Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Oxycut (talk | contribs)
268 edits
Line 205: Line 205:
:*Why would you admit, then, that its even mentioned (not as trivia) that [[Kerry Packer]] went solokidney and Senator [[Frank Church]] went soloball. It's a big thing in a person's life and it can make the front page of the newspaper.[[User:Oxycut|Oxycut]] ([[User talk:Oxycut|talk]]) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:*Why would you admit, then, that its even mentioned (not as trivia) that [[Kerry Packer]] went solokidney and Senator [[Frank Church]] went soloball. It's a big thing in a person's life and it can make the front page of the newspaper.[[User:Oxycut|Oxycut]] ([[User talk:Oxycut|talk]]) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::*There's no such terms as "solokidney" and "soloball". Please see [[WP:NEO]] and [[WP:MADEUP]]. As for those things, there is a difference between ''worthy of mention'' and ''notable for''/''defining''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 03:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::*There's no such terms as "solokidney" and "soloball". Please see [[WP:NEO]] and [[WP:MADEUP]]. As for those things, there is a difference between ''worthy of mention'' and ''notable for''/''defining''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 03:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::[[WP:BLPCAT]] admits things "relevant to [a person's] public life or notability" under a standard of "public self-identification" when it comes to religious adherence and sexuality{{unsigned}}
*'''Delete''' – not a defining characteristic, per Pichpich. [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' – not a defining characteristic, per Pichpich. [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:*Yes I hear what you're saying however we do have [[:Category:Quadruple amputees]] etc, which destroys any logic that the practice here has been [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|per your preference]]. What are your alternative and compromise suggestions in light of that?[[User:Oxycut|Oxycut]] ([[User talk:Oxycut|talk]]) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:*Yes I hear what you're saying however we do have [[:Category:Quadruple amputees]] etc, which destroys any logic that the practice here has been [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|per your preference]]. What are your alternative and compromise suggestions in light of that?[[User:Oxycut|Oxycut]] ([[User talk:Oxycut|talk]]) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:51, 7 September 2012

< September 3 September 5 >

September 4

Category:Terrestrial stations on satellite radio

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT that doesn't aid navigation by being split off from its parent cat, and isn't very likely to be expanded. The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:YouTube to TV

Nominator's rationale: Delete only one member in the category and although it's conceivable that this category could grow, I don't think this would constitute a defining characteristic, especially if the origin is restricted to YouTube and not other web content platforms. If kept, the name has to change. I would propose Category:Television series first broadcast on YouTube. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andy's Summer Playhouse staff/alumni

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is named after a youth theatre in New Hampshire. While I'm sure every participant and every teacher has fond memories of their experience there, it does not constitute a significant part of their career and in fact Andy's Summer Playhouse is only linked in one of the 33 biographies in the category currently. (The exception is Elizabeth Orton Jones but Andy's Summer Playhouse was a significant part of her life and this was noted in many sources) If kept, the category should at least be renamed to avoid the slash, for example Category:People associated with Andy's Summer Playhouse Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jiangxi politicians

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with similar categories (e.g., Category:Politicians from Beijing, Category:Politicians from Shanghai), as well as less ambiguity. --Nlu (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States military sex scandals

Nominator's rationale: Category with only one article that does not fit any of the exceptions at WP:SMALLCAT. Recommend upmerge of the article in question and deletion of the category. (NB category used to be a lot more populated; almost everything in it has been moved to Category:Sexual assault in the United States military, while those remaining articles which were also crimes and not "sex scandals" were moved to Category:United States military scandals or Category:War rape.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Robert Abel

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the corresponding article Robert Abel (animator). It's standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title even if the other Robert Abels have not directed films. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you see the catmore link? Are you still confused then? Lugnuts And the horse 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see the catmore/catmain when the category is at the bottom of a page you're reading. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – it is standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title, as it removes the need to agonise over the likelihood of other Abels ever directing films. Oculi (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Sassocorvaro

Nominator's rationale: Merge Sassocorvaro has less than 3500 inhabitants so the category is likely to remain quite small. The article will be easier to find in the larger category. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable immigrants to Chile

Nominator's rationale: Delete Obviously, the use of the word "notable" in the title is a fatal flaw as it renders the category completely subjective. There's nothing to merge since the articles are already in the appropriate "Foo emigrants to Chile" category. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfC Defcon

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as it's unlikely that this category will ever grow. There's no sense in isolating this template in its own little category. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outdoor sculptures by Tony Smith

