Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15 July 17 >

July 16[edit]

Category:Jewish sportspeople[edit]

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 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pure overcategorization. One's religion has nothing to do with your athletic abilities. Include all subcategories for deletion as well.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging from past similar deletion debates I think this is intended as an ethnic rather than religious category. Hence it is part of Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity. For one example Category:Romani sportspeople is, more or less, the same concept.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - As T. Anthony has already pointed out, the categories for Jewish people are not about religion but rather ethnicity. I really think we should post a notice to that effect on all of these categories so that editors who are in the dark about that are made aware of it before they go to the bother of taking them to CFD. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps we should be debating Sportspeople by ethnicity too.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. In the past I've supported such categories, but there might be a shift on the matter or new problems with them. Has there been complaints?--T. Anthony (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been no indication of such a shift here in the CFD discussions. Every now and then somebody comes along and picks out one or another such category for CFD, but that's about it. Cgingold (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Well if there's no new problems or anything then I guess my past support means current support as well.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold. It's also a reasonable subcategory of Category:Jews by occupation. Please do nominate the subcategories if you intend to include them in this discussion. If the consensus is to delete the subcategories, they would need to be merged into their parents instead of outright deletion. - Eureka Lott 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because I am a strong opponent of the censorship happening on Wikipedia involving categories/lists/articles which involve Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Deleting this category would leave a huge gap in the categorical/organizational structure of Wikipedia, since this category plus all related subcategories contain thousands of names. Sportspoeple by ethnicity and nationality are categorized all over Wikipedia, so why are you singling out this particular category to delete? --Wassermann (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it seems very unsatisfactory to have cfds on random subcats of Category:Jews by occupation. Now we have a subcat for scientists but not for mathematicians, one for sportspersons but not for businesspeople, leaving mysterious gaps in the structure as Wassermann notes. I also agree with Eureka Lott - if some closing admin decides to bring up various new arguments as part of a non-consensus close as delete (leaving no opportunity for 'keepers' to address same) then certainly upmerge to parents and also listify rather than delete. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of one ethnicity/occupation category doesn't support any others, as each such intersection of ethnicity and occupation needs to be discussed on its own merits. Non-notable, arbitrary intersections constitute overcategorization. Postdlf (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mainly because the Jews are a national-ethnic group, and have a distinct history and society, which merits categorization in the same way as any other society. If that is not enough (why, I couldn't guess), the Jews have a distinct history in sports. Specifically, Jews were long segregated against, and often had to struggle to be accepted in the official leagues. They have also created their own social sports clubs/leagues, notably Hakoah and Maccabi. --Eliyak T·C 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in light of the other sportspeople by ethnicity categories. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:50, 19 July 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:Bosniak basketball players[edit]

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 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Bosniak basketball players to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina basketball players
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Nothing notable about being Bosniak and playing basketball. Unneeded fork of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina basketball players Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We have nationality categories for b-ball players; no need for ethnicity ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 21 July 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.

A Tribe Called Quest members[edit]

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 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Category:A Tribe Called Quest members is limited to 3 people and unnecessary Cosprings (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the minimum requirement is at least 3 band members, per the parent category structure. Lugnuts (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is a defining characteristic of Phife Dawg (there is also a 4th member, who as yet has no article). Part of the established Category:Musicians by band. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a defining feature of both the artist and the band.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 20 July 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:Aaliyah[edit]

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 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - categories such as this with well-populated subcats are not 'practically empty'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's well-populated" The song and album cats have their own cats above them.Cosprings (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Main article and extensive template serve as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Hundreds of similar categories have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in Bio article (if necessary) then delete: I agree with Otto4711. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 17 July 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:Lebanese murderers of children[edit]

