Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Radiant! (talk | contribs)
36,918 edits
Line 168: Line 168:


==== Category:Women screenwriters ====
==== Category:Women screenwriters ====
*'''NOTE''': closing admin should also look at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Women_screenwriters|this CFD]] on the same subject (started April 10th, closed the 12th and reopened here, but not everybody who commented there has also commented here). [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{lc|Women screenwriters}}<br/>
:{{lc|Women screenwriters}}<br/>
{{{3|'''Delete''' This category was previously nominated, but that discussion was closed prematurely because the nominator happened to change his mind, despite widespread support for deletion. It is absurd to give the nominator absolute control over a discussion in that way. What if a thousand people had urged deletion? Or ten thousand? Or ten million? Would the nominator outweigh them all? This category is an irrelevant intersection, and what is more it is demeaning to women, whose work should be judged on the same basis as men's work. [[User:Honbicot|Honbicot]] 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}}}
{{{3|'''Delete''' This category was previously nominated, but that discussion was closed prematurely because the nominator happened to change his mind, despite widespread support for deletion. It is absurd to give the nominator absolute control over a discussion in that way. What if a thousand people had urged deletion? Or ten thousand? Or ten million? Would the nominator outweigh them all? This category is an irrelevant intersection, and what is more it is demeaning to women, whose work should be judged on the same basis as men's work. [[User:Honbicot|Honbicot]] 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}}}
Line 201: Line 202:
*'''Keep''', as long as Category:Screenwrites remains fully populated. [[User:Hoverfish|Hoverfish]] <small>[[User talk:Hoverfish|Talk]]</small> 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as long as Category:Screenwrites remains fully populated. [[User:Hoverfish|Hoverfish]] <small>[[User talk:Hoverfish|Talk]]</small> 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' [[:Category:Women writers]] should not be subdivided. When having one such category is so controversial, having many is inexcusable. [[User:Oliver Han|Oliver Han]] 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' [[:Category:Women writers]] should not be subdivided. When having one such category is so controversial, having many is inexcusable. [[User:Oliver Han|Oliver Han]] 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', splitting cats by gender is not generally helpful, and WP:NCCAT tells us otherwise. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


==== Category:Bondarchuk ====
==== Category:Bondarchuk ====

Revision as of 15:15, 16 April 2007

< April 11 April 13 >

April 12

Category:Astronomical units of length

Propose renaming Category:Astronomical units of length to Category:Astronomical units
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, A slight broadening of this category would allow the inclusion of relevant topics such as Angular diameter, Solar mass, Solar luminosity and so forth. RJH (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Units of astronomical measurement"? — coelacan — 07:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish businesspeople

