Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22[edit]

Category:Obtut[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. Special:PrefixIndex/User:OrenBochman is also available. BencherliteTalk 10:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear meaning, currently contains just user pages. DexDor (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @OrenBochman: Actually, they are all from one editor's user pages. I wonder if OrenBochman didn't realize this category was visible outside his/her sandbox. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think it is really necessary to delete AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you (as category creator) like to explain what this category is for? DexDor (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename If this is kept it should be Category: User:OrenBochman/Obtut, to clearly delineate that this is not for content categorization, and is not maintenance/administrative either. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I am fairly sure that user subpages are never (validly) categorised. Oculi (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are a number of categories (e.g. Category:User essays) in which user subpages may be categorized. DexDor (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So there are, quite a lot of essays. Oculi (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We cannot allow users to have personal categories for their sandbox and other user pages. If OB needs a tut-section, be should create his own list article as his own private navigation tool, within his sandbox. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listified @Amrit Ghimire Ranjit: I have moved this content on to a personal page for you at User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit/Obtut. Let me know if you have any problems with this. A personal page is a better way to store links than making a category. Cheers. SFB 21:58, 28 September 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:British labouring-class poets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not how bio articles in wp are normally categorized - e.g. there is no Category:Labouring-class people. Possibly also WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. DexDor (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The study of labouring-class writers is a recognised academic discipline and has a website dedicated to it. All the 41 poets newly categorised appear on its database, thus removing the accusation that this is a subjective judgment. They also meet the test of notability and often were named after their professions in their day, eg The Ettrick Shepherd. There are still other names on the database with WP articles yet to be so categorised. If Wikipedia aspires to scholarly respectability, keeping up with such fields of study is a necessity. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One web-site does not prove demonstrable notability in an intersection. There has never been a consensus to classify people by class, and there may well be strong precedent against it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the best way of keeping up with such fields of study would be to write an article on the topic. Categorisation of an article is via defining characteristics. A characteristic not mentioned in the article cannot possibly be defining. Oculi (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The question of who is working class and who middle class is largely one of POV. We cannot have categories that depend on any user's POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. No objection against restoring the category after better demonstrating that it's a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from Marcocappelle's suggestion that a better demonstration of this category as a 'defining characteristic' should be provided, I'd like to submit some of that evidence. I notice that all of the above participants have degrees (even if not in English Literature, which was my field at Oxford); so even if some clearly have not looked at the website I quoted, I know academic evidence will be respected.
  1. Britain has always been a class-conscious society, especially in former centuries, so it took notice of the origin of writers and mentioned this (often as a recommendation of ability where it had not been expected) when evaluating those 'in humble circumstances' as they often expressed it - Modern Yorkshire Poets, 1885. Class mobility was possible, in which case their initial lack of educational opportunities and self-educated status would be mentioned - Modern Yorkshire Poets 1885.
  2. In Britain the term 'labouring class' seems to be preferred, possibly because 'working class' has purely urban connotations. In Canada an academic like Dr Meagan Timney uses 'working class' in her work, as in her Victorian Working-Class Women Poets Archive.
  3. The site I mentioned is an academic one sponsored by Nottingham Trent University. In its introduction to labouring class writing it mentions that this has been a field of study for more than two decades.
  4. It is curated by Professor Goodridge, who among his many publications has compiled 3-volume anthologies of 18th century and of 19th century labouring class poets. A recent compilation of essays covering the field is Class and the Canon: Constructing Labouring-Class Poetry and Poetics, 1780-1900.
  5. One may contend that poets covered in such publications have that characteristic as a defining feature and are therefore removed from the charge of POV.
  6. Some WP articles, such as those on Mary Hutton and Robert Bloomfield do use the term 'labouring class' in the lead, while one could argue that the mention that John Clare was ‘the son of a farm labourer' tends that way.
This is the evidence. Since there is a respectable academic background for the term, it could be introduced into more of the WP articles, with a reference to the anthologies or web sites where they are so described. I am surprised there is not yet an article about labouring class writing on WP but am sure that, backed by the suggested category, it would not be long before one was written. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, let's give this category the benefit of the doubt. Most importantly, per Oculi, is to have a Wikipedia article written about this topic, based on multiple sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mzilikazi1939. That there's "respectable academic background for the term" (and the nom doesn't claim there isn't) does not necessarily mean that it's a WP:DEFINING characteristic and still less that it's a characteristic suitable for categorization. Other things to consider are whether it's subjective and how well it fits into the category tree. We already categorise British poets by century, by geography (Cornish, Welsh etc), by gender, by religion, by type of poetry and afaics nowhere else on wp do we categorize people by class. DexDor (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- User:DexDor's objections seem to be primarily procedural, in particular that categorizing by class is not done in other cases. It is important when dealing with writers, however, since origin will influence choice of subject. Labouring class writers often write out of a working experience (of factory conditions or agricultural drudgery) unavailable to the leisured classes. Such depictions constituted part of their appeal to such readers. Such an insight or justification would be made clear in the article on the subject that others here are asking for and which I agree should be written. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Class is an element that has not been explored enough in the category system. Economic status and its cultural implications are often of great relevance in writing (and other art forms). I strongly encourage User:Mzilikazi1939 to write an article(s) on the topic to anchor this content more clearly. I propose first using this category for poets where labouring is a key aspect of the poetry, rather than coincidental, then start from there.
