Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14[edit]

Category:Mobile[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 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mobile to Category:Mobile technology
Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I first saw this title I thought it was for the place in Alabama - it's certainly too ambiguous a name as it is. I'll leave people with more knowledge in the field to suggest possible better names than the one I've suggested (perhaps "Wireless technology"?). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Mobile is the current common name so it should remain in the name. It may have a parent of Category:Wireless technology at some point. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Another instance of an editor treating categories as tags. --Lquilter (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — "mobile" can refer to too many different things. Mønobi 16:45, 17 February 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:Thai Air Force air marshals[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 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thai Air Force air marshals to Category:Royal Thai Air Force air marshals
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use the full name for the air force (Royal Thai Air Force). Rename would fit in with Category:Royal Thai Air Force, Category:Royal Thai Air Force personnel. Also other "royal" air forces use the term at the beginning of their air marshals categories (Category:Royal Air Force air marshals, Category:Royal Australian Air Force air marshals, Category:Royal Canadian Air Force air marshals, Category:Royal New Zealand Air Force air marshals. Greenshed (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator's rationale. Carom (talk) 21:01, 16 February 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:HTC mobile phones[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 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HTC mobile phones to Category:High Tech Computer Corporation mobile phones
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match name of main article High Tech Computer Corporation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 14 February 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:Rugby[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 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rugby to Category:Rugby football
Nominator's rationale: Rugby is not just the name of a group of sports. It is also the name of a number of towns in England, the USA, Australia and South Africa, as well as a number of other items. Granted, not all of them may be deserving of a category, but renaming this one as "Rugby football" would save any future confusion. – PeeJay 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article Rugby football Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - sounds sensible. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As a category I don't think there is a demand from any of the other towns for a move. Whilst both options cover both versions of the game, Rugby football on wikipedia is a largely union article. It certainly warrants further discussion.Londo06 11:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because there's no demand from the towns for a move now doesn't mean there won't be in the future. This move makes perfect sense. As for Rugby football being "a largely union article", that's an issue with the article, not with the naming of this category. Categories should be named after their main articles, period. – PeeJay 11:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is renamed, will the Rugby category be occupied by any articles?--Jeff79 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I say no, would you oppose this move? – PeeJay 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Rugby football seems to deal even-handedly with League and Union. (Rugby is a disamb page.) I would suggest Category:Rugby becomes a redirect in the usual fashion. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - makes sense.
    • Comment - is this statement on the category page to be adhered to? This category is for articles about rugby football prior to the 1895 schism that split the sport into the modern games of rugby union and rugby league and for articles about sports that are related to rugby but are neither rugby union nor rugby league. In which case the sub-cats (containing rugby league and rugby union) need to be reviewed and, in those cases, removed. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a catergory for Rugby (union) or rugby of both codes. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - going by the page descriptor, it's for Rugby pre schism. Based on that I moved Category:Rugby League to Category:Team Sports but Gordy has moved it back again.•Florrie•leave a note• 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that the page descriptor needs changing. The category should contain items on all forms of rugby football, not just the form that existed before the split into league and union. – PeeJay 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article. If a category is needed for pre-schism rugby, then something along the lines of Category:Rugby before 1895 would be a lot clearer than this. Category:Rugby football should be the parent category for union, league, wheelchair, history etc. BencherliteTalk 09:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea at all.GordyB (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to match main article.GordyB (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As rugby football is a term used by both codes I would say the wording of the intro certainly needs looking at and a look into the sub-cats once a moved is agreed in principle.Londo06 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done my best to reword the preamble. I feel that rugby union and rugby league ought to be subcats as potentially having all three cats (rugby union, rugby league and rugby football) as subcats of say team sports would be very confusing.GordyB (talk) 11:51, 20 February 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:Political Parties of the Second Reich[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Political Parties of the Second Reich to Category:Political parties of the German Empire
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match with article German Empire. Olessi (talk) 18:59, 14 February 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:Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award Winners[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: listify/delete. Kbdank71 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award Winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not notable and incorrectly capitalised. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LISTIFY and then delete category Contents need to be listified in the article before deletion. "Not notable" is not the right criteria for a category; that applies to articles, and the award seems notable at a cursory glance. But the criteria we're looking at for the category is whether the category is "defining" of the included subjects, and I would say no. See CAT, WP:OCAT. --Lquilter (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, didn't realise categories couldn't be nominated as non-notable. The article itself is up for deletion though. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-notability is certainly relevant, but I would say that the standard for categories is higher than articles. Thanks for the link on the article for deletion, but I didn't see any deletion info on it?
