Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:59, 10 April 2007

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:People from Iran

Merge / Redirect into Category:Iranian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leeds United AFC

Propose renaming Category:Leeds United AFC to Category:Leeds United A.F.C.

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match convention of Leeds United AFC to Leeds United A.F.C. and Leeds City FC to Leeds City F.C.. Kingjamie 13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These below are also nominated for the same reason:

Category:Chairmen of Leeds United AFC to Category:Chairmen of Leeds United A.F.C.
Category:Leeds United AFC managers to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. managers
Category:Leeds City FC managers to Category:Leeds City F.C. managers
Category:Leeds United AFC matches to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. matches
Category:Leeds United AFC players to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. players
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Kingjamie 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:July 1

This category was created "for July 1 events e.g. births" according to the creator's edit summary. That makes it redundant to the July 1 page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 13:30Z

Jurists by religion

Judging by trends Catholic categories are to be limited to when the job is clearly linked to the faith, but why limit to Catholics? As there is a possibility for debate on these two I brought them to categories for discussion. (This is not called "categories for deletion") Whether they deserve to live or not can be decided based on concensus. Now I didn't nominate Category:Muslim jurists because of the existence of Islamic law.--T. Anthony 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Religious beliefs may affect some individual judges' rulings, but not necessarily all judges incorporate religion into their judicial work. Since the intersection of religion with occupation is not always meaningful for every Roman Catholic judge, listing all Roman Catholic judges in a category like this is not meaningful. However, I suspect that someone may then want to create a category for Roman Catholics who are strongly influenced by their beliefs. This runs into subjective inclusion problems. Many articles on people will be included or excluded based on whether individual editors think the judges are "Catholic" enough to be in the category. This could become really ugly if opinions on specific issues (such as abortion, birth control, or evolution) are used to determine whether someone functions as a "Roman Catholic" judge. I therefore conclude that a restricted form of this category would not work, either, and I recommend deletion. (I hope this is enough discussion.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meroka Firearms

Category associated with neologism, author invented in school one day (Meroka Machine Gun). Megapixie 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IBM U2

This is surely overcategorization - one category for a single IBM line of products. There are only two articles in this category, both of which are also in the more appropriate category:IBM software, so it does not make sense for this category to remain. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 12:57Z

Musical families

Delete all - as with many other family categories, these are unnecessary as navigational hubs. The articles within the various categories are all interlinked to the other category members through each other and navtemplates and the volume of material in them is insufficient to warrant them. In some instances there are already articles on the families, which can be located in Category:Musical families which is not up for deletion. Otto4711 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ReeseM 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman emperors to suffer posthumous denigration or damnatio memoriae

Not a defining characteristic, subjective inclusion criterion. >Radiant< 11:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; better to mention in the articles' text instead. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 13:01Z
Delete - Political leaders are condemned posthumously so often that it is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operations

Delete - This is the categorization of unassociated things that can be described as "operations", a form of overcategorization. Articles on military and government operations are not associated with articles on transportation operations. This category sould be deleted. (Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9#Category:Projects.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unrelated topic cluster threat!--Keefer | Talk 10:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Highlander universe

I'm not a Highlander person. (Highlander 2 was about the worst film I've ever seen.) My like or dislike of Highlander has nothing to do with this nomination. I just don't understand this category. If it is serving a purpose, I don't get it. So if it is fulfilling some real need, perhaps someone can explain it to me. Otherwise, let's delete it. Samuel Wantman 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Highlander - The category's purpose is unclear and confusing, especially since many of the articles (articles about characters and chronologies) are already found in other subcategories of Category:Highlander that are easier to understand. I suggest merging the articles into Category:Highlander, since one or two of the articles are currently not listed in any other Category:Highlander subcategory. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional torture victims

Delete excessively broad category with too much room for subjective interpretation of what counts as torture. Too many fictional characters have been tortured at some point for this to be a useful or maintainable category. For instance, you'd have to list almost every single character in any DC or Marvel comic. Furthermore, this will generally not be a defining characteristic. Doczilla 07:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Truly prone to excess.--Keefer | Talk 07:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is being applied to any character who at one time experienced torture, including James Bond and Princess Leia Organa. Torture is clearly featured so often in multiple genres of fiction that being a torture victim is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a place for some "Cat:Fictional Such n such" here, but this is (no pun intended) just stretching it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh to Category:Archbishops of Armagh (Roman Catholic)

