Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:Italian-American actors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: UpMerge to Category:Italian-Americans and Category:American actors - jc37 09:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian-American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is another category pointed out by another editor. The category was deleted in this discussion and later recreated. I believe that for this category, allowing some discussion here to confirm the previous CfD was a good thing. If there is an early consensus, I'll likely close this as a speedy G4 as recreation of deleted material. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to oppose the censorship of ethnicity and occupation intersection categories which are entirely valid/factual, very valuable, and encyclopedic. --Wassermann (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity and occupation intersection categories are only valuable and encyclopedic when they actually tell you something meaningful. That is, this category should only exist if there's something that makes being an actor of Italian heritage fundamentally different from being an actor of Greek or German or Belarusian heritage. And that isn't the case. For the occupational set "actors", the only encyclopedically significant distinction that exists between actors of different ethnicities hinges entirely on the presence or absence of racial/ethnic barriers. Italian-Americans haven't ever faced that. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who can say that Italian-Americans have never faced ethnic barriers must have been raised in a very special institution, where no bad news was permitted. I don't know whether Italian-Americans had difficulty getting work in the U.S. or England as actors, singers, or musicians, but they certainly has problems getting into manufacturing and farming, since the Yankees wouldn't sell them land. Same with the Irish, the Poles, and, especially, the Jews. The 19th Century urban history of Italian-Americans and other Catholic immigrants in America is mentioned in many freshman political science courses, and there is some interesting detail in the San Francisco Bay Area, where immigrants from Genoa, Lucca, and Sicily ended up and started discriminating against each other.--Hjal (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American lawyers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is another category pointed out by another editor. The category was deleted in this discussion and later recreated. Given the amount of time, I thought that allowing some discussion here to confirm the previous CfD was a good thing. If there is an early consensus, I'll likely close this as a speedy G4 as recreation of deleted material. Note that if closed as delete, it really will be an upmerge to Category:American lawyers to make sure that no articles are left out of the logical parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While acknowledging the previous consensus to delete, I'd like to bring up an issue about this category that wasn't raised in the 2007 CfD, perhaps because it was discussed along with the "Jewish American lawyers" nomination as just another type of "ethnicity/profession" intersection. For one, African American lawyers have their own professional organization, the National Bar Association. (It has a number of localized affiliates, including The Barristers' Association of Philadelphia.) African American students training to become lawyers also are represented by the National Black Law Students Association. Both of these groups have their own magazines, publications, and conferences where issues specific to African American lawyers and law students are addressed. So it's certainly not a "trivial" intersection, as many of the ethnicity/profession categories can be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per User:Good Olfactory; it is not a completely trivial intersection. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is of greater encycopedic value than many, if not all, of the other ethnic/occupation categories for several reasons: the individual attorneys in many cases had to oversome significant bias against African Americans to enter their profession; many spent much of their profgessonal careers specializing in the pursuit and protection of African-American civil rights; many particpated in notable cases related to African Americans; many became notable officials (judges or elected officials) as the first or early African American incumbent. Note that the same arguments fully justify keeping several other ethnic/occupation intersections, such as Jewish classical musicians.--Hjal (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to oppose the censorship of ethnicity and occupation intersection categories which are entirely valid/factual, very valuable, and encyclopedic. --Wassermann (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the arguments of Good Ol’factory and Hjal -- and because to this day racial bias has not been eliminated from the American justice/judicial system, so the race or ethnicity of a lawyer is always significant. Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wassermann. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite Wassermann. Good Ol'factory and Hjal have got it right — the reason to keep this is that for a variety of reasons this particular intersection does define an encyclopedically significant grouping, not that all ethnicity-occupation intersections are equally valid. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. Occuli (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish inventors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish inventors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to a request from a user. This category was speedy deleted as empty during this discussion and a list existed. Subsequent to that action the category was recreated and the list was deleted as listcruft. Since this was a speedy delete as empty, it probably needs a discussion here to decide on the fate of the category. I will further add that the creator was identified to me as a 'indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer'. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to oppose the censorship of ethnicity and occupation intersection categories which are entirely valid/factual, very valuable, and encyclopedic. And in the future please have User:IZAK do his own nomination for deletion instead of 'requesting' that you list them here in an apparent attempt to hide or cover up his censorious agenda regarding Jewish categories. --Wassermann (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasserman, I am warning you for the last time to desist from violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF against me with uncalled for allegations such as: "And in the future please have User:IZAK do his own nomination for deletion instead of 'requesting' that you list them here in an apparent attempt to hide or cover up his censorious agenda regarding Jewish categories." If you wish to argue the merits of your position please do so based on logic and reason but there is no need to attack me personally and miscast my motives. There is nothing "censorious" by me and there is no "apparent attempt to hide or cover up" anything. You well know that my views are open for all to read at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews, and I am ready to discuss these positions, and anyone is free to argue the pros and cons of that. But personal attacks and paranoid accusations against me are uncalled for and I willl pursue whatever means I can to stop you from your annoying and offensive personal attacks against me. I repeat: This is your last warning not to attack me personally. I do not do it to you, do not do it me! IZAK (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I was the closing admin it was reasonable to notify me about the out of process recreations. I could have simply deleted the categories as recreations but elected to bring them here. I have no reason to believe that IZAK was trying to hide behind me in anyway especially give that the request is freely available to everyone. My take was that an inappropriate recreation happened. In my opinion that was a correct observation by IZAK. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wassermann. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category is no less valid than Category:Jewish scientists. The circumstances of the initial deletion are highly questionable given that there no questions were raised regarding the emptying out of the category. So I commend Vegaswikian for taking the issue here for discussion. I hope my friend IZAK will follow that course in the future. Cgingold (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Cgingold: this was a deleted category that was recreated by a banned sockpuppet, see my note to Vegaswikian at User talk:Vegaswikian#Category:Jewish inventors wherein I state and to clarify here for the record: "Hi Vegaswikian: 10 March 2007 you had deleted Category:Jewish inventors per the results of the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10#Category:Jewish inventors. However it seems those results were ignored and the category was recreated out of process on 31 October 2007 by User No Free Nickname Left (talk · contribs) [1] who is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. The category needs to be either deleted per the decision reached on 10 March 2007 or it should have been taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" so I do not see any problem with the route I followed or with my request to Vegaswikian to enforce his own earlier decison as an admin to delete this category. That he has now chosen to relist the category is somewhat of a stretch because it, and the two other categories I brought to his attention, should then be rightfully classified as "Category:Jewish inventors (2nd nomination)" to ensure that proper procedures be followed, while he could have just as easily, and in my view, correctly deleted this category without discussion based on the earlier discussion and his earlier decision to do so. To my knowledge, the actions of vandals and sockpuppets should not rewarded and reinforced on Wikipedia, and this unjustified renomination only serves to encourage such negative behavior from non-conformist and destructive editors in the future. IZAK (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons it was originally deleted: Wikipedia:Overcategorization: Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1. In it's original deletion on 2007 MAR 10, the category was speedily deleted as empty. Categories that are speedily deleted as empty are not subject to immediate deletion upon re-creation, so Vegaswikian was entirely correct to relist. (My question is—why was the category empty on 2007 MAR 10 in the first place? Did someone manually empty it? Or was it simply unused?) 2. As for "rewarding" a sockpuppet by keeping a category s/he created, I suppose the category could mechanistically be deleted and then re-created by someone else to prove a point, but if the content is valid there's really not much point to that. I don't think we should base keep or delete decisions on who created it. 3. Anyway, as for the merits of the category, I'm not convinced that being a Jewish inventor is any less notable that being a Jewish scientist or a Jewish astronaut, both of which have been nominated and not deleted in the past, which was against my initial opinion. But I'm willing to err of the side of keeping these now as an strictly personal application of "if in doubt, don't delete". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I am a little baffled by these as Category:Jewish mathematicians and Category:Jewish businesspeople were deleted after verbose cfds (and a drv for the first) containing no consensus that I could perceive. "If in doubt, don't delete" sounds OK to me. Occuli (talk) 12:22, 23 August 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.