Category:Jewish businesspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, see also December 6th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Medieval Jewish merchants would be defining category. Pavel Vozenilek 00:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No head article could be written. Being Jewish has not affected most of these people's career in business. nadav 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment נדב, עצם העובדה שאדם נולד יהודי והפך לאיש עסקים בעל שם , מספיקה כדי להוסיף אותו לקטגוריה.זה מציג את תרומת העם היהודי לתחום הכלכלי בלי שום קשר לתרבות עצמה, מה גם שכל אדם משויך בנוסף לקטגוריות אחרות. מחמם את הלב לראות יהודים שבזים ליהדות.--Gilisa 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • אני בז ליהדות?! אין בזה שמץ של אמת! אדרבא אני יהודי גאה מאוד. אבל אין לזה שום קשר לעריכת אינצקלופדיה. זה לא הג'וב שלנו להוכיח לעולם שיש הרבה יהודים מוצלחים. זה כולם יודעים. אלא תפקידנו לחבר ערכים (או קטגוריות) על נושאים שנדונו בספרות. תראה לי ספר על המושג "אנשי עסקים יהודים". מה זה הנושא הזה בכלל? האם אפשר לכתוב מאמר על הנושא כך שיהיה יותר מלקט ביוגרפיות? זהו הכלל שקבעו לקיום קטגוריה (WP:CATGRS).
  • Delete, yet more overcategorization. There is no "Jewish way to do business". — coelacan — 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 03:14Z
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 09:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a container category for other sub-cats, but otherwise depopulate. It currently includes Israeli businesspeople and the Rothschilds, and it would be useful to retain it as a container for categories on the Jewish businesspeople of pre-19th century Europe, who devoted their talents to banking and trading because they were debarred from many professions and forbidden from holding land. One by-product of the history of anti-semitism was a flowering of Jewish business, and while that it is not a significant factor in contemporary business, it was very important in the medieval and early modern history of Europe and the mediterranean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it must be renamed. Otherwise, no one will bother to change the status quo. nadav 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view is that either we categorize businesspeople by religion / ethnicity, or we don't. If this stays, then soon we'll have Muslim businesspeople, Hindu businesspeople, Lutheran businesspeople, Methodist businesspeople, Baptist businesspeople, Catholic businesspeople, Tamil businesspeople, Italian-American businesspeople, African American businesspeople etc. We have to treat all religions and ethnicities the same. -- Prove It (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ProveIt, isn't it best to start by trying to apply the test set in an existing guideline, WP:CATGRS, and ask whether a meaningful head article can be written? In this case, I think it clearly can be. I would like to see us accepting a further significance test for inclusion in intersection categories such as this: whether the intersection is significant to the article concerned, in this case whether Jewishness had a particular significance to their business careers, and I think that the lack of a guideline on that point is hindering our discussions here. We really need to make a wider decision on whether we can have intersection categories with restricted membership, or whether an intersection category is all-or-nothing issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- I knew that this would be nominated for deletion eventually (and it will soon be deleted), but I'll still offer my argument as to why this category is fully valid, relevant, and informative. This should be kept because it is a subcategory of Category:Jews by occupation, so if you aren't prepared to delete all of those categories this one shouldn't be deleted either. No use arguing, though...what has happened at the List of Jewish American businesspeople list/article and former category, it's going to happen here. And by the way: I'd urge anyone concerned about these sorts of mass-deletions in regards to certain topics to join the following Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. --Wassermann 08:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other categories that easily and obviously qualify for deletion under the criteria given (non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference), so I'll go ahead and nominate them. --Wassermann 09:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ALLORNOTHING. utcursch | talk 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your criteria for keeping categories is essentially "everyone else is doing it!". We know what the response to this excuse is. The real criterion is whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources" (WP:CATGRS). I don't think this one has, unless you can point me to a large body of literature about the subject. As for other "Jews by occupation" categories, many should be deleted, but others fit the bill. I voted for keeping Category:Jewish scientists. nadav 13:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources" -- "I don't think this one has, unless you can point me to a large body of literature about the subject." -- Please see the list that I compiled below. --Wassermann 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being Christian has significantly affected the lives of many businessowners as well. Can you please actually explain why you're saying this, instead of just asserting it? — coelacan — 05:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no problem with "Christian businesspeople" category (nor with "Muslim businesspeople" for that matter). I can go over specifics in case of each person I mentioned, but WP articles do a better job. Clearly there are many holocaust survivors, business people active in Jewish causes, etc. and some of their Jewish activities, experiences or beliefs affected their business practices. To quote the WP Jacob Schiff article on his $200 million loan to fund Japan in the Russo-Japanese War: "It is quite likely Schiff also saw this loan as a means of taking revenge, on behalf of the Jewish people, for the anti-Semitic actions of the Tsarist regime, specifically the then-recent pogroms in Kishinev." Are you sure you need more details? Mhym 17:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Overcategorization doesn't necessarily have to do with the number of entries. We could have a Category:Nouns and it would contain a lot of entries. That doesn't mean it would be helpful. What is the Jewish way to do business? Why is this a significant form of categorization? — coelacan — 05:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you keep saying things like "What is the Jewish way to do business?" it only proves that you have an agenda and are lobbying very hard for the deletion of this category because NO ONE IS CLAIMING THIS BUT YOU. This category simply seeks to group Jewish businesspeople, as it is a subcategory of the main Category:Jews by occupation (being a businessperson is an occupation, you know). Again, singling this one out for deletion implies massive POV/censorship when none of the others categories, lists, or articles are being targeted for deletion like this one is. --Wassermann 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those lists weren't really deleted...they were 'merged,' i.e. lost in the sea of larger categories. It is important to note that this mass-merging took place after a VERY minimal amount of discussion and ZERO voting; please see [4]. --Wassermann 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that there's a Jewish way to be a businessperson, or a business-like way to be a Jew. We do not categorize all intersections, only the meaningful ones. This, is not. — coelacan — 05:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is saying that "there's a Jewish way to be a businessperson," or that there is "business-like way to be a Jew" -- these are statements that you keep coming up with to try and justify this very unjust category deletion. --Wassermann 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing...the others will never be deleted, nor will they ever be nominated for deletion. This is nothing more than a singling out of a category for deletion that some find 'inappropriate' when hundreds of not thousands of similar categories exist and will continue to exist. Also, cthe catrgory contains more than enough names that prove its notability. --Wassermann 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be great if you would actually make a case as to why this category should be deleted when so many other very similar categories/articles/lists will of course remain and will NEVER be deleted. --Wassermann 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10#Category:Jewish Economists. --woggly 06:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You all depend on Google WAY too much (I've said many times here on Wikipedia that EVERYTHING is not on the internet...yet). The following are a few books that directly discuss specific Jewish businesspeople/families and the role of Jews in business (and this is only a SMALL sample). I hope that this list will dispel the myth that this is not a notable or researched topic.