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Munich and Freising to Category:Archbishops of Munich and Freising (Roman Catholic)

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of San Francisco to Category:Archbishops of San Francisco (Roman Catholic)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To follow the form used by the other entries in the parent Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese. Vegaswikian 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only one category, Category:Archbishops of Dublin (Roman Catholic), in Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese uses parenthetical disambiguation. For articles in that category, only one uses parenthetical disambiguation, while 5 use the same form as these categories (most categories and articles there don't require or have disambiguation). Mairi 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current form flows better and should be the standard. Haddiscoe 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films featuring things

Delete all - "featuring" is far too vague of an inclusion criterion. Any film with a scene set on or near an airship or nurse would qualify for one or another of these categories. Nurses are such a stock character that the category is for all intents and purposes limitless. Otto4711 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vague, subjective, arbitrary, and pointless trivia per nom. Doczilla 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply because I disagree with the nom's assertion that one scene would qualify.. per definition of feature, which people adding to the cat should be given good faith credit for understanding. Just because something appears in a film does not equate to it being a feature, and I hope arguments for deletion are not premised on this. While nurses are not a feature but do appear in movies such as The Fugitive, for example-- nurses may certainly be considered a feature of a film like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. And as an aside to the nom, (it was probably a lapse), but: I wouldn't classify nurses as "things", either. Also, keep per the parent Category:Films by topic. At some point, these actually do serve a useful purpose for study and cross-analysis, which is what this non-paper encyclopedia, with all of its means of categorization, is for. My two cents of dissent this time.--Keefer | Talk 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Films featuring airships and Category:Films featuring nurses, keep Category:Pornographic films featuring nurses - Categorization of ordinary films by whether they feature specific types of objects or vehicles is not useful, as the films that contain these types of objects may not be related. For example, Kiki's Delivery Service has nothing in common with A View to a Kill aside from the blimp that is featured in both movies. Categorization of general films by whether they contain a character with a specific ordinary occupation (nurses in this case) is also going to bring together many films that are unrelated. Moreover, nurses are so common both in real life and in film that this category is not meaningful; potentially hundreds of films could be added to this category. However, Category:Pornographic films featuring nurses should probably be kept simply because pornography is classified outside of Wikipedia by whether it contains nurses (or other types of people) and because nurses are the central theme of some pornographic material. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as category clutter. Haddiscoe 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. What next, Category:Films featuring pilots? —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 13:07Z

Category:Women screenwriters

Delete, splitting screenwriters by gender is creating a barrier where there is none, screenwriters are not by definition male therefore women should be included in the main category. There is an article Women's writing in English and indeed it is a legitimate area of study. There is no analysis of female screenwriters on wikipedia and indeed a quick look at Amazon reveals only a couple of books on the subject compared to thousands on women in literature in general. Malla nox 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Here's why:

i) Screenwriting is no different from any other category of women's writing i.e. it is worthy of study in its own right.

ii) We just had a looooong discussion on the validity of women writers as a category on Wikipedia, and while the discussion did not achieve consensus, it was extensive and the category exists.

iii) Now that the category has been reestablished a number of interested editors are busy working on it. "Women screenwriters" may be underpopulated but it is part of a larger project that is getting considerable attention.

iv) It is considered an area of study in the outside world, if the following recent publications are any indication:
Marsha McCreadie, Women Screenwriters Today Their Lives and Words (2005)

Marsha McCreadie, The Women Who Write the Movies: From Frances Marion to Nora Ephron (1994)

Lizzie Francke, Script Girls: Women Screenwriters In Hollywood. London: British Film Institute, 1994.
There are also film series, organizations, and conferences devoted to women screenwriters.

vi) If people think that there is an "even playing field" in the film industry, read
Sinclair, A., E. Pollard, and H. Wolfe, "Scoping Study into the Lack of Women Screenwriters in the UK: A Report Presented to the UK Film Council."

De Leon, Adriana F. "Women screenwriters endure a long and less-than-equal history."