Major League Baseball players by home state[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Renaming all 51 categories dealing with Major League Baseball player by home state.
Nominator's rationale - naming conventions call for "Major League Baseball" rather than "Major league" so we know what sport we are talking about. Also, a similar CFR was conducted on August 9th/section 1.3 concerning Major League Baseball players by position.Neonblak (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that.Neonblak (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These categories haven't been appropriately tagged, at least the 10 or so other than Alabama that I have looked at have not been. Also, they have not been listed here. For a similar recent problem and explanations as to why it's a problem, see 2008 AUG 8 CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories properly tagged, and listed on this page. Renaming them would match them with the parent category, Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state, plus it would match the other "Major League Baseball" categories like Category:Major League Baseball players by position and Category:Major League Baseball players.Neonblak (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rollerskates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — CharlotteWebb 02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rollerskates to Category:Roller skates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Minor and possibly speediable. Change to match the parent Category:Roller skating and the lead article Roller skates. Otto4711 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Navy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Navy to Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Navy - (Probably could have been speedy.) - jc37 10:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Navy to Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Navy
Nominator's rationale: Two reasons: consistency with other subcategories of Category:United States Navy personnel, and the fact that "Judge Advocates General" is the preferred plural (similar to Attorney General --> Attorneys General). Eastlaw (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army to Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Army - (Probably could have been speedy.) - jc37 10:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army to Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Army
Nominator's rationale: Two reasons: consistency with other subcategories of Category:United States Army personnel, and the fact that "Judge Advocates General" is the preferred plural (similar to Attorney General --> Attorneys General). Eastlaw (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-Korean baseball players in Korea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Non-Korean baseball players in Korea to Category:Expatriate baseball players in Korea revised per below Category:Expatriate baseball players in South Korea
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to the format used in soccer player cats, and other baseball cats (Japan, Taiwan) Neier (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Preschools in Ohio[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Preschools in Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete; contains one redirect. No other preschool categories seem to exist, probably for good reason. --Eliyak T·C 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete--there are no similar preschool categories elsewhere, so I see no reason to keep this one. I might, however, consider keeping a single "preschool" category if there were more articles on notable preschools on Wikipedia. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only article is a redirect to an article which has no info on the school in question. (I doubt if there are any notable pre-schools.) Occuli (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Au contraire -- There are quite a few, very conservatively at least a dozen. My wife used to work in the field, and I could name half a dozen off the top of my head that would almost surely meet WP:NOTE (and that's not including the notorious McMartin preschool). Cgingold (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no article to speak of, so no conceivable reason for a category. Both the category and the redirect were created by the same editor, who hasn't really edited since September 2007. Cgingold (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not usually have articles on Primary Schools, let alone pre-schools. 99.9% are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peerage work group articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Peerage and Baronetage work group articles. Kbdank71 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Peerage work group articles to Category:Peerage and Baronetage articles
Nominator's rationale: Kittybrewster ☎ 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trainers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Athletic shoes. Kbdank71 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Trainers to Category:Athletic shoes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous, as a number of things are called Trainer. We have no article on athletic shoes called "Trainer" and Trainer (footwear) is a redirect to the category's lead article, Athletic shoe. Otto4711 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Classic trainers to Category:Trainers and renaming Category:Trainers to Category:Athletic shoes
Nominator's rationale: Merge - thoroughly subjective category. What constitutes "iconic status" for a shoe and according to whom? Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If these aren't handled in the right order, somebody will inadvertently re-create a deleted category when closing this. I mean if there is consensus to rename the main category (a sure bet, IMO), then this should be merged instead to the new Category:Athletic shoes, or otherwise renamed to Category:Classic athletic shoes in the less likely case that we keep these separate. Might be best to take out the section break. — CharlotteWebb 21:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I wondered about that. I hope my fiddling above doesn't screw things up; if so I'm sure some kindly soul will fix it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of Ireland' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of Great Britain
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of Great Britain' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of the United Kingdom' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of England
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of England' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of Nova Scotia
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of Nova Scotia' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 20 August 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.

