Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >

October 13[edit]

Category:Gangster Disciples[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. Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gangster Disciples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "people that are gangsta and hood". So ... anyway, I think the reasons for deletion are self-evident: WP:POV; WP:V; WP:OR. But by all means let me know if they are not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 13 October 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:Grand Slam champions[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, empty. If articles are found/written, feel free to recreate (but please, with a better title). Kbdank71 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grand Slam champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has nothing of a significance and currently has no article to correspond with. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A stong defining characteristic for professional wrestlers. Several are listed at the corresponding article at Grand Slam Championship, with a couple more on the cusp. The category was created about a day ago and apparently has not been populated yet. The entries listed at Grand Slam Championship should be tagged with this category so that the list and category are working in synergy, as recommended by WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, I meant to include a rename, as I was assuming this might have been tennis or golf-related when I first saw the category. The "sport" should be listed as "Professional wrestling Grand Slam champions", or some other variant that more accurately reflects inclusion criteria right in the title. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. Nominator's reasoning is as poor as his grammar. Seems perfectly valid & defining. Why is it empty? Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to include WWE or expansion thereof, there being any number of Grand Slams (eg tennis, golf). (There is Category:World Wrestling Entertainment championships.) Occuli (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - is "Wrestling" enough? Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to something that includes disambiguation. Clearly this title is ambiguous, Simply take a look at Grand Slam. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that Vince McMahon or his story editors have decided to give these fake titles to a particular wrestler or wrestlers is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 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:Books by William Gibson[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: SPEEDY DELETE, empty and creator supports deletion. Postdlf (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Books by William Gibson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: William Gibson has written no non-fiction books; thus there is no need for this category when Category:Novels by William Gibson exists. The creator of the category has been contacted and has no objection to its deletion. the skomorokh 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created on basis of lead sentence that wasn't clear enough to explain a complex publication etc. No objections. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:04, 13 October 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:Alter egos[edit]

Category:Pseudonyms[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 on alter egos, depopulate psuedonyms of "example" articles. Kbdank71 14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alter egos
Category:Pseudonyms

I'll say up front that technically the latter cat is more a case of needing cleanup than deletion. Per the intorduction note: "Note: This category should not be used for those who merely use a pseudonym, but rather for articles about pseudonyms."

Well, it seems that that hasn't been followed. Both categories are filled with "examples". The problem, of course, is: pseudonyms or alter egos of whom?

So these (at least) need to be depopulated of all examples. (Persons who have used pseudonyms.)

