Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 2

September 2

Category:RiffTrax films

Category:RiffTrax films - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: There is little rationale to have such a Category, my first suspicion was spam but the user who created seems to have done in good faith. Put its still smells of spam as serves to promote rather than categorize Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per previous deletion discussion here. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per TheRealFennShysa. The arguments raised in the previous discussion are still valid. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The arguments raised are still valid but it seems that in the 2007 deletion, there were more people who wanted to keep it then delete it. As far as it being spam, I don't see how it could be, since someone who doesn't know what RiffTrax is is not likely to click on the category -- If anything it promotes the films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDellamorto (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a deliberate re-creation of previously deleted material by an editor who, based on the discussion of Cinema Insomnia films below, was likely aware that this had been previously deleted and ignored the previous consensus. User:DoctorWho42 and User:DixieDellamorto have created several of these categories following the opening of the CI films CFD. I will assume good faith since I am unfamiliar with the editors in question, but suggest that they stop creating such categories while the issue is under discussion as it has the effect of subverting that discussion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising so any promotional effect of the category is irrelevant. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Are You The Cow Of Pain? about the advertising. Also, I will stop creating categories while this issue is under discussion -- Though I do believe the deletion of the RiffTrax category in 2007 was unfair as well as the nomination for deletion of the Elvira's Movie Macabre category which isn't on this page for some reason... DixieDellamorto (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Late Night television talk show hosts

Propose renaming Category:Late Night television talk show hosts to Category:Late night television talk show hosts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fixing capitalization. Trivialist (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy rename Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Prehistoric perissodactyls

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric perissodactyls to Category:Prehistoric odd-toed ungulates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) To match the parent category Category:Odd-toed ungulates and the article about the order, odd-toed ungulate. (2) On the analogy of Category:Prehistoric even-toed ungulates. See discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_28#Category:Prehistoric_artiodactyls - Kontos (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cinema Insomnia films

