Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3

Category:American Jewish community activists

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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Jewish community activists to Category:American Jewish community organizers

Nominator's rationale: Seems to fit better in the category tree that way. We have Category:Community organizers, but not Category:Community activists. Also, will allow for more people, such as Saul Alinsky, who are already in the community organizers category to be added to this category. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not all activists are organizers - some act alone, rather than leading groups. Besides, "organizer" conveys mere bureacracy. The secretary of any American synagogue is a community organizer, but they're far from being an activist. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the problem that the category doesn't fit into the category tree as is? And I'm not seeing the argument to you appear to be make about community organizers being more invested in the system...when I think community organizing, I think grassroots, not bureaucracy. Considering that the category has only seven pages and that other American Jewish occupational categories with larger amounts of pages have been deleted, it is untenable as is and needs to be redefined. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with an appropriate new name and I'll support. Renaming it from one bad thing to another bad thing makes no sense. --Dweller (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2011 (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:Football in the Faroe Islands by club

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C per convention of Category:Association football players by club. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football in the Faroe Islands by club to Category:Footballers in the Faroe Islands by club

Nominator's rationale: Seemingly mistitled compared to all other categories in Category:Association football players by club. Severo^TC 11:47, 3 April 2011 (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:Motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle Exhibition

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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is overcategorization. Being featured in one particular exhibition is not sufficiently defining for the motorcycles in question to merit a category. The main article The Art of the Motorcycle and especially List of motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle exhibition are more appropriate for grouping these motorcycles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The purpose of this category is to be used in conjunction with categories to be created for the other major collections in the world, including the List of motorcycles in the Smithsonian Institution, Deutsches Zweirad- und NSU-Museum, National Motor Museum, Beaulieu, Motorcycle Hall of Fame list of classic bikes, the National Motorcycle Museum (Anamosa, IA), and the Barber Motorsports Park museum. The thing that categories do that lists do not is show overlap: we are particularly interested in the motorcycle models that overlap in several of these collections, as verifiable independent, expert evidence that they are recognized as historically important.
The motorcycles most recognized by collection curators are unlike the most popular motorcycling articles, and in fact, if you look at how many redlinks there are on the lists for The Art of the Motorcycle and the National Motor Museum, it's clear that Wikipedia editor interest strays far from what the experts tell us. A key goal in all this is to draw attention to, and correct, Wikipedia's systemic bias in choosing which bikes to make articles about.
But we also need the list pages because there are so many redlinks, and without the lists you couldn't see the entire collection catalog, and we need the categories to clearly see the overlap between collections at the bottom of the article's page. (It's unfortunate that we can't easily see how many redlinks there are which overlap collections, but that's a technical limitation). Also note that Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates states that redundant lists and categories are synergistic, and not in conflict, and that "...arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
Please read the article The Art of the Motorcycle for extensive detail on how influential this series of exhibitions was in the motorcycling world, and why membership in the catalog is evidence of the motorcycle's historical importance. --Dbratland (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Dbratland (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is analogous to 'performers by performance'. It is not a defining characteristic of the Brough Superior SS100 - if it were it would be somewhere in the article. (Dbratland above does make several pertinent points, similar to points made by BHG in the UK MPs cfd: a category contains accurate articles, whereas a list may contain blue-links which take us to the wrong article, and red-links may just need a little attention to become blue. This seems to be an administrative category in which case hiding it might be an alternative. Another point is that these are not individual motorcycles, but models, and so a particular model might well be simultaneously in dozens of museums. Categories are certainly not intended to draw attention by their profusion to the glory of a particular model.) I don't see any objection whatever to the lists. Occuli (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I had also thought that WP:OC#PERF was a guide for us, here, with the subjects inanimate in this case. I should also point opposers to the category tree Category:Museum collections, which categorizes unique works that uniquely reside (or resided) in a certain museum or gallery. (And so in answer to the unsigned oppose !vote below, I would never nominate Category:Paintings of the Louvre for deletion, for that reason). That's a very different thing than the Guggenheim curating a large show on motorbikes, and selecting certain models for inclusion, and then arguing that all these bikes are forever defined by their inclusion in that show, imo.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Glory" sounds like a pejorative way of saying notability. Note also that Category:Ships preserved in museums contains some mass produced, not unique, items, like HM Coastal Motor Boat 4. The widespread controversy over whether a motorcycle can be an object of artistic recognition was one of the reasons the Art of the Motorcycle was such a notable event. This notability is not only for administrative purposes; it is for the benefit of the general reader who should also be able to see which items were in multiple collections. As a rule, museums collect items that are historically important, and we should be guided by this type of independent, expert decision, rather than our own ideas. --Dbratland (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't want to bludgeon so I'll try to make this my last reply: even if that's what Occuli meant by "glory," categories are not used to indicate notability but rather "essential, "defining" features of article subjects." I continue to believe that's simply not the case with these bike models. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This category violates WP:OC#OVERLAPPING which states "If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances." Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a single category of motorcycles that have been in any collection is that it fails to highlight those that have been in multiple collections, treating those that happened to be chosen once as no different than examples which have been selected again and again. And how, exactly, is this like 1971 National League All-Stars or 1852 religious leaders mentioned in WP:OC#OVERLAPPING? The exhibition was a unique, exclusive event, not a calendar year. --Dbratland (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This was a landmark exhibition in the world of motorcycles. Proposing that this category be deleted is as ridiculous as proposing that Category:Paintings of the Louvre be deleted because it is also covered in List of works in the Louvre and Musée du Louvre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biker Biker (talk • contribs) 07:17, 3 April 2011

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:Boeing Charleston Factory

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category includes five articles. One is its main article. The other four probably shouldn't be in the category. Delete. - Eureka Lott 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This category violates WP:OC#OVERLAPPING which states "If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances." Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above about WP:OC#OVERLAPPING is nonsense; the concept of an overlap can only be applied to two or more categories, and there is no mention of another categ with which this is alleged to overlap. Quoting a guideline without offering any evidence that it is applicable just clutters up discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:OC#OVERLAPPING applies here, but I do agree to delete, per WP:SMALLCAT. I agree with the nominator that the most of the articles in this category don't even belong: Boeing should be a parent article/category; Boeing 787 Dreamliner states that is being assembled in Everett, Washington, not here; Charleston Air Force Base makes no mention of this factory at all; and again North Charleston, South Carolina is, if anything, a parent article/category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SMALL, because most of the 5 articles in this category don't belong here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (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.