  • Joe Wallace While I agree that the Rondo award is not defining for movies such as The Lord of the rings, I do think it is very defining for some of the other winners like Vampira Zacherley, and various books and albums that don't see as much media spotlight. —Preceding comment was added at 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete OCAT as non-defining trivial award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 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:Fictional characters of Black African descent[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: do not rename. Conscious (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters of Black African descent to Category:Fictional black people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Much simpler wording, equally accurate. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fictional peoples' race/ethnicity is trivial and often not mentioned, subjective, speculative, OR, etc. If you think otherwise, you all would jump to keep Category:Fictional white people too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, fictional white people would be a very pointy category. Fictional African Americans and other subcategories require a proper parent category. Why not categorize by ethnicity, doesn't this not link to the stronger emphasis on real-world social issues? Disparate portrayals of people of one race or another? Do writers like Harper Lee, Toni Ann Morisson and Marjorie Blackman consider race/ethnicity irrelevant when constructing their protagonists? Ludicrous! Would you nominate fictional LGBT characters for nomination? Deletion is simply not an option in this case.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion on whether this should be renamed or deleted, but I think you need to be clear on what the category is for. In the proposal you say "Fictional black people" and then in your comment above you say "Fictional African Americans". Not all black people are African Americans! This also has implications for the need for the category. As you say, ethnicity may be important in, say, the US, where black fictional characters are in the minority and perhaps in need of a category, but presumably they are in the majority in countries where the majority of the population is black. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I said if you re-read it, was that African Americans would be left without a parent category if you deleted this! ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category follows the naming convention set by Category:People of Black African descent, and should not be renamed unless that category is renamed first. -Sean Curtin (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the current name for the good reasons stated by Curtin. Hmains (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos. Fictional African Americans already have viable parent categories. --Kbdank71 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every character of black African descent is also African American. Keep as a far superior alternative to fragmenting the category into ever smaller and smaller ethnicity-nation subcats and consider merging any such subcats to this one. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 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:Mobile telephony[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 to Category:Mobile technology. Kbdank71 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Mobile telephony to Category:Mobile
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Mobile telephony redirects to Mobile phone, and the purpose of Category:Mobile is a little unclear at the moment. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am likely to oppose this in its present form since Category:Mobile is ambiguous. People are mobile. I think a merge into Category:Mobile phones could be better if someone continues to separate out the various sub categories. Many of the physical phones are already grouped by brand so any confusion over this being limited only to phones can be addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -oops - didn't see this one was listed when I listed the very ambiguous Category:Mobile (not the one in Alabama, nor mobile homes) for renaming, above. I also see that there is another debate in progress on category Category:Wireless. perhaps the three debates need to be dealt with in concert? Grutness...wha? 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that we need to combine all of the debates, but these last two might make sense. In looking at these and the related categories I am of the opinion that a major cleanup is needed. So this may be the tip of the iceberg unless someone gets bold and overhauls a bunch of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Mobile technology. My only concern is that we may still need to do more cleanup after a rename like this. But if so, that should not be an impediment to a good rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Rename to Category:Mobile technology. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be assy, but is "mobile technology" the way to go? A car is mobile technology. So is a plane or a submarine. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire wireless/mobile tree probably needs some cleanup. This would just be a start. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was to simply delete wireless and mobile as they are more or less covered by wireless communication and mobile telephony respectively. Some people wanted the terms that are used in daily language, but they are unfortunately too ambiguous. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:25, 20 February 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:Zen Buddhist monks and priests[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 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Zen Buddhist monks and priests to Category:Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and priests
