this category. I KNOW that there are scores of books that have the same inspirational flavor as alboms, and have read some of them: the alchemist by coelho is one. I just dont know how to define them. spiritual novels, may be less tied up with the hidden christian meaning of inspirational. im new to categories for discussion, but its probably similar to AFD's: its not a vote, its a debate. arguments count more than opinions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know if this would help or not, but going on from the links already being discussed, I found a list of inspirational fiction from a public library in Charlotte (http://www.plcmc.org/readers_club/subcategory.asp?cat=1&id=15) that begins with this introduction: "Any good book can be an inspiration, but many of these books highlight people overcoming adversity or reaching new levels of understanding. Whether they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or have help from a higher power, these books will uplift and entertain you." Could that be the beginning of a definition we could use? It does seem like a lot of libraries (public libraries) are recognizing that this is a genre, however poorly or "non-rigorously" defined...? NearTheZoo (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm struggling at the moment to think of many novels I recall which doesn't roughly fit the definition of "people overcoming adversity or reaching new levels of understanding". A novel in which nothing ever happens to anyone is rather pointless, while plenty of novels don't end with the protagonists living happily ever in a state of enlightened bliss, the structure of the story usually involves some aspect of adversity overcome and new understandings reached. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are right, although some novels deal with someone going downhill, not up. But perhaps the difference is that books that should fit into the inspirational genre category are those that seem to have either a major or entire focus on the positive change in the life or awareness of the main character, so that that change inspires the reader to believe that his/her life can change for the better, as well? Thinking out loud here.... NearTheZoo (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment.Just found a link worth investigating: http://www.lyrasis.org/Classes-and-Events/Catalog/H/Historical-and-Inspirational-Fiction-Readers-Advisory-More-than-Wagon-Trains-Live-Online.aspx This link is to LYRACIS, which bills itself as the nation’s largest regional membership organization serving libraries and information professionals. On this page, the group is advertising a course for library professionals to "explore the explosion in recent years in popularity of Inspirational Fiction and how it has blended in with all other genres to become appealing to more than its original target audience." I think this is another indication that this category is being recognized by more and more libraries, not just bookstores or book dealers, as a significant category -- despite all the real problems others in this discussion have noted about subjectivity. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link add nothing to the discussion. Nobody is disputing that the term "inspirational fiction" is used as a marketing term in the book trade; the question is whether it is capable of an objective definition. If you want to keep the category, you need evidence to address that question. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about accounts in use
  • Question about accounts being used here. Does anyone else find it curious that the account for NearTheZoo was created shortly after this nomination was started, and that participation in this discussion were the first edits made under the account? I fear that there might be some sockpuppetry or vote-stacking going on here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you check my talk page, resnicoff says he found this definition, which is posted here by near the zoo. since he made no effort to disguise this on my talk page, i would guess he doesnt have a clue about sockpuppetry. I for one like the definition provided quite a bit, and this MAY make it possible to keep it here, especially if its incorporated into the article, and there is some concurring sourced opinions about the definition. resnicoff/nearthezoo, please say you are the same, and read the info on sockpuppetry. If you are adding new material and new arguments for keeping, as far as im concerned you can post as often as you want, but under one name only. sincerely, and with good faith all around, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree—I'm trying to confirm with Resnicoff that s/he has also used NearTheZoo, but it's been suggested that his/her daughter is involved. .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussing this working definition/description with the LYRACIS teacher who teaches the course. (As noted above, Lyracis is an organization supporting and educating library professionals, not involved in book marketing or sales.) Any thoughts on this description? "Any good book can be an inspiration, but a hallmark of books in the genre of "inspirational fiction" is that they highlight people overcoming adversity or reaching new levels of understanding, either pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps or with help from a higher power, in a way that is central to the narrative, and seems to be written with the purpose of inspiring readers to believe they can do the same." NearTheZoo (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (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/2010_March_19&oldid=1074805292"