Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Massachusetts 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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This 2-layer structure is un-needed, because there are only 10 relevant articles for California and 3 for Massachusetts. It is quite sufficient to have one category to group this et of articles for the respective states. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - avoids unnecessary complexity. Neutralitytalk 23:16, 31 December 2013 (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 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. Normally, this weight of deletion preferences would be sufficient to remove the category. However, following Bensin's work, I gather (though the passage of time makes this hard) that the category's purpose has shifted away from that which was nominated. Considering that the nomination rationale itself is therefore mooted, we are left with a debate which is closer to a natural no consensus decision anyway, and this taken together with the altered/expanded purpose is enough to persuade me that we do not have a consensus to delete the category that was nominated — but, without prejudice to a new CfD considering the current version of the category. -Splash - tk 22:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overspecific category, no other possible entries. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This whole tree needs a serious pruning, perhaps with help of the literature project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changing my !vote). The category now contains 33 articles, so it is clearly viable. Concerns about it being too specific were evidently misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far too specific a category. Anyway these categories are totally misused. They should have articles on the concept specified, not categorize articles on things that contain somewhere in them the concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as there are several works that fit the category. I added the ones I found and it now contains 32 articles. I also clarified that the intended content of the category is "sterilization of humans or humanoids", which is what it contains now. So the category should be renamed "Sterilization of humans or humanoids in fiction". --Bensin (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overly specific, better for list form, maybe. Neutralitytalk 23:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is a category containing over 30 articles overly specific? And how is a list better than a category? The benefit of using categories over lists is that casual readers easily can find more articles that cover the same topic. I doubt many readers think to check "What links here" in hope of finding a list of interest that may or may not link to the article. --Bensin (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is overly specific because it creates a situation where works of fiction are characterized by what may just be a plot point. This can lead to specific works getting in way too many categories. This is not "TV tropes", we do not create lists of everything that happened in works of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but what about the works where sterilization is not just a plot point, but instead the main theme? There is a category named Works about alcoholism with over a 130 pages. --Bensin (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2014 (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 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 as nomination (and then DELETE). -Splash - tk 22:05, 3 February 2014 (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 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 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:United States transport-related lists[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, along with category tree. Note that this is an ENGVAR issue, and shouldn't be taken as a precedent for other countries. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories should also be renamed down the tree so that this and all of them use the American English "transportation" instead of "transport" as is customary for US-related categories in this topic area. Imzadi 1979→ 10:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all lists related to transport are so-called. Which should use the putative American English? and which should not?. Looks pretty good to me as it stands. (Disclaimer- appears I created the category a long time ago) Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Oculi:: You are right, this is a WP:C2C issue, so I have struck my oppose. But why not speedy this category too? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This change may be appropriate in countries that use US-English. It should not be used as a precedent to change UK, Commonwealth and European categories or the parent, where "transport" should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2013 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: This category's nexus doesn't seem to have a point and would be absurdly overbroad if carried out to its titular extreme - there are literally thousands of athletes who have committed "crimes" ranging from murder to speeding. Labeling them all "sportsperson-criminals" is ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Crimes are noteworthy, so I do not see why the category should not exist. By the way, speeding could hardly ever be considered a crime.Hoops gza (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speeding is, in fact, a crime. It is not a very serious crime, but it is a crime. Hence it being punishable by fines or jail time. See the problem here? You have created a category that is wildly overbroad and identifies people as "criminals" without due consideration. The rule of thumb is that we only define people as "criminals" if they are primarily noteworthy for their crimes and not some other part of their life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've also added the American athlete-criminals sub-cat here. This is not a useful intersection. We have only a few intersection of occupation+crime, but I don't think playing professional sports + committing a crime is any more notable than other forms of celebrity+crime intersections, and we generally don't categorize on those either. It's also overly broad as noted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that we should only include people in it who committed crimes we have categories for, but then you immediately argue to include Michael Vick, a person whose crime we do not have a category for? In what universe is this a consistent or verifiable policy? Why couldn't someone create a category for people convicted of speeding, marijuana possession, vandalism or every other crime under the sun? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, it turns out that this is a universe where Michael Vick is already in Category:American people convicted of cruelty to animals. Look at Category:Criminals by crime, see what crimes are listed and imagine how long a category for people convicted of jaywalking, speeding, littering, furniture tag removal or every other crime under the sun would last in a universe where even the most logic-challenged editor can delete any nascent category with the artfully crafted argument "not defining". Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Vick is so categorized because you created the category and put him in it just before commenting that it "turns out" that he is so categorized. Intellectual honesty and transparency are always appreciated. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jerry Pepsi Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I'm not sure why transparency demands that I disclose any of my edits here or anywhere. After I had stated earlier that Vick was not in a criminal category, the intentionally ironic statement that it "turns out" that he was in the category was offered in rather clear recognition of the fact that the encyclopedia that anyone can edit maintains a full audit trail, which can be readily searched by any editor, just as you did. The pedantic argument raised that Vick was not in a crime-related category was not relevant, and I had stated that it should include those individuals "with the potential[emphasis added] for a pair of categories grouping the person as both an athlete and as a criminal", but it was addressed to close out that line of argument. Vick is a convicted felon who served time in jail, and I think that few could honestly challenge the claim that he is an athlete-criminal. If you have an issue with the categorization for Vick, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also the encyclopedia that allows anyone to delete anything, so I must acknowledge in the holiday spirit of complete transparency that the option is available to you. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. It's irony. Well, you keep telling yourself that, Alanis. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have people listed in this category whose major, important and defining crime is a pizza store robbery or minor drug deal 25 years ago. Why Wikipedia should thus define that person as a "criminal" for the rest of their lives is not clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! If it was up to me, possession of heroin would be decriminalized, certainly for amounts less than a few kilos. I have no idea why pizza store robberies are illegal; They're just asking for it, and at worst the penalty for a pizza store stickup should be a small fine, not unlike a parking ticket, but only after your first three robberies. As long as no one in the store dies during the holdup, I fail to see why any person should be saddled with the label of "criminal" on Wikipedia simply because they shot up and robbed a Papa John's. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that someone has been convicted of a crime is different than labeling and defining their life as a "criminal." Wikipedia does not label people "criminals" unless their primary notability is for criminal acts. When a biographical article about a professional basketball player has more discussion of a one-sourced 25-year-old pizza store robbery than of their basketball career, something is horribly wrong with the encyclopedia. Our biographies too often place their focus on the titillating and the negative to an undue extent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your example is misleading. Some athletes are barely notable as athletes. Since you are referring to Darrell Allums, I will point out that he only played one year in the NBA and robbed a pizza store on 14 separate occassions. An open question I do not know the answer to: is it our place to judge the notability (severity) of crimes?Hoops gza (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbing a pizza store is not, in and of itself, notable. We do not write biographies of every person ever convicted of a crime. So yes, it is our place - editorial judgment matters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if the category title were to be changed to "Sportspeople convicted of crimes"?Hoops gza (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note if kept these should be renamed as Sportspeople convicted of crimes to avoid the sense that sportsman-criminal is a sort of defined occupation rather than an intersection.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a legitimate overlap category, like sportsperson politicians. Criminals generally do not engage in crime as a career per se. These are really going to be athletes convicted of crimes. Why not have overlap categories for other professions as well, actor criminals, and many many more. This is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining intersection of characteristics. The two characteristics, "plays sports" and "commits crime" bear no correlative or causative relationship to one another. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary category intersection. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - describing a person who has committed a crime as a criminal implies that crime is a habitual activity for them. Opening a door to possible defamation in this way is unwise. pablo 10:07, 3 January 2014 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: From what I can see, the vast majority of textile artists are women. It would make more sense, if at all, to have a category for male artists instead. It makes no sense to have a category for women textile artists because this category could easily contain most American textile artists and duplicate the parent category! Sionk (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom. Indeed through history globally women and girls have been at the forefront of textile arts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note to nom: could you nominate the parent container cats as well? -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, just did so and added to the nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep While women have most often done the work at the loom etc, in larger quasi-industrial settings such as tapestry works, male designers and owners were very much involved, & more likely to be notable. So the nom's proposition is not really right, though it may apply to modern self-made "studio" work. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MergeCategory:American textile artists has 18 direct articles, 15 of them on women. The women specific sub-cat has 20 entries. The vast majority of articles we have in this topic seem to be on women. If anything we should have male categories here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, an artist is different from a designer. Artists aren't sub-sets of designers. Sionk (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on your definition, and there is a considerable overlap whichever way, as the moment an "artist" is commissioned to do a large work that will be woven by a team, they become a "designer". Many "artists", especially in older periods, had no weaving experience at all. The distinctions the current set of categories attempt to maintain are probably not tenable, and do not appear to be reflected in the category contents anyway. They concentrate on the way and number of times the design is made rather than the actual role of the artist/designer. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is contained in the parent category. Maybe the inclusion criteria simply needs tranferring to the sub-categories? Either way, if someone is designing for mass production they're a designer. Artists create one-offs. At this npoint we should probably continue this conversation elsewhere, because its not addressing the subject of the discussion. Sionk (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - "Artists create one-offs" - what rubbish! Try to take a wider view than your own experience. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2013 (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.
