Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Otto4711 (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 21 September 2009 (→Category:Middle-earth horses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:36, 21 September 2009 by Otto4711 (talk | contribs) (→Category:Middle-earth horses)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21

NEW NOMINATIONS

More Swedes

Propose renaming Category:Afro-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Black African descent
Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Ukrainian descent
Propose merging Category:Eritrean-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Eritrean descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These little devils were hiding and/or I missed them in the previous discussion to standardize these names. Same rationale applies. Good Ol’factory 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Danes of Hungarian descent

Propose renaming Category:Danes of Hungarian descent to Category:Danish people of Hungarian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename, possibly speedily (I'll let an admin decide). This category was tagged to be part of the rename here, but I failed to list it with the others. Good Ol’factory 22:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Video game reboots

Category:Video game reboots - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: The term "reboot" is interchangeable and loosely defined. Not a valid category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Mountain biking by nation

Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking by nation to Category:Mountain biking by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Category:Sports by country. Kslotte (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Middle-earth horses

Category:Middle-earth horses - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category is only filled with redirects. Template:CharR to list entry should be used in its place. TTN (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The same exact thing can be done with the template up above, which allows us to keep redirects from clogging up main namespace categories. The main category could be "Middle-earth character redirects to lists", while subcategories could be set up in the same way as the current setup. TTN (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • When you go into a category and find that over half of the articles are simply redirects, that means that they are cluttering up the category. The six actual articles within that category should simply be upmerged to the parent. We should be uniform in the way that we handle these anyway, so why not use an easy to manage template that is in use in a number of articles instead? TTN (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Corral them all together, to avoid cluttering up the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - utterly pointless category. The over-arching rationale for categories is that they serve as aids to navigation. There is simply no purpose served by a category that contains nothing but redirects that all redirect to the same article. Anyone with three brain cells that all talk to each other will figure that out. No one in their right mind is going to search for a Middle-earth horse, get redirected to the list, scroll to the top of the list, click on the link to the redirect and then click on the category. If this is offered up as an example of when to categorize redirects then the concept of categorizing redirects needs a rethink. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Mountain biking events at Summer Olympics

Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking events at Summer Olympics to Category:Summer Olympics mountain biking events
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since the Olympics are special events it needs to have a different naming then other country specific categories. Kslotte (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian infobox templates

Category:Hungarian infobox templates - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I didn't realise it should be "Hungary" not "Hungarian" (cf. other subcategories of Category:Country infobox templates). I've already created Category:Hungary infobox templates and parented it to that and Category:Hungary templates, and added two templates I created into it. SimonTrew (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom to Category:Countries of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with article names, and per prior discussion here.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with merging it like that is that it would make it harder to find from Category:European countries. The four main entries in this category belong to European countries, but are felt to be somewhat distinct from the other members of that category, therefore (I think) ought to be in a separate category which is nonetheless a clearly visible subcategory of European countries.--Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support rename but with reservations. The countries category is called just that, not 'Independant countries'. Wales, Scotland and England are countries (NI is not, but that's another matter). As they are countries they belong in the countries category, perfectly logically. Despite my opposition to the inclusion of the Six Counties - English Misplaced Pages has followed the political line of the New Labour UK government, a lie line which is contrary to the Belfast Agreement - I am tempted to agree with the compromise 'Category:Countries of the United Kingdom'. Perhaps what we really need here in the long term is a clearer practical distinction between the terms 'country' and 'sovereign state'. On the Countries of the UK talk page BritishWatcher says that he "supported and accepted the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be called countries" but opposes them "appearing on lists of countries (where only sovereign states are listed)". Therein lies the nub of the problem - the argument that although E, S and W are in fact countries they should not be listed or categoried as countries. A country need not be a sovereign state but it is still a country. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Journey

Propose renaming Category:Journey to Category:Journey (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename ambiguous category to match article Journey (band). Tassedethe (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

EPs categories

Propose renaming:

* Category:EP stubs to Category:Extended play stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand to match parent article, extended play. Also to avoid ambiguity, as EP leads to a disambiguation page. — ξ 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom and per the precedent to avoid abbreviations in categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Botswanan to Botswana

