Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 4
Appearance
September 4
Category:Terrestrial stations on satellite radio
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT that doesn't aid navigation by being split off from its parent cat, and isn't very likely to be expanded. The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:YouTube to TV
- Propose deleting Category:YouTube to TV - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:YouTube to TV - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete only one member in the category and although it's conceivable that this category could grow, I don't think this would constitute a defining characteristic, especially if the origin is restricted to YouTube and not other web content platforms. If kept, the name has to change. I would propose Category:Television series first broadcast on YouTube. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Andy's Summer Playhouse staff/alumni
- Propose deleting Category:Andy's Summer Playhouse staff/alumni - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Andy's Summer Playhouse staff/alumni - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is named after a youth theatre in New Hampshire. While I'm sure every participant and every teacher has fond memories of their experience there, it does not constitute a significant part of their career and in fact Andy's Summer Playhouse is only linked in one of the 33 biographies in the category currently. (The exception is Elizabeth Orton Jones but Andy's Summer Playhouse was a significant part of her life and this was noted in many sources) If kept, the category should at least be renamed to avoid the slash, for example Category:People associated with Andy's Summer Playhouse Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Jiangxi politicians
- Propose renaming Category:Jiangxi politicians to Category:Politicians from Jiangxi
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with similar categories (e.g., Category:Politicians from Beijing, Category:Politicians from Shanghai), as well as less ambiguity. --Nlu (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:United States military sex scandals
- Propose deleting Category:United States military sex scandals - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:United States military sex scandals - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Category with only one article that does not fit any of the exceptions at WP:SMALLCAT. Recommend upmerge of the article in question and deletion of the category. (NB category used to be a lot more populated; almost everything in it has been moved to Category:Sexual assault in the United States military, while those remaining articles which were also crimes and not "sex scandals" were moved to Category:United States military scandals or Category:War rape.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I think "scandal" is probably too subjective for categorising by. And looking over Category:Scandals, reminds me other recent CfD concerning "alleged" police brutality. I think a group nom may be a good next step in the near future. - jc37 20:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Films directed by Robert Abel
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the corresponding article Robert Abel (animator). It's standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title even if the other Robert Abels have not directed films. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Even though the rationale is sound, I don't think it's needed. The other Robert Abels are an author, cricketer and NASCAR driver. In the unlikely event one of them directed a film, then yes, the rename would be needed. Or the other rationale of another Robert Abels being a film director, but I think it's explained by the hatnote on the category. Lugnuts And the horse 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - the category doesn't tell you which Robert Abel it was otherwise. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if you see the catmore link? Are you still confused then? Lugnuts And the horse 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can't see the catmore/catmain when the category is at the bottom of a page you're reading. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if you see the catmore link? Are you still confused then? Lugnuts And the horse 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support – it is standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title, as it removes the need to agonise over the likelihood of other Abels ever directing films. Oculi (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:People from Sassocorvaro
- Nominator's rationale: Merge Sassocorvaro has less than 3500 inhabitants so the category is likely to remain quite small. The article will be easier to find in the larger category. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Notable immigrants to Chile
- Propose deleting Category:Notable immigrants to Chile - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Notable immigrants to Chile - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Obviously, the use of the word "notable" in the title is a fatal flaw as it renders the category completely subjective. There's nothing to merge since the articles are already in the appropriate "Foo emigrants to Chile" category. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:AfC Defcon
- Propose merging Category:AfC Defcon to Category:Wikipedia administration templates
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as it's unlikely that this category will ever grow. There's no sense in isolating this template in its own little category. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge I created this category and got the purpose of it wrong. I agree per nomination for the merging of this category. John F. Lewis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Outdoor sculptures by Tony Smith
- Propose renaming Category:Outdoor sculptures by Tony Smith to Category:Sculptures by Tony Smith
