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:Contributing factors to urban decay[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.
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a bit of OR. Since when does public housing contribute to urban decay? Public housing can sometimes help prevent urban decay, can't it? Slums aren't a contributing factor of urban decay, they may be a symptom on the other hand. The same with graffiti - does that contribute to urban decay, or is it a sign of it? or something else? This category is trying to write an article, and isn't needed, and the result seems a lot like WP:OR. While normally I don't like to quote wikipedia, it has a nice section in the lede of Urban decay which says "Urban decay has no single cause; it results from combinations of inter-related socio-economic conditions—including the city's urban planning decisions, tight rent control, the poverty of the local populace, the construction of freeway roads and rail road lines that bypass the area,[4] depopulation by suburbanization of peripheral lands, real estate neighborhood redlining,[5] and immigration restrictions." (the vast majority of which causes aren't in the category, of course!) I think using a category to try to explain factors that contribute to urban decay is a bad way to go. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm basically in agreement with Obi-Wan: this isn't a category, it's an article without an article. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - way too broad & not susceptible of easy inclusion criteria; also potentially POV problem. Also, I would argue we likely have a "defining" problem, in that things which are in this category are not necessarily defined or known primarily for being a "contributing factor to urban decay". Also, let me just say again, POV problem. --Lquilter (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, particularly Lquilter's comments. This doesn't make sense at all, and can't see how it could ever work as a category, given that urban decay can have a wide range of contributing causes in various circumstances, but than the same things don't always lead to decay. --ELEKHHT 12:26, 30 May 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.
Category:Organizations opposed to human trafficking[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, since the article was moved by consensus to use this language. (This was not a great example of change happening cleanly and clearly on Wikipedia, but it is a good example of the messy processes that often work together to result in change.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I may be going out on a limb here, but I think the vast majority of organizations are opposed to human trafficking. We need a better name here for what binds these groups together - perhaps "Organizations that fight human trafficking" or something similar. Being opposed isn't sufficient here, it has to be some defining characteristic of the organization, that it works specifically on fighting human trafficking. (NB: Modified with proposed name that I found from sources, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I think the title is fine and matches the main article, which states in the lead "organizations with a primary, or significant, commitment to ending human trafficking". So the inclusion criteria should mirror that. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's a reasonable inclusion criteria, but if we can rename to make it even more clear, all the better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've proposed a move of the page as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is Renaming "opposed to" to "that fight" would be a uselessly cosmetic change. The articles look like they're about groups like Alliance Against Modern Slavery or the London Anti-Human Trafficking Committee who work against human trafficking as a core (not incidental) part of their operational mandates or their most notable activities, so there doesn't seem to be any confusion about what defining means here or how it's currently expressed in the category.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cosmetic, EQ, "opposed to" is significantly different than "fights against". I'm happy for better suggestions but "opposed to" is just wishy-washy in the worst way possible.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just moved the other example of this titling convention List of organizations opposing homelessness without any discussion at all. What's the matter with you? You get some votes against your suggestion here and decide that it's better to move things with out any discussion at all? You should self-revert that and put it up for discussion. Moving that page so soon after being opposed at this nomination makes it hard for you to suggest you thought it would be a uncontested move.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic EQ... I found another example and fixed it, and it's a page not a category. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic? You have a troubling tendency to "fix" any examples that disagree in practice with you propose doing. You should settle down while other editors give their opinions. If other editors show that they're okay with the phrasing "opposed to" it looks decidedly WP:POINTy to immediately move a page with the exact same name without putting it up for discussion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather different issue since that other move was about broadening the scope (e.g. going from more specific to more general), whereas here we're talking about the opposite, going from more general scope to more specific, but as I said, it's completely offtopic here, feel free to bring a discussion to the relevant talk page. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note: the head article was moved to 'combatting' so this should now be moved per speedy criteria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 16 June 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.