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 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lebanese murderers of children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category was recently created in response to a current event involving a Lebanese prisoner, convicted of murder in Israel, being released. He was convicted of murdering several people, including a child. We already have an empty category for "Lebanese murderers" that is empty, and the only person who was a part of this category killed one child (among several people), so I don't see a reason for the bias-laden title. Also, it's parents are some very POV categories that don't exist. ← George [talk] 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I removed the single article in the category as a change I would support pretty much regardless of whether the category is kept or not. I don't mind it being re-added while this discussion ensues. ← George [talk] 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - This category is part of a fully developed category tree -- one of 22 sub-cats under Category:Murderers of children by nationality. I would suggest that in the future the nominator would do well to take the time to look into things more closely before making flatly erroneous charges regarding the supposed motivations for the creation of a category. In point of fact, this category was created -- along with the rest of the cat tree -- on June 3, well before the event that he refers to. The POV nonsense parent cats that he mentions were an act of vandalism by an anon. IP, who replaced the original, legitimate parent cats. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bogus parent categories is definitely part of the problem, but who should be included in this category? Anyone who has ever killed any child and is Lebanese, regardless of how many other people they killed, where they were killed, or why they were killed? For instance, if someone kills a hundred people in a suicide bombing, one of them being a child, do they get tagged in this category? If someone orders their troops to attack a city, and their troops kill children in the process, does that count? And what defines a child? In this case I have no doubt a 4-year-old would count, but where is the line drawn? Right now the category has a single article from a current event, which I suspect was only labeled as a part of the category due to heated bias as emotions are running high. I'd rather see that article moved to the Category:Lebanese murderers category, which is less biased and currently empty, and seemingly more accurate, as the murderer in question killed a handful of people, which happened to include a child. ← George [talk] 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those issues are particular to this category under discussion. I've thought of the same issues regarding the whole "Fooian murderers of children" scheme, but I don't see any reason to delete this category in particular as long as that scheme exists, so keep. Postdlf (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really mean what should or shouldn't be included theoretically for these types of articles (which is certainly a valid question for the scheme in general), I was more asking for some concrete guidelines since both this and the parent Category:Lebanese murderers categories are next to empty (the same, single article in both). As an aside, is there some equivalent of a Category:Freedom fighter somewhere? While I myself do not agree, many of these people the West defines as terrorists are labeled as "freedom fighters" locally. It seems that that should be denoted categorically somehow. ← George [talk] 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • George, we understand that feelings are running high, as you say, but you're not helping anything by making unfounded assumptions about the supposed motivations, like "which I suspect was only labeled as a part of the category due to heated bias as emotions are running high." As I tried to point out, the category was created along with 21 other sub-cats back on June 3, and that is when the article was placed there -- well before the sudden upsurge of interest in the last day or so due to the prisoner exchange. Also, please note that Mr. Kuntar was convicted in court for the murder of that 4-year-old -- so this was not a question of one editor imposing his personal opinion. Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, quite possible that I saw it being re-inserted as a response to some vandalism, or simply saw it incorrectly. What I saw was an empty Category:Lebanese murderers, and a Category:Lebanese murderers of children with bogus parent categories (again, I believe I caught this in a bad state, prior to vandalism being reverted). I interpreted the lack of articles in this category, combined with the bogus parent categories, as a sign that this had been recently created (and guessed that it had been moved from the less contentious Category:Lebanese murderers, since it was now empty, and I thought it would have been speedy-deleted when empty). Given the heavy revert warring going on in this topic area over the last 24 hours, and numerous violations of neutrality policies, I thought that this was a part of the POV-pushing, but it appears I was wrong on that. However, I'd still like some clarification on what belongs in both of these categories, if someone could drop by an leave a comment on my talk page that would be great! ← George [talk] 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep as per Cgingold. If you want to delete this, then delete Category:American murderers of children also. George, your comment that this is a 'bias' category is heavily biased in and of itself. He was convicted by a court of justice for this. How exactly is this category 'bias'? If Baruch Goldstein is included in a category of "Israeli terrorists" or "Israeli mass murderers" I am also not going to complain. Those are just the plain facts. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I just have a difference of opinion than most people on this. I don't think these X murderers of children should be applied so loosely, regardless of what nationality X represents, and yes, I do think that the scheme in general will become a breeding ground for pushing bias. I didn't even realize that there were other categories beyond this one using this scheme, because it just struck me as too vague and open to interpretation to become a scheme on Wikipedia. If I have a bias, it's against these articles in general, not against Israel or the Israelis, which is what you seem to imply. In the same manner, I would oppose using the Category:Israeli terrorists (a category that has been deleted, twice) for Baruch Goldstein's article, or including Category:Israeli murderers of children in an article like Ariel Sharon for his alleged involvement in massacres in Lebanon that involved children. Without some specifications on who should be in these types of articles, I just don't think they improve Wikipedia. Is it people who killed one child, or more than one child (i.e., children)? Is it people who killed children on purpose, or on accident? Is it people who ordered others to kill children, or only people who did so themselves? Does it matter if they admitted to it, or which courts of what country found them guilty? Without these specifics, I don't think these categories will be applied equally to different groups. I guess consensus is against me on this one though. ← George [talk] 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This (and similar) are legitimate categories, as long as the subjects to be included are notable, which in this case means notorious. However people should only be included if convicted (or possibly they died before trial, but their guilt was definite). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe its a legitimate category, as long as the articles within are all about people who have clearly actually killed children and are Lebanese. I believe the sole occupant has never actually denied it, so that strikes me as NPOV, although obviously the category would have to be watched carefully for POV and BLP issues. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Wrong. The sole occupant has denied it since their trial in 1980. ← George [talk] 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not a catagory that someone will search for. 80.230.29.119 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a reason for deletion and how would we know that it would not be searched for. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 21 July 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:Psychedelic films[edit]