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to the wider scope. While the sculptures currently in the category are indeed outdoor sculptures, Smith did not exclusively produce public art. If some of his "indoor" sculptures ever get articles, we probably wouldn't want a separate parent category. Moreover, Smith would be the only one with an "outdoor sculptures" category which may make it harder for readers to find the category. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename But I think it should be Category:Artworks by Tony Smith --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- That would have to be Category:Works by Tony Smith because there's no "Artworks by artist" scheme (and I don't think it's a good idea to start one). Pichpich (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename But I think it should be Category:Artworks by Tony Smith --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Cat is a subcat of Category:Sculptures by artist. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom; I would be surprised if no versions of these are not/have never been exhibited inside. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename for standardisation. There are two works with images at commons:Category:Tony Smith which were photographed indoors, but they do not have articles yet. I have added the nominated category to Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States, and it can stay there even if it gets renamed, as long as there are no articles on Smith's indoor sculptures. If such articles are ever created, I would have no objection to re-creating a sub-cat for his outdoor sculptures, to keep a place within Category:Outdoor sculptures. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Olympic films
- Propose renaming Category:Olympic films to Category:Films about the Olympic Games
- Nominator's rationale: I feel that the title could be re-formulated to provide a more explicit description of the common theme (with "Olympic Games" replacing "Olympics" to match the main article). Many of the subcategories under Category:Films by topic use the "about" title structure. Category:Olympic Games in film is another possibility (mirroring the parent category, Category:Olympic games in fiction). SuperMarioMan 15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per the above rationale. Lugnuts And the horse 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename. Obviously this category has to be renamed. I would much prefer the nominator’s alternative suggestion of Category:Olympic Games in film, which would allow entries like Olympic Games (film) or Pentathlon (film) to continue to be in the category because neither are “about THE Olympic Games," but fiction based on the Olympic Games (as are most other members of the category).--Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename; I would favour the narrower name Category:Films about the Olympic Games, excluding Olympic Games (film) which is only a local kids' athletic competition named after the main event. I would add a category explanation to include films in which a notable part is set at the Olympic Games, including Pentathlon (film) which apparently starts and finishes there. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Very witty. The Pentathlon plot does indeed start and finish at two different Olympics, but the plot also covers, Gold medals, East Germany, Neo-Nazis, Terrorism, Alcoholism, Los Angeles, Peace Rallies, Rabbis, Olympic trainers - if the plot synopsis was longer I am sure the film could be categorised as being "about" many many other things. I am convinced that "about" is not the way to go on these sort of categories. Equally, if we allow anything to be added that mentions in passing Olympic Games we might as well just delete the category for all the encyclopedic worth it would have.Category:Olympic Games in film is more definative, but I daresay a better solution can be found. I do like your suggestion of text in the category, but who reads it before the edit war about what should be included? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The category definition can at least be invoked to settle an edit war on an article. How about Category:Films set at the Olympic Games, with the same explanation as I suggested above? – Fayenatic London 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Response. I would not oppose Films set at the Olympic Games, how does the nominator feel about that? Does it fit with other film categories? it's "x about y" that I object to, meaningless, open to the widest possible interpretation and undefining in context for categories. Molehills about 20 feet high! --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The category definition can at least be invoked to settle an edit war on an article. How about Category:Films set at the Olympic Games, with the same explanation as I suggested above? – Fayenatic London 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Very witty. The Pentathlon plot does indeed start and finish at two different Olympics, but the plot also covers, Gold medals, East Germany, Neo-Nazis, Terrorism, Alcoholism, Los Angeles, Peace Rallies, Rabbis, Olympic trainers - if the plot synopsis was longer I am sure the film could be categorised as being "about" many many other things. I am convinced that "about" is not the way to go on these sort of categories. Equally, if we allow anything to be added that mentions in passing Olympic Games we might as well just delete the category for all the encyclopedic worth it would have.Category:Olympic Games in film is more definative, but I daresay a better solution can be found. I do like your suggestion of text in the category, but who reads it before the edit war about what should be included? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Having read the above, my first choice would be the slightly clunky Category:Films set at the Olympic Games. It narrows the scope a little bit and to a certain extent, it clarifies it (in the sense that there's a limit to how bad of an edit war people can have about where a film is set). My second choice is Category:Films about the Olympic Games whose scope is quite clear but also much narrower and in a sense less interesting. Third choice is Category:Olympic Games in film which is so broad and vague that the category would be drowned in films that include a scene where someone watching the pentathlon on TV. 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Islam