Category:Music from The Hunger Games (film series)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale, do we really need three separate categories for the music of a franchise that isn't famous for it's music anyway? Charles Essie (talk) 18:10, 27 May 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:no consensus. Some progress was made in the discussion, so a new nomination could be appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Escort is ambiguous and the main article as used here is call girl. A better solution would be simply to upmerge to Category:Prostitutes. In the articles I looked at, escort is usually a single word so one could argue that the people are not defined by this and should not be categorized here. While some escorts may not engage in sex, the articles provide no indication, for the most part, of what if any sex was offered. If anything is changed, all of the subcategories will need to be changed with some possibly needing a dual upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose first of all, since men are included, and there is no such thing as a "call boy" (at least not that i've heard of) nevermind, apparently there is. Better would be to rename the Call girl article to Escort (sex worker) or something similar, to be gender neutral; but even in the absence of a rename, sometimes categories don't match article titles if there isn't a sole lead article, which is the case here (male escorts are covered under Male prostitutes, even though male escorts aren't necessarily prostitutes). It's a purposefully fuzzy use of language - such as escort - because the people involved are often trying to work at the edge of the law, which explains the confusion over the use of the term here. Nonetheless, escorts are not the same as prostitutes, and there are escorts who provide only companionship or find other ways to not engage in what is legally prostitution. We could rename this category to be Category:Escorts (sex workers) or some other disambiguator, but I doubt that its use will be confused in the current form. We also have Escort agency, which argues for the current title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a lot of issues with what exists. If we argue that Escort agency demands a related title, then something like [[:Category:Escort agency workers would be the logical progression, or if the article is renamed to Escort (sex worker), then Category:Escorts (sex worker). If you read the articles, for most this is a passing mention and is not defining so deletion can also be on the table, possibly after someone does a cleanup. Also how does one determine if an escort does or does not have sex? If 99% do, then it is OK to classify them as prostitutes. If there was any hit that 99% did not have sex, then categorizing a difference between Category:Prostitutes and Category:Call girls would be needed, but I don't believe that is the case. I had forgotten about the males when I nominated this, so a gender neutral solution would be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Escort agency workers won't work since some escorts don't work for an agency... I don't think whether they have sex or not is the key aspect, I think it's about how reliable sources describe their job. For example, many porn stars do a bit of escorting on the side, but they aren't generally called "prostitutes" by reliable sources. Again, I'm not sure that the current name is so ambiguous as to require clean up, but if needed a rename to Category:Escorts (companions) might be the most neutral, but Category:Escorts (sex worker) is more clear - even if they don't have sex, they are still selling sex in a way, or intimacy... then we'd have to bubble that down to all of the subcats... urgh, I think we should leave well enough alone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few subcategories and they can be done as speedies so that should not be a reason to not change. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to prostitutes, really, per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:OC#ARBITRARY. I've looked through enough of the articles to see that there is no meaningful distinction here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all escorts are female. This should be a gender-neutral category. LizRead!Talk! 21:59, 29 May 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:delete as duplicate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if no more have been added by the time this closes then delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:37, 27 May 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: The current title is rather vague - what exactly is a "defender"? Indeed, many famous historical people would have "defended" slavery in that they ordered their soldiers to enslave all of the people of conquered city X, but we don't really need to categorize based on this since it was such a common practice. Rather, the rename clarifies the scope of the category, to people who were known as activists who promoted slavery during times and places where there was significant debate on the practice, and it aligns with what could be the head article: Proslavery, and the only subcat: Category:American pro-slavery activists. Otherwise, the category could include most monarchs and roman emperors and so on and so forth. It should be purged of anyone who couldn't properly be termed an activist for slavery (see the contents of the American subcategory for examples), but I assume there are people who are (1) not american and (2) could be termed pro-slavery activists at times and places other than 19th c United States. Having expressed at one point in writing a positive view of slavery should not be sufficient for categorization, however, since we don't categorize people by the views they hold in general, we categorize them by the actions they take - we don't have Category:People who are opposed to slavery, since that would be silly, but we do have Category:Abolitionists since these are people who have through their work taken action and written and worked to end slavery. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename This seems to be more about shame-tagging people who ever said that slavery was natural/desirable/OK no matter what the period or circumstance. Limiting the scope to activists makes more sense. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
example of such shame-tagging[1] - this guy is a modern-day African American preacher who once said thank god for slavery otherwise the blacks would still be in Africa. Ugh. But there's a Huge difference between him saying that on a talk show (something a number of other mostly white conservatives have said as well) and people who actively worked to maintain slavery and pass legislation ensuring same during a time of public debate on the practice - but we have no such serious debate now, so the cat as is is purely shame-tagging.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The contents show no such problems as are imagined above. We had abolitionists and we had defenders. To be a believable source of information, WP needs to account for both by having categories so the articles can be readily found--the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
did you not see the example I gave of this being used to tag modern day people who have said things supportive of slavery? We don't categorize people by their opinions, which this is as named, and hence the proposed rename, aligned with the movements and orgs those people created. Also I'm not proposing a delete, it's a rename...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok; activists is fine Hmains (talk) 04:40, 11 June 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: It is remarkably common for actors to go on to direct films, or television episodes, and many people in the entertainment business wear multiple hats - actor, producer, director, musician, etc. This fails WP:DEFINING for the films in question and is silly as a container category, since we don't have a broader tree of "Films directed by people who also have other interesting jobs in media" - e.g. films directed by dancers, films directed by choreographers, films directed by producers, films directed by set designers, films directed by cinematographers, the list goes on and on and if pursued would result in massive clutter. The musicians category should be deleted for the same reason - just because someone is notable as having written some music, doesn't mean it is defining of the films they directed that they have such musical talent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Films should be categorized by genre or nationality, but not by a characteristic of the director that has nothing to do with the film. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 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.
