Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 30

[edit]

Category:Jewish lawyers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Andrew c [talk] 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jewish lawyers to Category:Jewish American jurists
Nominator's rationale: Page already exists, only one non-American listed on this page anyway. THF 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete (merged, empty, creator request). Nabla 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California hairdressers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Hairdressers, way too early ... we don't even have Category:American hairdressers yet. -- Prove It (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty and reply This wasn't intended to subdivide Hairdressers. It was part of the scheme for Category:California people by occupation which subdivides all the articles under Category:People from California by their occupation. I intentionally did not place this under hairdressers when I created it since it was subdividing the Californian articles and not the Hairdresser articles.

Even so, I have since moved the only article so far in the category to a broader Californian occupational parent, Category:California people in fashion which will hold (once populated) all articles under Category:People from California whose occupation is one of those listed in Category:People in fashion. Therefore go ahead and speedy delete Category:California hairdressers as empty since it has been replaced and will not be repopulated. Dugwiki 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:North Korea friendship associations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Andrew c [talk] 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Korea friendship associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category with a single entry. Russavia 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We avoid abbreviations in category names, especially unfamiliar ones like this. Johnbod 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was redirect --Kbdank71 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breweries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, already covered by subcats of Category:Beer and breweries by region. -- Prove It (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The Binding one needs merging, or deleting. Johnbod 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to avoid recreation. Postlebury 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category because I did not see any explanation or discussion of why there was no category for it. It seems a logical category to have in existence...but I can also see why one would want to have it separated by region (a big category might get too big). I have no problem with deleting it...but...let's place some sort of explanation on the Category:Beer and breweries by region page or its talk page that explains why it's better to keep them separately and not have a big category. And...I assume you all have a good reason for wanting it to be that way? I looked at the page and there was no discussion or explanation or anything. Cazort 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. I think it was an honest mistake by Cazort. I wouldn't have thought anyone would misunderstand the current brewery categories, but as Cazort has, so might others, so Postlebury's suggestion of a merge to prevent future errors is a good one. SilkTork 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Category:Beer and breweries by region. For the project members, these seems to be a logical grouping, and in some ways it is. But for the average reader this does not make sense. If someone if looking for a Brewery, they expect those to be in one place and not mixed in with beers. Yes the two are related, but they should be two categories. How does a reader in one of the subcats know if the entry is a beer or a brewery? Since they can't in many cases, that means the category is poorly named. Vegaswikian 19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a valid and interesting point. One of the reasons why it is arranged this way is that Wiki convention and consensus is that products should be discussed in the article of the company or organisation that makes the product (though products that gain notability split out into stand alone articles) - as such, people searching for a beer would mainly need to look for that beer in the brewery article anyway. However, there may be a case for creating a separate category for those beers which are notable enough to have significant stand alone articles; though I can see that creating an unnecessary and awkward cat division with some beers found under the breweries of a region cat while others are found under the beers of a region cat. At the moment the beers of a region are found under the same cat, with a redirect to the brewery if needed. SilkTork 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Andrew c [talk] 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities of Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Cities in Costa Rica, convention of Category:Cities by country. -- Prove It (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Prominent Trivandrumites

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Andrew c [talk] 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent Trivandrumites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Violates NPOV (Who is prominent and who is not). Also a category does exist as such Category:People from Thiruvananthapuram. The category uses the old name for the city, Trivandrum. Agεθ020 (ΔTФC) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Shopping centres in Avon

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Shopping centres in Avon to Category:Shopping centres in England
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The county of Avon only existed from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. Nothing should be classified as belonging to Avon apart from relevant historical articles. Hawkestone 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Films about High Class Call Girls

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about High Class Call Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - inclusion is too POV (is Holly Golightly a "call girl"?) and the subject itself seems a bit rarefied. Although I have to admit I'm almost rooting for this to end up serving as a sibling to such items as Category:Films about Toothless Crack Whores. Otto4711 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There already exists Category:Films by topic, Category:Books by topic, Category:Television series by topic, etc. I agree that there could be a problem with how some editors categorize articles within such categories, but I wouldn't agree that the need to monitor a cat should be a reason for not having one. Most things on Wiki need monitoring. SilkTork 12:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Films about Prostitution if that survives the debate. SilkTork 12:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Closer