- Propose deleting Category:Anti-Islam - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Anti-Islam - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Either "no such thing" (what is "an/the anti-islam"?) or needs some noun. A simple adjective or adjectival phrase is a bad name for a category. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Opposition to Islam. These two categories are impossible to distuinguish from one another, and adding category blurbs instructing that one or the other is to be interpreted as Islamophobia and discrimination, prejudice, etc. is nothing but terribly confusing (see talk page and edit history of both categories, i.e. Category:Opposition to Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). There is an existing hierarchy, Category:Opposition to religion, wherein Islam has its place along the other major world religions. If a subset is needed for particularly vile and unreasoned opposition (e.g. persecution), that might be created as long as it's not a re-creation of the recently deleted Category:Islamophobia. But first thing's first. Let's get rid of the nominated category. __meco (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per Meco. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and Strong Merge "Category:Opposition to Islam" to "Category:anti-Islam." Look at Category:Opposition to religion and you'll find all the sub-categories starting with "anti". If we are to replace "anti" with "opposition" in the titles it has to be a global change in conjunction with the other religious categories. As there is no Category:Opposition to Christianity but only Category:anti-Christianity we should do the same with Islam. (See also Category:Opposition to Hinduism vs. Category:anti-Hinduism) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Those others really should be renamed. But it needs to start somewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right, they, too, should be renamed. There is no such religion as "anti-Christianity" and I've never heard of anybody who says "I'm an anti-Buddhist". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- What we do have that has historical merit that I know of are anti-Masonry and anti-Mormonism. __meco (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Good points. I'm less concerned with the name; I'm more concerned with the merge. As an amusing note, anti-Christianity shouldn't be confused with a supporter of the anti-Christ. Perhaps "anti" is indeed too strong for the general categories. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps when it comes to these names we should be anti-anti. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as it is in line with the naming of the similar categories for other religions. I'm open to a general renaming, but until then we should try to keep the category names consistent. Also please note that Category:Opposition to Islam is intended as a non-offensive (but obviously very confusing) replacement for Category:Islamophobia so they should obviously not be merged. // Liftarn (talk)
- Intended? By whom? __meco (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Red Wanting Blue
Category:Songs about films
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about films - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about films - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information amongst other guidelines. Three members, two are parodies (by Yankovic) and the third references a film as a motif to a breakup. The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
- It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels.Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Ambassadors of France to countries in Africa
Category:People from Sandy, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Sandy, Oregon to Category:People from Clackamas County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Sweet Home, Oregon to Category:People from Linn County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Selma, Oregon to Category:People from Josephine County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Phoenix, Oregon to Category:People from Jackson County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Powell Butte, Oregon to Category:People from Crook County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Rogue River, Oregon to Category:People from Jackson County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Merlin, Oregon to Category:People from Josephine County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Canyonville, Oregon to Category:People from Douglas County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Eagle Point, Oregon to Category:People from Jackson County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Estacada, Oregon to Category:People from Clackamas County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Gladstone, Oregon to Category:People from Clackamas County, Oregon
- Propose merging Category:People from Merrill, Oregon to Category:People from Klamath County, Oregon
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT All have four or less entries ...William 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The policy cited is for categories with no potential for growth; these categories may certainly grow as additional bios are expanded. Additionally, having four or even three members of a category seems robust enough even without growth. --Esprqii (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, they probably won't grow. WP:COMMONSENSE - if a town is below a certain size there are not likely to be many bios from it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support all except
Rogue River andEstacada. Four is enough, I think, but those three and down should be merged. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)- To complicate matters, the Rogue River one is down to three because one article made no mention of the town. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support at least for the most obvious cases. It's a little hard to draw a line but certainly those with only one or two articles should be upmerged. I would prefer merging all of them but if there's a consensus to spare the ones with three or four biographies, I'll go along. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge all per nominator. Categories are primarily a navigational device, and splitting up a category into lots of small sub-cats like these impedes navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Gary Johnson