Propose renaming Category:Botswanan football clubs to Category:Botswana football clubs
Propose renaming Category:Botswanan football competitions to Category:Botswana football competitions
Propose renaming Category:Botswanan football logos to Category:Botswana football logos
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with two discussions (1, 2) which settled on "Botswana" as the Fooian adjective for things from Botswana. "Botswanan" is a made-up adjective that sounds good to English-language ears, but is not correct. Good Ol’factory 05:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lesothan to Lesotho

Propose renaming Category:Lesothan football clubs to Category:Lesotho football clubs
Propose renaming Category:Lesothan football competitions to Category:Lesotho football competitions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with this discussion, where "Lesotho" was adopted as the Fooian adjective for things from "Lesotho". "Lesothan" is a made-up adjective that sounds good to English-language ears but is not correct. Good Ol’factory 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Indian Music Developers

Propose renaming Category:Indian Music Developers to Category:Indian record producers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is consistent with what the category is intended to encompass. Good Ol’factory 04:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in NOIDA

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in NOIDA to Category:Universities and colleges in Noida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "NOIDA" is an acronym but the main article is Noida. It's one of these "SCUBA" vs. "Scuba" issues. Perhaps this is overcategorization at this point, since neither Category:NOIDA nor Category:Noida exist at this point. Good Ol’factory 04:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Michael Jackson's death

Suggest merging Category:Michael Jackson's death to Category:Michael Jackson
Nominator's rationale: Merge. My sense is that judging by the contents of this category, it is probably overcategorization and should be upmerged. The article Death of Michael Jackson would normally be acting as the appropriate "hub" that interlinks all of this stuff. For a similar example, see the deletion of Cat:Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. (If kept, surely it should be renamed to Category:Death of Michael Jackson in order to match the main article Death of Michael Jackson?) Good Ol’factory 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:OKW

Propose renaming Category:OKW to Category:Alumni of King William's College
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Changing inscrutable category name to what it actually is for. Good Ol’factory 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent :) Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well. I suppose no great harm is done if they go in the UK. I suppose a global category is not going to be much used. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canonizations of Pope Pius XII

Category:Canonizations of Pope Pius XII - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I venture to say canonizations are much more loosely tied to popes than, say, apostolic writings. The veneration of a saint never mentions which pontiff sainted him/her. Until very recently, I think it is hard to characterize any papacy based on the saints and blesseds it recognized. I would argue therefore that which pope created someone a saint is not defining either for that pope or for that saint, and that lists should be sufficient. This category is the only example of its kind in Category:Sainthood. -choster (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There is much truth in what the nom says. Nevertheless, it is probably defining, and by definition there can only be one such category per saint. We are unlikely to have many such categories - here as elsewhere Pius's admirers are testing the limits of WP:OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakish delete. I've seen this category before and have always had the sense that it was odd, especially since no other similar categories exist for other popes. It always struck me as the type of thing that would be expected in a list article, but not really in a category. If for whatever reason it's thought that this scheme would be beneficial to expand across all popes, then I think I could be OK with keeping the scheme for the reason Johnbod states—there will only be one per saint, so we wouldn't experience category clutter. But since this one stands alone, it seems to be more like OCATing Category:Pope Pius XII than anything else. Good Ol’factory 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Democratic Party (Romania)

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Democratic Party (Romania) to Category:Members of the Democratic Liberal Party (Romania)
Nominator's rationale: The former Democratic Party has been known as the Democratic Liberal Party for nearly two years. It's about time the category reflected that change. Biruitorul 03:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sports teams by origin of their name

Category:Sports teams by origin of their name - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after animals - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Greek antiquity - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Roman antiquity - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Ajax - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Apollo - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Hercules - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Hermes - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Olympia and Olympics - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Sparta and Spartans - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named Gladiators - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named Senators - Template:Lc1
Category:Sports teams named after Spartacus - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are all recent creation by one editor and are a fairly straightforward example of overcategorization of unrelated subjects with a shared name. This clearly is categorizing subjects "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself". (Category structure of parent–children is also not internally logical, since not all sports teams named "Senators" were named after Senators in Greek antiquity; in fact, probably most were not. Some teams may be named after the modern Olympics, not the ancient Greek ones, etc.) Good Ol’factory 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • We can exclude the specific teams that may be unrelated, not the categories.
  • 1.Ottawa Senators and Binghamton Senators's emblem clearly indicates that their name is relevant to Roman antiquity.
  • 2.Ancient or modern the Olympia and Olympic-named teams are part of the Olympic Sports culture.
  • 3.What about the animals-named teams? undoubtedly part of the category : animals in popular cultureCatalographer (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Actors to portray superheroes

