Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 12

< November 11	November 13 >

November 12

Create subctegories, move most items to these

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: none, but this needs closing. Discussion should continue at Category talk:Scientific societies#Continuing and further confusion; a proposal. the wub "?!" 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create subctegories, move most items to these.

Nominator's explanations: I do not propose deleting or renaming Category:National academies or Category:Scientific societies, but creating a common subcategory ~~Category:National academy of sciences~~ Category:National academies of sciences, recategorisinging most items which now are in both into only this subcategory; as well as a few other categories. Further explanation at Category talk:Scientific societies#Continuing and further confusion; a proposal.

Since no deletion and renaming would be involved, this notice perhaps isn't strictly necessary; but a factual recategorisation and category reorganisation would be implied; hence this note. JoergenB (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for name misprint supra; category names in general should be in plural, which is what I intended, and wrote in the original suggestion. JoergenB (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the topic to opine on the usefulness of the proposed category, but if created shouldn't it be Category:National academies of science or perhaps Category:National science academies? Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that Category:National academies includes articles that have the word "academy" in the title, along with either the word "national" or the name of a country; a decent percentage of articles are not entirely science-related. In turn, Category:Scientific societies often contains "society", a country or the word national, and the word "science" or a specific science. It's not clear that the two can be meaningfully lumped together. Either Category:National academies of science or Category:National science academies would address most of the articles in Category:Scientific societies, but would end up excluding a number of the articles in Category:National academies -- such as Académie française, the National Academy of Public Administration (United States) or the Academia Brasileira de Letras, among others -- and would also make a bit more questionable those that include "Sciences and Arts" or "Arts and Sciences" in the title. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the problem, but to say "a decent percentage of articles are not entirely science-related" is an understatement! The term academy has never been exclusively for science, rather the reverse, and a good number of eminent national academies still cover the arts as well - Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Norway and so on. These should remain in both categories - ideally a fellow sub-cat should be established for those that exclusively cover the arts & humanities. I agree with Otto on the naming, though Category:National academies of arts and humanities is better than Category:National arts and humanities academies, and then the science one should match the phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, my suggestion includes placing such academies as the Norwegian in two more specific subcategories. I think this in general would make it easier to use the categories for finding what you're looking for.

"Academies" are not well-defined entities; but probably all the IPA national affiliated "academies" are closed organisations, in the sense that you cannot become a member just by declaring your interest and willingness to follow the statutes, and paying a member fee. This is the case with many scientific societies. You'll have to be voted into these academies. JoergenB (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this isn't the place to discuss the creation of subcategories if there's no plan to delete the main category. You'd be better off discussing this on the category's talk page and on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Grutness...wha? 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is "Categories for discussion" not "for deletion" and it is perfectly reasonable to raise such an issue here. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though it is usually taken to refer to deletion or renaming. I would still suggest that the category's talk page and the talk pages of relevant wikiprojects would be far better places to talk about this than here. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to comment Category talk:Scientific societies#Continuing and further confusion; a proposal, my original suggestion; no-one has, possibly due to lack of visibility. JoergenB (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you almost never get comments on a category talk page. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion No one seems to have thought it necessary to make a formal summary (probably since no category deletion or renaming is involved). My interpretation from the contributions is that there is some support and some indifference to my proposal, but (among those who saw this) no opposition. I'll go ahead, thanking for the advices of names for the new categories, and of course stopping and reopening discussion if there indeed appears opposition to the recategorisations. JoergenB (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (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:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven

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: keep. Kbdank71 16:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Beethoven only wrote one opera in his lifetime. He's extremely unlikely to ever write more. A one-entry category is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I understand the nom's point, but when a category is part of a system like Category:Operas by composer, it doesn't matter that it will never include more than the one article. Deleting this category would leave a gap in the category scheme. Postdlf (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf as part of broader scheme. One-article categories are silly only to those who use categories in isolation solely to find similar articles on an isolated topic. For those who use entire swaths of the category tree at one time to find articles, it's not silly at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's part of an overall scheme. However, I suppose, technically, the article (Fidelio) could be placed directly in Category:Operas by composer, which would remove the need for the sub-category. Weak keep, rather than Weak delete simply because this way the composer can be noted along with the work as part of the overall scheme. - jc37 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, but if you went to Category:Operas by composer specifically looking for operas by Beethoven, how in the world would you find it if Fidelio was just sitting there as an article classed in the "B" section? Unless you pretty much knew the name you were looking for, it would be hit and miss, wouldn't it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity was apparently not what happened despite my attempt above : ) - Anyway, yes, that's what I was partially attempting to say when suggesting weak keep, rather than weak delete, above. - jc37 02:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I did think that was perhaps what you meant, but I just had to belabor it, despite what I said above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (upmerge). Sorry, this may be futile, but I've never bought the "keep the one-article category because of a 'larger scheme'" argument. --Kbdank71 20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of an overall scheme, and far from silly. Occuli (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There are dozens of composers/categories in Category:Operas by composer which have only a single opera listed. Anybody who wants to is free to open a CFD to propose deletion of all of those one-article sub-cats. But there is no rationale whatsover for picking out this particular category for selective deletion. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2008 (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:Preacher (comics)

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. Kbdank71 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This only holds two articles about the series. The rest of the articles are the people that worked on it, which are generally not included within these kinds of categories. There is no need for it to exist. TTN (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't categorise creators by a serial work, similar to why we don't categorise performers by performance venue. We typically don't categorise people by their resume. The two articles are already otherwise categorised. - jc37 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a question, was that before or after the nom went on a merge-spree and got rid of the character articles without discussion? (Note: I'm not 100% against the slim down, it's just that in at least one case the merge was reverted and then re-merged by the nom. At that point, proposing the merges would have been the more appropriate route.)
That aside, the character list and the primary article should have been sufficient for navigation, even with the character articles, so the category really was not, and is not needed. - J Greb (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (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:Adaptations of works by Jane Austen

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 - if the nominator wishes to pursue this, I recommend he decide on the format before renominating. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of works by Jane Austen to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Films based on Jane Austen works to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Television programs based on Jane Austen novels to Category:to be determined