  • A. Godley. Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship in New York and London, 1880-1914: Enterprise and Culture. Palgrave MacMillan, 2001. ISBN 0333960459.
  • W. E. Mosse. The German-Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935: A Socio-Cultural Profile. Oxford Univ. Press, 2003. ISBN 0198229909.
  • M. Kaplan, Jewish Roots in the South African Economy. C. Struik, 1986. ISBN 0869773208.
  • M. Tamari. In the Marketplace: Jewish Business. Feldheim Pub., 1992. ISBN 0944070280.
  • L. A. Harris. Merchant Princes: An Intimate History of Jewish Families Who Built Great Department Stores. Kodansha Amer. Inc., 1994. ISBN 1568360444.
  • R. A. Rockaway. Words of the Uprooted: Jewish Immigrants in Early Twentieth-Century America. Cornell Univ. Press, 1998. ISBN 0801485509.
  • Y. Slezkine. The Jewish Century. Princeton Univ. Press, 2006. ISBN 0691127603.
  • H. James. The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi Economic War Against the Jews: The Expropriation of Jewish-Owned Property. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001. ISBN 0521803292.
  • N. Baldwin. Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate. PublicAffairs, 2002. ISBN 1586481630.
  • E. Ashkenazi. The Business of Jews in Louisiana: 1840-1875. Univ. of Alabama Press, 2003. ISBN 0817312757.
  • D. Landes. Dynasties: Fortunes and Misfortunes of the World's Great Family Businesses. Viking, 2006. ISBN 0670033383.
  • N. Ferguson. The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848. Penguin, 1999. ISBN 0140240845.
  • N. Ferguson. The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker: 1849-1999. Penguin, 2000. ISBN 0140286624.
  • R. Chernow. The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family. Vintage, 1994. ISBN 0679743596.
  • N. Gabler. An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Anchor, 1989. ISBN 0385265573.
  • C. O. Gráda. Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce: A Socioeconomic History. Princeton Univ. Press, 2006. ISBN 0691127190.
  • A. Chua. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. Anchor, 2004. ISBN 0385721862.
  • A. Leon. The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation. Pathfinder Press, 1971. ISBN 0873481348.
  • B. Arbel. Trading Nations: Jews and Venetians in the Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean. Brill Academic Pub., 1995. ISBN 9004100571.
  • A. Barkai. From Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of German Jews, 1933-1943. Brandeis Univ. Press, 1990. ISBN 1584652233.
  • B. E. Supple. "A Business Elite: German-Jewish Financiers in Nineteenth-Century New York." In The Business History Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 1957), pp. 143-178 [5]
  • Comment -- again, one could say the same thing about virtually ALL of the categories found in Category:Jews by occupation, or for nearly all of the lists/articles related to Lists of Jews, and no one is attempting to delete any of those lists/categories. You all voting for deletion continue to demonstrate hypocrisy and POV on a horrendous scale when it comes to some of these Jewish lists/categories and I just don't understand it. --Wassermann 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? [which is an actual POLICY and not a mere guideline] That being said, the true problem is that extremely hypocritical attitudes are taken towards certain lists while others are somehow immune from these policies...take the List of Jewish American businesspeople as an example. Even though 90% or more of the Lists of Jews and Lists of Jewish Americans aren't sourced, Jayjg won't allow the aforementioned list to grow because of a lack of sources, even though, like I said, nearly ALL of the other Jewish lists are clearly lacking sources (just look how many unsourced names are to be found in the List of Jews in sports list or the List of Ashkenazi Jews list; this is only two examples, the list goes on and on). Now, even though these lists lack sources (as stated, like the List of Jewish American businesspeople list) they aren't targeted for mass-deletion; this only demonstrates that, for whatever reason, extremely censorious/hypocritical/POV attitudes are taken toward certain article/lists/categories, so if this category was to be made in to a list rather than a category we would no doubt see these hypocritical attitudes applied to this hypothetical List of Jewish businesspeople as well. In short, 'Wikipedia policy' is applied to certain lists/articles while others are, like I said, somehow immune from policy. So, I suggest that you all end this POV streak of singling out certain articles/categories and begin to apply 'the rules' to ALL of the list/categories, because you all are beginning to look quite ridiculous. This selective, pick-and-choose enforcing of 'Wikipedia policy' only demonstrates that there is a large amount of unfairness and injustice happening here on Wikipedia, and that certain editors/sysops are no longer able maintain NPOV. --Wassermann 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- even though there is obviously no consensus, this category will most likely be deleted and I'll tell you all how it will be done. The day that this deletion review is to be closed/finalized (or only a few hours before), a group of POV editors/sysops that want this category deleted will swarm in here, and they will all vote to delete this category, thus pushing it over the edge and allowing its deletion to continue. I've seen this happen before, so don't be surprised if this very underhanded 'strategy' happens here as well. Also, if this category isn't deleted this time around, it will continue to be nominated for deletion over and over again until it is finally deleted for good (see the former category Category:Jewish-American businesspeople). --Wassermann 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. IZAK 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- that censorious screed was written/posted in January 2006, yet no action whatsoever was taken regarding the matter at that time; indeed, it was entirely rejected: "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." So has any action been taken to date, despite the passing of well over a year? Nope. So why are you so eager to apply the tenants of that 'manifesto' to this category whilst ignoring all of the other Jewish categories/lists/articles? --Wassermann 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Discussion of the connection between ethnicity and business is notable, but tagging every person who can be identified as belonging in both categories is either triviation or a sly way to encode racial allegations into Wikipedia's structure. It's a safe bet that ethnicity is an unimportant side remark on 95% of those listed; for instance, as a lifelong Washingtonian I've never seen Abe Pollin's ethnicity referred to in any newsworthy manner (except possibly in reference to Jewish charities, and it's hardly notable that a Jew would support them). The only reference in the article is a trivia point about his college fraternity membership which does nothing more than establish that he was Jewish. The article on Roman Abramovich is about on the same level, complete with an unsourced claim at that. Leonard Abramson mentions no more than the apparent endowment of a "Center for Jewish Life". And lest anyone accuse me of cherry picking, those are simply the first three names listed. Mangoe 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ECO codes