Intersections of fictional characters and occupations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to listify at this time. Kbdank71 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main idea here is that the occupation of a fictional character is at the whim of an author. And especially given the fact that (temporary) occupational changes are often used simply to accomodate the plot of a single episode of a TV series, chapter of a book, issue of a comic, etc. For example, how many summer jobs did the Hardy Boys have? Or how about the various occupations of Hal Jordan?

And attempting to require a limitation to just those which are "notable" means subjectivity, since "notability" requires references, which we can't do in categories, so this should be a list. (See WP:CLN.) Besides, the work itself is often likely to be the only source in most cases. - jc37 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify all as nominator. - jc37 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Horatio Hornblower is defined by his occupation, and Sherlock Holmes, etc. The problem is "temporary employment", which can be made a restriction, short-term or temporary employment can be made a disqualifier for category membership. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - some of these categories may be worthwhile, others not. Clearly for some characters their occupation is their strongest defining characteristic (what category is better for Mary Poppins then fictional nannies?). These categories should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A mass nomination of this size is unworkable. Otto4711 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To ask "what category is better" suggests that you support the intersection between fictional characters and occupations. (If not, please clarify.) I'm suggesting that all of these be deleted, and listified. This is overcat. WP:OC#Trivial intersection, for one thing. The main problem here is that, unlike "real peaople", fictional characters don't necessarily have "real world" concerns when it comes to having an occupation. The occupation of the character is at the whim of the author.
    As for the size of the nom, if I had only nominated a few, we'd then be hearing WP:ALLORNOTHING... - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Fictional boxers' is no more of an intersection than is 'boxers' (fictional characters intersected with boxers, and non-fictional characters intersected with boxers). Neither is trivial. WP:ALLORNOTHING is about articles, not categories. Occuli (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have honestly never heard the arguement "All or nothing" (or something similar) at CfD, you've either not been around very long, or not been paying attention. In my experience, it, along with WP:WAX, are probably two of the most common arguements at CfD (besides the Personal POV ones like WP:ILIKEIT).
    As for your comments about intersection, in general, Mike Tyson is not a non-fictional character. (Though I await the deluge of humourous comments : ) - He's a person, and his article would presumably fall under WP:BLP. (Noting, of course, that he could be characterised for media purposes. But that's a wholly other topic, which you don't seem to be talking about.)
