Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26[edit]

Bosnia and Herzegovina people convicted of crimes against humanity 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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. I'll put the spelling error through a correction. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes agains humanity to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people convicted of crimes against humanity
Propose merging Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes against humanity to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people convicted of crimes against humanity
Propose merging Category:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes against humanity to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people convicted of crimes against humanity
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I initially came here to ask that the first listed category be renamed to fix the spelling mistake. However, it also occurred to me that the first two categories are rather under-used, having just one article each, and the third category is the only other item in the parent category. Also, sampling a few other random sub-categories under Category:People convicted of crimes against humanity by nationality, I see that most other countries are not sub-categorised by ethnicity, so these 3 categories are inconsistent. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Parent category for those three subcategories is "[[Category:People convicted of crimes against humanity by nationality]]". In case of Bosnia and Herzegovina (and all Balkans) "nationality of the people is determined by their ethnicity, rather than citizenship". There are two possible solutions which are already present within this parent category. One solution is the case of Serbs. There is a [[Category:Serbian people convicted of crimes against humanity|category for Serbs]] and subcategories for their citizenship. Another solution is applied in case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a category for its citizens and subcategories for its ethnicities. I prefer later solution (B&H) because that way we would not mix citizenships and ethnicities within the same parent category like now. If I am right then I should oppose this deletion and merging proposal and we should change the situation with Serbia and Serbs. Any thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I screwed up filing this request a little, since the proposed target of the merge was actually one of the pages to be merged. I hope it was obvious enough that I meant for these categories to be merged into their parent category. I've now corrected the merge proposition above. The notices I placed on the categories themselves were already correct. Sorry for any confusion.
Regarding Antidiskriminator's comment that "nationality of the people is determined by their ethnicity, rather than citizenship", this might be a useful piece of information to show on these category pages, to explain why they are different from other categories in Category:People convicted of crimes against humanity by nationality. This fact should also be mentioned in mainspace (with sources, of course). The article on nationality gives a few examples, but does not mention Bosnia and Herzegovina nor the Balkans. The article on Jus sanguinis mentions Serbia but not Bosnia and Herzegovina nor the Balkans. There is even a separate article on Serbian nationality law, though this is more to do with legal requirements for citizenship.
Rename. Given this information, I think I'm inclined to agree with Antidiskriminator that this category structure is a good way of handling this, so I withdraw my merge proposition, and instead propose that the first category is renamed to correct the spelling mistake. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can trust my word that people on Balkans refer to their ethnicity and never to their citizenship when they talk about their nationality. One can never find Croat with citizenship of Serbia who would say his nationality is Serbian, or Serb with Croatian citizenship who would say that his nationality is Croatian, or Croatian with citizenship of B&H who would say that his nationality is Bosniak, or Albanian with citizenship of Macedonia who would say that his nationalty is Macedonian. I am not sure what is the spelling mistake you refer to in the first category which deals with Bosniaks?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ups. Now I see missing t.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (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:IPod Touch games[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:IPod Touch games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. 186.125.229.206 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This should be removed/closed as the nomination is already listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 24#Category:iPod Touch games --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2011 (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:Figurative artists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Figurative artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The category faces multiple problems. The first is that the introductory text restricts figurative art to that concerned with the human form. That's a very very narrow definition and it doesn't match the article figurative art. Even if we fixed this, two important problems would remain. The first is that inclusion in the category will always be subjective. There's no clear boundary separating figurative art and abstract or (for lack of a better term) non-figurative art. For instance, is abstract figurative art figurative? The other big problem is that the category will grow too large to be of much use: figurative art is the overwhelming norm and while it's reasonable to imagine a reader looking up Category:Abstract artists in order to find Mark Rothko, it's clear that nobody will ever sift through thousands of entries in Category:Figurative artists in order to find Michelangelo. Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this category is too broad. I only created it because other categories that I created were considered over-classification. But therein lies the problem: how do you describe figurative art that is not portraiture? There is a lit on non-portraiture figurative art. Given that you argue that this category is too broad, I'd say that you are arguing for more classification - even as sub-cats of figurative art.