- Propose deleting Category:Gary Johnson - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Gary Johnson - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Only four articles (one about his political positions could be added as well), but easily navigable through a footer. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Discouraged doesn't mean forbidden. The argument about navigating via a footer fails WP:CLN which supports navigation via multiple methods. Lugnuts And the horse 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:OC - this category is not needed at this time. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as there are three articles primarily about this person, and the other two currently in the category have a strong enough connection to stay. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- There is just enough to warrant having a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough subarticles to warrant an eponymous category. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as creator. There are enough articles for this category.--TM 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete to small to justify an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Doctor Who companion media
- Propose merging Category:Doctor Who companion media to Category:Doctor Who
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no explanation of what is meant by "companion media" and there are no other parents of this category. Tim! (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Doctor Who media. I don't see a reason to split out the companion associated media at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Doctor Who media. The term "companion media" is used here in the sense of "associated products", not in the sense of "media concerning Doctor Who's companions". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Doctor Who-related media.I would have fallen for the same misunderstanding as Vegaswikian. I don't support Category:Doctor Who media, as books & TV series are "media" but clearly they are primary sub-topics here and should not be moved lower down the hierarchy. I don't know of a very clear precedent for this sort of thing; Trekkies have Category:Star Trek in other media but that's not quite right either. It's spin-off media, but we can't use that term because it's not media about the spinoff series from Doctor Who! The strong point of Tim's original suggestion is that this is a sub-cat for "other media", and we don't do categories for "other"; but it's well-enough populated to separate it from the top category, and I think using "DW-related media" might just work. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)- Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who, per Category:Works about television (Dalekmania is already there), and a plethora of other examples under Category:Works about the arts. If necessary, add (franchise) for further disambiguation. - jc37 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who, that's a better idea. It should then become a sub-cat of Category:Works about television, and pages about in-universe media can be recategorised, e.g. in Category:Doctor Who games. – Fayenatic London 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a further consensus at the proper rename target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. My opinion at this time is that there is clear consensus to keep this as a subcategory. I made an early suggestion. However I am not stuck with that name. If there is a better name, I will accept the closers choice. I don't see the different opinions on a name as a reason for the closer to not pick one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Glee (TV series) music
- Propose renaming Category:Glee (TV series) music to Category:Glee (TV series) albums and possibly split further
- Nominator's rationale: It is unclear to me that we should have a category that attempts to have all the music from Glee in it. Clearly, an album category is warranted. There's probably a value to a category that contains song lists and original songs like "Get It Right." But I can't see a reason to have "Don't Stop Believin'" in this category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: I frankly don't see the purpose in changing the category. The obvious reason to having "Don't Stop Believin'" in the category is that the Glee version of the song went Platinum: it's the biggest seller of any Glee single, and it's something of an anthem for the show. To structure the categories so it can't be included would seem to subvert the entire purpose of having categories. (I don't believe "Cry" needs to included, but that's neither here nor there.) If the category changes to albums only, it orphans the song lists and the three original songs, and possibly the EPs as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support – treat the show like a band and split into Category:Glee (TV series) albums and Category:Glee (TV series) songs (ie songs recorded by Glee). Could retain Category:Glee (TV series) music as a container cat. Oculi (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, and per other subcats of Category:Television soundtracks. We don't categorise songs by what show they may appear in, any more than we do actors. See also cover version and cover band. - jc37 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a different case, as a few songs have been originated by the show, charted, and in one case became a Gold record. If the albums are worth categorizing, then the original songs certainly are, and perhaps those few significant other ones (Platinum or Gold records) as well. I agree that the simple act of a cover and Hot 100 charting is not appropriate usage of categories, given that Glee has over 200 at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Monorchid people
- Propose deleting Category:Monorchid people - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Monorchid people - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category of people who have only one testicle. I don't think that's a worthwhile means of categorizing people. There are certainly BLP concerns here. We already have Category:Testicular cancer survivors, which would cover a lot of the same ground. Zagalejo^^^ 03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThis category complements Category:Castrated people, the existence of which also serves as justifying precedent and destroys the suggestion that 'BLP concerns' are incapable of being addressed. It is distinguished from the subject matter of cancer by causes arising from injury and from cryptorchidism.114.73.68.157 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's a huge difference between castration and this. Ask any eunuch. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quite so, which is why it demands its own category of recognition, distinct from Category:Amputees and the one you have mentioned. To get rid of categories sends the wrong message of amputees, monorchids, castrated people, etc being not acknowledged, not counted, and not respected for their relative uniqueness and achievement of notabilityOxycut (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it's not a soapbox, and it's not a place to "acknowledge" or "count" somebody for being unique. Categories are for things that are defining. This is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you would talk about respect, yet describe monorchid people as "soloballers" which hardly sounds respectful. Pichpich (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- How's that disrespectful? I've ridden on a unicycle and never objected to being identified as a solowheeler. Offhand, informal or evocative terminology isn't an attempt to insult but it can aid identification and means of understanding for the uninitiated, that's all.Oxycut (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately he's dead but I would just like to imagine Bruce Lee's reaction when you come up to him and say "wazzup soloballer!". But to get back to the point, if you can't see how "soloballer" is wildly inappropriate, I'm not sure I can continue this conversation. Pichpich (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bruce Lee gets even greater respect because of what he did, he did as a solo. Involvement in combat sports puts one at risk of going from a duo to a solo, and the fact of a person being solo is not just trivia. It's a risk factor which is the enhansed risk of going from a solo to a nil. If you don't acknowledge Bruce's status as solo, it's a diminishment of the full developed character of his personhood and of the fullness of his achievement. That goes for any solo. What it bespeaks us to avoid is duonormativity and solo-erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- ...welp. That pretty much says it all, I think... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bruce Lee gets even greater respect because of what he did, he did as a solo. Involvement in combat sports puts one at risk of going from a duo to a solo, and the fact of a person being solo is not just trivia. It's a risk factor which is the enhansed risk of going from a solo to a nil. If you don't acknowledge Bruce's status as solo, it's a diminishment of the full developed character of his personhood and of the fullness of his achievement. That goes for any solo. What it bespeaks us to avoid is duonormativity and solo-erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately he's dead but I would just like to imagine Bruce Lee's reaction when you come up to him and say "wazzup soloballer!". But to get back to the point, if you can't see how "soloballer" is wildly inappropriate, I'm not sure I can continue this conversation. Pichpich (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- How's that disrespectful? I've ridden on a unicycle and never objected to being identified as a solowheeler. Offhand, informal or evocative terminology isn't an attempt to insult but it can aid identification and means of understanding for the uninitiated, that's all.Oxycut (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quite so, which is why it demands its own category of recognition, distinct from Category:Amputees and the one you have mentioned. To get rid of categories sends the wrong message of amputees, monorchids, castrated people, etc being not acknowledged, not counted, and not respected for their relative uniqueness and achievement of notabilityOxycut (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's a huge difference between castration and this. Ask any eunuch. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThis category complements Category:Castrated people, the existence of which also serves as justifying precedent and destroys the suggestion that 'BLP concerns' are incapable of being addressed. It is distinguished from the subject matter of cancer by causes arising from injury and from cryptorchidism.114.73.68.157 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Hitler only had one ball, but we don't need to be categorising people by this . - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- We categorise Gambian amputees. There is a greater diversity of monorchids than there are of those.Oxycut (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, being an amputee is defining. Lacking a testicle is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't distort this. It's about having a testicle, and that clearly defines the individual as a male. Where is this criteria of 'defining' pulled from? George W Bush has more than 50 categories and only one is his defining characteristic that he's been US President.Oxycut (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia. WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either. Frank | talk 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The category demonstrates the diversity of the monorchid community: a head of state, a cycling legend, an acclaimed actor, a behavioural exemplar/role model, etc
- You know, if you're going to call Hitler a role model, I'm not even going to bother responding to your other arguments. Zagalejo^^^ 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as being intrinsically a contentious categorization for which strong sourcing would be absolutely required, and is absent. Collect (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sourcing that is required is present here.Oxycut (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete typically, this is not a defining characteristic. It should be easy to understand that having only one leg often defines part of your life whereas having only one testicle (or one kidney for that matter) typically does not. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – not a defining characteristic, per Pichpich. Oculi (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I hear what you're saying however we do have Category:Quadruple amputees etc, which destroys any logic that the practice here has been per your preference. What are your alternative and compromise suggestions in light of that?Oxycut (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also being a quadruple amputee is immediately defining and an obvious disability. Having a single testicle is only something people know about if you tell them or they're your spouse. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)