Nominator's rationale: Do something. These three categories are illustrative of a problem that's resulted from the development of two parallel categorization structures. One uses the form "Adaptations of..." and the other uses "...based on..." Within those structures there are additional variances, including "Foos based on Boo works", "Foos adapted from Boo's works", "Foos based on moos by Boo" and so on. Multiple categories covering the same author means that either the same articles are getting multiple categories or items are being split, making it harder to locate them. There is also the Category:Works based on media structure. I've been guilty myself of helping to create some of this mess. My preference is that we use "based on" when there is no specific author (e.g. a film based on a comic book, where there may have been dozens of people who wrote issues of the comic) or when the author in question has either a very low literary output or has had very few works adapted from their works (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird (film) would go in Category:Films based on novels rather than Category:Films based on Harper Lee novels) and use "adaptations of" or "adapted from" when the author has a significant number of adapted works (e.g. Carrie (1976 film) would go into Category:Film adaptations of Stephen King novels or Category:Films adapted from Stephen King novels and not Category:Films based on novels). The existing "Works based on..." structure can continue to serve as parents for the single-adaptation categories but should be themselves parented by Category:Adaptations of literature or something similar to tie them together for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So to illustrate, the above categories would be renamed "Adaptations of Jane Austen novels" (if they're all novels which I believe they are, otherwise "Jane Austen works"), "Films adapted from Jane Austen novels" or "Film adaptations of Jane Austen novels" (my preference because it's shorter) and "Television programs adapted from Jane Austen novels" or "Television adaptations of Jane Austen novels" (my preference because it's shorter). The latter two would be parented in the first and the first would be parented in Category:Adaptations of literature. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to bombard my own nomination with comments, but just in case I wasn't clear, I would like this discussion to serve as a possible blueprint for widespread reform of the entire adaptation/based on structure, so please consider this in light of that potential reform. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but "programmes", if I have understood this correctly. I prefer "adaptations" for straight film etc versions. However in this case it should be "programmes", per WP:ENGVAR, as both the sources and most of the adaptations are British. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the alternative "Television adaptations of..." which sidesteps the entire issue of US/UK English? Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or that. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting "program(me)s" has another advantage. You probably don't wish to distinguish singleton programmes from television series with a fixed (limited) number of parts. JoergenB (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought sure this nomination would attract a lot of traffic. Closing admin, may I request a relist since I'd like to try to establish a precedent toward reforming this categorization scheme? Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. BTW, it would have gotten more traffic if your ID started with Jc and the nomination had "fictional" in the title :) --Kbdank71 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: p - jc37 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge all into one category: possibly dramatic Category:presentations of works by Jane Austen. I do not think that there is much distinction between Costume Dramas whether they appear as a film or a TV series. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They belong in different trees, which a merge would mess up: Category:Films based on works by author, and Category:Television programs based on novels are the respective parents. Johnbod (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would seem that much of this "mess" is due to the bold creations of a single editor. (Which have been commonly brought to CfD.) So that we have several different phrasings and formats. "based on" is problematic, as is even the usage of the word "medium" (which could refer to an art medium, or perhaps a type of mass media, among other things). - jc37 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to follow: "Adaptations of works by author". "<Work type> adapted from works by author". "<Work type> adapted from <work type>". ("Work type" is equal to various presentation formats, such as literature, film, television, etc.) This allows for parent and child cat formats. Such as "Films adapted from works of Jane Austen". - jc37 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you have a preference for "Films adapted from works of Jane Austen" rather than the shorter and to my eye less awkward-looking "Films adapted from Jane Austen works"? Also, since I'd like to get a consensus on the broader issues of these sorts of categories, by selecting "works" here are you suggesting that we should adopt "works" across the board or do you see value in separating out the source works by type (novels, short stories, comics, etc.)? Otto4711 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works by author seems more semantically correct to me, but I'll weakly support Author works if that gains consensus.

And if I understand your latter question, both. Parent/child. Though such child categories should only be created per need, not just because some other author has their works presented in 5 different presentation formats. - jc37 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave well enough alone The current meaning is clear enough, and since we have no real consensus about what to change it to, why change at all. DGG (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're trying to figure out what to do about a large structure with multiple naming formats which should have some uniformity to them. This is not just about these three categories. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (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:Sports venues in Dallas

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: rename. Kbdank71 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Dallas to Category:Sports venues in Dallas, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with all of its sister categories under Category:Sports venues in Texas, to match parent categories Category:Sports in Dallas, Texas and Category:Buildings and structures in Dallas, Texas, and per best practices and countless precedents. Dravecky (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dallas is one of more than a dozen cities whose titles have had the state removed. We have one precedent that says use the title of the corresponding article title and another that says that all the similar categories use city AND state. This is not an issue that only revolves around Category:Sports venues in Dallas and should be addressed on a far more general basis for the 15-odd American cities that do not fit into the City, State format. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you found all of these categories is that all of the articles for these cities only use the city, not state. This decision is reflected at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United States after a rather discussion and consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). It would appear that there is no reason that this consensus should be disregarded here, and that the other "rule" we have -- of corresponding to the title of the parent article -- should be observed, rather than an interpretation that both city and state are required in all cases. Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that virtually all of the categories related to Dallas and the other cities mentioned in the naming convention you reference are of the type "Foo in Dallas, Texas" and they have been gradually getting standardized to this form over the last year. The actual Dallas article is itself in the category Category:Dallas, Texas which informs the naming of all the child categories. Furthermore, several of the cities involved (Long Island, Colorado Springs, Louisville, Nashville, Omaha) are not even covered by the convention and indeed four of the five (all but Long Island) are merely redirects to City, State article names Colorado Springs, Colorado, Louisville, Kentucky, Nashville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. - Dravecky (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island is not a city, and the title of the parent article title is Long Island. I agree with you regarding Colorado Springs, Colorado, Louisville, Kentucky, Nashville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. As to discrepancies and variations in category names for places like Boston, Chicago and Dallas -- all which have articles without the state in the title -- there is a broader issue in category names that hoes beyond the parochial concerns regarding Category:Sports venues in Dallas. I would oppose renaming this to Category:Sports venues in Dallas, Texas and I would instead push for standardization to drop the state in such categoried for the cities included in the city-only consensus established at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United States. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nearly 100 "Foo in Dallas, Texas" categories alone plus what I have observed at CfD over the last year or so, consensus as regards categories is going against your position which is based on a convention for article naming. A hat note and a disambiguation page can clear up any confusion when people land on a primary topic article but there is no such simple solution for categories. Keeping Category:Dallas, Texas intact will prevent the articles for the cities in Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin plus Scotland and Victoria and all the articles related to them (not to mention J. R. Ewing and his pals) from winding up in an ambiguous category. - Dravecky (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument. The same argument about other places (and prime time soap operas) named "Dallas" was also considered, and now the article for the city is named Dallas, even though all of those other places (and shows) exist. We have two standards and they are in conflict. The question of how to deal with them is far bigger than this one category and should be addressed on that basis, not in piecemeal fashion by editors noticing a category that seems to be out of place one at a time. Alansohn (talk)