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete per precedent --Kbdank71 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Closer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Material does not warrant category. Otto4711 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good to see these TV WP:OC issues being systematically culled. Eusebeus 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments in the CfD (below) for Category:Burn Notice. In short, the group of articles about a TV series constitutes a natural "island" in that, in the absence of the main article on the TV series, the others would not exist. The issue is not one of mere association, but direct dependence. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actors by film or TV series, writers by TV series, directors by TV series, etc. form "natural islands" but they were deemed unnecessary for categorizing purposes. The articles here are extensively interlinked and the category does not add any navigational utility. Otto4711 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do not form the type of "natural island" to which I referred. Actors by film is a relationship of association, not direct dependence. If we deleted the article on the film, we could still keep the one on the actor. If we deleted the article on the actor, we could still keep the one on the film. If we delete the main article for a TV series, there's no point to keeping the articles on its episodes/characters. The relationship between a TV series and its episodes/characters (which have no existence in its absence) is significantly closer than that between a TV series and its actors, writers, directors (which can/do exist even in the absence of the TV series). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How exactly do actors from a TV series exist as a unit in the absence of the TV series? That makes no sense. Regardless, nearly a hundred of these categories have been deleted already and this "natural island" theory doesn't overcome the consensus that making categories for every TV show that someone writes some episode articles about is overcategorization. Otto4711 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding your first point: If the TV series The Closer did not exist (in real life), Kyra Sedgwick (the protagonist) would still exist. However, the series' episodes and (fictional) characters would not exist. If the TV series was not notable enough for inclusion, Kyra Sedgwick could/would still be notable. However, the series' episodes and (fictional) characters would most definitely not be notable enough for inclusion. Regarding your second point: I realise that precedent supports deletion; however, I think that the precedent may have been wrong in cases like these (where the existence of numerous articles depends directly on the existence of one). Precedent is not set in stone and is certainly reversible. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Politics in Derbyshire

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename, should have been speedy. Andrew c [talk] 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politics in Derbyshire to Category:Politics of Derbyshire
Nominator's rationale: Rename (changing "in" to "of"), per convention of Category:Politics of England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Burn Notice

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete per precedent --Kbdank71 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burn Notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Per strong precedent category not warranted for the show article and ep and character subcats. Otto4711 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, think of it this way. All articles, be they about television shows or people or albums or companies or events, have other articles that are related to them. No article is an island, so to speak, and they all depend on other articles that the reader might be interested in going on to visit. Theoretically, then, every article in Wikipedia could also have its own eponymous category that specifically includes all the other articles directly related to it. So every music album could have a category including all the songs and band members and record companies associated with it, and every person could have a category including all the places they've lived and all the people and organizations they've been seriously involved with.
But imagine the category mess that would result if you tried to do that. Every article having its own category would mean articles having a category tag for anything related to them. You'd end up with possibly hundreds of categories per article for large articles, and the whole thing would be impossible to maintain by editors. And for all that, what is the benefit to the reader? Keep in mind that in almost all these cases the related articles already are linked within the main article itself, so a reader can navigate to those articles that way instead of using the category system.
Therefore as a general rule eponymous categories for specific articles are a bad idea because they don't provide much benefit, if any, to the readers but they do significantly increase potential editorial maintainence and category clutter at the end of articles. Thus the goal is to keep eponymous categories to a minimum, using them only in certain well structured schemes which are both reasonable for editors to handle and which readers will probably find useful. That's why we've been (with Otto's huge assistance) removing almost all the eponymous categories for television shows and bands and people.
Anyway, that's my take on the whole thing. Feel free to disagree of course, but I thought I'd clarify some of the rationale behind what's going on. Dugwiki 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference I see between TV categories and the examples you provided above is that the relationship between a TV series and its episodes and characters is strictly hierarchical, unlike the relationship between a person and their place of residence, for instance. The group of articles about a TV series constitutes a natural "island" in that, in the absence of the main article on the TV series, the others would not exist. In the absence of an article about a person, the article on their city would still exist, and vice versa. The issue is not one of mere association, but direct dependence. I think eponymous categories are justified when the existence of several articles hinges on the existence of the main article. I realise that my view may be (likely is) a minority view, so please let me know what you think. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized person by performance articles the remaining articles do not require an eponymous category. All are interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of universities in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert to article, this isn't a category. -- Prove It (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.