Nominator's rationale: Rename would allow for more inclusion, and appears less sexist this way. Mind meal (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Category:Zen Buddhist nuns already exists and for good or ill nuns and priests have separate category trees. Now if someone wanted to discuss collapsing the entire sex-specific clergy/holy person category structures together I might be in favor but the stated reasons for the rename of the isolated category don't sell me. If the sex-segregated structure is retained, split monks from priests. Category:Buddhist monks exists separately (with other Buddhist-specific subcats) under Category:Monks and Category:Priests is a separate structure. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Masters, roshis, priests and senseis comprise the majority of notable Zen individuals here on Wikipedia. Monks and nuns, in the Zen arena, not so much so. A split would only create problems where originally none existed. The proposed split would not be populated in a way that justifies their existence. As you can see, the Category:Zen Buddhist nuns (which I had created) has one entry as of right now, which demonstrates that point. All this rename would do is allow for smoother categorization and indexing of individuals and, as there would be nothing technically incorrect about such a category, I see no reason why it would be controversial or problematic. One must take into consideration the unique quality of Zen Buddhism from "Buddhism" as a whole, for Buddhism at large has several traditions where monks play a much more prominent role on a regular basis (i.e. Theravada & Tibetan Buddhism). I would, however, be open to two categories, ie Category:Zen Buddhist monastics and Category:Zen teachers. Priests is limiting regarding Zen, because not every tradition has an equivalent to priestly ordination; there is only Dharma transmission. (Mind meal (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Create new head-cat Category:Zen Buddhist clergy to match other groupings in the Category:Clergy by faith tree, and leave it. The nuns are a sub-cat; I can't see Otto's problem, as the rest of the clergy tree is already like this. The men would probably all qualify as monks, I think. Priests is probably not needed. More to the point, where are the other Buddhist clergy? Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 14 February 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:Black-on-White crime[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete by Krimpet as nonsense WP:POINTmakin. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black-on-White crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy Delete Clearly inflammatory, no need for this category. Veritas (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A necessary category. Black-on-White violence is a widespread problem in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 February 2008
Delete the Category is a POV push. For every Black on White crime, there are about 8 to 9 black on black crimes, at the national average level. there's no reason for this category, other than to see what trouble can be raised, or because someone's been drinking the MSM koolaid too long, and bought into the panic. SOmeone ought to read up on Philadelphia's crime emergency before trying a category like this out. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious. -- Cat chi? 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, trolling. Corvus cornixtalk 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if applied in factual way (for example, in cases where the victim is white and the suspect is black), it gives undue weight to what is ultimately an arbitrary set of facts. The category is pointless, and smacks of trying to use Wikipedia to push a certain political agenda. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I was going to say to Delete, however someone did that a few minutes ago. This is (was?) a POV-pushing category. —Travistalk 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to assume good faith, and cast aside any presumption of intention to be "inflammatory". However, I am voting Delete as this is non-encyclopedic. How are we defining "Black"? What about "Brown" people? Are we including latinos and arabs as white people? Jews & indians? On Wikipedia, we don't categorise racially as it is impossible to do, racial identity is an entirely artificial construct and is impossible to measure in any meaningful way. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories by media[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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Categories by media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename Category:Science fiction by media to Category:Science fiction by medium
Nominator's rationale: "By medium" is correct grammar, and that category already exists. I have moved Category:Science fiction by media there, and it should be renamed to match. --Eliyak T·C 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved Category:Science fiction by media again to Category:Genres by medium. --Eliyak T·C 02:20, 14 February 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:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees[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 per rough consensus, precedent, and recreation. Kbdank71 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete - reconstitution of category deleted per this CFD. CFD was unanimous in favor of deletion. If not eligible for speedy because of the one-word name difference, then delete as overcategorization by non-notable award, per the unanimous argument offered at that CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category: This category is to record the major musical achievement and contribution of great Jazz artists. This recognition is by the public as well as by critics of the Jazz scene. The Hall of Fame is proposed by Down