    In short, characters do not have the "real-world" implications in selection of an occupation, and there is no "real world" "impact" of a character having a specific occupation. A medical doctor, on the other hand, can indeed have real world impact. For example, they can be treated as an expert in a court proceeding. Doctor Donald Blake cannot. Such impact (among other things) is why we allow intersection between people and occupations. It simply doesn't exist for fictional characters. - jc37 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't follow the argument that inclusion in a category does not require a source - a category added to an article is making an implicit claim and can be challenged at article level just like any other claim. A whole novel is at the whim of the author. Temporary fictional jobs should be handled just like temporary real jobs, and in general do not merit a category. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of questionable cases does not detract from the existence of unquestionable cases. There can be no dispute, for example, that Cliff Clavin is a (fictional) postal worker, Rocky Balboa is a (fictional) boxer, and Tommy Gavin is a (fictional) firefighter. bd2412 T 10:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    Just because something may be deemed to be "true", doesn't mean we should categorise based upon that. - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We are required to categorise by 'defining characteristics'. Rocky Balboa and Mike Tyson both have to categorised as 'boxers' of some sort. Occuli (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we aren't required to categorise anything. (Noting of course that the software is set up to notice and list uncategorised articles.) That said, there is no requirement as to how articles must be categorised. (There are any number of things which we could select as an inclusion criterion for a category.) And fictional characters aren't "real people". So all attributes or features of a particular character are at the whim of one or more authors. And to use your example, Rocky worked in a meat packing/distrubution plant. While he may not have gained as much "fame" in his fictional world due to that, it's still notable, especially in terms of the plot and themes of the story. And that's a specific problem. An occupation is often a device to further a story. As such it's better explained as a list, so that such an explanation may be provided/referenced/etc. - jc37 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now. I essentially agree with Otto and BD here. There are certainly some of these categories that I maybe would agree could or should be deleted, but all of them? Certainly not. I don't think it would really be worthwhile for me to list the ones I would delete, since doing that is not going to garner a consensus in such a broad CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Certainly not." - If not, why not? What's your personal dividing line? And how would that line not be subjective or arbitrary? - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nothing to do with WP:OC#Subjective inclusion criterion or WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion - these apply to a particular category. There is nothing subjective or arbitary about a fictional boxer category, or a fictional waitress category. (What has happened to the edit section? It used to have tildes in it.) Occuli (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, please allow GO'f to answer. I respect their opinion, and am curious as to their responses.
    As for your comments, you misunderstood the statements in the response. I was referring to the presumed demarcation line for inclusion in the category, not the category itself.
    Anyway, I understand you are inclusionistic, I am too, actually, but nothing will be lost in listifying these, and quite a bit gained. - jc37 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little unsure of what you want me to explain. My "certainly not" was a reaction to whether I would be in favour of deleting/listifying all these categories. I would not be. As I said, I'm not sure I want to go through every one individually and explain whether I support or oppose a deletion in that case. I would assess each category individually based on its contents and present or possible definition. I'm sympathetic to the argument that if the nomination had been smaller, you would hear WP:ALLORNOTHING, but I think most who participate in CfD realise that this is a bad argument that doesn't carry much weight, so there's not really much point in tailoring a nomination in such a way that will pre-empt unconvincing arguments. I'm a bit curious, though, as to why Category:Fictional pimps and Category:Fictional porn stars were left out of the party. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "some were", so I was asking what your dividing line between "keep" and "delete" is, in regards to the categories.
    "Pimps" - borderline "criminal". I removed those from this, intending on a separate nom. And "stars" was another that is borderline. (I could see the arguement that being a "star" is not an occupation : ) - And I wanted/want to try to keep this nom clear in its inclusion criteria. (The intersection between fictional character and occupation.) If any are missed that should have been added, we can always follow up the nom with those, I suppose.
    "...so there's not really much point in tailoring a nomination in such a way that will pre-empt unconvincing arguments." - That isn't the only reason, though it's a reason that we do do these group noms. For another, it saves on the community's time and effort, since, typically, the comments for one may apply for the comments for all.
    In this case, it seems that several commenters are "hung-up" on questions of non-notability of individual cases, rather than the question of whether intersecting fictional characters with occupations is overcat itself. (Which is a main point of this nom.) - jc37 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "You said 'some were', so I was asking what your dividing line between 'keep' and 'delete' is, in regards to the categories." I think I probably already answered this for you, but in case I haven't: I've no bright line test that can be summarised here. As I said, for me it would be an individual assessment by category. In principle, I disagree that an intersection between being a fictional character and having a specific occupation is necessarily trivial. In some cases, it may well be. In others, it may well not be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You last comments above (starting with "In principle...") directly answer. Thank you.