I would also suggest having a look at Women's cinema and Feminist film theory. And the whole extensive discussion on the "Women writers" category. — scribbling woman 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a recently created subcategory of the women writers category, and deletion would effectively "strand" writers within the category; in addition, there are interesting intersections among women screenwriters. The question is also not whether an article exists, but whether one could be written, and it is obvious from the above that one could be.A Musing 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per extensive notes by Scribblingwoman. --lquilter 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a way to create the category Women Screenwriters by including articles that are both Category Female and Category Screenwriters? It's definitely important to be able to find Women screenwriters throughout Wikipedia, but I wonder about what is the best methodology. What about American Women Screenwriters, and Scandinavian Women Screenwriters categories, and even a Women Writer-Director category (Sarah Polley), etc?-BillDeanCarter 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, but it has been proposed and some work has been underway to make it a reality. Server load seems to be the main drawback. Until dynamically created category intersections are a reality, we have to avoid creating multiple intersections. Here's why: look at the subcategories of Category:Films. There are many different ways to organize this information. Our categorization system is based on the idea that we will have multiple taxonomies. It is not unusual to find a film placed in 8 or more of those film subcategories. If we were to allow multiple intersections, those 8 categories could grow dramatically in number and the categories would get chopped into tiny pieces. It might be great if you want to find "LGBT French comedies" but terrible if you just want to look at LGBT films, French films, or comedies. Categories can't be all things for all people. The alternative, is to create lists for the intersections. -- Samuel Wantman 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These lists of women by profession usually just are not very meaningful; aside from the fact that the women of a specific profession faced the same general sexual discrimination that virtually all other women have faced, the women probably have little else in common with each other. Articles are the place to explain the discrimination battles that women have faced in various professions, not categories. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV-pushing category clutter. Women-by-occupation categories are sexist and POV-pushing and should be deleted as needlessly controversial and divisive. Haddiscoe 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On a side note, there are many feminist (post-feminist maybe, never cared too much about labels) "factions" who consider that such divisions are detrimental to the "objective" in the long run; that objective being an equal society. It might help in the short run, but we are no longer living in the 30s either. If a series like Sex and the City is easily produced and watched by tens of millions around the world, I think that we have passed that "stage" in the human social evolution and as such we can pass up on such categorization. These days women accede to so many positions that it really is not neccessary, really. Nevertheless, in professions where women are still having difficulties (ex Category:Women Prime Ministers), I might support for the purposes of aiding the uninformed readers have access to what is already a small list. Baristarim 11:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very obviously - indeed openly - not neutral, and becoming ever less relevant. Also, it sets up a by-gender division in Wikipedia that may be preserved by inertia however irrelevant it becomes. ReeseM 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 {{{3|This category was created "for July 1 events e.g. births" according to the creator's edit summary. That makes it redundant to the [[July 1]] page. <span class="user-sig user-Resurgent-insurgent"><i>&mdash;[[User:Resurgent insurgent|Resurgent insurgent]] <small>[[2007-04-10]]&nbsp;13:30[[ISO 8601|Z]]</small></i></span>}}}
-==== More Catholics by occupation ====
+==== Jurists by religion ====
 :{{lc|Roman Catholic jurists}}<br/>
+:{{lc|Hindu jurists}}<br/>
-Judging by trends Catholic categories are to be limited to when the job is clearly linked to the faith. As there is a possibility for debate on this one I brought it to categories for '''discussion.''' (This is not called "categories for deletion") Whether it deserves to live or not can be decided based on concensus.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
+Judging by trends Catholic categories are to be limited to when the job is clearly linked to the faith, but why limit to Catholics? As there is a possibility for debate on these two I brought them to categories for '''discussion.''' (This is not called "categories for deletion") Whether they deserve to live or not can be decided based on concensus. Now I didn't nominate [[:Category:Muslim jurists]] because of the existence of [[Sharia|Islamic law]].--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - Religious beliefs may affect some individual judges' rulings, but not necessarily all judges incorporate religion into their judicial work.  Since the intersection of religion with occupation is not always meaningful for every Roman Catholic judge, listing all Roman Catholic judges in a category like this is not meaningful.  However, I suspect that someone may then want to create a category for Roman Catholics who are strongly influenced by their beliefs.  This runs into subjective inclusion problems.  Many articles on people will be included or excluded based on whether individual editors think the judges are "Catholic" enough to be in the category.  This could become really ugly if opinions on specific issues (such as abortion, birth control, or evolution) are used to determine whether someone functions as a "Roman Catholic" judge.  I therefore conclude that a restricted form of this category would not work, either, and I recommend deletion.  (I hope this is enough discussion.)  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)