Category:Cinema Insomnia films - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - this category is capturing films that were used for episodes of the series Cinema Insomnia. The question is whether being used for this series is defining of the films. I tried to think of other similar shows and came up with MST3K, Elvira's Movie Macabre and RiffTrax. We have Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 films (which was moved from Category:MST3K movies in 2007) We do not have Category:Movie Macbre films and the series doesn't have its own article. We deleted Category:RiffTrax movies in 2007, with the argument that the films do not gain notability from being riffed carrying the day. I would say that a similar argument applies here, although these films are much more of a mixed bag. Many of the films overlap with the MST3K films but others do not and no legitimate argument can be raised IMHO that for instance The Seventh Seal gained a speck of notability for being on Cinema Insomnia. There are a lot of these sorts of film spoofing shows dating back to the early horror hosts of the 1950s, so keeping this category sets something of a precedent for creating and keeping categories for the other hosts/series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you follow your logic, then no one should have a list, not even MST3K. "There are a lot of These sort of Film Spoofing shows dating back to the early 1950's", isn't their history just as valid as any other TV program? What is wrong with creating a precedent for keeping categories for the other hosts/series. The argument SHOULD be If MST3K has a category, then Elvira should too, and so should all of the other nationally syndicated Horror Hosts.(Which is a short list considering most modern horror hosts are on public access) Cinema Insomnia is currently nationally syndicated. MST3K hasn't been on TV in over 10 years. Cinema Insomnia however has been on TV for the past 10 years -- A younger Generation is seeing these films for the first time on Cinema Insomnia, not MST3K which isn't on even in reruns. The pages of Wikipedia are not for bragging rights, they're for information. It shouldn't matter how notable the episodes were. However if you need to raise an argument, one indeed can, for example: Super-wheels did gain notability for being on Cinema Insomnia because theirs is the only American DVD release of the film (and may be the only release World Wide). Nightmare in Blood, Frankenstein Vs. The Creature From Blood Cove, and Mark of the Damned were all broadcast premieres -- All Three Gaining notability for being on Cinema Insomnia. Also Mr. Lobo's Version of First Spaceship on Venus on Amazon.com is highest selling version of the film EVER, out selling MST3K's version by hundreds of units. MST3K only made those films more notable to fans of MST3K, not the general public. It's still generally considered a cult phenomena and not considered mainstream even though they have legions of fans. This is VERY opinionated and this is not only offensive to me but the fans and makers of Cinema Insomnia. If this is your argument, then way don't you use your time to make lists for those who you feel deserve a list, not try to delete one of legitimate information. DixieDellamorto (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well first off, this is not a list. This is a category. Lists and categories are two different things. If you read WP:CLN you will see that while both lists and categories are valid navigational tools and often work together, there are instances in which one or another is the superior choice and that lists anc categories are not required to co-exist. List of Cinema Insomnia episodes will still exist with or without this category, and will remain more comprehensive than the category because it will include films for which no article exists.
• Second, I did not say that no film gained in notability from being on CI. What I said was that in reading the previous discussion about the RiffTrax category, the effect that being on either MST3K or RiffTrax was a factor and that analyzing that factor in relation to CI was more complicated because of the diversity of films CI includes. MST3K episodes featured a much higher percentage of films that in the absence of their MST3K episode would probably not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. RiffTrax films, at least the features, all appear to be notable separately from their RiffTrax appearance, I assume because the concept requires that the viewer/listener have ready access to the film being riffed. In looking at the CI episodes, while there are some obscure films that may have attained some notability for being included (although some of those may be notable because of their earlier appearance on MST3K), a much higher percentage of independently notable films is to be found.
• Third, since notability is not temporary, the time lapsed between a film's MST3K appearance and its appearance on CI is not relevant, especially since about a quarter of MST3K's episodes are commercially available on DVD and much of the rest of it is unofficially available ("Keep circulating the tapes"). I disagree with the assessment/dismissal of MST3K as a "cult" phenomenon and note that based on distribution the label "cult phenomenon" applies equally to CI.
• Finally, if you are personally offended in some way by this nomination, I suggest you find a way to work past it. This is not a personal attack on CI, on its fans or on you. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The article category under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article category should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^spout 22:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Point taken, there is a list for Cinema Insomnia episodes as well. I apologize of my mixing of terms, though it is irrelevant to the argument.

You obviously didn't understand my previous comments. I did not intend to imply that CI was more well known then MST3K -- They both fall under the realm of 'Cult Status' and have a strong following that may seem mainstream or more important to those who are a part of it. You are obviously a fan of MST3K, "Keep circulating the tapes" is not exactly a household phrase. As a fan of MST3K, Elvira, Cinematic Titanic and RiffTrax I don't believe it's fair to exclude any one of these shows from having a category since they are legitimate outlets for unusual films. I don't believe that the removal of the RiffTrax category was fair either (especially since it seems as though more people were FOR keeping it then against.), I have read the archived debate regarding the RiffTrax category and the argument is "Who really cares?" Well for starters, thousands of RiffTrax fans care. Furthermore, many of the Wikipedia films have Categories that appeal to a cult or special interest -- Films taking place in a certain location, films featuring certain races of people, Films about Cars, Films about UFOs, and even Films about Dysfunctional families... The same argument can be made of these "Who really cares if there is a dysfunctional family in a film" or "Who really cares about the cars in a film" I Know I don't, but I would never elect those categories to be deleted because it's not up to me to decide how important they are -- it's important to someone and it is true information. Someone cared enough to make the Cinema Insomnia Category -- and it wasn't me. After looking at these other Categories it seems to me that it doesn't matter how notable these films were before or after being on Cinema Insomnia -- what matters is it being of sufficient interest to sustain a category. I don't think it is for you or I to decide what is of sufficient interest to the rest of the people on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place for information, not a popularity contest. If you still feel strongly about removing Cinema Insomnia's Category, the fair thing to do would be to remove the Categories for MST3K, Elvira's Movie Macabre, and Cinematic Titanic as well as any others. By the way, Suggesting I "find a way to work past it" is a snarky way to express yourself and is also offensive. I'm glad that this is not a personal attack but there are still consequence for your actions, which includes potentially offending people who care about this information. It is relevant to speak for myself rather then just speak for others who are not in the argument -- Though I know for a fact that both fans and the makers of Cinema Insomnia are following this argument. DixieDellamorto (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note - somehow this debate was duplicated. I relocated the one unique comment from the duplicate discussion to this one and removed the duplicate. If this is in error please revert. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Neutronium