Beat, the world leader in chronicling the music scene. Finally, this category is totally fit for an encyclopedic type of article. I therefore register my vote for this category to be retained. Jazzeur (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read categorization, which describes the function of categories as labeling "defining" qualities of people, and overcategorization in general. With respect to awards, people are typically not "defined" by the awards they have won; the awards recognize them for the contributions which define them, but are not themselves "defining". Some awards, like the Nobel, are exceptions; people who have won the Nobel will be widely known ("defined") as "Nobel laureates", and winning that award is, itself, a "defining" achievement. Most awards, however, simply recognize achievements, but are not themselves defining. People are already recognized as "great Jazz artists" are not defined by having won an award that also makes that recognition. --Lquilter (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Jazz Hall of Fame, organized by Down Beat, offers one Jazz artist per year to be recognized by the public as well as by the critics for his lifetime achievements. It is as important to him and his fans than the Nobel prize could be for medecine, physics or other categories. It is therefore very defining for a Jazz musician and/or composer to be recognized this way. It is also very fitting to define his contribution to the Jazz music in an encyclopedic sense. Jazzeur (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining per my discussion above & from 2 weeks ago. Although I don't like "speedy delete as recreation", this one was just completed two weeks ago, which is not enough time to even suppose that consensus might have changed. --Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The present discussion would get a lot more positive feedback from Jazz music aficionados if the threat to delete this category would be visible in each of the concerned artists articles. The present deletion process is therefore very unfair in that respect. For one, I only became aware of this threat because I was watching the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees category article. Jazzeur (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only get one !vote so please don't put keep in bold for any additional comments. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm rather new with Wikipedia and I'm not very familiar with all the bylaws and the bureaucratics of it. I try to focus on the essential purpose of things. Jazzeur (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that you observe that the CFD discussion link doesn't appear in the articles of the award recipients. In fact, category adds & deletes, and all things to do with categories, don't appear in the articles to which they're attached. This is one of the reasons that lists are much better for certain kinds of information -- see categories, lists, and series boxes for an overview of the distinctions between them. For instance, someone could easily add a random jazz artist to the category, and it would be very difficult to "police" the category to be sure that it was correct. By contrast, the article on the award is much easier to police -- just watchlist it, and you can see whenever someone adds or deletes someone from the list. It's also visually easier, since it can be listed chronologically rather than simply alphabetically. Even if someone watchlists the category itself, they won't see when someone adds or deletes an article from the category. ... What I'm trying to say is that the lack of notice is a "feature" of categories, not a "bug", but this feature of categories is why there are special rules for when a concept is appropriate for a category. --Lquilter (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is important to the Jazz world as well as the musical industry in general to be able to find all the artists that were so honored to be regrouped under one list. Jazzeur (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the list, but a category is not a list. (See WP:CLS) -- Readers and editors can easily find the artists that win this award in the list. The category is a different feature. Am I making the distinction clear enough? --Lquilter (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. What I was referring to is that once the reader goes to the Hall of Fame category page he sees a list of artists that were honored with the same distinction and therefore can, from there, explore other Jazz musicians, singers or composers of comparable stature and accomplishments that he might then decide to explore musically. That's the use I am personally making of this particular type of category. Jazzeur (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that use also met by going to the article and seeing the list of winners there? --Lquilter (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfounded comment and personal point of view. Not based on facts. Following your tainted logic, it could also be suggested that the following category be deleted as well: Category Soul Train Music Awards or the Category TVyNovelas Awards. But that's not the way to build a meaningful encyclopedia. Jazzeur (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if the Soul Train Music Awards category were applied to all the individual musicians who won it, I would agree that it would be a good candidate for deletion (as a category). Soul Train, though, is a category just for articles that list winners -- a good use of a category for an award. The TVyNovelas Award is applied to individual actors and we should probably look at it more closely. --Lquilter (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I provided the wrong reference. I should have pointed to this page. All I am looking for is a way for each Down Beat Hall of Fame inductees to be categorized as such and when the reader wishes to explore this