(de-indent) So other than my initial intention to nominate all of the "Sports venues in City" cats for renaming, what exactly is it that you propose? Again, given all of the precedent over the last year, I don't believe that a mass change to 1500 categories to be less specific is in the offing so what is the harm in making these 18 more specific and consistent? If some future consensus develops that all of the categories for Dallas and these other 14 cities should be stripped of their State disambiguation then surely these 18 will add only a few seconds to whatever bot is tasked to make the change but for now I believe this change to be supported by precedent and policy as regards category naming. - Dravecky (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Postdlf (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There is a case for category names being more specific than their corresponding articles (and it is a pity that the 'city, state' format seems to be unravelling for articles just as it is being embraced for categories). Occuli (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So maybe we need to nominate Category:Plymouth? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite possibly, although that's outside the scope of this specific discussion. I'll confess when I first saw Category:Plymouth, I was surprised to find that, unlike Category:Dodge and Category:Jeep, it was not a child cat of Category:Chrysler. - Dravecky (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given Plymouth (disambiguation) I would agree with Vegaswikian. (There are the much-disputed Category:Birmingham, England and Birmingham. I think category names are decided by a less partial process than are article names.) Occuli (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's been a big nasty fight at Plymouth at WP:RM to move it to Plymouth, Devon, because a large number of UK partisans say it is primary usage... considering how ambiguous it is, the category should definitely be renamed. If your make the request, be prepared for that. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Categories should be specific.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (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 convicted of murder by England and Wales

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: Withdrawn as nominator. DH85868993 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People convicted of murder by England and Wales to Category:People convicted of murder by the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by the United Kingdom, Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the United Kingdom and Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom. DH85868993 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 9 articles in this category. Yet in Category:English murderers alone there are 85. Is it really necessary to have both categories, and if so, shouldn't there be more pages in Category:People convicted of murder by England and Wales, and subsequently Category:People convicted of murder by the United Kingdom, (unless the English murderers weren't actually convicted)? Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- English murderers are not necessarily (1) convicted in a court, and even if they are, there is no reason that they must (2) be convicted by a court in the United Kingdom. They refer to completely different things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: England and Wales is a legal unit within the United Kingdom. I think the other categories would be the erroneous ones-- one is convicted by England and Wales under English law, Scotland under Scots law, or Northern Ireland under Northern Ireland law.-choster (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I'm currently working on this. I'm not sure why this was created by the nominator and then immediately proposed for renaming. (It must be some irresistible impulse to create red-linked categories.) I've been working in this area, and was going to create it when it was ready to be created. The whole structure of Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom needs to be broken down by jurisdiction, which is a big job but one that I have begun and will continue. What choster sets out is correct. The "United Kingdom" doesn't typically convict anyone of murder. It's done by (1) England and Wales, (2) Scotland, or (3) Northern Ireland. That said, nom is correct that the proposed category can exist as a holder for the subcategories in order for the scheme to fit into the by-country scheme of prisoners. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much an irresistible impulse to create red-linked categories as a desire to understand (and hopefully resolve) the apparent inconsistency between the single "England and Wales" category and the three related "United Kingdom" categories which existed at the time of nomination. Despite it's name, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion doesn't actually allow you to nominate a category "for discussion" - you have to nominate it either for deletion, merging or renaming. Of the three available options, I felt that creating the category and then nominating it for renaming was the best choice for getting the category listed here, in order to resolve the issue. (Although, having said that, it was the redness of the category that caught my eye - had the category been blue I possibly/probably wouldn't have noticed the inconsistency). However, now that the matter is apparently well under control, I'll withdraw the nomination. DH85868993 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - technically, is it not convicted in and not necessarily by? I know that is nitpicking, but typically, aren't convictions by local authority and not national? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly for the UK one but definitely not for the England and Wales one. Convictions are imposed by the authority of the jurisdiction in question, and sometimes jurisdictions sit outside their geographical borders, as with the Scottish court that convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi in the Netherlands. See also here. I'm more inclined to keep them all the same, even for the UK one, since some (see same example) were convicted by a UK authority but not in the UK. This situation could apply to some of the Nazis convicted by UK courts in occupied Germany, for instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 13 November 2008 (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:Toy manufacturers

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: merge. Kbdank71 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Toy manufacturers to Category:Toy companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Underpopulated category covers much of the same ground as an exsisting one. The distinction between a company and a manufacture is subtle and confusing. Salix (talk): 12:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. They are all actually manufactured by sub-contactors in China etc these days anyway. Johnbod (talk)
Support Toy companies is not perfect (does it include toy stores?), but it is the primary repository for such companies. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Since the toy companies category is overwhelmingly about manufacturers, I think it is easier to do the merge, then separate out the retailers into Category:Toy retailers. -choster (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often the same surely - Foos'r us does lots of own-brand, no? Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine most of those are merely Category:Toy brands; only a handful of manufacturers like LEGO operate their own retail outlets.-choster (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (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:Debut novels

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: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Debut novels

Categorising novels because they were the "debut novel" of the author seems rather overcategorisation to me.

And we already have debut by year cats.

This isn't even "debut by author" (though such a cat would have by definition one member per author). It's the first novel of any author, grouped with the first novels of every other author.

This has the potential to become a rather large, sprawling category.

How does this aid in navigation? - jc37 09:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-defined category that tracks debut novels, a strong defining characteristic. See WP:CAT for further information on how this helps navigation. Alansohn (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In looking over WP:CAT, I'm not seeing where it says that this specific cat helps navigation. I did a search for "debut" and "novel" (and even "author") on the page and came up empty. - jc37 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you couldn't find anything. I, in turn, had no trouble finding "Categories are for defining characteristics" and that "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles" right near the top in WP:CAT. As I have stated above, a debut novel is a strong defining characteristic, one that all of the works included in this category have in common. I have noticed that other participants also find the category grouping articles by a defining characteristic, without a single person mentioning "IWANTIT". Alansohn (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had no trouble finding sections which offer no indication how this specific category "helps navigation".