Category:ECO codes to Category:Chess openings
  • Merge, This category is not needed, since most of the pages aren't ECO openings anyway, and all ECO openings are Chess openings anyway. So move anything here there and be done with it. Mister.Manticore 21:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts

Propose renaming Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category does not contain any "Judeo" manuscripts, just Christian manuscripts. It also is no longer the parent cat for Category:Gospel Books, Category:Illuminated psalters, and Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts, so it's purpose is now to hold the otherwise uncategorized left over Christian illuminated manuscripts that didn't fit in those other categories (Gospel Books, Psalters, etc). This was also discussed at Talk:Illuminated manuscript. Andrew c 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note For clarity, nb nom was originally to rename to "Christian illuminated manuscripts (miscellaneous)", and the Jewish manuscripts are now in Category:Jewish illuminated manuscripts - see below. Johnbod 13:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like that idea as well. And I personally would want to see the subcats of Christian illuminated manuscripts put in this category. However, this has been a point of contention on Talk:Illuminated manuscript. Other users feel it is not a good idea to bury important manuscripts such as the Book of Kells in layer after layer of subcategories. The reason I added (miscellaneous) was to let the users know that this was the category for the left-over, uncategorizable Christian IMSSs. If we remove (miscellaneous), then users may go there to try and find famous biblical manuscripts or Gospel books or other articles found in other categories. What do editors here think? Does it make sense to move Category:Gospel Books, Category:Illuminated psalters, Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts and Category:Music illuminated manuscripts (categories that all contain Christian Illuminated manuscripts) as subcats of the newly proposed Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, or should we use some sort of differentiation like (miscellaneous) or something else to separate this category from the existing Christian manuscript categories.-Andrew c 03:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Other Christian illuminated manuscripts - or "Christian illuminated manuscripts - other" The whole reordering of the sub-categories of illuminated MS has been discussed exhaustively at Talk:Illuminated manuscript (and other pages), and with all due respect to Resurgent insurgent, I think he should see the debate there (under several headings), where the particular question of whether to have an umbrella category was discussed at length. There are a number of categories that will need renaming or deleting at the end of this process & I was planning to do them all at once; I am still moving articles around to the new scheme. This category contains many types of manuscripts, like Books of Hours, which are certainly categorizable but don't yet have enough articles for a sub-category of their own. The Category:Hebrew illuminated manuscripts has been migratted to "Jewish IM" to include all Jewish manuscripts. Johnbod 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment everyone, please note that I have changed the nomination from having (miscellaneous) to having "Other" per Johnbod. We must have some sort of modifier, because the purpose of this category was to get all of the extra, uncategorizable Christian manuscripts out of the main parent cat Category:Illuminated manuscripts. If we remove the qualifier (whether it be misc or other), we change the entire scope of the category, and add confusion (see my previous comment). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. I've read the discussion Johnbod and Andrew c refer to, but neither "other" nor "miscellaneous" work as category titles. A category name should not presume the reader is familiar with our category schemes; it should not reference other categories (as "other" does, and to a lesser extent "misc"). There is nothing wrong with using Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts to hold the articles that are not already further subdivided, and the other proposals are unnecessarily convoluted. — coelacan — 07:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this either means using this as an umbrella category, which after lengthy talk page discussion was not the preferred solution, or being misleading, as there already are other categories for Christian Psalters, Gospel books & Bibles, & may be further ones in the future. I'm open to alternative names, but I think the local debate should be respected. Johnbod 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean use it as an umbrella category. I read the discussion, I don't see any good argument not to use it as an umbrella category, and I think the other proposals are self-referential within Wikipedia, which should be avoided when possible. — coelacan — 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against this is that it will put all the most famous named MS like the Book of Kells etc two layers away from the main Illuminated Ms category, which will itself often not be the first category people have looked at. All the other categories will be visible from the main IM category page, except these, which are actually by far the most populated, and contain virtually all the best-known Ms. I don't see how this can do anything but irritate users, many of whom will surely give up hunting through a forest of layers. Johnbod 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, hypothetical situation. We currently have "Jewish illuminated manuscripts" with 4 articles. But say, 5 years down the road, we have a dozen articles on Tanakh manuscripts in Hebrew, and then a dozen articles on Talmud manuscripts, and then a dozen articles on misc. manuscripts in Hebrew (and lets assume, hypothetically, that they are all illuminated). When we create new subcats for these articles, would you suggest that they stay in the main umbrella cat of "Jewish illuminated manuscripts" or be bumped out into the main IM cat to have "Illuminated biblical manuscripts" sit right next to the hypothetical "Illuminated Tanakh manuscripts"? -Andrew c 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very hypothetical situation indeed, as I'm fairly sure no illuminated Talmud has ever existed. The great majority of Jewish illuminated MS are Haggadot, of which we only have one currently. But yes, I would. Far more importantly, at the moment the Jewish Bibles are also in Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts, but this would bring them under Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, which I don't think is acceptable. Nor do I think it desireable to split the Bibles up. The rename option to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts is really a non-starter. People should either vote keep or rename per nom. Johnbod 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women screenwriters