    So now... Why do you think so? What about this do you see as "non-trivial", "notable", or "useful", especially when considering WP:CLN, and my suggestion of turning these into lists? (For the reasons I've described - though I'll be happy to further clarify). - jc37 23:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more difficult to discuss in the abstract, of course, but one reason I suppose is it provides an alternative way at accessing the articles if one is browsing through the categories. For example, you can approach Category:Fictional boxers through the parent Category:Fictional characters, which is obvious. But having the subcategory also allows you to approach it through Category:Boxers, which could be useful to someone who is researching boxers or boxing and didn't originally think of studying fictional examples. Granted, this too could be accomplished if List of fictional boxers was there instead of the category. So I guess you have to consider if being a boxer is defining for the characters included in the category. If it is not defining for any of them, we don't need the category. As others have pointed out, I would say it is defining for at least Rocky Balboa, Apollo Creed (may he rest in peace), Milo Kerrigan, Clubber Lang, Tommy Gunn, and, of course, Ivan Drago. For many of these characters I've mentioned, they are totally one dimensional. All we really know about some of them is that they are a boxer and they fight so-and-so in a movie or whatever. (I don't know enough about the comics characters to assess those.) That seems pretty defining to me. That's one example of the process I would use in deciding to keep one of these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the problem with suggesting "notability" for an aspect of something fictional. They have as many features as given to them by the author. This could be one, or many. And the inherent value of such a feature or aspect is completely subjective. As I noted elsewhere, determining such a value would require a reference. (Even if it's a quote from a primary source.) Categories just aren't good for this. I think you understand that I'm suggesting listification and not deletion. Do you understand why? - jc37 00:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Definingness" (not "notability") is the standard for an article being included in a category. Anyhow, the problem you identify is not unique to these particular ones. It's a perennial problem that can apply to any category. Yes, I think I'm clear on your proposal and the reasons for it. Disagreeing doesn't suggest misunderstanding, necessarily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood and agreed. I just wanted to make sure we weren't talking in circles : )
    And no, you're right, it's not unique. We have quite a few categories of fictional characters by fictional aspect/propety/feature/etc. But I've noticed that they are slowly but steadily being deleted or in a few cases listified. - jc37 02:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. All that's really needed is a headnote stating that these are for primary occupations only, not for temporary jobs, etc. Cgingold (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And who decides what a "primary occupation" is for the character? You? Me? Obviously not. That requires a reference/citation on a case-by-case basis. (As noted rather clearly even in the comments in this discussion.) Something which is not possible in a category. "Hatnotes" can only provide a reference for the theme or inclusion criteria of the category, not for the individual membership. - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify - I think these need to be looked at on a case by case basis, taking Category:Fictional gymnasts as an example, whilst the characters in it have traits of being gymnasts (strictly speaking, I'd refer to most as acrobats) are they really defining characteristics of the characters (and given the category is a subcategory of Category:fictional sportspeople, and none of the characters apply their gymnastics as a sport; then there is a case for Category:Fictional gymnasts to be deleted. Taking Category:fictional waiting staff, where there is no category for notable waiting staff; I'd be surprised it not include Rachel Green (from Friends, where she was a waitress for at least one seriees), yet the character appears in Category:fictional cheerleaders, for which I do not know of a single episode for which she cheers (It might be mentioned as "background information", but I wouldn't deem it a defining attribute, in her case) I can see a case in keeping some of the other fictional occupations, such as Category:Fictional police detectives, as there would be little question in it being a defining characteristic of Columbo, Inspector Morse, etc. -- ratarsed (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anybody is arguing that every last one of these categories should be kept. But I strongly agree with Otto's point above, that "A mass nomination of this size is unworkable." This is quite possibly the largest mass nomination I've ever seen -- most of the 147 categories in Category:Fictional characters by occupation. On that basis alone this nomination should be opposed. Cgingold (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look as if the original nominator has taken the time to