Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Category:People named for Jerusalem[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) 10:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People named for Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Joining other similar categories created by the same editor. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 5 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.

Category:Rabbis called "the holy"[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. An article can be created if needs be; the contents of the category are below. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Rabbis called "the holy" to article Alshich Hakadosh
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization. The information should be converted to a new article, named Alshich Hakadosh or similar. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary overcategorization. Since when is Rashi called "Rashi Hakodesh"? (And what happened to "Ohr Hachaim Hakodesh"?) Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there was one missing but could not remember which one. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Occuli (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to other views here, this is a very useful category which is not a mere linking of people called “the holy”. Rather this title has been bestowed upon 6 or 7 rabbis by virtue of their outstanding reputation. It is not just a “shared name”, it is a unique classification. Chesdovi (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are arguing that the information is useful, but you haven't explained why a category would be better than an article about the designation and about the six or seven rabbis so designated. I think the article would be a greater benefit to readers. I think the category is an example of overcategorization. Binksternet (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure there is enough material to create an article on this subject. At most it would look like a stub. This suffix has been added to a select few rabbis in history and will not ever be conferred upon anyone else. Categorisation is the perfect solution in this case. I want to be able to find all the rabbis have been given this honorary suffix. Chesdovi (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hard time believing that no article can be written about the designation. If true, my !vote here would change to delete. Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well mean time, let's keep the cat. Chesdovi (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case it is decided to turn this into an article, the name of the article must be in English. Zerotalk 11:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants an article on this subject, please provide some sources. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's an article or category, "Hakodesh" should be translated as "The holy one"[1]. Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a shared-naming category - the members have nothing in common but the epithet (unlike, say, having MBE in your name which actually means you are a member of the Order of the British Empire, or having Hajji in your name which means that you have made the Hajj - not that we categorize the latter because it would be pointless). I could in theory support a list (on the example of List of people known as The Great), but it seems that it would be trivially small, and also that, per Yoninah, above, the title is not actually commonly applied to all these people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make it clear that this is not a "shared name" issue at all, but rather like your MBE example. The people with this epithet have gained universal acceptance to be called that by virtue of their personal greatness. And Yoninah has retracted and re-added the cat to Rashi. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MBE is an example of a title awarded by a centralized body, though. These are just titles that stuck some time along the way, like "The Great," hence my saying that an article would be appropriate except for the fact that it would seem to be trivially short. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good heavens. This is going overboard. Not necessary, really. It's not part of a proper name and it's very trivial. In some Hasidic and Haredi circles, when speaking or writing, they refer to almost every Rishon (rabbis who lived approximately during the 11th to 15th centuries), and Achronim (rabbis living from roughly the 16th century onwards), and all Hasidic Rebbes to the present, with the appended honorific of "Hakadosh" "the Holy [one]" since they are ALL regarded as holy. IZAK (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is true, I challenge you to give me a list of 20 rishonim and 20 achronim who are know commonly as "Ha-Kadosh". With regards to hasidic rebbes, this cat obviously excludes them, (an exception was made by Yoninah for the "Yid Ha-Kadosh",) as the suffix in this context is not a willy-nilly label given by followers of certain sects, rather it is a universal and unique honourific given to a select few. This is obvious to those of us well versed in all things Jewish. Chesdovi (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, from what IZAK has said, the way he sees it, all rabbis who were martyed would also be included. This is not the case. Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the claim in Moshe Alshich that 'Only a few rabbis were granted the title "Hakadosh" throughout Jewish history' has been tagged as uncited since December 2010. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with not retaining this category? And if a RS is found? Then what? Chesdovi (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources on the matter for the uninformed:
1. "Known as the Shelah Hakadosh, it is one of only four books given such an accolade of kadosh – holiness. The other 3 are the Zohar HaKadosh, Or HaChaim HaKadosh and Alshich HaKadosh." - Miraculous journey: a complete history of the Jewish people from creation to the present, by Yosef Eisen.
2. "In later times the following rabbis and books were called hakadosh: Zohar, R. Isaac Luria, Alshech, ShLH, Or Hachayiyim of R. Hayyim ibn Atar." - Ashkenazim and Sephardim: their relations, differences, and problems as as reflected in the rabbinical responsa, by Hirsch Jakob Zimmels. Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got the makings of a page here. Yoninah (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the lack of citations in Moshe Alshich tended to confirm to IZAK's case, but feel free to create an article on this accolade including a list of people given the title. However, there seems to be variation in how long that list should be, so the criteria are insufficiently certain to justify the category. A list will give better scope to cite sources for each person given the title. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why having an article negates the need for a category. To me, it is clear to whom this title is due: the four 16th-century rabbis per the given source and a further 3 others: Rabbeinu Hakadosh, Rashi Hakadosh and Hakadosh - they were much earlier than the former 4. So there are 7 in all. That YY Rabinowitz was added by Yoninah is his issue. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category is a poor idea, based on a name that is not explained. The article will explain the designation and list the men. Once the list is in place, the category is not useful—the two would be redundant. The list can be linked within each man's biography under "See also" if nothing else. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the RS of course. Chesdovi (talk) 13:50, 12 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.