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the wider scope. While the sculptures currently in the category are indeed outdoor sculptures, Smith did not exclusively produce public art. If some of his "indoor" sculptures ever get articles, we probably wouldn't want a separate parent category. Moreover, Smith would be the only one with an "outdoor sculptures" category which may make it harder for readers to find the category. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename But I think it should be Category:Artworks by Tony Smith --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be Category:Works by Tony Smith because there's no "Artworks by artist" scheme (and I don't think it's a good idea to start one). Pichpich (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic films

Nominator's rationale: I feel that the title could be re-formulated to provide a more explicit description of the common theme (with "Olympic Games" replacing "Olympics" to match the main article). Many of the subcategories under Category:Films by topic use the "about" title structure. Category:Olympic Games in film is another possibility (mirroring the parent category, Category:Olympic games in fiction). SuperMarioMan 15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very witty. The Pentathlon plot does indeed start and finish at two different Olympics, but the plot also covers, Gold medals, East Germany, Neo-Nazis, Terrorism, Alcoholism, Los Angeles, Peace Rallies, Rabbis, Olympic trainers - if the plot synopsis was longer I am sure the film could be categorised as being "about" many many other things. I am convinced that "about" is not the way to go on these sort of categories. Equally, if we allow anything to be added that mentions in passing Olympic Games we might as well just delete the category for all the encyclopedic worth it would have.Category:Olympic Games in film is more definative, but I daresay a better solution can be found. I do like your suggestion of text in the category, but who reads it before the edit war about what should be included? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category definition can at least be invoked to settle an edit war on an article. How about Category:Films set at the Olympic Games, with the same explanation as I suggested above? – Fayenatic London 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I would not oppose Films set at the Olympic Games, how does the nominator feel about that? Does it fit with other film categories? it's "x about y" that I object to, meaningless, open to the widest possible interpretation and undefining in context for categories. Molehills about 20 feet high! --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Having read the above, my first choice would be the slightly clunky Category:Films set at the Olympic Games. It narrows the scope a little bit and to a certain extent, it clarifies it (in the sense that there's a limit to how bad of an edit war people can have about where a film is set). My second choice is Category:Films about the Olympic Games whose scope is quite clear but also much narrower and in a sense less interesting. Third choice is Category:Olympic Games in film which is so broad and vague that the category would be drowned in films that include a scene where someone watching the pentathlon on TV. 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam

Nominator's rationale: Either "no such thing" (what is "an/the anti-islam"?) or needs some noun. A simple adjective or adjectival phrase is a bad name for a category. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Wanting Blue

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete via author's concurrance (G7). The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band with no albums articles, no songs articles and no band member articles. Definitely fails WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:SMALLCAT. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the creator. I created it in error while trying to create a Wikimedia category. I tried to delete it but couldn't (evidently). Fine with me. If more articles eventually emerge it can be recreated at that time. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about films

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information amongst other guidelines. Three members, two are parodies (by Yankovic) and the third references a film as a motif to a breakup. The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels.Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of France to countries in Africa

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy merge C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I should really have nominated these with Category:Ambassadors of France to European countries which was discussed recently and merged to Category:Ambassadors of France. In any case, the rationale for merging is the same: I don't see much benefit in isolating the Ambassadors per continent especially since there are (if my count is correct) less than 50 national subcategories, i.e. categories of the form Category:Ambassadors of France to Fooland. Pichpich (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Sandy, Oregon

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT All have four or less entries ...William 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The policy cited is for categories with no potential for growth; these categories may certainly grow as additional bios are expanded. Additionally, having four or even three members of a category seems robust enough even without growth. --Esprqii (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they probably won't grow. WP:COMMONSENSE - if a town is below a certain size there are not likely to be many bios from it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gary Johnson

Nominator's rationale: Only four articles (one about his political positions could be added as well), but easily navigable through a footer. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Doctor Who companion media

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no explanation of what is meant by "companion media" and there are no other parents of this category. Tim! (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a further consensus at the proper rename target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My opinion at this time is that there is clear consensus to keep this as a subcategory. I made an early suggestion. However I am not stuck with that name. If there is a better name, I will accept the closers choice. I don't see the different opinions on a name as a reason for the closer to not pick one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glee (TV series) music

Nominator's rationale: It is unclear to me that we should have a category that attempts to have all the music from Glee in it. Clearly, an album category is warranted. There's probably a value to a category that contains song lists and original songs like "Get It Right." But I can't see a reason to have "Don't Stop Believin'" in this category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a different case, as a few songs have been originated by the show, charted, and in one case became a Gold record. If the albums are worth categorizing, then the original songs certainly are, and perhaps those few significant other ones (Platinum or Gold records) as well. I agree that the simple act of a cover and Hot 100 charting is not appropriate usage of categories, given that Glee has over 200 at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monorchid people

