Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 16

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.

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.--
  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
  -- 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.

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

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.

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
  -- 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.

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]

• Delete'LNo content, practically emptyCosprings (talk) 21:44, 16 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 -
  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.

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]

• There is a Category:Murderers of children by nationality, whether or not there needs to be. Postdlf (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why has the category been emptied? (contrary to the clear directions on the CFD template, etc.) The article(s) need to be put back. Cgingold (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there was only one article and it has been restored. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 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
  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.

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

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
  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.

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)

• Rename to Category:Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning. This initialism needs to be expanded as it is obscure, and therefore meaningless to people outside the field. (Creator has not edited since November 2006) Cgingold (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is a term that everyone uses, but it does need expanding. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.Beagel (talk) 18:35, 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.

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
  talk) 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • doneCosprings (talk) 21:44, 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.
  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.

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

]

• Delete per nom and as empty.
  talk) 14:06, 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.

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]

• Rename.--Conc782 (talk) 09:26, 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.

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]

• Indeed. Probably merge to Category:Jonas Brothers. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of
  talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or merge redundant. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Defining for the both the band and individuals.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 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.

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.

☏ ⌘ 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.

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

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

]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 6#Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography. This is even less useful. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 06:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as fork of prior cat, and since hte parger isn't notable, the smaller isn't either. ThuranX (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is to keep track of folks who view LGBT people who disdain and yet have starred in LGBT movies themselves. The point is that there is nothing wrong with LGBT and people like Jana Cova should not separate themselves from the LGBT movement.--Conc782 (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shouldn't create a category to prove a "point." Sure you don't want to rephrase that? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:24, 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].

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

]

• Delete as
  WP:POINTy Mayalld (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the closure of the CFD for the lesbian porn category was IMHO in error, but this category is both
  talk) 12:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - point-y and fork-y. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not pointy or forky, please Assume Good Faith. This category is different that the deleted one in that it's more specific. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete Rationale for deleting Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography (and thus the CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_6#Category:People_appearing_in_lesbian_pornography this discussion) applies here, the category is too similar (except for aspects that make it even more problematic from BLP angles) to merit renewed discussion, per CSDG4. IMHO deletion review would have been the best response to the CfD, not creation of subsets of the deleted categoy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:55, 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.

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
  Bencherlite^Talk 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.

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)

• Rename to Category:Scientists by type and nationality Category:Scientists by occupation (and by nationality). The original name is slightly off the mark -- doesn't properly specify what the category is actually used for. (Creator was anon. IP, hasn't edited since February 2006) Cgingold (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Other people categories are named in this fashion, such as Category:People by occupation and nationality. --Eliyak T·C 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom so the most significant word 'Scientists' comes first Hmains (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These meta categories are all confusingly named. At the lower levels, they all take the form "X by Y", in which the Xs are constant, and the Ys change. So someone familiar with the naming convention would expect that everything after "by" would be the variable in the listing. The higher level categories are not named this way. This one (and many similar) are actually backwards from the naming convention at the lower level. I've never been particularly fond of the "X by Y and Z" alternative, because at first glance you would expect both Y and Z to vary in the listing. Once you realize that only one varies, it isn't obvious which one that should be, Y or Z. I don't have a good suggestion about what the rename should be. The best I can come up with is
  ☑ SamuelWantman 07:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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: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]

• The confusion continues. In most "X by Y", categories it is the "by Y" that varies. All the subcategories in
  ☑ SamuelWantman 00:11, 6 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]

• How about
  ☑ SamuelWantman 07:00, 12 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]

• Hmmph. It's really quite amazing how many different names we've come up with -- without hitting on a really good solution to this. But we haven't exhausted the possibilities using parentheses. What about Category:Scientists by type (and by nationality)? Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 10:18, 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 agree that starting the category name with Scientists is a good idea, but I'm not terribly fond of using the word "type" in this context. How does Category:Scientists by field and nationality sound? - Eureka Lott 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I actually considered that formulation, and the only reason I passed on it was because of Category:Naturalists, which it seems to me is more a type than a field. But if other editors feel that Category:Scientists by field and nationality -- or perhaps Category:Scientists by field (and by nationality) -- is preferable, I would have no objection. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I also dislike the word "type" in this context. "Field" would be much better. As an alternative to "field", I propose considering "specialty" or "specialization," as in Category:Scientists by specialty and nationality or Category:Scientists by specialization and nationality. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is subcategfory of Category:People by occupation and nationality. I Would therefore suggests the best form would be Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality. Chemist, Physicist, astromoner, etc. are occupations just as scientist is. However, I would not oppose "speciality". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'rename' to Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality as the better choice (replacing my original comment) Hmains (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I Still have all the same problems I had with the original CFD. How about
  ☑ SamuelWantman 19:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There appears to be more sentiment in favor of "Scientists by occupation and nationality" than any of the other variations in wording. And Sam's proposal incorporates my suggestion re use of parentheses. So I am going to formally change my nomination to support this proposal. Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality per above. Postdlf (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since Cgingold and I now agree on a new rename, and nobody is likely to look at this conversation that is late to close, I suggest closing this as "No consensus", and starting a new CFD for renaming to
  ☑ SamuelWantman 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]