  • Delete The inclusion criteria stated on the page is borderline gibberish.Curb Chain (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if there isn't a bit of a WP:COAT issue here, too, as the description mentioned by Curb Chain above also includes an odd reference that the category includes the painting of clowns -- a category by this editor for clowns was previously deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold the phone I see that Category:Figurative art has existed since 2006, people. I've added it as a master category. It already includes many "figurative artists." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no contradiction here and the only problem is that Category:Figurative art isn't meant to include individual artists. It's a useful category for subclasses of figurative art and movements related to figurative art but as I noted above, saying that someone is a figurative artist is beyond vague. Pichpich (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: likely to prove an excessively broad category. The vast majority of pre-20th century artists could be placed in this one. Robofish (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2011 (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:Asian American female tennis players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Asian American female tennis players to Category:Asian-American tennis players (Category:Asian American tennis players is unstarted), Category:American female tennis players, and Category:Asian American women in sports (needs a hyphen)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overcategorization - enough to categorize by general ancestry and specific occupation, but then also to do so by sex is too fine. Mayumashu (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:This may be considered "too fine", but the reasoning is if someone wished to look for female tennis players of asian descent they would easily be able to look in this category. Sure, it could be reasoned that someone could go into the Asian categories and click on each player with a female-sounding name to research. How many steps does that take? This takes the least amount of steps. Therefore I don't consider it OCAT. Research is tedious enough, to simplify it like this, which has been my intention with all of these women's categories, is only a benefit. I think some people confuse categories with labeling sometimes, and true, they can analogous to labeling, but this is simply from a research perspective. Also as with all of these categories, I have not removed women from the original overall general categories. So merge is useless.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT trivial intersection of race, nationality, gender, and activity. The more of these I encounter here, the more convinced I am that if the policy were to push all articles down to the narrowest subcategories, EVERYONE would vote to delete all of these, so their triviality is manifest. Also, if we had a search feature that would combine categories, these would also go quietly and quickly. Finally, if people wanted to find our about how Asian American females play tennis, they would have no article to read. Further evidence of the triviality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a search feature would be great, but Wikipedia hasn't come up with a way to step up to the challenge and cure that. I mean if it bothers the OP that there isn't a gender neutral category for tennis players, then start one. Nothing is stopping them! Wikipedia has an unlimited amount of space. There is a reason I didn't create an ice skater's category--because the majority is women, tennis players is not the same. I also find it interesting that consistently the same men vote against these categories. No, actually I find it predictable.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is CatScan a search device implemented on Wikipedia right now in the search box? Because I don't believe it is. Wikipedia's search function, I've found, is incredibly limited. I mean, if there were a way developers could implement it, I'd be totally for that and off the categorization issue.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it seems to be an external tool. But it is available to the hypothetical researcher interested in all xs who also do y. (Category intersections have been 'promised' now for many years.) Occuli (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation - this is a triple or possibly quadruple intersection of categories, depending on whether 'Asian American' is counted as one category or two. We don't need this category, and we don't want to encourage more like it; unless anyone thinks Category:African American male basketball players would be a good idea? Robofish (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that wouldn't make sense to make for various reasons. A) More males are in professional basketball than females, B) more African American males are in professional basketball than females/males of European descent. Very bad example.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2011 (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:Legendary creatures by association[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Legendary creatures by association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can't work out what the definition of this category is. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the contents can't be up-merged to its only parent, Category:Legendary creatures, which is fairly empty because of this unnecessary diffusion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:28, 26 August 2011 (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:Myanmar user templates[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. There hasn't been a debate on Wikipedia over the name since January 2008, so it seems odd to have one over a user category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Myanmar user templates to Category:Burma user templates
Nominator's rationale: Per Burma, Category:Burma, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This official country name category is already a subcategory of Category:Burma templates. I suggest keeping this category until a final name change is made.  Buaidh  14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? What final name change? The name has been stable for two years now... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:32, 29 August 2011 (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:Christopher Hitchens[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christopher Hitchens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary--contains too few entries (and I added one of them.) Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 26 August 2011 (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:Neo-Gothic skyscrapers[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Neo-Gothic skyscrapers to Category:Gothic Revival skyscrapers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the only category which uses Neo-Gothic rather than Gothic Revival in its name. Tim! (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom; correct analysis of situation. Hmains (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2011 (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.

The FBI Files[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. Almost none of these articles even mention the show. That would be a fine thing to do, but to categorize by it suggests a defining link that doesn't appear to be there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Criminals portrayed on the FBI Files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Events portrayed on the FBI Files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appearing as a topic on an episode of the television program The FBI Files is not defining for any of these events or for any of these people. It is overcategorization by mention in a TV show. These events and individuals have probably been portrayed in dozens of TV series, and we can't categorize by each one of these types of appearances. The information is all contained in List of The FBI Files episodes, which is the most logical place to find this information. Compare to previous deletion of Disasters covered in the TV series Mayday. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIA. Not defining of the people or events; will inevitably lead to overcategorization. jonkerz♠ 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The FBI Files actually brought a lot of cases to the public eye after their previous coverage did exist but was not well-noticed. At that point, it is no longer trivia. Hellno2 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what what is so trivial. Thanks to the FBI Files, many people are now notable enough for articles. I wouldn't call the above two examples good, but yes, there are so many others for which this is true. And you need to subdivide the category because otherwise the connection would be confusing. Shaliya waya (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessarily trivial, but it's also not defining for these people and incidents. I don't think you can point to a single case where coverage by The FBI Files has taken an otherwise non-notable person or incident "over the threshold" to notability. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the point of view of the person/event articles, appearing in a tv series certainly seems like trivial information. When I first saw the category, I actually thought its purpose was to indicate that the FBI has some files portraying these people and events. It's an easy mistake to make, especially with the incorrectly lowercase "the". Jafeluv (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned, it is not trivial if that is why someone became notable. Hellno2 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about different categories; these categories are intented for people and events featured on The FBI Files, not people/events who became notable after they appeared on TFF. For example, the fact that Ted Kaczynski was featured on TFF is not a defining feature of him and to categorize him by televison series, documentaries and news casts etc. he was featured on would lead to overcategorization. This is why these categories should be deleted.
If I understood you correctly, you are !voting to keep a category that would have a name along the lines of Category:Events in which The FBI Files played a major role in bringing to attention. This may be a valid category (although I don't think so), but it is not the category we are discussing here. jonkerz♠ 00:40, 3 September 2011 (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/2011_August_26&oldid=1074807029"