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category of people who have only one testicle. I don't think that's a worthwhile means of categorizing people. There are certainly BLP concerns here. We already have Category:Testicular cancer survivors, which would cover a lot of the same ground. Zagalejo^^^ 03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis category complements Category:Castrated people, the existence of which also serves as justifying precedent and destroys the suggestion that 'BLP concerns' are incapable of being addressed. It is distinguished from the subject matter of cancer by causes arising from injury and from cryptorchidism.114.73.68.157 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between castration and this. Ask any eunuch. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, which is why it demands its own category of recognition, distinct from Category:Amputees and the one you have mentioned. To get rid of categories sends the wrong message of amputees, monorchids, castrated people, etc being not acknowledged, not counted, and not respected for their relative uniqueness and achievement of notabilityOxycut (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it's not a soapbox, and it's not a place to "acknowledge" or "count" somebody for being unique. Categories are for things that are defining. This is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you would talk about respect, yet describe monorchid people as "soloballers" which hardly sounds respectful. Pichpich (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's that disrespectful? I've ridden on a unicycle and never objected to being identified as a solowheeler. Offhand, informal or evocative terminology isn't an attempt to insult but it can aid identification and means of understanding for the uninitiated, that's all.Oxycut (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he's dead but I would just like to imagine Bruce Lee's reaction when you come up to him and say "wazzup soloballer!". But to get back to the point, if you can't see how "soloballer" is wildly inappropriate, I'm not sure I can continue this conversation. Pichpich (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Lee gets even greater respect because of what he did, he did as a solo. Involvement in combat sports puts one at risk of going from a duo to a solo, and the fact of a person being solo is not just trivia. It's a risk factor which is the enhansed risk of going from a solo to a nil. If you don't acknowledge Bruce's status as solo, it's a diminishment of the full developed character of his personhood and of the fullness of his achievement. That goes for any solo. What it bespeaks us to avoid is duonormativity and solo-erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...welp. That pretty much says it all, I think... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't distort this. It's about having a testicle, and that clearly defines the individual as a male. Where is this criteria of 'defining' pulled from? George W Bush has more than 50 categories and only one is his defining characteristic that he's been US President.Oxycut (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just made an OTHERSTUFF argument about nonexistence of a category, without acknowledging that we indeed have male catgories for dancers, actors, comedians, athletes, etc . We have Category:Tang Dynasty eunuchs. The issue of the testicle is not seen to be irrelevant, but strangely the standards are changed when the count is not as many as two and not as few as zero.Oxycut (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia. WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either.  Frank  |  talk  21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then count him as another head of state along with the martial artist, sportspeole, Senator, Opposition Leader &c that are in the groupOxycut (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing that is required is present here.Oxycut (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typically, this is not a defining characteristic. It should be easy to understand that having only one leg often defines part of your life whereas having only one testicle (or one kidney for that matter) typically does not. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT admits things "relevant to [a person's] public life or notability" under a standard of "public self-identification" when it comes to religious adherence and sexuality— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Take the example of Lance Armstrong. It's not -defining- that he fits within Category:People from Plano, Texas because he's also categorised as being from two other places. Him being in Category:American adoptees also in no way establishes his notability to have an article here. Him being a duo who got to place sixth at the Olympics in 1996 when aged 25 is not even half his story. The larger part is how he became solo and then achieved his greatest victories and then established the Lance Armstrong Foundation which supports other solos. It's not trivia. In many public talks he has owned up to his solo status as a key part of his inspirational tale. Oxycut (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet for some reason, Lance Armstrong's introduces himself as "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a cancer survivor" [1] not "I'm Lance Armstrong and I only have one testicle". (and I'm pretty sure he rarely says "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a soloballer"). Actually if you can find the words "we support solos" or "we support soloballers" anywhere in the publications of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (which by the way is not focused on testicular cancer only), I promise to reconsider. Frankly you're just trolling at this stage. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefacing an interview he gave: "Armstrong underwent two surgeries, one to remove his cancerous testicle and another to remove two cancerous lesions on his brain". Presuming the upholding of medical confidentiality, it should be understand that the man himself is the source of such informationOxycut (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it is not defining. Also, I concur with Pichpich's assessment and will be responding no further here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_4&oldid=511175224"