Bishoprics of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland[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) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Armagh
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Cashel to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Cashel
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Dublin
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Tuam to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Tuam
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Clogher (Roman Catholic) to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Clogher
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Dromore to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Dromore
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Kerry (Roman Catholic) to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Kerry
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Meath to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Meath
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Raphoe (Roman Catholic) to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Raphoe
Nominator's rationale There are 25 current and 18 former bishoprics of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland. All their categories follow the naming convention of Cateogory:Roman Catholic bishops of Foo. Those listed above are the only exceptions. "Roman Catholic Bishop of Foo" is a title. "Roman Catholic Bishops of Foo" is not a title. Archbishops/Bishops should not be capitalised is these instances. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 5 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.

Category:Ramphastidae[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 merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ramphastidae to Category:Toucans
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article in category, Toucan. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:01, 5 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.

Category:Phoenix Mercury head coaches[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Phoenix Mercury head coaches to Category:Phoenix Mercury coaches
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No other WNBA team's categories include a separate head coaches category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency.--TM 00:32, 6 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.

Category:NOAA Weather Radio stations[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 merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:NOAA Weather Radio stations to Category:NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge as clear duplicate. It might even make sense to keep a redirect behind. Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 5 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.

Category:Video clip shows[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 to Category:Video clip television series. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Video clip shows to Category:Video clips television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Having "television series" in the title is important for consistency. I suggest "video clips" as the prefix but I'm hoping someone will have a better idea. There are also valid arguments for deleting the category as only marginally informative. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 5 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.

Category:Celebrity duos[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) 10:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Celebrity duos to Category:Duos
Upmerge Even though we have a parent category Category:Celebrity, it is generally devoted to the phenomenon of celebrity rather than as a top level cat for a celebrities in different fields. And the reason for that, I believe, is that "celebrity," like "famous" or "notable" is one of those adjectives that serves no useful function in a Wikipedia category name, as all biographical articles here must generally fit those descriptions. The parent Category:Duos has sub-categories such as Category:Comedy duos, Category:Musical duos and the like and the contents of the nominated category should be moved into these, or more created, such as Category:Filmmaking duos, etc. For now, an upmerge will at least put them all in one place, where they can be sorted and subcategorized more appropriately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Celebrity" doesn't make sense in this context and looking at the entries in the category, it's pretty clear that there's no underlying logic. I have a slight preference for deleting rather than merging: most of the articles are already categorized in the appropriate subcats and on balance, I'd rather have a handful of articles which fall out of the Category:Duos subtree than a whole bunch of articles with redundant categorization. Pichpich (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pichpich makes a good point about duplication and I would have no objection to deletion, either, for the reason he offers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, note to closing admin: if the category is to be deleted, can I have a 24-hour notice to fix the categorization for the handful of affected articles? Thanks. Pichpich (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update I combed through the articles currently in the cat and made sure that none will be thrown out of the Duos category subtree if we choose outright deletion. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user Pichpich rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge or delete. All the entries are already categorized into other categories. Currently, the entries have no relation with one another.Curb Chain (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pichpich. Occuli (talk) 10:09, 6 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.