Is that a specific novel is the debut offering of an author, defining for the novel? Or for the author? And further, your and my opinion on this has no relevance, without scholarly sources which indicate this. And without such supporting evidence, yes, all the other comments essentially equate to IWANTIT. - jc37 03:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that there is nothing in WP:CAT that shows how this specific category -- Category:Debut novels -- "helps navigation". I did look again at WP:CAT and found, much to my shock, that no specific categories are listed. My opinion is that WP:CAT provides general guidelines and we're supposed to figure out if these guidelines apply. I'm still not sure what it is you're looking for or if there is anything that will ever satisfy your request. After all, any source I could possibly provide, no matter how well it meets your request, cannot meet your particular interpretation of WP:RS, under which (if I understand correctly) any reading of such sources is "interpretation" that violates WP:OR. I've stated my case, and you are more than willing to further challenge my interpretation of Wikipedia policy if you are convinced it might have an effect on my decision here. Alansohn (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Besides ignoring both your misunderstanding of WP:RS and your misunderstanding of what you call my "interpretation" of it...) I think the easiest answer to your comments is to note that (merely by looking below) apparently I'm not the only one with such concerns. - jc37 09:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best response to the IHATEIT crowd is that apparently I'm not the only one who believes that this is a strong defining characteristic that is usefully navigated using the category system. This is exactly what the category system was designed to do. Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am sure that I will receive the obligatory rationalizations for why the sources I am providing are unreliable and can be ignored, I will go through the exercise of providing reliable and verifiable sources to show that the debut novel is a defining characteristic, and that it is an appropriate subject for categorization. "Book roundup: Debut novels" at USA Today provides a recap of four "exciting first novels that have caught the eyes of readers and book critics". Going back to 1912, The New York Times found a poor crop of such books in an article titled "LATEST FICTION; First Novels of the Season Are Not Promising". This 2004 article from the Times ("CHRONICLE: FIRST NOVELS; New Kids on the Block") discusses the significance of the debut novel in the lead, noting Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man and John Kennedy Toole's posthumous Confederacy of Dunces as models. Marisha Pessl, best known for her debut novel, Special Topics in Calamity Physics, offered Amazon.com her list of ten debut novels, which included The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens, We the Living by Ayn Rand, Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell and Carrie by Stephen King, just to pick a few (see So you'd like to... See Marisha Pessl's 10 Debut Novels to Read"). Google News / Archive has about 500 articles on the topic of "debut novels" and the same search for the less specific "first novels" turns up over 4,000. The reliable and verifiable sources show that the debut novel is a strong defining characteristic. The reliable and verifiable sources show that this is a meaningful category by which novels should be grouped and compared within that group. Of course, all of these reviewers could just be guilty of IWANTIT. Alansohn (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually read that 1913 NYT article. It is not about the first novels published by the reviewed authors. It is about the first novels published in a particular literary season. Regardless, you have once again made the fundamental error of confusing notability with definingness. Your sources may (or may not) support the notability of the topic "first novels" or "debut novels" to sustain an article but not everything that is notable enough for an article merits its own category and notability is not the standard for categories. This has been explained to you countless times and yet you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Is the concept really that confusing? Otto4711 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. You've got me. In wading through the hundreds of references in The New York Times, I copied the details for a 1913 article, when I had meant "THE LATEST NOVELS; First Novels Promising Much and Less Promising Ones", an article from 1912. For all of your drippingly patronizing nonsense insisting that others don't understand how categories work, it seems that you have a great deal of confusion with the concept. Just to take a walk through one newspaper, I was able to find articles including "Winston Churchill's First Novel Out." from 1900 about yet another novelist who would never make it, "NEW NAMES ON THE DUST JACKETS; A Critic Examines Recent First Novels And Discovers in Them Great Promise" from 1958, "Books of The Times; Three First Novels and One Gone Haywire Cruelty and Insult Hippieland to Harvard" dated 1967, "Books of The Times; Two Promising First Novels" from 1970 in which noted reviewer and critic John Leonard points out that "Both debuts are, of course, flawed, clumsy and sentimental; however, if Mr. Dostoyevsky and Mr. Nabokov keep at it, there may be a future for Russian fiction." as if he these were just written, "Publishing: Taking a Chance on First Novels" from 1978 about the cyclical difficulties in getting quality first novels and "Books of The Times; On First Novels" from 1982. It seems that for more than 100 years, five generations of reviewers have used the concept and shown that it is defining, and have shown that it is a common means of grouping such novels. It could not be any clearer that this is defining, and you may want to address this fact rather than simply waving away the sources that establish it. If you don't mind, may I suggest that your patronizing insistence that you need to repeat your nonsense over and over again accomplishes nothing and shows little skill in argument. I'd suggest quitting this approach. Don't make the same mistake again. I don't want to repeat myself. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to summarize this is per the strong precedents being set here and at other CfDs for determining if a category should be retained. Per WP:CAT (and with thanks to Otto), three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES - Multiple magazine and newspaper articles have been written on the subject, several of which have been linked above. 2) Is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES - The category includes notable first novels written by notable authors 3) Does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES - Given the broad categorization of novels by language, genre, nationality, year, etc, this category fits well into that structure. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Alansohn's suggestion. Abyssal (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear-defined category than can aid in reader understanding of a subject and which can aid in navigation. - Dravecky (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dravecky. Defining and notable. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: category is a member of parent Category:Debuts by medium. Note also prior related CFD, "novels first", and relevant CFDs pertaining to present sibling category Category:Debut albums: "albums by number", "albums by number" redux, "sophomore albums," "final albums." Postdlf (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over debut albums, it looks like it has the same problems. If this was a list, then at least we could see the debut alboms paired with the artist, and other such relevant information. But as a category it's just a grouping of pages. It's only notable or defining when in relation to the creator(s), and without that associative information, it's fairly useless to navigation. Which, interestingly enough, seems to have been the repeated consensus in the CfDs you listed. - jc37 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Except for Postdlf noting that this is part of an existing tree, I don't see anything in the comments above which establish why this should be kept beyond "IWANTIT". I wonder how the closer will weigh such comments... - jc37 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These novels have nothing in common beyond happening to be the first published by an author. This does not constitute a grouping of closely related articles, as there is no real association between them. I suspect that the other "debut" categories should also be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's just take a random walk through Category:Novels: Category:Young adult novels lists novels aimed at a certain age group, even though they may be by different authors, genres, subjects and date of authorship; Category:Sequel novels list books that had a predecessor; all Category:Ghanaian novels, Category:Greek novels and Category:Guatemalan novels are not the same, and have no real association other than the country where they were written; Other than year ranges, the books in Category:16th century novels have nothing in common; Category:Whitbread Award Winners does nothing but list novels that won some award for UK books, even though the books have nothing in common and fall into several different categories, one of which, shockingly, is "Best first novel"; Sure, Category:Graphic novels have pictures in common, but what unites Maus and The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck Companion? WP:CAT describes that "Categories are for defining characteristics" and that "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles", and all of these categories -- and Category:Debut novels -- meet these standards. There is nothing in WP:CAT that demands (or even requests) that all articles in a category must share some trait or characteristic that would establish a "real association between them". CfD has already devolved into a fundamentally arbitrary process. It's time that the game of declaring that a category is "not defining" or have "no real association" or can't be defined or other subtle variations of IHATEIT be ended. There appear to be no objective standards whatsoever that any category can meet to justify retention, and even reliable and verifiable sources are readily waved away; If enough people simply say they don't like it a category will be deleted, regardless of any contrary evidence. This category appears to be no exception. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My view is that sources can only help us determine whether the concept or characteristic that a category is based upon is verifiable and that it applies to the included articles. But whether a category is useful for organizing articles is more akin to the editorial judgment Wikipedians must employ in deciding what information to include in the introduction to an article, for which there are not going to be ready-made answers found in external sources, except as examples of how such information has elsewhere been organized. But setting such premises aside, is your position on this category that it is akin to a genre grouping, or am I taking your comparisons too literally? Postdlf (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There seems to be a rather deep philosophical difference in viewing the purpose of categories. I read WP:CAT which says that "Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies" and that "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." I look at the reliable and verifiable sources out there, a few listed above, and I see many articles clearly focusing on a book's status as a debut novel. I see reliable and verifiable sources using the common status of debut novel as a taxonomy. If one wants to trivialize away a category, and many do, it's easy to say that you just don't see why it's productive to lump these articles together. As I've said above, I see little in common that unites all of the articles in Category:Graphic novels. I've read Maus several times, and made sure that my children have read it, and I can't see what it has in common at all with The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck Companion, other than pictures. To me, that category is about as meaningless as a hypothetical counter-category "Novels without pictures". The reason I will not be proposing Category:Graphic novels for deletion is because the graphic novel is a strong defining characteristic and is used as a means to organize books, even out there in the real world too many ignore. I understand that you and others fail to see why Category:Debut novels is useful, but I frankly don't see any reason that your opinion should be considered as a valid justification for deletion. You can talk about all of the abstractions you see or don't see or demand "real associations" between these books, but those are just arbitrary opinions that do not exist in Wikipedia policy. Again, CfD operates as a game, not as a rules-based interpretation of policy. While my work to introduce the use of reliable and verifiable sourcing to the CfD process has started to pay dividends, it is apparent that there is still much more work to do here. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still on the fence about deletion for this particular category, as I'm not convinced that there isn't a good reason for keeping it, I just wish it were better articulated. It does have the benefit of being very clearly defined. Re: Category:Graphic novels, I understand your point about similar articles, but it's also a question of where you would expect to find an article if you were looking for it—what is the subject of the article? It's a graphic novel...and then you go from there to more precise subcategories. So categories 1) help navigation between related articles by linking those that share a significant characteristic and 2) define the article topic within the article by the placement of the category tag itself, and thereby help navigation for articles by categorizing them by their most defining and fundamental characteristics (just like you'd browse the graphic novel category on WP, or the graphic novel section of a bookstore, to find The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck Companion if you couldn't remember its name). WP:OCAT exists because we can't permit all verifiable categories, because they decrease in usefulness as they increase in number on any given article (or as they further subdivide any given category into arbitrary or trivial subcategories). We agree that it is a defining feature of Novel A that it was the debut of Author X, and of Novel B that it was the debut of Author Y. But I'm still waiting for the explanation of the next step: why it is defining of both Novel A and Novel B that they are the debut of some author? If you were looking for the debut novel of Author X, you'd go to the category for works by Author X; when would you be looking for any debut novel without regard to who its author was? Or why, finding one debut novel, would you want to find any other debut novel by another author? Postdlf (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're falling into the same trap again, the belief that your inability to see what unites the items within a category as having any relevance to whether this is an appropriate category. While this might be vaguely relevant in far more artificial constructs, this is a taxonomy that is widely used by book reviewers in hundreds or thousands of reliable and verifiable sources. I don't see all picture books as being the same or as having any common bond with each other, either. I don't see much of Modern Art as being art, myself, but I cannot deny that it is a category used in the real world. If CfD is to become anything but an IHATEIT game, your response -- certainly in this situation -- needs to be why the sources provided do not demonstrate the debut novel as being defining and appropriate for categorization. Why the fact that a bunch of people just can't get "it" should be relevant to this process is something that I'm still waiting for the explanation of. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I like things clearly spelled out. I'm thick like that. Postdlf (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn's argument is rotten, even with the thick coat of wax on it as a preservative. Clearly there are vast numbers of scholars and researchers who study, say, Greek literature or Guatemalan literature or graphic novels (I had a course on them in college in fact). Clearly there are vast numbers of scholars who study literature by period. While there may not be scholars who study literature on the basis of what awards it has won, it's certainly likely that there are those who study the bestowers of the awards and the awards processes themselves. I strongly doubt that there is a field of organized study of novels based on their happening to be the first an author has published. Otto4711 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Otto for taking a break from his recent profanity-laden abusive personal attack ((see [1] here]), one that was bizarrely not noticed by a single one of the admins who frequent CfD. There is no requirement that a category correspond to a field of study. The issue is if it is defining, which has already been demonstrated, as has the fact that the debut novel is a frequent means by which such works are categorized. I'd love to see any mention in WP:CAT of the "field of organized study" clause. Please tell me that's not the justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I want to thank Alansohn for another shining example of his intellectual dishonesty and his utter failure to address my points. Otto4711 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are only digging a deeper grave with your persistent incivility. I have offered a dozen reliable and verifiable sources showing that the debut novel is a strong defining characteristic and showing that these sources treat the debut novel as a means of grouping books. These have more than addressed whatever your points were, if indeed there were any. I look forward to a response that addresses these sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I finish my grave I'm sure you'll rush to categorize me by the cemetery it's in. And no, you've shown that the concept may be notable enough for an article but once again that's not the standard for categories. Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job digging, but I'm stilling waiting for the Otto article before making any decisions. The problem we have here is that the sources show that the first novel is a strong defining characteristic. The reliable and verifiable sources show that reviewers and authors group articles based on the fact that they are first novels. This couldn't more clearly meet WP:CAT's goals and objectives. You've been repeating over and over (and over) again (and over) that categories are for defining characteristics. Now all you're doing is ignoring the sources and shouting that these sources show something else. Just to keep on playing your game and seeing how deep this particular hole is, what evidence would possibly satisfy you that any categorization scheme is defining? Alansohn (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationales for keeping above are too generic at present for me to understand where they're coming from: I think we need some elaboration on why it's helpful to navigate from one debut novel to another—what do we gain by grouping these together? That a novel is the debut novel by a given author is certainly a fact worth noting in the article's introductory paragraph, hence a defining fact. But I don't understand how it follows that there is some defining "debut novel" characteristic, abstracted from whose debut it is, that would make it productive to lump all of these together. Postdlf (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-defined category and it is of interest to researchers (and remember those are a target audience for Wikipedia) to find debut novels. 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes this does seem to be a defining category to me the fact that there are numerous First-Book awards (Category:First book awards) points to the significance of this category. --Salix (talk): 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if possibly renaming to Category:First novels as ENGVAR neutral - "Debut" is exclusively US English, and might well not be understood by some users. I was rather surprised to see we don't have articles for "First novel" (redirects to Novel) and Difficult second novel - we should. Certainly defining for the works concerned; unfortunately defining for many of their authors too. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your suggested rename is the parent Category:Debuts by medium. I don't know that Category:Firsts by medium would make much sense. Postdlf (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - "debut novel" is not, I'm fairly sure the usual term even in American English, certainly not in American academic discourse, and the correct titling of the individual category should certainly over-ride consistency here. "Debut" is a term from the performing arts. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my research, both terms are used, but I would also support Category:First novels as the title, based on prevalence in media references. The two alternatives are synonymous and the fact that the parent Category:Debuts by medium used "debuts" while this would use "first" is no reason to use a more common title. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very few debut novels are notable. A category for the ones that are is a practical and useful way of finding them. This doesn'thaveto go by the way things are studied academicaly, but by the way people might want to find them for such purposes as browsing or identification. DGG (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of debut novels that are notable is fairly irrelevant. How many of them are notable as first novels? How many are defined by their being first novels as opposed to simply happening to have been the first? Otto4711 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many more sources do you need to establish this? Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of the sources to which you have cited show that reviewers will commonly discuss together first novels that come out in the same release season, but these aren't helpful in establishing scholarly or critical grouping of first novels generally, outside of their contemporaneous release, any more than reviews that discuss together all the new DVD releases for a given week. The "10 debut novels to read" list is not helpful in terms of evaluating the usefulness of this category because there are innumerable such lists based on innumerable different criteria, which are often meant to be interesting based on their juxtaposition of unlikely groupings. Your attempt to analogize to groupings in other contexts, such as "modern art," do not advance your point, as it's easy to show, for example, in any widely read textbook or scholarly work, that "modern art" is the primary label and grouping for a particular period and philosophy of western art (and there are of course corresponding periods of literary history). You have not provided the equivalent (like a citation to a chapter in a book on literature about debut novels generally), BUT...you have cited to some sources showing that some reviewers have discussed first novels generally (though perhaps superficially?), in terms of their treatment by the publishing industry (though this is likely to be less meaningful as the debuts are further separated in time), or in terms of the insight they may give into the subsequent careers of the authors. And that's a helpful starting point in evaluating this category, as it touches on the kind of utility that I was hoping would be discussed here. Postdlf (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clear that the sources show that reviewers and the media in general identify books as first novels, in contrast to the nominators apparent unawareness that no one pays attention to first books. Your attempt to create an analogy to other contexts such as DVD releases is not productive, because all DVD releases are new with almost no subcategorization going on. All sorts of books come out at any given time -- novels, non-fiction, graphic novels, Guatemalan literature, young adult literature, pop-up books, how-to guides, pick-up manuals, etc. -- but only a small fraction of the books published will be debut novels, yet they have been picked out by reliable sources as a taxonomy for books. You are not the only one to demand proof in the form of scholarly study or chapters in a novel, but the problem is that this is an imaginary roadblock that you and other editors have created. If you could point to its existence as a standard in WP:CAT I would be more than happy to fulfill it, but I can assure you that it just does not exist. I understand the ferocity of the IHATEIT crowd. The strategy of bluster has worked for a long time. Otto has correctly diagnosed a problem of "intellectual honesty", but failed to recognize that the problem lies not with those who have shown the nerve to disagree with him. Your acknowledgment that the dozen reliable and verifiable sources provided might have some probative value is a helpful starting point in dealing with this issue. The best destination point is one in which the plain meaning of WP:CAT is observed without the embellishments and nonexistent requirements that have been manufactured as obstacles to categories some people just have no use for. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to take someone's comments as more absolute than they were intended; I never said scholarly study was required (I would have said "you must provide examples of scholarly study" if I meant that), but I instead mentioned it in connection with your comparison of categories you suggested were no less well founded than this one. As I've said before, I think IHATEIT/ILIKEIT is irrelevant as a counter to comments when we're talking about a preferred method of presenting information (I hate/like this as a category) rather than what information we prefer to present (I hate/like debut novels). Interesting point about first novels versus first books, btw, but I'd like to hear more on what that means here. On the accusation above of "intellectual dishonesty," I think we have stubborn people on both sides of these category discussions who get frustrated when people don't agree with them or understand their points, and then just repeat their position instead of advancing it and presume that whomever doesn't already agree is doing so in bad faith. We should all instead 1) try to better explain our positions and conclusions; or 2) try to better understand others by asking questions to clarify what we don't understand; or 3) accept that everyone is not going to agree and doesn't have to. These are supposed to be discussions. Postdlf (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether additional items are required or simply requested, at a minimum a perception is created that this is an obligatory item, not merely icing on the cake. I agree that IHATEIT/ILIKEIT is irrelevant. Those who support a category have the opportunity to provide evidence that the category is justified under Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The problem is that the IHATEIT crowd has little alternative other than to shout even louder than before. I am more than happy to discuss and keep on discussing by providing more ammunition to prove my case. While these are supposed to be discussions, having reasoned arguments backed by reliable and verifiable sources that directly address policies and guidelines called "bullshit ephemera", "typical distortions", "intellectual dishonesty" and that by failing to understand what "has been explained to you countless times" that I "keep making the same mistake over and over again" and can "feel free to continue coming off like an ass", there is something horribly wrong. While I may resort to the more than occasional bit of sarcasm, there is a level of abusive personal attack that has been tolerated here for far too long. I appreciate your efforts to be an honest broker here, but it seems rather odd that you're only having this conversation with the party that is providing sources and making repeated efforts to establish a case, not with the one with a deep-seated, chronic and unaddressed incivility problem. Maybe after that issue is addressed and cleared out, there might be some room for genuine discussion. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above on the tone of this CFD discussion were not specifically directed at you, but I've been responding to you because you've actually started with constructive comments that I've been trying to get you to elaborate to further tie them to your conclusions. I agree that Otto has been incivil with you here and should be reminded not to make personal attacks...I'd be happy to discuss further with all concerned on someone's talk page. Postdlf (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This information belongs into article about an author. Ther'es no value in having a category containing random collection of novels. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite useless, and being generic as it is, not a defining characteristic. A defining characteristic would be "X is a debut novel of Joe Author". But "X is a debut novel"? Per Pavel Vozenilek, this is a random collection of novels, not useful for categorization. --Kbdank71 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I could have directed this at Pavel, but I will direct it at you, especially given that the fact that you are an administrator with decision-making authority to delete this and other categories. Is there any objective standard, perhaps under WP:CAT, under which you have reached the conclusion that this category is "useless"? Have you considered the multiple reliable and verifiable sources that show that reviewers categorize debut novels? Under the Otto standard, this category clearly meets all of the standards for categorization. Are you sure that this is a vote that represents your interpretation of Wikipedia policy or are you just using multiple words to express what could be adequately summarized as IHATEIT? Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you miss this is a random collection of novels, not useful for categorization? From WP:CAT: An article's categories should reflect the significant (useful) classes to which the subject of the article belongs, or topics to which it relates, under which readers are likely to look if they can't remember or don't know the name of what they are trying to look up. If a reader needs to look up a book, and knows the title, they can look it up by that. Ditto if they know the author. If they know neither the title or author, what is the likelihood that they are going to know that it is the debut novel? Also from WP:CAT: If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it? No, it's not. "This category is for the first novel written by an author." That's not even one paragraph, let alone a few. No, this is trivia at best. One thing you either don't realize or continually forget, is that not every fact about an article deserves its own category, and not every fact is a defining characteristic. --Kbdank71 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, it is surprising we don't have an article on First novels, which no doubt have had plenty written about them as a group by the thesis industry - here's one book on the subject. The two classic types are the apprentice work - not very good & maybe never published until long after the writer becomes famous - and the overnight sensation, which the author then has great trouble in following up - Norman Mailer and Martin Amis being classic cases here. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write that article for those types of first novels, that's fine. But this category isn't limited to those two types. This is for the first novel of every author, regardless of how famous the author or how sensational the novel. --Kbdank71 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you can apply but Category X of novels includes "every author, regardless of how famous the author or how sensational the novel" to every category about books. You can make a simple rearrangement of words to apply this to every category in Wikipedia or simply use your "it's a random collection of" X as a rationalization to support this or any other IHATEIT vote. You're failing to respond to or address the fact that the debut novel is used by reviewers and publishers to categorize books, as supported by the reliable and verifiable sources provided. Why delete this category under Wikipedia policy and not every other category? (though perhaps this is the wrong person to ask that question to). Alansohn (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop repeating "IHATEIT"; no one has said to delete this category because they don't like debut novels, which is really what the bad deletion arguments IHATEIT/ILIKEIT refer to: the commenter's like/hate of the subject matter, not its format of presentation. It doesn't help your argument to make such a straw man mischaracterization of what other people have said, which just suggests that you're not reading it.