only nominate the more questionable ones, but I do agree that as a mass nomination, it's a little unworkable (there might be a case for Category:Fictional writers, for instance); Maybe it would be best to break this down into a mass nomination for those without a non-fiction category (like the waiting staff/bartenders/mechanics/etc.),and then the other more questionable ones (like gymnast, voice actor or activist) -- ratarsed (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe he made any distinctions. Cgingold (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not include all subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by occupation; in particular, it excludes: criminals, leaders and officials, military personnel and "secret agents", religious occupations, martial artists, and spell casters, as well as possibly a few minor others. In essence, any occupation that can't plausibly be temporary "summer jobs" is excluded from the nomination. –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you and I were posting at almost the same time. See my response to Cgingold directly below. (Note that I'm not suggesting that they (the excluded cats) may or may not have been worthy of deletion, but only that they didn't fall "tightly" enough under the specific intersection of the nom.) - jc37 19:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification, Black Falcon. Even if it's "only" say, 135 categories, it's still h-u-g-e. Cgingold (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "h-u-g-e" (as you say) because I was attempting to include every intersection of occupation and fictional character. If you include all instances of something, there's a possibility that you may have a decent sized list. I only excluded those which I thought that people might say were "more" than a profession (such as military/agents, religious, etc.) And those which really weren't (or were borderline) "occupations". (Such as martial artists or spellcasters or superheroes.) Same with the criminality semi-related ones. And things like the category for the characters from Scrubs, which had also been added. That still left quite a few. So if this is kept, then what? 147 (169?) individual nominations? The interesting thing for me is that we've had much more disparate groupings of categories in a group nom. In this case, the criteria was/is clear: the intersection of "Fictional character" and "occupation". - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Listify/delete per nom. While "primary occupations" are easy to determine in some cases (e.g. Columbo), that is not always the case. Hatnotes, while a step in the right direction, generally don't work well enough since few people always check a category before placing an article into it. Only a list can offer context to justify the presence of a particular fictional character (e.g. a link to a series episode in which the character is portrayed as a bartender, for example). In addition, these categories categorise characters based on a purely in-universe characteristic, which may or may not be comparable across fictional universes (e.g. the duties of "firemen" in Fahrenheit 451 differ substantially from those of firemen in Rescue Me (TV series)). –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why any articles about firemen from F-451 would not go into the category, which is named Fictional firefighters. There is no ambiguity that would lead anyone familiar with F-451 to add its characters to the cat. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other examples. For instance, an archer in a fictional universe set in 14th century France is likely to be a military person or hunter, whereas an archer in a fictional universe set in 21st century New York is more likely to be a sportsperson. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are are a number of character-articles which would be left uncategorized by a mass deletion. Having them all dumped into the top-level Category:Fictional characters would really suck, but be better than nothing. Keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to cite a few examples? (Incidentally, keeping a category from being listified because some articles need a single category, doesn't seem appropriate.) - jc37 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Occupations are defining for several characters. A number of inappropriate additions is no reason to delete categories. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. --Silvestris (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to ask: Do those commenting "keep" understand that this isn't a nomination to delete, but to listify? - jc37 14:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it just fine. There are already lists for many of these occupations here. I'm not opposed to deleting some of these categories, but I'm not prepared to call for the mass deletion of over 100 categories in a well-established structure in one fell swoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 August 2008
    Since you understand, I presume you mean "...mass listification..."?
    And why does the quantity of categories matter? Look at it this way, if you'd support that there are quite a few that need deletion, there's a possibility that once those are, there wouldn't be over 100 to decide upon. And what made "100" the dividing line anyway?