Class is the unspoken sixth-arrow of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Class consciousness is receding, but if Wikipedia had been created in 1971 and not 2001 I'm sure there would be a plethora of class-based material. Just because people feel it has less cultural relevance now doesn't mean it is an invalid categorisation. Still, I would argue that this be renamed to working-class instead per usual terminology. SFB 22:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to write the article subject to a few conditions. (a) I can't even think of starting on it before November because of other commitments. (b) I need to consult with academic experts for guidance. (c) We need to come to a decision whether to use 'labouring class' or 'working class'. Probably a discussion of the terms will be part of the article. (d) While labouring may provide the subject matter of some of the poets, their position leads them into other areas too. Some poets were Methodist lay-preachers, so religion (and temperance propaganda) is an important subject to them. Others were Chartists and wrote about political reform and the clash of classes. Finally, though many women had to work, many also were kept at home looking after children or by ill-health, or both. These, and some of the men-folk too, published their poetry by subscription in order to raise money for their subsistence. This too is an important economic aspect of labouring class writing, so classification purely by limiting subject matter to a single aspect of their lives would skew the picture.
I would be grateful if the category under discussion is not deleted (yet), since the promised article arises out of the discussion here and is in part the justification for such a category. Until I write the article, I will refrain from adding other poets to it, for which there are several candidates. And afterwards I will revisit the articles on categorised writers giving an academic reference to justify their belonging to that category. If anybody is still following this discussion,could we have some agreement on the proposal here? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can have Category:British poets and Category:Social classes as parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate the procedural difficulties this discussion is causing, and the danger of seeming to set a new precedent, I think we have to remember that the purpose of setting up WP was to be encyclopaedic. If procedures hinder it from acknowledging recognised fields of scholarship (which predate it, what's more), then its encyclopaedic function should take precedence over them. This is not a question of evanescent TV episodes soon to be forgotten, but of a body of writing spanning the best part of three centuries, the significance of which is being increasingly realised. The point of the proposed new category is to act as a guide for those interested in the subject to find relevant articles on WP. A bare article on the subject is therefore not enough, it needs a category to support it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While I can see the clear good intentions behind this category, I feel social class is likely to be an unworkable non-starter as a means of categorising people. Categorising someone into a particular class is arguably more contentious than categorising them by gender, ethnicity or even sexuality, particularly since some people arguably change class through their lives. It's also questionable whether it's usually a defining characteristic. In this instance, I'm not familiar enough with poetry to say that this is a wholly unreasonable categorisation; perhaps 'labouring-class poets' are a recognised group which have been the subject of significant study. But if that's the case, it would probably be best to write the article first. If a good article on labouring-class poets can't be written, it certainly can't work as a category. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 31 October 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:Plays by Daphne de Maurier[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 per C2A, common sense, and the fact that I've never moved a category before now and have been itching to try it out. BencherliteTalk 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Her name is du Maurier, not de Maurier. Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:50, 22 September 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:Golden Wreath laureates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person like W. H. Auden (and categories like Category:English poets are much more appropriate). As the list at Struga_Poetry_Evenings#Golden_Wreath_laureates shows, the recipients of this award range from people who don't currently have a wp article to people who have won many awards (e.g. see Seamus_Heaney#Major_prizes_and_honours) so the list works much better than the category (the list can be complete and it avoids category clutter). Note: There is also a template at Template:Struga Poetry Evenings Golden Wreath Laureates. See also WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another classic case of WP:OC#AWARD. Lists place the winners in order, which is much more useful, and can provide details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation by award. BencherliteTalk 10:24, 2 October 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:Ethel Reed[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only one entry. ...William 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:EPONCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category only contains an image, which is flagged for transfer to Commons anyway. BencherliteTalk 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move picture and delete I don't remember it but it should not be on WP. The same cat on commons already has 3 pics. I probably created the cat on WP by mistake. I forget how to move pics to commons. So, move pic, then delete useless cat.Branigan 23:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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:Winter & Winter albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale: per WP:RECORD LABELS naming conventions all items have been moved to Category:Winter & Winter Records albums and subcategories. DISEman (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as stated. SFB 22:09, 28 September 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:Textile properties[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:C1. There is only 1 article in this category and it's about a property of paper, not fabric. Even if that article could be expanded, the category would still be small with little room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Textile Arts. – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete It's unclear how this would be further populated so upmerging to the parent seems a better choice than a stand-alone article . SFB 22:11, 28 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_22&oldid=1079915010"