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 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Psychedelic films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, subjective, unclear inclusion criteria. Without sourcing or some clear, organizing concept, the application of this classification will be nothing but OR. At present it includes many films that were produced long after the so-called psychedelic era, apparently because they are about that period in some way (The Doors (film)) or because they depict the use of hallucinogens (Brain Damage (film) but have no connection to psychedelic culture. Other films (2001: A Space Odyssey (film)) were perhaps co-opted in a way by the 60s drug culture (see comments at the end of this Roger Ebert review) but were not a product of that culture. In other words, this isn't a distinct, recognized film genre (contrast with psychedelic music). Those that are actual examples of psychedelic culture (Yellow Submarine (film)) can just go directly in Category:Psychedelia. Postdlf (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As unmanageable. However I could see there being some cultural/historical value in an article like "Psychedelic cinema."--T. Anthony (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with User:T. Anthony above. What exactly is a "Psychedelic film"? Until this question can be concisely answered, the borders for inclusion are much too fuzzy and subjective. I agree that Psychedelic cinema sounds like it could be an interesting article for someone to write though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:53, 19 July 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:HVAC[edit]

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 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HVAC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Julian Cope[edit]

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 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category:Julian Cope is just placeholder for his albums, now created, should be deletedCosprings (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create Category:Julian Cope albums, move albums into it, see what is left. (There are some non-albums.) Occuli (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the small amount of material is well-interlinked amongst all of the various articles. Anyone interested in Julian Cope is probably going to start at his article, which serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 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:Extras (TV series) characters[edit]

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, empty. Kbdank71 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Extras (TV series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I have merged the four existing character articles into one combined article at Characters of Extras. The category was imho unnecessary even before, but it's completely useless now. user:Everyme 11:06, 16 July 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:Azerbaijani managers[edit]

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 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Azerbaijani managers to Category:Azerbaijani football managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The right thing to do. Punkmorten (talk) 09:25, 16 July 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:Jonas Brothers members[edit]

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; as much as I disagree with the "per larger scheme" argument, it does seem to fit here. Kbdank71 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jonas Brothers members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category currently has 3 members, the 3 members of the Jonas Brothers. This category will stay at 3 members since there are only 3 Jonas Brothers Jons63 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 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:Mediums[edit]

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 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Mediums to Category:Spiritual mediums
Nominator's rationale: Medium is ambiguous, and the intention seems to be spiritual mediums. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 07:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, by all means: Merge per nom. I've been doing a lot of work cleaning up and sorting out the media (as in mass media) categories. The last thing we need is Category:Mediums - help!! Btw, the parent cats will need to be sorted out, too. Cgingold (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. "Medium" is a very ambiguous term that "spiritual medium" covers completely and more precisely. ~ mazca t | c 12:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to remove confusion.--Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 20 July 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:Non-LGBT people in lesbian pornography[edit]

