Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:42, 9 February 2007 editRobbieG (talk \| contribs)1,378 edits →Category:Mega Man antagonists: keep← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:07, 9 February 2007 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →NEW NOMINATIONS Next edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====		==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
	<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->		<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->

			==== Category:Cities in Kurdistan ====
			:{{lc\|Cities in Kurdistan}}<br/>
			{{{3\|Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. <small>] ]</small> 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)}}}

	====]====		====]====
	* ]		* ]

Revision as of 08:07, 9 February 2007

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Cities in Kurdistan

Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Cat out 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic Church by country

Rename all to Roman Catholic Church in Foo, convention of Category:Roman Catholic Church by country. -- Prove It 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former countries in North America

Propose renaming Category:Former countries in North America to Category:Former political entities in North America

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category is a misnomer. Very few of the entries in this category were ever "countries"; the vast majority were mostly colonies or other similar dependent territories. It had appeared that the simpler task would have been to have edited the various articles to remove them from the category, but many of the articles here appear because of a number of esoteric templates. To remove many of these entries would require much more template editing than article editing, but the simplest thing to do is to apply a much more appropriate name. Agent 86 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substantive issues, I would suggest that if the category is renamed then the appropriate word choice may be "defunct" rather than "former." Otto4711 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Playboy Cyber Club

Category:Playboy Cyber Club into Category:Playboy

Merge - We have previously deleted and salted Playboy Cyber Girls (edit - we D&S'ed Playboy Cyber Girls, not Club) and this seems like sort of a way around that. Merge to the parent cat. Otto4711 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Carpenters (Carpenters album)

Delete, a recreation, in category form, of the Carpenters article. -- Prove It 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mario antagonists

Delete - please see Mega Man antagonists for the reasons. Otto4711 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nintendo antagonists

Delete - please see Mega Man antagonists for the reasons. Otto4711 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Metroid antagonists

Delete - please see Mega Man antagonists for the reasons. Otto4711 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Legend of Zelda antagonists

Delete - please see Mega Man antagonists for the reasons. Otto4711 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Square Enix antagonists

Delete - please see Mega Man antagonists for the reasons.. Otto4711 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Final Fantasy antagonists

Delete - please see Mega Man antagonists for the reasons. Otto4711 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mega Man antagonists

Delete preferably speedy - category was one of several created by editor Cosmetor in violation of WP:POINT because s/he is upset with the consensus noted here and here and here and here and here and here and here among other places that words like "hero" and "villain" in category and article titles are undesirable. I would contend that this is a backdoor effort to subvert that consensus. Regardless of the editor's motives, I contend that "antagonist" is no better than "villain" and allowing the categories to stand opens the door back up to recreating all the deleted "villain" categories under a slightly different name but with all the attendant problems. We have already deleted Fictional antagonists for this reason. Otto4711 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If consensus is to delete then the category will actually need to be merged to the appropriate parent "character" category because Cosmetor emptied the "villain" categories to populate these. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is not a "backdoor" to "subvert" your consensus. It is a fix to the only problem you had with "villain" categories. "Antagonist" has a clear, objective, definition. As a matter of fact, you have violated Misplaced Pages's principle to "assume good faith". Cosmetor 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As for your "antagonist is no better than villain", it is in fact a much more objective word. It refers to a character who opposes the protagonist of a story (which, in the case of video games, means the player) and, unlike "villain" makes no moral judgements. The terms is totally objective. Cosmetor 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC):