Category:Neutronium - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unjustifiable category, contains one sub category and one article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Television series with missing episodes

Category:Television series with missing episodes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - it was standard practice during the early days of broadcasting to wipe or dispose of recordings so it doesn't seem particularly defining of a series that it's missing episodes. Also an arbitrary inclusion standard with the requirement that at least two episodes must be missing. A sourced list might be useful as an adjunct to the wiping article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not a defining criterion. Might as well say "Almost every show that existed before the 1970s, game shows in particular." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Television series lacking information

Category:Television series lacking information - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - not seeing the utility or definingness of this category. Subjective inclusion criteria, requires original research to determine whether the series "did not or have been proven to not include full information on the subject or subjects of the series". Pretty much every series could be said not to include "full information" about its subject matter simply through normal editing. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Television series by number of entries

Category:Television series by number of entries - Template:Lc1

Category:Television series with seven entries - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Undeveloped category structure and rightly so. Television series run anywhere from one to hundreds or thousands of episodes and for the vast majority of episode numbers it isn't defining. In fact I'd say that only series canceled after one episode would fall into this classification. There is nothing that connects, say, a wacky sitcom about a talking poodle to a grim police procedural just because they both happened to be canceled after 13 episodes or between a daytime soap opera and a nightly news show that ran for 4,132 episodes each. Since new episodes are added to current series on a regular basis, the categories would literally in some instances require daily maintenance. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball positions

Propose merging Category:Major League Baseball pitchers to Category:Baseball pitchers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Just as their is nothing defining about a baseball player having played in Major League Baseball and are from a certain state, there is nothing defining about a player's position and league. Imagine Category:National Football League punters, Category:Canadian Football League running backs or Category:Arena Football League quarterbacks. See here for the May discussion on league and location of players.TM 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the NFL needs a similar CFD.--TM 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Major League Baseball outfielders, Category:Major League Baseball left fielders, Category:Major League Baseball center fielders, Category:Major League Baseball right fielders, Category:Major League Baseball catchers, Category:Major League Baseball first basemen, Category:Major League Baseball second basemen, Category:Major League Baseball shortstops, Category:Major League Baseball third basemen are also listed here.--TM 00:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep All - No Merge - Seems pretty defining to me. And there's another non-trivial consideration: if these cats were all merged into their parents, the small number of articles about non-MLB players would be completely swamped and effectively un-findable. Cgingold (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• So you are comfortable with sorting every player by every professional league and by every position? Taken to it's logical end, it is categorization run amuck.--TM 14:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're misstating my views. I support cats for Major League Baseball players -- NOT for "every professional league". Perhaps you've forgotten, there are TWO MLB leagues? Cgingold (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• So why only MLB? There are professional leagues all over the world and across the US and Canada.--TM 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, no merge as the intersection between a baseball player reaching the top professional league and the position that baseball player filled is a non-trivial intersection, unlike the referenced May discussion which was about place of birth. - Dravecky (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ramanujan

Propose renaming Category:Ramanujan to Category:Srinivasa Ramanujan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match key article name, and per standards usually used for individuals. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bourbaki

Propose renaming Category:Bourbaki to Category:Nicolas Bourbaki

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match key article name, and per standards usually used for individuals (I realise this is a pseudonymous collective, but think the same rule should apply). Grutness...wha? 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)