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 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-LGBT people in lesbian pornography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Very similar to Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography, recently deleted per this discussion. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Can categories be speedy-deleted as reposted deleted content? Arguably potential for WP:BLP problems, given it's categorizing on not one but two counts, both of which may be controversial. Bringing this here to gauge community sentiment; does prior consensus to delete still apply, or is this category substantially an improvement? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that users here want to suppress information on lesbianism; though, the reality of it cannot be hidden. Some examples: Some lesbian people's articles are routinely deleted [1], [2], [3]. Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan have been publicly seen erotically kissing females in real life, but their articles don't mention it. Anna Nicole Smith had sex with women on camera and in real life, but her article doesn't mention it. Anne of Great Britain had sex with Sarah Jennings on a regular basis, but the article doesn't mention it...--Conc782 (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for the historic figures, recommend you find reliable sources for such information. A list of people a given celebrity may or may not have kissed or slept with is hardly encyclopedic content, absent demonstable notability, and is neither here nor there with regard to the question I just asked you. You've just openly stated you created this category to make a point about individuals who (in your own words) "should not separate themselves from the LGBT movement" -- that is not what Wikipedia is for. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I made a mis-statement in phrasing my notion that information on lesbian pornography is being suppressed. That is what I want to say. For example, Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography was deleted because it was stated that around 99% of female porn stars have acted in lesbian scenes. On the other hand, Category:People appearing in gay pornography was kept because 233 out of 220 male porn stars (106%) have appeared in gay porn. You still want to tell me that there is no double standard and lesbian info. is being kept? Even in the deletion of Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography there was no large chasm between the "keep" and "delete" entries.--Conc782 (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to head for deletion review or to nominate Category:People appearing in gay pornography for deletion as well, if you feel current application of consensus is inconsistent. In the meantime, I note that Category:Non-LGBT people in gay pornography is a redlink, so I'm not sure how the rest of your post is relevant to this particular discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:44, 16 July 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:Australian country guitarists[edit]

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: Never mind, I never thought of putting a {{popcat}} on instead. The category has indeed increased, and is now fine. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian country guitarists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category. Keith Urban is a great musician, but if there're no other notable Aussie country guitarists, why even bother with a category? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To answer the "why even bother?" part, because we want Category:Country guitarists to be completely empty of individual articles, instead containing only national subcategories, and we ultimately want Category:Australian guitarists to similarly contain only genre subcategories, not individual articles, as well. And for that matter, are we sure that Keith Urban's the only one, or are there others that just haven't been filed here yet? (I genuinely don't know, hence I ask.) Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as part of the general categorization of musicians by nationality, instrument and genre. I've added the correct parent categories recommended by WP:MUSCAT. This category keeps Keith Urban at the correct intersection of three category trees: guitarists, Australian musicians, and country musicians. The smallness of the category is irrelevant, given that WP:MUSCAT is a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" within the meaning of WP:OC#SMALL. If consensus is against me (despite this category structure being applied to thousands of articles without difficulty) then a triple upmerge. Oh, and I've added Slim Dusty, Chad Morgan and Jaime Robbie Reyne; there may be more out there in Category:Australian guitarists (all of which should be in genre sub-categories, ideally). BencherliteTalk 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a logical part of the subcategorization even if it's currently quite underpopulated. And to be honest I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a couple of other notable Australian country guitarists out there that will eventually get articles. ~ mazca t | c 11:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we do have a few precedents for keeping "occupation by nationality" sub-cats with populations as low as one (e.g. English popes), as long as they are part of a established larger structure, ergo keep. I may personally question the notion that Keith Ubb'n is "country" but that's another matter. — CharlotteWebb 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Australian country music is notable and subcats for instrument can be useful.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:47, 16 July 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:Types of scientist by nationality[edit]