On the flip side, Alansohn and Johnbod have provided some sources showing discussion of debut novels collectively without regard to a particular author, so the discussion should move to what that shows for this category rather than just repeating that debut novels have no commonality. Postdlf (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2008 (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:Rainbow Crafts toys

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. Kbdank71 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category contains a single item, the company is defunct so its unlikely to expand. Salix (talk): 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends? Only reason I can see to keep would be if the toys are rare and interesting and will be highly collectable and hence attract a range of notabilities, otherwise as per nom! Peet Ern (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as much as I hate deleting things, a category of one item is about as useless as it gets. Abyssal (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2008 (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:UFO-related entities

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 to delete. I took the AfD into consideration when closing this. There is consensus that this needs cleanup, at the least. Rename to Category: Alleged UFO-related entities to match existing list. No prejudice against a new nomination to discuss alternate names. - jc37 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category should go for the same rationale as offered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UFO-related entities. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: to Category:UFO related deleted categories - Delete per nom Peet Ern (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no compelling reasons offered for deletion either there or here. Abyssal (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Poor categorisation. Verbal chat 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category: Alleged UFO-related entities which is a much better description of what they are and matches the article that ought to be kept. Agree that we shouldn't imply they are real, but , to my mind this isn't really a necessary change, as UFO-related implies to me that they arent real, and I am surprised that t he nominator thinks otherwise. DGG (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is fine as it is. It's Unidentified Flying Objects, so saying alleged is redundant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider rename some cleanup is needed but this describes a cohesive grouping by a defining characteristic. UFOS are already unidentified alleged objects, so I don't think that Alleged UFO-related entities is appropriate, but O would consider another title as an alternative. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (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:Ufological figures