Category:Women screenwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This category was previously nominated, but that discussion was closed prematurely because the nominator happened to change his mind, despite widespread support for deletion. It is absurd to give the nominator absolute control over a discussion in that way. What if a thousand people had urged deletion? Or ten thousand? Or ten million? Would the nominator outweigh them all? This category is an irrelevant intersection, and what is more it is demeaning to women, whose work should be judged on the same basis as men's work. Honbicot 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous debate?Yeago 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Women_screenwriters. -- Prove It (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion reopened Please note that the prior nomination has now been reopened, so there are effectively two nominations of this category at once. A Musing 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not about judging literary work, it's about understanding it. And in order to do that, one needs to know the context in which it was produced. The gender of the author is a significant part of that context. And really, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would prefer that people not attempt to speak on behalf of all women. There are lots of women here, and in all the previous discussions, arguing in favour of these categories. Ignoring them while claiming to be defending women could be seen as just a teensy bit demeaning. — scribblingwoman 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons extensively explained before. I believe the prior discussion was heading for a no-consenus, just like the discussion on Category:Women writers. A Musing 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in the prior debate, it is here [6]. For those who like counting numbers and are interested in whether there was widespread support for deletion, there were seven "deletes" and seven "keeps"; and, of course, one of those deletes was the nominator who came to the recognition, after discussion, that the points he was making, and that the new nominator is now making, were not apropos. The category is far from an irrelevant intersection, is a needed and useful subcategory of Category:Women writers, and has been and continues to be the subject of considerable study. In addition, the category is in keeping with Wikipedia policy on categories based on gender.A Musing 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, seems like this guy had an axe to grind then he's hoping to finish grinding now. I'd like to meet some of the women and children who will be protected by deletion of this category, as the nominator says.Yeago 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Here are my comments from the previous discussion: "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 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... compelling. Yeago 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I was the previous nominator) Yes, there was support for deletion, there was equally strong support for keeping. Wikipedia is all about change. I changed my mind, it is allowed. There is no virtue in being dogmatic. If you look a little closer, just like I didn't, a person in this category isn't precluded from being in Category:Screenwriters or an appropriate Category:Screenwriters by nationality. Like it or not to be middle-aged, white, straight male is the "default" for screenwriters. The works of women, people of other ethnicities and sexual orientation are given particular study because their viewpoint is different from those who present us with the most fayre. Mallanox 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge into Category:Women writers. No screenwriter writes only screenplays. Doczilla 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a big generalisation and easily refuted. The first occupant in the category is Yasmin Ahmad. Look her up on Amazon, you won't find her as she's written no books. She's only written for film and she's only directed what she's written. Mallanox 01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. And besides, many, many writers, probably most, write or have written in more than one genre. Margaret Atwood is a poet, a novelist, a literary critic, a short story writer, and an essayist. She is tagged as all those things and more, and so she should be. Researchers are interested in different things, and our job is to provide access from different vectors. Unless we want to have one huge pile called "writers," which could arguably include anyone who every put together a shopping list as well as Nobel laureates, we need the subcategories. And as I said earlier, some of us have been busy making subcategories to Category:Women writers in direct response to concerns that the category had the potential to be huge. — scribblingwoman 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because of what was said here, here, here, here, here, and here. Oh, and here. — scribblingwoman 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create as List of women screenwriters.Yeago 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if we're going to have Category:Women writers, then this is a perfectly reasonable subcategory. And I'm sure its a topic that's been the subject of academic research. Frankly, just about everything that women do that men do has been studied as something that women do as well as something that people do. But this might have been better off sent to WP:DRV, as I don't think a nominator can simply withdraw and end the debate once an actual debate has started (i.e. if the discussion is not all one-sided). Xtifr tälk 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We should not have Category:Women writers, and "other crap exists" is not a valid argument for retention. Haddiscoe 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as disruptive nomination, otherwise Strong keep per scribblingwoman, with a deep sigh of ennui and deja vu. We have been round and round this subject in endless debates listed above, and it is becoming disruptive to have CFD used to continually revisit the subject.
    It is also depressing to see yet another gendered category nominated without reference to the relevant guideline, WP:CATGRS: nobody else in this CFD has even cited it, and when there is a guideline relating to a particular field WP:POL says "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (emphasis added): I see no attempt here to make a case for why this category should be one of those occasional exceptions to this guideline.
    A quick scan of the relevant categories shows that women screenwriters are much rarer than men, which fits WP:CATGRS, and I hope no one is seriously going to try to argue that it would not be possible to write a substantive head article about women screenwriters (note again, that the test is whether such an article can be written, not whether it has been written).
    Additionally, there has not been a consensus to delete Category:Women writers, and in the most recent CFD one concern repeatedly expressed by those arguing for deletion was that the category would be too big, and would require sub-categorisation; here we have one of those sub-categories. I would be grateful if some of those in favour of deletion would explain why they believe that "women screenwriters" raises different issues wrt to WP:CATGRS than those discussed wrt to Category:Women writers ... because unless there is a reasonable prima facie case for a distinction, then I have to assume that this CFD is (per Haddiscoe) simply an attempt to rerun the discussion on WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so long as Category:Women writers is in place While Category:Women writers has been a disputed category, the fact remains that it is still in place. So long as that parent is in case, it is useful to subdivide it by writer subtype because of its large size. Therefore "Women screenwriters" is a natural choice as part of that subdivision scheme. Of course, if down the road Category:Women writers were ever deleted, then this category would likewise be deleted as well. Dugwiki 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subcategorising makes the POV much worse, because some writers will end up in half a dozen gendered categories, which is really in-your-face bias without any restraint or sense of proportion. Abberley2 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful subcategory for the now established category of "women writers." Are we going to have to go through this debate every time a subcategory is proposed? As one of the above voters pointed out, one of the complaints at the discussion about "women writers" is that it wasn't subcategorized. Well, here people are, trying to subcategorize - let them do so! Nothing in this category violates WP:CATGRS. Awadewit 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of category suggests that Wikipedia is controlled by editors who wish to present a certain worldview, and thereby harms the project. Abberley2 20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, what, the worldview of wanting to provide information? Dkreisst 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that was a bit snide of me. But, which worldview do you object to? The fact that women exist or the fact that screenwriters exist? Dkreisst 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that feminists are using what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia to promote their cause. The problem is that people with very fashionable biases are either unable to see that they are biased, or have a self-righteous conviction that the rules shouldn't apply for them. A Victorian Wikipedia would have had a sanctimonious religious bias, and a 21st century Wikipedia has a left-liberal bias. It is a tragedy that this can't be removed, and that therefore neutrality will never be more than a pipe-dream. Abberley2 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, because I use it for research. Dkreisst 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per all above.--Keefer | Talk 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- valid category. --Wassermann 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as Category:Screenwrites remains fully populated. Hoverfish Talk 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Women writers should not be subdivided. When having one such category is so controversial, having many is inexcusable. Oliver Han 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, splitting cats by gender is not generally helpful, and WP:NCCAT tells us otherwise. >Radiant< 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bondarchuk

Category:Bondarchuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, It appears that User:Number87 moved all the articles to a newly created Category:Bondarchuk family, so either this needs to be deleted or repopulated. After Midnight 0001 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian nationalism

Propose renaming Category:Indian nationalism to Category:Nationalism in India
Nominator's Rationale: The category is meant for various articles regarding regional, religious and ethnic nationalism in India, not necessarily of Indian nationalism itself. These include articles on nationalism that are contrary to Indian nationalism itself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous artist categories