Category:All articles needing additional section content[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) 10:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:All articles needing additional section content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete Empty and since there's no template populating it automatically, it will probably remain empty or at least of very marginal interest for cleanup. I don't see any real benefit in separating this from Category:Articles to be expanded. Pichpich (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete knowing what section content needs to be added is crucial. Since we would never know, and to explain would defeat the purpose of categories, this cat is useless.Curb Chain (talk) 03:50, 6 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.

Category:People and places[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) 10:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with place names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People named for London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Comment - At the very least it should be Anglicised to People named AFTER London! Pterre (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People named for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rabbis named after places in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As my fellow editors pointed out correctly in this discussion, we should not have categories based on the trivial intersection of nickname and places. Note that all these categories were created by the same editor (Chesdovi (talk · contribs) and part of them after he took part in that discussion and saw aforementioned argument! Debresser (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are they any less trivial than Category:People associated with energy or Category:People associated with carnivorous plants which are in the parent category? Delete one, then delete all in the interests of evenhandedness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:21, 5 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.

Category:Albums produced by Charles R. Grean[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by Charles R. Grean to Category:Albums produced by Charles Randolph Grean
Nominator's rationale: Rename. per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 5 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.

Category:Settlements along the English A38 road[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) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Settlements along the English A38 road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining and likely to lead to over-categorisation if a category was created for other roads. Tim! (talk) 06:04, 5 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.

Category:Albums arranged by Jack Marshall[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, noting the main article location. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums arranged by Jack Marshall to Category:Albums arranged by Jack Marshall (composer)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the other Jack Marshalls were remotely involved in music, so I see no need to add a disambiguation. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:48, 5 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.

Category:Albums produced by Milton Okun[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by Milton Okun to Category:Albums produced by Milt Okun
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Milt Okun —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 5 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.

Category:Mockbusters[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; relisting. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mockbusters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was discussed in May, but was closed as "no consensus". The discussion was 5–3 in favour of deletion, but one in favour of keeping was probably a stacked-vote and the nominator in favour of deletion was a sock of a banned user so ... it's probably best to just do it again. The main problem with this category as I see it is that it's essentially a subjective call as to whether or not something will be called a "mockbuster". The definition in mockbuster states that it is a "film created with the apparent intention of piggy-backing on the publicity of a major film with a similar title or theme and are often made with a low budget." This defintion leads to problems, because we are left with having to figure out what the "apparent intention" of the creator is, what a "major film" is, what a "similar title or theme" would be, and what constitutes a "low budget". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It seems like it's usually straightforward enough to determine if something is a mockbuster and it seems like this is a genre of film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that it is usually straightforward. It's not immediately clear why something like What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? is in the category. The text of the article doesn't even mention it being a "mockbuster". Maybe I'm just dense or not well-versed enough, but it seems to me that if there is a category it should be a bit more obvious, or at least something that would be mentioned in the article or not reliant on original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose it depends on how you define "usually". There are obvious (and pretty funny) cases such as Terminator II (1990 film) and Alien 2 (Italian film) but many others are puzzling (I Saw What You Did, Warlords of the 21st Century, Village of the Giants). However, the most problematic are those where there's good reason to suspect that producers had dishonest motives but where this can't be objectively established (for instance Message from Space or Orca (film)). Deletion is probably the most reasonable option but I confess I find this sad since the category has pretty high entertainment value. Pichpich (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's true—some of these are quite funny. At a more fundamental level, I actually have my doubts that some of these are even notable, though the notability standard for films in general appears to be extremely low. If decent references are available—and there may be some—creation of a sourced list could probably be a compromise solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response I suppose I'm of a "weak keep" sort because--as implied by this discussion--you can cite a source that says "X Film is a mockbuster" or "X Film was made to cash in on Y Film" and certainly that is a defining feature of the film (it wouldn't exist otherwise!) Does that make sense...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 6 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.