Category:Actors to portray superheroes - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization. Such categories would simply overburden relevant article categories ie, Actors to portray murderers, Actors to portray flyers, Actors to portray flying nuns, Actors to portray gunfighters, Actors to portray clergy, Actors who portray living people, Actors... and so on, in finitum. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The slippery slope argument, with analogy to flying nuns, murderers, and such, really doesn't warrant deletion of this category. Comic book superheroes constitute a tremendously popular film genre, and this category allows for the collection of the principal actors who have starred in these roles. It is a category that has real utility for followers of comic book superheroes and films of that genre. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT, as an actor-by-role category of which we have previously deleted many. There are and have been many "tremendously popular film genres," and eventually every such role (as well as the less popular ones) would have its own category, and every actor would be then categorized by every role. I also don't understand the syntax of the category name at all. Was "actors who portray superheroes" intended? Postdlf (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand that you wouldn't want to have a category for each type of role, but the comic book superhero is a genre that warrants an exception, in my opinion. We are allowed to use our judgment, as no guideline is intended to be inflexible. It's the best way to collect all these folks in one place. Opening the door on this one doesn't need to open the floodgates. As for the syntax, a change to "who have portrayed" may flow best. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Cmt The category title threw me as well, and I agree that if kept the category should be renamed to "Actors who have portrayed superheroes" or some such. I'm neutral as far as whether this category is kept (I admit, categories are not a major part of my life and so I'm not very familiar with the guidelines behind them, and I personally won't be affected by the outcome of this CfD). rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. CfD has gone through this debate with similar categories many times. The 2006 deletion of Category:Super Hero actors is exactly on point, but there have also been many others of a similar type. It's overcategorization. There's no good argument for making an exception to the general rules for actors who have portrayed superheroes, because then we'd need an exception for actors who have portrayed Jesus, and then one for supervillains, and one for serial killers, and then one for anyone who has appeared nude, etc., ad infinitum. Lists do the job of allowing people "to find a variety of actors who have played the principal roles in a very popular genre", and it is at List of actors who have played comic book characters. Good Ol’factory 03:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I really do think that actors suffer from undercategorization rather than over. Just dumping thousands upon thousands of actors into a generic category like Category:Television actors (10,000 entries) or Category:American actors (2500 entries) or Category:American film actors (12,000 entries) is not useful. There really needs to be a better way of sorting actors into subcategories. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there has been consistent consensus that this is not the way. Doing it by role wouldn't solve the proposed problem anyway, because we wouldn't remove someone from Category:American film actors just because we could place them in this category. Very few actors have played only superheroes, so dividing by role (e.g., American film actors who have played superheroes) doesn't get us anywhere if subdividing a mass of articles in a parent category is the principal goal. Good Ol’factory 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if the "consistent consensus" is a good reason to freeze things "as is" or if thought has really been given the alternatives. It makes more sense to me than dumping thousands of actors into generic nationality (American, Candian) or media (TV, film) groupings. Sure we could subdivide further with categories like , but that's not really getting to the heart of what differentiates groups of actors. Seems to me that experimenting with catgegories such or might be more worthwhile. Cbl62 (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said, though, it wouldn't accomplish the goal you are seeking. See my comment above, starting at "Doing it by role wouldn't solve the proposed problem anyway...". One doesn't need to experiment to realise what would result would be another (very elaborate, of necessity) subcategorization scheme but no resolution of the underlying "problem". Good Ol’factory 03:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Experimentation is not a bad thing. The current system of broad categories with thousands of entries doesn't work and ignores the features that would be helpful to users. I submit that a little experimentation is just the thing that's needed to shake things up and find a system that works. Types of roles are in fact one of the things that distinguishes actors. For example, John Wayne and Tom Mix were actors known for appearing in Westerns. Cary Grant was an actor known for appearing in screwball comedies. Judy Garland and Gene Kelly were known for appearing in musicals. Lynda Carter, Buster Crabbe and Christopher Reeve were known for appearing in superhero roles. (Of course, these actors might fit in other categories as well, but that doesn't override the utility of such categories.) These types of categories would be worthwhile experiments in my opinion. Saying we "don't need to experiment to realise what would result" is really just another way