Category:Film adaptations directed by writers of original works[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.
Nominator's rationale: The fact that the writer of the original work also directed the film is not at all WP:DEFINING - I note the obvious absense of every woody allen film from this list, as well as a great number of other auteur films. This is category clutter. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's for people who directed a film version of a work published first in another form. I'm not saying we should keep it, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, nonetheless I think it should be deleted. There is a whole tree of Category:Films_based_on_works, apparently films can come from all sorts of sources. But here, we take it a step further, and categorize a film based on the fact that someone published some work, somewhere, other than a film first, and then turned it into a film later - that's just category clutter and writing-an-article-using-categories. Artistic production is complex enough without us trying to categorize in this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's trying to make too fine a point to work as a category, and is not defining. This wouldn't even be terribly useful as a list, imo. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Films should be categorized by genre or nationality, but not by a characteristic of the director that has nothing to do with the film. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 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: For the same reasons given for deletion of the "Films by women directors" category, these are not essentially defining of the films themselves, the fact that the director was LGBT. The films so gathered have zero thematic link with eachother - e.g. we have Tie_Me_Up!_Tie_Me_Down! and Independence_Day_(1996_film) in this category, so it's quite different than a category like Category:LGBT-related_films_by_genre (which, I note, also needs a close looking at...) Note this is also different than classifying films by director nationality, as that is a standard and objective way of splitting a large category, whereas "works by the sexuality of the person who created them" is novel and we should delete since it fails WP:DEFINING and it fails WP:EGRS, as there isn't any particular connection between the sexuality of the person who directed the film and the film itself - all one has to do is look at the breadth of the works contained within this tree to see that little linkage could be made. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One look at the category contents and the lack of connection is rather evident. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Films should be categorized by genre or nationality, but not by a characteristic of the director that has nothing to do with the film. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 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: I just noticed this new category, which unlike other similar categories is not being used just as a container category, at this time. I don't believe we have a similar cat for, say, books written by female authors. Is it the consensus that this is over categorization -- or a valid way to begin grouping works by female creators, as we do along national and genre lines, here in the films tree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete We should not start a new tree of "works by the gender of the person who created them", this is essentially not defining. The fact that a woman directed a film, or wrote a novel, is not defining of the work itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Films should be categorized by genre or nationality, but not by a characteristic of the director that has nothing to do with the film. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Created the category with the rationale that female directors were a small enough percentage of directors that these films could merit their own category. I found that number of such films isn't as small as I previously thought. I also understand the rationales given for deletion, although I would argue that there are definitely films that are defined by the female directorial perspective. Either way, majority rules here.Duttler (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Guy-Blaché directed over 1000 films, 350 of which survived and 22 feature length ones. While female directors are certainly more rare this is nonetheless not defining of the films, as one is unlikely to find a consistent 'female' thematic touch or linkage between the works produced.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:44, 30 May 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: Category about a non-career-defining characteristic - playing reserve/youth team is not considered notable at any rugby league club. The players in each category also largely overlap with their respective senior teams anyway. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for some players (including those notbale for non-sports stuff) this is the peak of their playing career. But restict membership to those who never make it into the main team. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If under-20s rugby is the peak of a player's career, they almost certainly shouldn't have an article. There might be one or two who are notable outside of the sport, but having lots of overly-specific categories for such exceptions seems a bit unnecessary to me. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Needless as not notable. Playing Under 20s doesn't qualify a person for an article so why have a category for them?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:49, 28 May 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.
Relisted at 2014 JUN 24 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