Category:Motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle Exhibition[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. There is a significant majority for deletion, most comments supporting the nominator's point that works in exhibitions categories tend to be about individual works, not representatives of larger groupings of works (such as motorcycle models).--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle Exhibition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was nominated for deletion in April; it was closed as "no consensus". I didn't participate in the last discussion, and I'm having a difficult time believing that this is appropriate material for a category. In most cases, the item categorized is a model of motorcycle, not an individual motorcycle, and appearing in this art show can't be said to be defining for the entire model so categorized. (In the last discussion, a user who opposed deletion said "Proposing that this category be deleted is as ridiculous as proposing that Category:Paintings of the Louvre be deleted because it is also covered in List of works in the Louvre and Musée du Louvre." But that kind of misses the point, since that category contains articles about individual paintings, whereas this category contains articles that are about entire models.) The subject is well-covered in List of motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle exhibition. I hope to have this issue reconsidered by more than just those who participated in the last discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The part of WP:CLN that you quoted basically says that the existence of a list is a neutral factor. But it also says, "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." That's the purpose of this discussion—to determine if this method of presenting information is inappropriate. (My mentioning the list is to reassure those who may be concerned that deletion would result in a loss of information.) I'm not convinced by the "otherstuff" arguments either, which is why I think we need to come to case-by-case decisions on these types of categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are more than otherstuff arguments. The MoMA, the Smithsonian and the Guggenheim together represent a significant point of view. To dismiss their expert opinion that mass produced objects belong in museums is a violation of neutrality. The MoMA has examples of entire models of industrial design products. So does the Smithsonian. Wikipedia created categories of articles about objects in those collections because Wikipedia follows reliable sources; museum curators in this case. The Guggenheim's show was no different. Future categories containing the collection of the National Motor Museum, Beaulieu and others will be more of the same. Making a distinction between unique and mass produced objects is a POV, it is not neutral. One of the reasons I initially became interested in museum collections for WikiProject Motorcycling is that there was too much "I like it/I don't like it" from editors with regard to the motorcycle models. Museum catalogs are objective facts that remove the likes and dislikes of Wikipedia editors from consideration. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see those arguments as particularly relevant in deciding whether or not to use a category to present certain information. The debate is not over notability or over whether the information should exist in WP. It is over what format the information will be presented. To suggest that this needs a category because other similar stuff have categories is precisely an "otherstuff" argument, which is what I was referring to. (I'm not sure if you are actually meaning to make that suggestion, but that's the suggestion I'm getting out of your argument.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advantages of categories include:
  • Auto-linking. Create a link to a category on an article page, and a corresponding link to that article will be visible on the category page.
  • Multi-directional navigation. A category can contain multiple subcategories, and can also be part of several categories. Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with Category:Categories.
  • Categories are good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia.
  • Categories are less susceptible to external linkspam than other types of pages, because only Wikipedia articles can be members of categories.
  • They are relatively unobtrusive in that they generally don't distract from the flow of the article.
Why would other subjects benefit from these advantages but not this subject? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask the question all you want, but repetition doesn't change it from being an "otherstuff" argument. My argument may well be that the other similar categories should not exist, for exactly the same reasons. But this discussion is not about those categories. It is about the one that is nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that the list is excellent for those readers who wish to navigate the subject using a list format. But the list fails to serve those other readers who prefer to navigate via categories. Hence the consensus that it's fine to offer both. What we really need is to add an Art of the Motorcycle navbox, to benefit those readers who are most comfortable with that particular format.

If the only argument to delete the category is that the list is adequate, that is an insufficient reason to delete. There needs a stronger reason than that; preferably an argument that has been recognized in Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only argument I have made. The central argument is found in the nominating statement: "appearing in this art show can't be said to be defining for the entire model so categorized." "Definingness" is typically the central discussion in category discussions—in general, a category is only said to be appropriate if the characteristic it categorizes can be said to be "defining" to the subjects in the category. This is quite a slippery term—in fact all attempts to reach a consensus definition have failed, which is why it's not expanded upon in WP:OC—but it is the one that is most often debated at CFD. What is clear is that "defining" means more than "non-trivial" and is probably quite different in meaning than "notable". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted some links below showing how inclusion in this show's catalog became a defining characteristic of a model. Let's take one example: the Ducati 916: f. Or, offline: Motorcycles: Poetry in Motion By Frederick Seidel. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jun 30, 1998. pg. 1.