category he is taken to a page where he can view all the Jazz artists that were bestowed with this honor. Since there is only one award type for the Down Beat Hall of Fame (as opposed to the Soul Train Music Awards, which counts 27 awards), a specific category is needed to allow readers and researchers to go from one honored artist to the category and from the category to all the other artists so honored. I hope that I was clear enough myself. Jazzeur (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link; I found that category. (You can link to a category just by including a colon in the link, like this: [[:Category:Soul Train Music Awards]].) But if you look at that category, all the individual articles in that category are lists of individual award-winners. The individual award-winners, e.g., Whitney Houston, do not have a category "Soul Train Music Award winners". And the musician should not, because when one thinks of Whitney Houston, one thinks of a soul diva and occasional actor -- that is how she is defined in the public eye. One does not think "winner of Soul Train Music Award in 2000", because it is not defining for Whitney Houston. I hope this example better explains the distinction between applying a category of "X award winners" to each and every person who won that award, and having a category that groups together articles about that award. The former is "overcategorization", because people are rarely defined by the awards they have won -- they are defined by their activities, and we properly categorize them that way. The awards that people have won in recognition of their contributions, however, do not "define" those people, so it is of little use to articles about the people to create such a category for them. That's just a service to the article, but it's not a useful one, because the article can more easily and efficiently include the list directly in the article, without forcing people to look at the bottom of the page and understand that they are supposed to click to the category. Especially for people who win a lot of awards, having an award-winner category for every award would rapidly make it impossible to read the list of categories anyway. Look at Whitney Houston -- it's already hard to read through the 25 topical categories, and there aren't even any award-winner categories there. --Lquilter (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list in the main article serves as a navigational hub for everyone included in the hall and has the added benefit of being chronological instead of alphabetical. The category is not required for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just trying to think like a Jazz fan and researcher, that I am, and I am also trying to find the best way to highlight the fact that a particular artist was part of a selected group of his peers, honored with the Down Beat Hall of Fame, without having to include a phrase saying so in each of the artist's individual page, plus a link to the Down Beat article. I guess it hard to fit this simple concept into Wikipedia's rules. Jazzeur (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If inclusion in this hall is truly notable then the article for its nominees should include a mention of it along with a link back to the HoF article. Laziness on the part of editors in not adding the information to artist articles doesn't justify the category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Those voting to delete don't understand the great weight Down Beat has had on jazz. This is the "People's Choice Awards" of jazz, and the award does help to define the individual's status in the genre. To call such an induction trivial is to miss the mark, quite frankly. For years they have been the final word on jazz music. It is not a non-notable award, see: [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]. Valuable category, I applaud the work of this editor. (Mind meal (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • The mentions of the hall itself in a few books, tourism guides and newspaper articles may support the notion that the hall is notable and deserving of an article, but notability is not the standard applied to categories. Nor does the mention of the hall mean that the award itself is notable enough for a category. The comparison to the People's Choice Awards is apt and I note that Category:People's Choice Award winners does not exist (nor should it). Otto4711 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what People's Choice Award, but I know Jazz music quite a bit. Every Jazz loving person as well as the artists themselves, go to Down Beat to be informed. It is a World renowned institution for Jazz related matters. Both the public and the critics have a voice in honoring an artist in its Hall of Fame. Jazzeur (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a defining and career-defining honor and category: the equivalent of and every bit as worthy as Category:Baseball Hall of Fame. (To User:Jazzeur -- I’m afraid you won’t win this. You’re arguing against a very small group of people who patrol here and delete categories based on their own biases, their limited scope of knowledge, and what’s important to them. They believe they’re doing a great service to Wikipedia – saving us all from the terrible dangers of too many categories. And so it is they who determine, with blinders on, what's "trivial" and what's "defining". They don’t seem to use Wikipedia as much as they edit it and delete things from it, otherwise they’d understand just how much the actual users of this site appreciate, navigate by, and most importantly, learn from the categories section - far more than they are able to do via lists. Basically, rather than spending their time cleaning up and making constistent all the many truly ridiculous categories that have been on this site for years and years, they hang out here: because it's just a lot less work for them to shoot down new categories as they come out of the gate.