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 to delete - Rename to Category:People associated with ufology. - jc37 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Simply not needed and no clear inclusion criteria can be pointed to. All the categories are covered under Ufology and UFO categories. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Peet Ern (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rename. No clear inclusion criteria? The name says it all; people that have been significant in ufology for one reason or another. Deleting this would just throw 6 subcategories into the main category. Totally unnecessary clutter. No good reason has been presented to delete this. Like later members suggested, I agree that Category:People associated with ufology is a better name. Abyssal (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a parent category that productively groups people associated with the UFO phenomenon into six categories grouping about 200 articles. The proposed deletion, if carried through, would leave these six categories completely unconnected to each other or to their parent. This category, as it exists, is exactly what categories are for. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and awful name. Verbal chat 16:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Ufology; the present category is simply an unnecessary intermediate step. I don't see why adding 6 subcategories directly to that category would burst the floodgates (making a grand total of 8 subcategories of Category:Ufology), particularly since "ufological figures" is rather unclear as to what it includes. I don't believe we use "Foo figures" in any other context, do we? A good alternative might be to rename to something like Category:People associated with ufology and also parent under Category:People by association, in the event people decide eight subcategories is really too much for Category:Ufology to contain. Postdlf (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last one sounds reasonable to me. Abyssal (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People associated with ufology. I do think that in a straight upmerge, the categories that are not for people will get a little lost. -choster (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought on seeing the name of this category was, "Wow, J. Allen Hynek action figures..." Hey, don't laugh! -- he made an appearance in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But seriously, this should be Renamed as suggested to Category:People associated with ufology. Cgingold (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per choster to People assocaited with... , which is a much clear description.DGG (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2008 (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:UFO-related vehicles

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: The name is bad. In addition, the related list page was deleted at afd. That said, the arguments of those suggesting "keep/rename" had greater "weight". Since there is no strong consensus as to what the target name should be, and since the associated list was deleted, and since (as noted below) this is intended to be a group of objects (not topics), recategorising as a direct subcat of Category:UFOs, and Rename to Category:Alleged UFOs, to match both the new parent category, and the consensus of the Category:UFO-related entities discussion above. - jc37 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete WTF? What does this even mean? Should Chevy truck be included since many UFOs are seen from them? See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related vehicles. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Peet Ern (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename: the category includes different "types" of UFOs and vehicles closely related to the subject matter (like the mythological vimana). It's a sensible grouping, although I agree with Apologist here that the name is vague and confusing. Needs a rename much more than a deletion. Abyssal (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consider rename This is a perfectly meaningful grouping of articles within the structure of Category:Topics in ufology. Four of the five categories in this structure begin with "UFO-related..." and that works better for some than others. It doesn't work well here. The category includes various descriptions of unidentified flying objects. These include the Black triangle (UFO), the old-tyme Mystery airship, the World War II-era Foo fighter (no, the band didn't make up the title) or the classic Flying saucer, plus several other articles some more closely related, some not. I'm not sure what the title should be, but the fact that there is a category here is unmistakable. I would think that Category:Objects described as UFOs or some variation thereof would be an improvement, but even I wouldn't say it's perfect. The category captures a strong defining characteristic and should be retained while the name for this category is reconsidered. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggested name, but I'm not sure it's perfect, especially since academics generally don't take it seriously it's hard to say that things like flying saucers are "considered" UFOs. A step in the right direction, though. :D Abyssal (talk)

Cars come in sedans, coupes, SUVs, sports cars, station wagons, minivans, etc. While I am also agnostic on visitation by extraterrestrials, let's view this as if our alien visitors have different "models" of craft which are what is grouped here. Alternatively, these craft are perceived by us Earthlings as falling into these "models", whether they actually exist or not. There is something defining grouped here, the question is what do we call it? Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk... your analogy isn't bad, but don't you think it's a bit, shall we say, pedestrian? :) How about automobiles, wheelchairs, buses, motorcycles, tanks, locomotives, etc. Or since we're talking about "things that fly thru the air", how about birds, beach balls, airplanes, meteors, velociraptors, guided missiles, etc.?? Just sayin'... Cgingold (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous list and category Verbal chat 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mere declaration is not an argument. Abyssal (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a ridiculous list and category. Verbal chat 12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, this looks like a classic case of WP:ITANNOYSME. Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaha. No, the categorisation and list are not encyclopaedic. They are ridiculous. The inclusion criteria is a mess, the name is open to several interpretation, and it adds nothing to the project. It is a silly category and fails WP inclusion policies. Other policies you may be interested in are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Verbal chat 12:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Scuse me, but there's not much of a difference between saying "It's ridiculous" and "It annoys me" (which it clearly does). And that WAS all you said. Pointing out the obvious with a link to the relevant essay is hardly a provocation -- it's done all the time. In fact, that's precisely why that section and those links exist. If that really bothered you, I think perhaps you might want to give some thought to adjusting your irritation threshhold. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I agree that the category is not particularly well-named, but that's no reason to delete it. As Alansohn points out, it serves a very useful navigational function by grouping these articles together around a common element. However, the word "vehicle" is not appropriate -- after all, they're not referred to as UFV's, are they? Category:Objects described as UFOs might be okay; or perhaps, Category:Types of objects described as UFOs. Cgingold (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Objects described as UFOs as suggested by alansohn. Unlike him, I am not the least agnostic about their existence. I take a purely SPOV to the subject of their real existence, but there is no doubt that there is literature that objects have been described as such vehicles. We have categories for lots of fanciful groups of imaginary objects, some equally stupid. DGG (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly acceptable category of notable subjects. Any rename can be discussed on the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (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:August births

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 delete as reposting of previously deleted material. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorization by birth month is an essentially meaningless categorization that would involve over a half million articles and add nothing to the understanding and relevance of the articles. This is the poster child of overcategorization. This will include all twelve new categories. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Both months and dates were deleted previously per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 29#Births by month and day, and birth months are even less relevant than birthdates. --Closeapple (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. All have been tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-repost}}. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Useless clutter. Also the redundant Category:October birthdays. —KCinDC (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorize by day and by year 76.66.194.171 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all pre nom. Peet Ern (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (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:Millersville Marauders football players

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 DELETE, according to edit history the category did not exist until the nom below created it with the CFD tag...so its only editor is requesting deletion. Come back to CFD if someone else recreates it. Postdlf (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unneeded category about a non-notable football team. Only one person populating the list. Tavix (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (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.