In one Wikipedia editor's opinion, the inclusion of a model in this show is not a defining characteristic. In the opinions of the reliable sources cited here, the fact that it was in this particular show is part of why the Ducati 916 matters. That's why I said following museum curators' choices was key, because it is objective, in contrast to the opinions of Wikipedia editors, which can be both biased and unreliable.

Can we agree that it's a red herring to worry that these are not unique objects? Or that a list exits? The existence of a list is not recognized by WP guidelines as a reason to delete a category. The uniqueness of the objects in a category is not one of WP's requirements for a category either. All that's left is the experts I cited saying it helped to define the Ducati 916, and the argument that those experts are wrong. Can we hear the reasons why these experts are wrong? Once we're done with the 916, I can start citing the other 113 bikes in the catalog too, if need be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we can agree on that point you ask if we can agree on. Secondly, I don't think the sources you are providing are proving what I think would need to be proven. I think we fundamentally disagree, which probably goes more to our philosophy/interpretation of what categories are for than any of the underlying facts involving this particular category. It's to be expected, since you created the category and I nominated it for deletion. It is possible to have differences of opinion on the matter, and I'm comfortable with that without feeling we have to reconcile the two or convince either party. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but without a rational justification, it's hard to see how this argument amounts to anything more than I just don't like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided what I believe to be a "rational justification"; you may disagree that it is so or you may not understand it, but whatever one thinks I clearly haven't just argued "I don't like it". (If one accepts what you already believe as a pre-condition, then it might amount to that, but the key is that I probably do not accept what you are considering in your own head to be settled, as with those items you identified as "red herrings" above.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to what Good Olfactory said above, because this was a long dialogue and I don't want to counter everything Dennis Bratland has said: I agree with everything Good Olfactory has said, and what Dennis Bratland provided as sources indicated only that sources wrote about these models/marques/manufacture lines. Notability does not always equal uniqueness, which is the purpose of categories. Personally, motorbikes can't be considered artworks per Dennis Bratland, because these are mechanically fabricated.Curb Chain (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has a problem with machine fabricated or mass produced museum exhibitions. Category:Aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution, Category:Industrial designs of the Museum of Modern Art, and Category:Ships preserved in museums have not been nominated for deletion. Twice. But in the case of motorcycles, there's a problem? The Art of the Motorcycle goes on at great length to represent the opinion that motorcycles don't belong in museums. If you feel the article needs to give even more weight to that side of the argument, then expand it. I think it's anti-motorcycle emotion is a fascinating subject worthy of expanded coverage. But deleting a category because WP:IJDLI is not going to make the encyclopedia better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is deleting this cat because they don't like it. They are deleting this cat because it is making the encyclopedia much worse because it useless.Curb Chain (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody has a problem with machine fabricated or mass produced museum exhibitions." I do, for one, and User:Johnbod's comment below suggests that he does too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As "objects in ..." categories like this, yes, and for paintings in temporary exhibitions too. The exhibitions themselves are fine. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, Johnbod—I was hesitant to "speak for you". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic of a marque. (This was merely an exhibition held for 3 months in 1998.) There will be dozens of marques that have examples preserved in museums and other collections here and there. Occuli (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to say it was only three months. That was just the New York show, which was followed by 4 months in Chicago, then 8 months in Bilbao, and over a year in Las Vegas. Then a derivative show in Memphis, not curated by the Guggenheim staff. It set the attendance record at the Guggenheim New York and total attendance was 2,000,000 people. See The Art of the Motorcycle for a detailed description of why this exhibition was so important. It was a defining event in the development of motorcycle culture and consumerism in the US, and a defining event in the history of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and the career of Thomas Krens, and it was extremely controversial among art and culture critics, drawing attacks from Fareed Zakaria and Hilton Kramer, and had a lasting impact by promoting changes in the ethical guidelines of the Association of Art Museum Directors, and it led to several other museum exhibitions inspired by it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The impact of the exhibition on history has no bearing on this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the nominator of the previous CfD, and I continue to believe this single show is not sufficiently defining, in perpetuity, for models of bikes that were exhibited in it, per the nominator and Occuli. I disagreed with the no consensus close at the time, obviously. The fact that this has been renominated, by one of our most experienced admins in the area of CfD, is to me another indication that this is indeed WP:OCAT. A list, to be sure; a category, no. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one example of inclusion in the Art of the Motorcycle catalog having become a defining characteristic of a model. Here are two more examples, and a third from the same book. Here are two more. I can add more examples, if necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A defining characteristic is not the same as a 3rd party citation, which is what you are quoting.Curb Chain (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm showing that experts use inclusion in the show as a shorthand for what a bike was. For example, in the NYT obituary of Castiglioni, out of the hundreds of bikes in his career, two of those mentioned were the Ducati 916 and the MV Agusta F4. Why? Because they were in the Guggenheim's show. These were two of the high points of Castiglioni's career, and a shorthand way of communicating to a wide audience why these two bikes were great is to simply mention they were in the Art of the Motorcycle. It's a point of great distinction. In other words, it is a defining characteristic of the bike, and mainstream publications recognize that fact and cite it frequently. It's particularly important that not just the enthusiast motorcycling press uses this shorthand; it is just as applicable for general audiences such as for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The news article mentions that Ducati 916 and MV Agusta F4 where shown at the Guggenheim: that's it. You are reading too much into it. This is normal for any news article. This "shorthand" is because these models where featured in the Guggenheim. This is not a point of great distinction. Because one news article mentions it does not make these models really any different, but the fact that the news article mentioned it. In an notability debate, this "argument"/observation/fact may have weight, but not in a category-discussion. It is not a defining characteristic of a bike. The bike has simply been mentioned. And I must dismiss the following-arguments above.Curb Chain (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many news articles? And books? [2], [3], [4], [5]. I keep asking how many you need. If you want more, I'll find more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All irrelevant. This is a category discussion, not a notability discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if I ask what is a "defining characteristic", I'll be told there is no consensus. I'm saying that these sources demonstrate that inclusion in the show is a defining characteristic. These publications are trying to tell their readers what the Ducati 916 is -- to define it -- and in doing so they say "it was in The Art of the Motorcycle". The definition of the Ducati 916 includes the fact that it was one of the bikes chosen for this show, and to this day, 13 years later, reliable sources use that definition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Those articles mention the bike and why it is notable. They don`t mention that the bike is especially notable because they were in this show.Curb Chain (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your humble opinion. Anyone who reads the articles I cited will, in my opinion, reach the opposite conclusion. What would a citation have to say to meet the standard of "defining characteristic" that you're demanding to see? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to believe we are still discussing this. The sources show nothing about the bikes being notable for appearing in the museum show, rather, they simply add a bit of notability to the bike. Curb Chain has it right. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would a source have to say to meet the "defining characteristic" standard? Can you at least give a hint? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the exhibit spawned a school of motorcycle design, that would make it a category, as in the Salon des Refusés which gave status to avant garde painters and Impressionists, or the 1913 Armory Show which catalyzed American art, or the International Exposition of Modern Industrial and Decorative Arts which gave us Art Deco. Unfortunately, at the motorcycle exhibit, too many designs from too wide a swath of history were shown, making it damn near impossible to catch the spirit of the exhibit. Slate said "The basic message of the show is: Motorcycles are really cool; here are a bunch of really cool motorcycles." I don't think we are going to get a category out of that. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This proves my point exactly. Jacob Weisberg of Slate was one of The Art of the Motorcycle's harshest critics. The article mentions others who hated the show too, who thought it was evil or that it was destroying America. They make some good, thoughtful points, but many critics disagreed with them. Siding only with those critics who were opposed to the show, by deleting this category on that basis, and ignoring the show's many supporters, is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no, no. We are doing no such thing. The show simply had a bunch of motorcycles of disparate-kind that we can not make a category for this as they are not related with one another, other than having appeared in this show and that they are motorcycles. This is the answer to you question: "defining".Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your Evel Knievel leap of logic is incomprehensible to me. I said that the category would only be needed if a school of thought came from the Motorcycle Exhibit. Weisberg has nothing to do with my reasoning. What you need to do is find people who say that a school of thought or a school of design was the result of the show. I do not think you will find this. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, how come now is the first mention that in order for a museum collection category to be valid, it must have originated a school of art? Could it be that nobody heard of this novel criterion until now? Because it was only just made up today? I don't think categories should be deleted because they fail to meet criteria we just made up today. (And by the way, modern art existed long before the Armory Show. The Armory Show just legitimized it, brought it to a more highbrow audience and gave the public something respectable to associate with it. Wait... kind of like The Art of the Motorcycle did. Imagine.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like this was the user's idea of evidence that would indicate that it is a defining characteristic. There are different ways to approach this, but most everyone seems to be talking about the same general concept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, G.O. has it right. This was simply my idea of one way to wring a category from an art exhibit. Whatever the Motorcycle Exhibit did for the museum industry, such as wake it up to popular and profitable blockbuster shows, it did not do the same for the bikes on display. They did not get a defining aura of The-Art-of-the-Motorcycle-Exhibition-ness. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show was unarguably notable, the machines are notable for being in it, there's ample documentation of the importance of the show to the model. The perpetuity of the label is not so interesting since Wikipedia is constantly evolving. I've (re)read WP:OCAT and fail to see which type of category this purportedly falls into. Certainly not trivial characteristic or trivial intersection. Claiming that a category of this sort should be reserved for individual motorcycles is somewhat spurious since there are incredibly few named or well-known individual motorcycles (Captain America is the only one I can think of offhand and it doesn't even have its own article). — Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the only articles on unique motorcycles, excluding fictional motorcycles, are:
Potential future articles include:
The Orange County Choppers bikes are unique, but not likely to spawn articles. All this probably of no relevance but since you mentioned it I couldn't resist researching it and sharing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the issue here is: There's already a list. It's "fame" is sufficiently established.Curb Chain (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show was a significant and notable event. It is both informative and useful to have a category that leads readers to the other bikes in the exhibition. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A list already exists. That is sufficient.Curb Chain (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The show was significant for itself but not so much that the bikes displayed were given a special new aura. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have the corresponding list article. There is no need for a category.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, WP:CLN makes it clear that the existence of a list is not a reason to delete a category. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking that guideline out of context. Where is it excatlyexactly (I'm asking for a quote) that it states this.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining of a model, as many have said. The MOMA category the creator mentioned is now up for deletion, and the Smithsonian's aircraft should have the standard models removed (other aviation museums set up redirects using the serial number - also dubious imo). This approach has been avoided in the case of prints, which are only categorized by museum in exceptional cases (a unique copy etc). Even if the exhibition is notable, which I don't dispute, and the object unique, we also don't normally categorize objects (paintings mainly) by temporary exhibition - there are many we could. I note that the first 2 articles I looked at in the category, Triumph Bonneville T120 and the Indian Chief, don't mention the exhibition, which goes against it being defining for them. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Triumph Bonneville T120 is incomplete. It's neither a Featured Article nor a Good Article. Not that that is a guarantee of completeness. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a decent-sized article. A good rule of thumb for what is defining is that the lead of an article is incomplete if it isn't mentioned. I liked the article on the show, btw. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this is defining for the bikes included in the show. Perhaps Carlossuarez46 said it best. Deleting the category does not affect the importance of the article or the list which I believe are the appropriate tools for navigation here. WP:CLN does not prohibit or mandate that categories exist. It just explains that there are different tools that are in the tool box and choosing the right ones is the key. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 13 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.

Category:Spanish secession[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) 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Spanish secession to Category:Secession in Spain
Nominator's rationale: Rename to 'Secession in Spain'. The other categories in the category 'Secession by country' are named in this way, such as 'Secession in India', 'Secession in France', etc. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 00:51, 5 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_September_5&oldid=1074808375"