As I have already noted in this very nomination, the category for "fictional antagonists" was deleted. Your reasoning has been rejected and I do not find your "yes it is, no it isn't" style of argumentation particularly persuasive. Otto4711 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning is wrong. "Antagonist" is completely different from "villain". Most importantly, it is objectively defined. Cosmetor 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Fictional_antagonists. Otto4711 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, some might say that characters who change over the course of a story might fit into a different category. They fit into both categories. The story in which they fit into one category was written, and it remains written even if other stories change them. For example, K. Rool has, in different games, been a king, pirate and scientist; this means he fits into the "Fictional kings", "Fictional pirates", and "Fictional scientists" categories. Cosmetor 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is pretty much exactly why the consensus to delete these categories formed. To drag out the same examples again, Iago (Aladdin) was a "villain" or "antagonist" in the first film but then became a "hero" or "protagonist" in the subsequent TV series and sequel film. It is ridiculous to categorize him as both a "hero" and a "villain" or as both a "protagonist" and an "antagonist." Other examples: Magneto, Emma Frost and Jean Grey, a few among the many, many characters who have switched from being "heroes"/"protagonists" to "villains/antagonists" in their histories. It's ridiculous to categorize them in diametrically opposing categories. Namor switched back and forth almost from one issue to the next; is he a hero, a villain, a protagonist, an antagonist, all of the above? Should he have two or four different categories when one ("character") will suffice? What about Galactus who operates on a level of morality and ethics far beyond human comprehension, yet who as written is a fundamental necessity of the universe? Is he a hero? A villain? An antagonist? A protagonist? All of the above? None of the above? Who decides? You? Me? Otto4711 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And to comment on your additional comment, whether or not a character is a king, a pirate or a scientist is a matter of objective fact. Either someone is a king or he isn't. Deciding that someone is a "villain" or an "antagonist" requires that one draws a conclusion that can be avoided by simply categorizing them as "characters." Otto4711 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Fiction is static. Donkey Kong Country 2 will always have pirates in it, even though he's not a pirate anymore in other games, with emphasis on "other". It is not in any way ridiculous to categorize a fictional character based on every state that he or she has been in, because that would be the most accurate thing to do. For instance, say that Billy Jones has a job as a police officer at the beginning of his game, then gets fired and becomes a private detective; that would mean he counts as both a "police officer" and a "private detective". Cosmetor 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Occupations can be objectively defined. "Antagonist" can't be. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All of that is a moot point, though, because it's only arguing about what category individual characters fall into. We're arguing about whether the categories should exist at all, and I think they should, because they are objective. "Antagonist", unlike "villain", has an objective definition in this case. It refers to someone who opposes the main character(s) of a game, which are the playable character(s). There was subjectivity in the word "villain", but there's none here. Cosmetor 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Antagonist" is not objectively defined because it depends on the comparison of the character in question to another character. Banshee and Black Tom Cassidy are mutually antagonistic; should they both be categorized as antagonists? The player characters of these video games are antagonistic toward the so-called "villains" so by your logic they should both be in the antagonists category. And speaking of video games, what about multi-player games where the player characters oppose each other. That makes them both "antagonists" by your definition. It's absurd. Otto4711 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An antagonist is defined as someone who opposes the "protagonist", which in a video game would be the playable character. The category's definition is objective. As for multiplayer games, that's another "case-by-case" thing. Also, stop bringing up comic books; this debate is specific to video games, where the "protagonist" is clearly defined. Cosmetor 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The debate is not specific to video games because the category that would be the parent to this category, Fictional antagonists, has been deleted. Allowing these categories allows for creation of comic book antagonists, film antagonists, XYZ antagonists and so on so it is relevant to address the larger ramifications of the categories. Otto4711 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We are, in fact, only talking about video games at the moment, where we can objectively identify a protagonist and thus objectively identify an antagonist. It's simply true that the category is objective. If there are other cases where it would not be objective, those are different. Cosmetor 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And in those cases where two playable characters can compete against each other, the antagonist is...? Otto4711 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If an administrator has voiced approval of your actions then that admnistrator needs to familiarize himself with the text of the CfD tag. The tag specifically instructs editors not to empty categories while the CfD is in progress. By doing what you did, assuming these categories don't survive, you've generated extra work for the administrators. Otto4711 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely in the case of articles which actually have "villain" or "antagonist" in the title this is appropriate, because they certainly do take an antagonistic role in the context of the work discussed (e.g. List of non-Kremling Donkey Kong enemies). I strongly suggest we keep these categories for this purpose. Glancing at the old "Fictional antagonists" discussion you mentioned, the main reason it was deleted appears to have been because it was too broad. "Mega Man Antagonists" is far more specific. RobbieG 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lesbianism-related films

Propose renaming Category:Lesbianism-related films to Category:Lesbian-related films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is very odd, weird, doesn't convey quite what I think is intended. There is no significant difference between Lesbianism and Lesbian as it stands here. Several have agreed in a prior discussion on the LGBT studies project page that the rename is not out of order. Zue 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Category:LGBT-related films. I know I won't win this one but I'm putting the option out here anyway. The category was originally called "Lesbian films" and I nominated it for merger to LGBT films. Consensus formed to rename instead. I still contend that subdividing the LGBT films categories into "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" subcategories is a mistake. Otto4711 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it a mistake for the subcategories to exist? I wasn't present for the previous discussions related to this topic. Thanks, Zue 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

here is the previous discussion for "Lesbian films" and a parallel discussion for "Bisexual films" that got renamed to "Bisexuality-related films." My feeling was and is that splitting up LGBT films is a form of ghettoization and that it also leads to overcategorization since people tend to add both the "LGBT films" cat and the more segregated sub-cat. Otto4711 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

comment - Otto4711 makes a good point regarding overcategorization. (I'm not sure ghettoization is applicable to individual cultures w/in LGBT anyway, but if it is, ghettoization is properly avoided by redundant categorizing.) Elaborating: While there are advantages to distinguishing L, G, B, and T, the fluidity of sexual identity/practice/portrayals on film make it difficult to maintain subcategories of LGBT into the obvious constituent parts. In films, for instance, multiple characters might fit a film reasonably into any or all L/G/B/T subcategories. In other films one could argue over whether it's bi or lesbian; lesbian or trans; gay or bi. It's probably easier to just go with LGBT films; and do lists for more specificity. --lquilter 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711, Ah. Good material - all that. I think the concern of ghettoization is a valid one; however, as the categories expand, it will be useful to have these subcategories per the previous umbrella descriptions given. Personally, if I think about going into the video store and looking for an LGBT movie, I will only want to look for Lesbian ones because that's where my interests are; and while I love the guys, I'm not looking for a movie featuring a male-male relationship, just like I'm not looking for a move featuring a male-female relationship. I just find that so frustrating! Zue 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I had not considered a list since the category all ready existed, my goal was to simply give it a more logical name and perhaps add more movies to it. I think the distinction remains necessary. The current name, IMveryHO, is foolish and the proposed one only slightly better. I am a fan of the category name "Lesbian films" which gets 2.9 million hits on Google, whereas "Lesbian-related films" only has 1,460 hits, and "Lesbianism-related films" gets 540 hits (the first of which is Misplaced Pages), I proposed the "Lesbian-related films" category name in deference to previous editors and their opinions. But the list idea is sounding more appealing the more I ponder it... Hmm... Zue 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice between "Lesbianism-related films" and "Lesbian-related films" I'll take the latter, if the cat isn't merged. Otto4711 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)