I'm being bold, and suggesting that people can vote on the entire section below at once by discussing it here (all the "deletes", not the "renames"). If there is significant discussion about a specific example, it can be considered separately. Closers should look at this discussion as well as the specific ones. I hope this makes it simpler. As for me, I say Delete all per nom --Samuel Wantman 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to consolidating the nominations. I normally would have done a mass nom but there were merges and renames mixed in as I was going though them. Otto4711 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge subcats upwards; most of these categories have subcats, and it would make sense to keep the handful of articles in the main category and the articles in the subcat together; I think an upmerge accomplishes this best where there is otherwise insufficient material. Before this kind of a mass purge in particular, I'd suggest providing notice to category creators or to some of the relevant arts wikiprojects to get the benefit of input from those who use these categories (and as is civil per the guidelines). A Musing 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the various sensible nominations. The subcategories can all be found in their respective work-by-artist categories. The remaining articles are all best accessed through the artist's article. None of these artists fall into the special case were an eponymous cat is needed because there are too many articles. --rimshotstalk 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all — these are all important artists who deserve further articles to be written about them as well as the existing articles. The existence of these categories gives a good location for them and will help avoid the main articles for the artists from becoming too long. — Jonathan Bowen 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these aren't currently needed (Although I'm in favour of keeping Hogarth), but most have potential for growth so should either be kept or redirected to the existing subcats. Tim! 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Eponymous categories should be limited to multi-part biographical articles about the specific person. Most of these categories contain one biographical article on the artist and one subcategory for the artist's work. A few contain some non-biographic articles (related people or museums), but categorization of these things by person (especially other people) does not work very well. Hence, I recommend deleting these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 07:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Johannes Vermeer
Category:Johannes Vermeer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - last artist for a while, I promise. One article plus one subcat equals no need for the category. Otto4711 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:J. M. W. Turner
Category:J. M. W. Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is catching such hodge-podge articles as a house Turner painted and a church he painted in. No need for the category for navigation. Otto4711 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
Category:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category that lacks the material needed to warrant it. Note that the image is otherwise uncategorized; I'm not up on the image categories so don't know where it should be put. Otto4711 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titian
Category:Titian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete in the absence of the need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rembrandt
Category:Rembrandt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - there is not the volume of material required for an eponymous category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perugino
Category:Perugino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous cat that is not needed for its one article and one subcat. Otto4711 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scott McCloud
Category:Scott McCloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete for a lack of sufficient material to warrant an eponymous category. Unneeded for navigation. Otto4711 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mantegna
Category:Mantegna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one article, one subcat. Not enough material to require an eponymous cat for navigation. Otto4711 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:William Hogarth
Category:William Hogarth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category housing one subcat and three articles, all of which are interlinked. No need for the cat for navigation. Otto4711 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an extensive categorization tree under Category:Paintings by artist and the paintings and prints category is housed there. There's been a move away from categorizing people by their works and vice versa, so presumably the paintings and prints category was created to reflect that and the "...by artist" scheme. None of the three articles remaining in the Hogarth category are orphaned. Each is in several categories in addition to the eponymous one. Otto4711 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like an excellent reason for moving the prints and paintings into the subcategory, but I'm not sure what the reasoning is on removing the Hogarth category. If the idea behind categorization is to group related articles then removing such a grouping doesn't seem a particularly good idea. If there were only ever going to be paintings or prints associated with the artist that would seem a logical step, but for Hogarth at least there are a lot of associated articles (many of them yet to be written and some yet to be added to the category). For example, if I'm interested in Hogarth I'm more likely to want to see Hogarth's House in that category than in the ever so obvious Category:People museums in the United Kingdom. Yomanganitalk 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Thomas Gainsborough
Category:Thomas Gainsborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category without the material to warrant it. Category has a paintings subcat which is in the Paintings by artist tree, the bio article and an article on a river that's in the category because the artist painted it. Otto4711 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gustav Klimt
Category:Gustav Klimt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - empty save for a single subcat which is already categroized as part of the Paintings by artist tree. Otto4711 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Édouard Manet

Merge Category:Édouard Manet to Category:Édouard Manet paintings

Merge - all articles save the bio and all images are for paintings so this is pretty much a duplicate. Otto4711 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marcel Duchamp

Propose renaming Category:Marcel Duchamp to Category:Marcel Duchamp paintings
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the category contains nothing but articles on his paintings except for his bio. Otto4711 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, the nom didn't suggest deleting it. Is saying "Delete per nom" really such an automatic, parrot behavoir around here?Yeago 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albrecht Altdorfer

Propose renaming Category:Albrecht Altdorfer to Category:Albrecht Altdorfer paintings
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - only one entry in the category, for a painting. Rename in line with Category:Paintings by artist category tree. Otto4711 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nomination is for a rename --rimshotstalk 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional works presented as fact

Category:Fictional works presented as fact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Category:Works of fiction presented as fact. Upmerge contents & delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Omen films

Category:Omen films to Category:Omen films
Category:The Omen to Category:Omen films

Bands

Category:Bands with no constant members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bands with only one constant member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both - capturing bands which otherwise have nothing in common based on the coindidence of membership, which is an arbitrary standard for inclusion. The "one member" category was nominated once previously and closed no consensus. Otto4711 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Amen characters

Category:List of Amen characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Amen characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not actually a category, it's a list! No, honestly, it's a list in the category namespace! The only actual member of the category is the show itself. The rest of it is a list carefully crafted to look more-or-less like a category. Someone seems to have been very confused. Xtifr tälk 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showbiz families - H

Category:Henson family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hilton family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hotung family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hussain family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Huston family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - another bunch of family eponymous categories that serve no purpose as navigational hubs. They are all very lightly populated and the articles within are easily interlinked with each other. If desired, an article like Hilton family can be written as such articles do a far better job of illustrating family relationships than categories do. Otto4711 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League (film)

Category:Major League (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - all of the articles are interlinked with each other. The category is not needed for navigation. All of the films are already in the appropriate parent cats anyway. Otto4711 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Lampoon's Vacation

Category:National Lampoon's Vacation to Category:National Lampoon films

Category:American songs by artist

Category:American songs by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Songs by artist, or Keep. This is sort of a strange one. By convention, both Albums by artist and Songs by artist are supposed to be all inclusive, which means that either there should be no subcats, or all members of subcats should also be in Songs by artist itself, violating the grandfather clause ... see also discussion of February 20th. -- Prove It (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pederastic film