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. The only thing we all seem to agree on is that needs more discussion. I will post a new CFD with a new proposal, as discussed. Normally, I wouldn't close a discussion I was involved in, but since the nominator has in effect withdrawn the nomination, and the discussion will be continuing, I don't see the harm in closing. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Types of scientist by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • That last seems the best to me. There is, or is thought to be, a rule against punctuation in category titles, though I can't actually see it in WP:CAT or WP:NAME, but this type of name is justified as an exception imo, if such a rule exists. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh -- and I always thought I was the only one who ever had a problem parsing those categories! LOL - I would certainly agree in principle with Sam's suggestion. However, in this case I believe the proper name would actually be Category:Scientists by type, by nationality, since the scientist cats are first broken down by type -- and then further broken down (internally) by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... Well, I can see how that particular application of logic yields that result. But I guess the more important question is, Is that the most compelling bit of logic to apply, in the first place? The real point being, we could debate competing logics all day, without necessarily arriving at a good solution. In this case, the formulation you're suggesting yields a category name that would probably be counter-intuitive for most readers. If you look at the super-cat, Category:People by occupation and nationality, the emphasis is implictly on the first term, which is how the sub-cats are sorted. I think that, regardless of our precise choice of wording, readers will generally expect sub-cats to be sorted by the first term they encounter. So I would suggest that that is what should take precedence here. In the final analysis, I think we may be better off staying with the naming system we've got, rather than switching over to commas. Cgingold (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are getting at, and I suspect that there isn't a perfect solution to this that will make intuitive sense to every one. To me, the current name is more intuitive than the suggested replacement. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha, so we've come full circle. There's some truth to your last remark, except that it doesn't address the reason I brought this to CFD in the first place: Categories for "Types of Xyz" are generally used for articles that are about Xyz Type1, Xyz Type2, Xyz Type3, etc. -- not for articles about people who do/are Xyz Type1, etc. So by the customary use, this category should be for articles about the various types of scientist -- and not for bio articles about individual scientists. Cgingold (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you think of a way to address your concern by filling in the blank in "____ of scientists by nationality"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to throw a monkey wrench in to such a productive discussion, but I can't see a consensus yet to close, and you're all just trucking along, so here's my opinion. Per the supercat Category:People by occupation and nationality, rename this to Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality. True, "Astronomer" is a type of scientist, but that will be conveyed by the word "scientist" in the title, and any of these could be considered an occupation. "What do you do? I'm an astronomer." --Kbdank71 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting suggestion... but not really an improvement over "Scientists by type and nationality", when you think about it. Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn -- another worthy try... but I just can't bring myself to sign off on "various nationalities" in a Category name. Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Type of scientist by nationality. "Types" should be "type". And I think that that's straight-forward enough. Though I'm wondering if "nationality" is the most commonly used word for its intent. - jc37 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never explained what was actually wrong with the name of this category. Here's the problem. We have two related sorts of categories that are used very differently: one groups articles that detail different types (or genres) of things (professions, etc.); the other groups sub-categories containing articles about examples (eg. people) of those types of things. A couple of illustrations: we have both Category:Journalism genres and Category:Journalism by genre, and we have both Category:Types of universities and colleges and Category:Universities and colleges by type. The category in question is of the second sort, so it shouldn't have the kind of name that suggests it's of the first sort. Things are already confusing enough -- we shouldn't add to the confusion by blurring the naming lines between these sorts of categories. Whatever we finally decide on should at least start off with Scientists as the first word. Cgingold (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this proposal. Parentheses should be avoided. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do use parentheses in category names when there's good reason to. In this case, they add an extra bit of clarity. Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. If the parentheses aren't needed in Category:People by occupation and nationality, why are they needed here? --Orlady (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have the discussion under a new nomination and get more people involved. I'd like to rename "People by occupation and nationality" as well. This could be a test case. Clearly there is no consensus for the original rename as the nominator and I (who were the main part of the discussion) now support an alternative. I can understand that you might oppose this, but are you also opposing closing this discussion as "no consensus"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do close as "no consensus" -- or repost for additional discussion. I was registering my opposition to your new proposal. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 25 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_16&oldid=1138390531"