Everything you say about this category and its usefulness, notability, and “defining” characteristics is true. The category should stand. However, the few people here that make removing categories their business will win out. And sadly, few others with any knowledge of or interest in jazz will ever even know this discussion has occurred in the back room. The system works in the delete-freaks’ favor. I wish you luck however, because this category should be kept.) J. Van Meter (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I think you regulars here fail to realize that, to many editors, a deletion nomination on a category or an article reads like a lack of good faith on the part of the nominator. I don’t think you have any idea just how aggressive and nasty you all come off in your deletion voting here. Otto, just above you accuse editors of being lazy. Is that civil? When someone has “in good faith” created a category (or article), they really deserve a more tempered and kind reply than to be slapped with a trivia-label and the slew of abbreviations and acronyms that are thrown at them here. Think about it: by very definition trivial means "of little importance”. Right there the category-creator feels attacked and demeaned. (Not to mention the fact that "trivial" is a completely subjective concept.) If a person has created a category they've done so because not only is it important to them, but they also firmly believe it will be important to others. You have to respect that. That is their demonstration of good faith. Allowing months -not days- to go by before a category is deemed trivial would be a step in a better direction. If you are truly concerned with maintaining a civil tone here then when you label things deletion-worthy you should do so with caution and kid gloves. It would do a lot to reduce the tension here. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)(<-- AKA "unsophisticated and lacking an ability for nuanced understanding")[reply]
  • If many editors have a fundamental misunderstanding of what AFD and CFD is and thus choose to interpret simply nominating an article or category as acting in bad faith, that's unfortunate but ultimately of little relevance. If they choose to take a discussion of their article or categor as an attempt to demean them personally then they probably have bigger problems than feeling disrespected on Wikipedia. As far as leaving this category sit for a few months, no. It was created improperly and against the express consensus of the community and it fails basic categorization guidelines. That'll be as true six months from now as it is today. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Freak", huh? Nice. If you would care to point to some of the "truly ridiculous categories", I'd be happy to see if they fall within current categorization guidelines. --Lquilter (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)* Comment - For those editors who haven't been working categories for a long time, and think categories are an essential navigation device, I'd invite you to examine the pageview stats for the category zero in January and zero in December. While there's no article on the award to compare it to, this kind of statistic is common: Categories are poorly understood and rarely used by readers. The best chance that any categories have of being used is if they are applied parsimoniously, so that users who happen to be at the bottom of an article page can absorb them and pick one out. This is certainly in part due to the way that categories are retrieved in search listings. ... I believe that people who begin editing often really like categories, but mistake them for "tags". The functionality isn't remotely similar, unfortunately, although at first glance it appears to be. JVM, instead of assuming the worst of your fellow editors, it would be more productive if you would assume that people who have been working in an area for a while might have developed a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of it, from which you could learn. Not that you would necessarily agree, but a little humility when coming into an area with which you are, manifestly, unfamiliar, wouldn't be amiss. --Lquilter (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to point out that the category that we are debating about was created on February 4, 2008. Therefore, I am not surprised that the statistics show zero-use for December 2007 and January 2008. In that perspective, maybe it would not hurt anyone if this category would reevaluated six months from now. Comment: Folks, this will be my last contribution to this discussion. I usually try to keep away from debates that focus on the legal arguments rather than the intrinsic value of things. Jazzeur (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was created on the same day that the previous category CFD closed with the community consensus of delete. It was created by flying in the face of the clearly expressed will of the community. Otto4711 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Jazzeur kepps putting a Downbeat banner and a request for deletion keep votes on Jazz articles [5]. I've never seen anything so desperate. I love Jazz, BTW, and think it should be represented as a list.Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly respected and well known prize.Cosprings (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if it is deleted, a template box with all the recipients would work too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosprings (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better as a list per above arguments. Canvassing like this is inappropriate. It's better to mention it in all the articles or perhaps make a navbox which can be monitored by watchlisting it. Graham87 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from the fact that it's a non-notable award (thus I support a deletion per nom), it's apparent certain Wikipedians are treating this like a vote, not a consensus. As Graham87 mentioned, canvassing in that way is rude. SMC (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mind meal. Mønobi 16:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before deciding on whether to keep or delete this as a category, maybe someone ought to do some more research into the status of this "Hall of Fame". I grant that Down Beat, the magazine, has a long, distinguished history as a chronicle of jazz. They were known for many, many years to conduct an annual "Readers' Poll" and also a "Critics' Poll", from which "winners" were chosen. But if this "Hall of Fame" really has any connection to those polls, I have yet to find evidence of it. I find it odd that a search on downbeat.com comes up with nothing about this particular hall of fame. There is someplace called "Universal Studios City Jazz at