Category:Pederastic film to Category:Films with a pedophile theme
  • Merge - seem to me to be redundant. Otto4711 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even though I'm supporting your merge nomination (see below), it's not because these categories are completely redundant. Where they are redundant, they need to be merged, yes. However, pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children ("generally" pre-13 per DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria) whereas pederasts may be interested in pre-pubescent, adolescent, or even slightly older individuals but far younger than themselves. Where the two categories are not redundant, criteria for inclusion are simply too subjective for categorization according to Wikipedia standards. A list that can be properly sourced, however, would be wholly appropriate for reference purposes. Doczilla 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I was disappointed there was no argument for merging put forth, there is nothing to rebut. Merging pederastic topics into pedophilic topics is akin to merging "secondary education" into "primary education" simply because both involve minors. It is logically fallacious on its face. Haiduc 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The word "pedophile" is more inclusive, to the extent to which we can concretely apply these terms. Not all pedophiles are pederasts, but all pederasts that we can objectively and consistently call pederasts are pedophiles. Doczilla 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Absolutely and demonstrably false, as the age of youths in pederastic relationships is above that of children targeted by pedophiles -- up to 13 in this last case, and "between the ages of twelve and seventeen" in the former, according to sexologist Vern L. Bullough. Haiduc 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've missed my point (for which I blame myself for not elaborating). There are other issues here. I didn't say all pederasts are pedophiles. Read that sentence again. Once we move into the range of including those attracted to adolescents, we move into a subjective realm outside what we can, as I said, "objectively and consistently call pederasts" for the purposes of Wikipedia. We need rock solid definitions without room for subjectivity, or we'll violate Wikipedia policy on unnecessary use of potentially libelous or pejorative terms. How old does the person interested in the adolescent have to be in order for us to dub that individual a pederast? When we cannot clearly call the person a pedophile, we move into POV issues when it comes to labeling a film pederastic. A list of films with pederastic content may be appropriate for reference purposes because it can be properly referenced with supporting information. A category cannot be properly sourced. Doczilla 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry but you seem to be grasping at straws. Pedophilia and pederasty are two sets that may intersect but they are not equal nor is one a subset of the other. As for the discussion of negative interpretations, that is the reader's problem, not ours. Describing a personage as homosexual may be ill seen by many but that should not prevent us from being accurate. Nor is this a subjective topic - both sexualities are the subject of study by anthropologists and sexologists, and these are objective disciplines, ostensibly. Haiduc 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fictional characters? Libel? I doubt this is a problem. But if we have problems defining Category:Pederastic film then we have the same kind of problem with Category:Films with a pedophile theme. I'm not saying "other crap exists", but it would seem that by your argument there can be no merger, rather both categories have to be deleted. — coelacan — 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename if it "seems to be redundant" then you need to take up your issue at the articles Pederasty and pedophilia. My guess its already been proposed and rejected, and for consistency's sake these should be distinct as well, or renamed to Category:Films with a pedophilic/pederastic theme Yeago 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, rename to Category:Pederastic films. Vegaswikian 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly listify Pederasty and pedophilia may overlap, but they are not the same thing. Considering anything labeled with "Pederasty" or "Pedophilia" is bound to stimulate debate and/or contentiousness, and also considering that this is not an often recognized genre of film, I think this would be a good candidate for converting into a list. Otherwise, it should be kept. -- Samuel Wantman 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy films by actor

Category:Comedy films by actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Adam Sandler films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cheech and Chong films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marx Brothers films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Laurel & Hardy films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Abbott and Costello films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - per strong consensus against categorizing films by the actors who appear in them. Otto4711 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts good articles

Category:Arts good articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

seems redundant to me. Postcard Cathy 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show biz families

Category:Marx family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mangeshkar family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marx Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mukherjee-Samarth family of Hindi films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - more eponymous family categories which either do a poor job of explaining family relationships amongst people with various surnames, are redundant for navigation to the family articles and the extensive interlinkages of the articles, or both. Otto4711 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Australia

Category:People from Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge / Redirect into Category:Australian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian British people

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian British people to Category:British of Norwegian descent
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All the people in this category are British people of Norwegian descent, none of them are Norwegian as the name would suggest. This renaming would put the category in line with others like Category:British of Chinese descent and Category:British of Canadian descent. Philip Stevens 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian radio presenters

Category:Australian radio presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Australian radio personalities, convention of Category:Radio personalities by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newton family

Category:Newton family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous category for which there is no need because of the small amount of material and the extensive interlinks between the articles. Otto4711 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lupino family

Category:Lupino family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete the three articles are all linked to each other and Lupino family serves as a navigational hub so the category should be deleted. Otto4711 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lowell family

Category:Lowell family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the article Lowell family serves as an appropriate navigational hub and the articles are extensively interlinked, making the category unnecessary. Otto4711 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close moved to WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:29Z

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen to Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other entries in Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. Dweller 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and move to WP:UCFD. Otto4711 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Earle family

Category:Earle family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the article Earle family serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the small amount of material in the category. Otto4711 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former capitals of Armenia

Propose renaming Category:Former capitals of Armenia to Category:Historical_capitals_of_Armenia
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Former" makes no sense. Articles under this cat are merged/sorted here automatically by Template:Historic capitals of Armenia.Renaming of cat will bring standardization.Must.T C 09:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman scientists

Propose renaming Category:Roman scientists to Category:Ancient Roman scientists
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity as per Category:Ancient Romans and most of its other subcategories. AshbyJnr 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and also currently ambiguous with reference to modern citizens of Rome. --Dweller 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Types of corporations

Propose renaming Category:Types of corporations to Category:Types of companies
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Appears to be overlap between the two. Since the parent is Category:Companies decided to suggest merge in this direction. Note, there is a suggestion that the main articles be merged in the opposite direction. Vegaswikian 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Types of public utility

Propose renaming Category:Types of public utility to Category:Public utilities
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Was going to rename for plural, but in looking at this category, it seems to be a list of utilities rather then types of utilities. Vegaswikian 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies with demoscene background

Category:Companies with demoscene background (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

'Companies founded by members of former or active demoscene groups' seems like overclassification. If needed should be a list in the demoscene article. Vegaswikian 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fictional doctors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close, duplicate discussion. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 12:25Z

Category:Non-fictional doctors to Category:Physicians
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting

Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article series; limited use of categorisation other than attract attention to the main article. JFW 