of freezing a bad system in place. Cbl62 (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Mm, I don't think so. Not when you can't even present a hypothetical explanation of how this might relieve the large size of Category:American film actors and the like. Good Ol’factory 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Your comment misses my point. My point is that dividing American actors by ethnicity or state/city of residence is not the solution. Instead of focusing on geography or ethncity, it would make a lot more sense to focus on the things that are really helpful in distinguishing between categories of actors. But I 'm clearly not going to persuade you, and if you're the guy in charge of these issues, I guess things will just remain the same. Cbl62 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not the guy in charge. I'm a user who has made a comment here, but anyone can comment. A non-participating admin assesses the discussion and makes the final determination, but that won't be me. I didn't realise you were suggesting that an entirely parallel or replacement category w.r.t. the nationality ones would be preferred. This raises a number of other issues, but I won't belabour things here. Good Ol’factory 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - This sounded like an easy overcat delete, but Cbl makes some good points. We do need a way to actually cat actors, and this should stay until we figure it out, since it is useful, and the general ones aren't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per anti-status quo arguments. The current method of categorization does nothing to help one find a specific actor and instead creates over bloated categories that are impossible to sift through. Kuro ♪ 05:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I voted keep earlier, and I've since read all the arguments. Basically, we have serious problems with our actor cats. US or Brit actors is close to useless to our readers. "Hey, your interested in this US actor? Here's 10,000 more!" On the other hand, you can't cat actors by TV show, becaue then they end up with 10, 20, 50 cats (Law and Order, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, etc.) I still don't think this should be deleted, but we've got problems that go beyond what CfC can fix. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree about status quo issues. I don't have an opinion on whether this is kept or deleted, but there does need to be some way to categorize actors. Categories with thousands of entries don't serve any navigational purpose (they may serve others, but not that), since no one's going to sit there and click through them. rʨanaɢ /contribs 11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Having thought about it further, the issue is more significant than actors playing superheroes. I continue to think a better way of categorizing actors could be found. Opening the broader point up to discussion in the right forum (?) may make sense. There are people who will likely have better ideas, but the following concepts occur to me: (1) Categories tied to particular genres (as noted above, certain actors are known for their work in particular film genres, e.g., Westerns, screwball comedies, musicals, superhero genre, etc.), or (2) Categories tied to more precise time periods (e.g., the silent era, the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, etc. (actors with longevity would be included in multiple categories). Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The best thing might be to start a page somewhere (userspace, or WP:) for brainstorming/discussion of ideas for overhauling actor categories, and then post links at the relevant pages (WikiProject films, WT:Category, stuff like that). It seems like it will be a pretty big issue so it deserves a page to itself. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a concept that has already been discussed to death and if memory serves, too many actors cross many, many lines as to what sorts of films they do to start sticking in categories regarding genres. Some categories have already been deleted (Western actors comes to mind). Following this, imagine how many categories would end being put on just one actor... Brad Pitt for example. That was the point to which I was alluding when I said "Actors who played flying nuns". It still comes down to overkill and trying to define an actor in a way that doesn't reflect a career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom/per WP:OVERCAT. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is nothing so exceptional about playing a superhero that warrants a category or that warrants bucking the clear and consistent consensus against this sort of categorization. Far from simply being a "slippery slope," the argument raised about categorizing by other sorts of roles is directly on point. "The parent category is too big" is a decent reason for sub-categorizing but as noted this won't reduce the size of those categories because an American actor who played a superhero should still be categorized as an American actor. I also question whether this is a defining characteristic of an actor to begin with. Sure there are some actors who have been typecast, but for every George Reeves there's an Uma Thurman or a Ben Stiller or any number of others who played a superhero once but who are not thought of as "superhero actors". Categorizing actors by genre (screwball comedy actor, musical film actor) doesn't work either because actors cross genres. For every screwball comedy Cary Grant made there's a romantic drama or a Hitchcock thriller. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Otto4711's well-stated explanation of the difficulties with this type of category. --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

-Delete, it's categorisation by performance. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)