    I guess I'm just amazed that the main concern/opposition to this (listification) is the size of the nom... - jc37 00:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "mass deletion" and I meant "mass deletion." I did not say "quite a few"; I said "some." The reason that the size of the nomination is the main concern is that it is unreasonable to expect editors to review each of these categories in the time allotted for a CFD and come to a decision about each of them individually. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main contention of the nomination is that these are an intersection of fictional character and occupation. And that the intersection is overcategorisation. Are you saying that it's not possible in 5 (or so) days to determine if each of these meets that requirement? I would think that the average reader should be able to determine that in 5 minutes. - jc37 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That you left some of the fictional occupations categories out of the nomination completely refutes the notion that the intersection in and of itself is overcategorization. Not to go all WP:ALLORNOTHING here, but if you believe that categorizing based on the intersection of "fictional" and "occupation" is overcategorization, then all such categories are overcategorization. You can't declare that the intersection is not categorizable at all in one breath and that some of the intersections are categorizable inthe next. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no. I only left some out because those were "borderline" as to whether they could be called "occupations", and I didn't want this nom to get hung up on arguing that. (Since this is about the intersection of two concepts, one of which being occupation, I didn't want a confusion about whether some were occupations or not.) If this nom goes through as nominated (and probably regardless of outcome, since I may have to split this nom and relist, depending on the result), they were/are indeed next. Was that what's confusing people? - jc37 04:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute the entire rationale of the nom. (1) I don't agree that it is an intersection. (2) If it is an intersection, I don't agree that it is trivial. (3) If it is a trivial intersection then I don't agree that the answer is to delete - the answer is to upmerge to the 2 non-trivial parents, such as Category:Fictional characters and Category:Boxers. And I am not confused. Occuli (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on those comments you seem to be confused about what an intersection is. (And suggesting to upmerge fictional information to a non-fictional cat is surprising.) - jc37 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these are legitimate categories for characters in works of fiction. We have real people appropriately categorized as such [4], therefore, I fail to see why these should be deleted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and heavily prune. I'm not sure if deleting the cats after the lists are created is actually a desirable result. Looking at the concerns/thoughts it strikes me that this may be a case where the lists can be used to refine and control the category content. The lists would be the place where notability by sources can be determined, with the notable examples getting put into the cats. The same can be done for the character where the fundamental profession(s), again with cites. Some, maybe most of the categories should, and will be removed entirely by this. - J Greb (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. That's actually more informative for our readers. As to the fact that we categorise real people like this, well, we also categorise real people by d.o.b. and d.o.d., and I really hope we aren't advocating we start doing that for fictional characters as well. I sometimes wish we had never implemented categories. Hiding T 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. A very useful tool for finding representatives of a particular profession in the fictional world. If I can think of Clark Kent, and I want other fictional reporters, clicking on his category is a great way to find them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better than clicking on a list? - jc37 19:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say yes. If it were me, there'd never be any lists in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You prefer categories, which cannot provide references, over lists, which can? Why? - jc37 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: if the article has a specific reference, then it may be included in the respective category. If not, we remove it. Simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over WP:OC, somehow I don't think it's that simple. - jc37 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering Jc: The article presumably doesn't link to the list; I certainly wouldn't want every fictional reporter article containing "See also List of fictional reporters" in its running text. Categories are much less intrusive. So I prefer the category. Also one other advantage: For those of these categories that equivalent real-people categories, the fictional category will appear in the main category, making it less likely that Rocky Balboa shows up under Category:Boxers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Homer Simpson's occupation may be an episodic "whim", but for characters like Sherlock Holmes and James Bond and Gepetto, they are defining characteristics.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would seem to be a clear example of why these should be lists. - jc37 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Lists are for timelines and finite compilations; but this is like saying we should listing "Terrorist attacks" to just a list and not categorise them. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that many editors find these categories meaningful. While many of the listed categories might provide better references as lists, there is no justification for listing rather than categorizing. It would be better to have both cats and lists. The inevitiable result of litifying all these cats would be a series of efforts to delete the lists. This entire discussion is a monumental waste of time, which will not result in any growth or improvement in WP.--Hjal (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So to clarify: your reason is because you're afraid that the subsequent lists would be deleted? - jc37 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_20&oldid=1136463418"