Clarify? I hadn't thought to use it to attract attention to main article (that's what See Also is for, I'm assuming). Purpose was simply to group the various companies, individuals, tribes, and botanical articles related to Biopiracy disputes or bioprospecting. Please point out the higher use of Categorization that I failed to observe/achieve here? Thanks.Yeago 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If particular agents are the subject of biopiracy/bioprospecting disputes then the articles need to state, in prose, what the nature of those disputes may be. To slap a category of this nature on it - with its controversial undertone - undermines the need for WP:NPOV.JFW | T@lk 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Except that I can't help that all articles in this category are not complete. I can guarantee you that prose does exist concerning all of the members of the CfD category--they simply happen to be mentioned in another article. A topical, category structure in part assists contributers fill in these blanks. NPOV disputes which do exist (and not many will, as most unexplained members are plant articles. Not a lot of controversy there) should be dealt with at the article level--tanking the entire category because of a few members is not a valid solutionYeago 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I realize prose is necessary (and if you check My Contributions you'll see that I'm filling in these gaps) all you've done is elaborate on good practice for membership within this category. I didn't get an answer to my request for clarification.Yeago 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category's inclusion criteria are apparently vague and poorly constrained. Grouping "companies, individuals, tribes, and botanical articles" together seems inappropriate. Also, the category appears to be making the allegation that some of these parties have committed "biopiracy", even if the creator did not intend it that way. Dr. Submillimeter 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category contains a) bioprospectors/biopirates b) associated/victim tribes of bioprospectors/biopirates c) organisms bioprospected/biopirated. Would individual categories of a,b,c (if they could be sufficiently filled) be more appropriate? While I understand there are issues with the existing category, the issue of Biopiracy/Bioprospecting has become an important international issue for developing countries. Similarly, Wikipedia should have a better topical structure for articles related to this issue.Yeago 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Subdivision would be appropriate and would make the category more acceptable. Still, the topics seem to be only loosely associated with each other. This categorization is still inappropriate. Moreover, "biopiracy" is an attack word that should be avoided. (This category just seems like it is poorly planned.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you about that. Unfortunately the international debate over the phrase 'Biopiracy' vs 'Bioprospecting' is still in the works and clear, apolitical definitions do not (unanimously) exist so I've got to work with what I've got. If you notice, I recently overhauled the 'Biopiracy' article (rename and merge with 'Bioprospecting') for exactly that reason. Also, before you speak you should educate yourself about the phrase "biopiracy". While it is often an "attack word" the UN, the oxford dictionary, and the Convention on Biological Diversity lay out legal definitions—not attack words in the least.
A side note: everyone who has chimed in has implied an NPOV dispute in the usage of biopiracy. If indeed you want to address an NPOV issue, you need to do it openly by using the proper tags in the proper articles. Making aside comments only convolutes the reason for the proposal.
Also, I can't agree that a) these topics are 'only loosely' associated with each other and that b) being 'loosely associated' voids the possibility of categorization. Take Category:Political corruption, for example. That category contains people, organizations, monetary funds, methods, congressional acts, the list goes on. Yet nobody proposes we nix that category because of the breadth of members. The associations are no more "loose" or different than that of Biopiracy/prospectingYeago 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may be room for subdividing, and making the category description more clear, but as Yeago shows, this is already a well-defined concept. — coelacan — 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per YeagoDr. Submillimeter. The concept(s) being categorized to fit neatly in a category. The prose article of the same title is better able to address the nuance of each person, company, group, or thing now categorized. Moreover, the extremely heterogeneous grouping of things that have "something to do with" the concept is weird. There's nothing this category does that cannot be done better in the main article (including linking to the various articles, in proper context for each). LotLE×talk 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? =)Delete per yeago? I'm a bit confused. I think you're agreeing with my suggestion of neater subcategories?Yeago 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had misread the attribution of the above vote. I'm afraid I don't see enough value of subcategories to warrant them, nor enough members to populate them. The article itself is fine, and categories are not necessary for every possible concept (especially the possibly biasing nature of this particular categorization) LotLE×talk 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I feel the bias is mitigated by lumping -prospect and -piracy together (since interests often dictate which term is used).
As for them not being filled, I only began categorizing last night. Sure, if in a year the category is stagant I'd say axe it. That's still just a mayble.
I do somewhat agree with your above sentiment that categorizing articles that have "something to do" with a concept is weird. But then I stumble upon categories like Category:Jesus....Yeago 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categorization is appropriate "for lists and topics" according to Category FAQ—this is unambiguously an international topic. Nominator misunderstood intention of category as a funnel device to article (which it is not). Also, we don't nix categories simply because they maybe might one day pose NPOV threat (unless someone raises NPOV issue, NPOV disputes are to be handled at the article level).Yeago 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian Science followers

Category:Christian Science followers to Category:Christian Scientists

Category:Carter family

Category:Carter family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - for members of the extended Carter-Cash musical familiy. There already exist articles on the Carter Family and the Johnny Cash family which include family trees. The articles do a great job of illustrating the family relationships amongst people with a variety of surnames, something the category can't do. The articles serve as appropriate navigational hubs for the material so the category should be deleted. Otto4711 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex Symbols

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 06:38Z

Category:Sex Symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as WP:OC#Subjective inclusion criterion. After Midnight 0001 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirects from CamelCase

Propose renaming Category:Redirects from CamelCase to Category:Redirects with old history
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is intended to hold redirects with histories that pre-date the PHP script. However, before MediaWiki, free links were already possible, and it seems pointless to make a separate Category:Redirects from Usemodwiki free links considering that there are much fewer of these than the CamelCase ones. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 01:28Z

Category:Greek and Roman astronomers

Propose renaming Category:Greek and Roman astronomers to Category:Roman astronomers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This grouping seems strange and confusing. It seems to muddle history by suggesting that the Greek and Roman civilizations were interchangable, which is not really true. Note that Category:Greek astronomers does exist and does include ancient Greek astronomers. This category should be renamed just to contain Roman astronomers, and I will sort the Greeks and the Romans accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 00:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12&oldid=123265391"