CityWalk", in Orlando, Florida, that supposedly houses this hall of fame. Searching the downbeat.com Web site for this, I again came up empty-handed. Does anyone know what connection there is, if any, between this "Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame" and the readers' and critics' polls of Down Beat magazine? It's the old polls in the magazine that are "well known" and "respected". As yet I have found no evidence that this "Hall of Fame" is known much at all or has any real connection to the venerable magazine. All this just occurred to me as I was smoothing out some of Jazzeur's notices he has been inserting into various and sundry articles on jazz musicians. It's all very well to mention election to the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame--if there really is such an entity that is endorsed by the magazine. If not (that is, it may exist, but have no real connection to the magazine), well, maybe it's not so notable after all. The only thing I'm sure of is that the magazine's Readers' and Critics' polls are notable, at least in a certain context of jazz history. Does anyone really know what the status of the "Hall of Fame" is? I see I've gotten a bit long-winded about this, but if we are going to have notices plastered all over Wikipedia jazz articles about inductees to a hall of fame, it should be of genuine importance in jazz history, and not something that has some vague resemblance to the real Down Beat polls. --Alan W (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the Down Beat Web site is not that well organized. Further reading shows that in recent years they have come up with a category of their annual critics' poll that names one of that year's winners as a member of their "Hall of Fame", or something like that. So this is recognized by today's version of the magazine. But it think it should also be considered that the polls are what go back a long way and are intertwined with the history of jazz. Hall of Fame nominees are a recent addition. I'm not sure how much credibility this collection of honorees would have among most jazz fans, either. Of course no one would argue against Duke Ellington's being in it, to take an obvious example--but Jimi Hendrix? Rock, maybe, but jazz? I can't speak for anyone else here, of course, but to this jazz fan, well, I wouldn't place such a strong emphasis on this one listing. --Alan W (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see more clearly that Down Beat does support the current idea of a "Hall of Fame". So the category is starting to look more legitimate to me. I still would offer some caveats. First, there seems to be some confusion between the Hall of Fame and the polls themselves, even in at least one source you cite, "Jazz Among the Discourses". Stan Kenton did not get elected to the Hall of Fame originally. He won the polls. More recently, someone at Down Beat must have used that as a criterion to consider Kenton to be a member of the Hall of Fame. There is not necessarily anything wrong with this. We should just keep it in mind when editing articles and saying that so and so was inducted into the Down Beat Hall of Fame in 1956 (for example), when they didn't introduce the idea of a Hall of Fame until much more recently. I have made this mistake myself already, but now I know more about this. The second thing is that we should be careful how we say that a given musician is a Hall of Fame inductee, and where in the article we say it. We shouldn't just be taking the statement that, say, Stan Kenton was a Hall of Fame inductee and plunking it down just anywhere, such as right after stating where he was born. The article should still read like a smoothly written article, not just a collection of miscellaneous statements. If we follow these guidelines and don't give Hall of Fame membership exaggerated emphasis, I guess now I would vote Keep. As for Jimi Hendrix, well a lot of European Classical composers have influenced major jazz musicians, too, and I don't see them in the Jazz Hall of Fame. But that is an issue to debate elsewhere. We don't have to agree exactly on who should be in the Hall of Fame to allow that it is a legitimate category. --Alan W (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, if we're saying that this is so defining of a person that it warrants categorization, shouldn't we agree exactly on who is or isn't in the HoF? Your comments here about the ambiguity of the hall and what-not illustrate very clearly why a list of inductees is far superior to a category, because a list can include sourced information that discusses the ambiguities that so concern you. A black-and-white yes-or-no category can't. Otto4711 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a problem with that category, nominate it for deletion. The existence of any other category doesn't mean that this category should exist, see WP:WAX. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I see your point. I was mostly concerned about the way I was starting to see jazz articles modified en masse in a kind of slapdash way just because they were being added to this category (in the body of the article, not just by adding the category tag). I confess I didn't really think hard enough about the real issue here before joining this discussion. I have just done some reading on what is considered acceptable as a category. I certainly have my doubts about the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame being entirely NPOV, even though I think that most jazz fans would agree with most of the inductees. If a Wikipedia category should be as neutral as "People from Milwaukee"--which you either are or are not--then, I have to agree, the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame should not be a category. Neither, in that case, should any of the Halls of Fame, and I see several that are categories. I can understand, too, why the the proponents of this particular category, seeing how many others, like the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees" category, are allowed to remain, might feel a bit persecuted when others argue that this particular category should be deleted. Still, if categories should be NPOV, then maybe all of this type should be deleted. Maintaining a list seems a reasonable compromise in any case. I'm sure the proponents of this category are doing so in good faith; and I agree with them that Down Beat is a highly respected publication in the jazz world (though I think it's extreme to say it's the "last word"; no one publication is the last word as far as I'm concerned); but, given what a category is supposed to be, the respectability of Down Beat is irrelevant, and I have to Revoke my previous "Keep". --Alan W (talk) 03:57, 20 February 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_February_14&oldid=1138390095"