That said, if cleaned up, Category:Alter egos would have 3 members (besides the pseudonym subcat): Alter ego, Author surrogate, and Mary Sue. Alter ego is already a member of the parent Category:Self, and the other two could be easily upmerged. (They are all already cross-linked.) - jc37 11:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 2 sub-cats for writers, which if used properly would greatly reduce the numbers here. Plus there is List of stage names Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, has anyone not used a pseudonym? — CharlotteWebb 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the volume of similar categories that have been deleted, especially Category:Musicians who performed under single name pseudonyms, it seems pretty clear that a category for people who use pseudonyms would be deleted as overcategorization by coincidence of name format. Otto4711 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 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:Shakespearean plays[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 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shakespearean plays to Category:William Shakespeare plays
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the standard of Category:Plays by author. Otto4711 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While consistency is not all its cut out to be, In this case the title change would benefit navigation. Alansohn (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose category usefully includes sub-cats for apocrhypha & adaptations. One could set up this as a sub-cat but why bother? I don't object to this though. Authorship is contentious or shared in several cases, which makes "Shakespearean" more appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a play was not written by Shakespeare, it isn't "Shakespearean" and it shouldn't be in this category to begin with. If a play was co-written by Shakespeare and somebody else (or if somebody wrote a derivative play centuries later) then it should be in two categories, one for Shakespeare and one for the other writer. One would expect both categories to follow the same naming pattern. Support move to Category:William Shakespeare plays with a {{category redirect}} at the old title. — CharlotteWebb 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what if you don't know? None of the disputed attributions are anything like sufficiently agreed to be a basis for categorization. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No reason to treat Shakespeare as if he doesn't have a first name. The apocrypha argument is a straw man; if there are plays that are seriously in contention, make a new category for those that are suspect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point - we have that category, which is a sub of this one. One could make a further category "Plays probably not all by WS", but its better to leave the established canon where it is, with the less assertive head-cat name. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 17 October 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:Adaptations of Shakespeare[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 both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare to Category:Adaptations of works by William Shakespeare
Propose renaming Category:Modern adaptations of Shakespeare to Category:Modern adaptations of works by William Shakespeare
Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with many other similar categories, such as Category:Adaptations of works by Oscar Wilde and Category:Adaptations of works by Victor Hugo. Otto4711 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a standard term supported by ample sources in the web and in the media. As there are only two other similar categories (not "many"), the precedent offers little guidance here. Alansohn (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, provides clarity, even if arguably minimal, and there are no problems posed by the proposed renamed categories. Postdlf (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. — CharlotteWebb 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As above, there's no reason to treat Shakespeare as if he didn't have a first name, or as if he's somehow beyond the categorization scheme of other playwrights.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no reason to ignore the first name of an author. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 17 October 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:Crypto-Jews[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. Kbdank71 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crypto-Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: First, I had no idea what this category was about until I looked at the category page, shouldn't categories be self-explanatory? I came here from Christopher Columbus, and neither it or the Karl Marx article give a clue as to why this category has been used. And 'descendants' of such Jews? "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" seems the case here. Doug Weller (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oy gevalt, such a terrible category! Otto4711 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have an article Crypto-Judaism which has a different definition for 'Crypto-Jews', to add to the confusion. Doug Weller (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redefine and repopulate Not a typical CfD comment, but the description in this category of Crypto-Jews is at at odds with the more traditional description of groups such as Marranos at Crypto-Judaism, in which Jews retained their faith even after ostensibly converting; this category describes the opposite. I'd like to see better sourcing, but there are already several Famous Crypto-Jews listed in the Crypto-Judaism article -- Christopher Columbus is often said to be one of them -- and those who meet that standard with appropriate sources should be listed here. There might well be a category justified for forced converts who did not retain their faith, as this category currently describes, which should be associated with a proper parent article and recreated. Alansohn (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also wasn't really sure what the category was supposed to be (Jewish folk who hang out in crypts and mausoleums?, Jews who work on cryptography?), and while some categories are a bit esoteric (MILF, Fingerless Glove Wearers - which was deleted as listcruft), I think that Jews who had to hide their non-goyim-ness to get by is a historical phenomenon which deserves some note. Lots of citation are going to be required, though, not just some ass-clown with a new theory of who's a "former" Jew. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one, without prejudice for a recreation or even repurposing along the lines of the Crypto-Judaism article, but only for those whose personal adherance to Judaism can be individually verified. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate -- The introduction to the related article Crypto-Judaism conforms to the definition in the category. However the article is defective in that it then goes on to talk about a lot of people of Jewish descent, who were clearly Christian in religion. Not menioned in the article is that the "New Christians" in Portugal who were periodically persecuted on suspicion of crypto-Judaisim, long after they were all practising Catholics (merely of Jewish ancestry). The problem is thus with the way the article has been expanded to include Christians of Jewish descent (who may be unaware of that ancestry). I would however suggest that the category should not be applied to any living persons. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we really need less racial biology/descent categories, not more. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is truly the type of thing that would be great for a list because we need some pretty solid referencing to stick this label on a person. And it's meaning is simply not self-evident to the average user. The fact that supporters of the category are suggesting that it should be kept but not applied to any living people should be a tip-off for us that something's not quite right with having this as a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 20 October 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:John McCain controversies[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:Political controversies and Category:John McCain. If he somehow pulls it out of the fire and becomes president, an administration-specific category for controversies could be created once more have accumulated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:John McCain controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A "controversy" category such as this is completely subjective. Inclusion can only be based on the POV of the editor that adds the category, not objective criteria. Further, there is no navigational need for this category as all topics are covered in the biographical article. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-defined subcategory of Category:Political controversies, which includes nearly 100 such subcategories. As with all categories and controversies, the objective standard is the rpesence of relaible and verifiable sources to support their existence, a standard that has been met here. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as appropriate to the candidate's eponymous category. Contra the above comment, there are actually just ten subcategories directly within Category:Political controversies, not 100, and even counting those nested within deeper levels, there are only eight person-specific "John Foo controversies" categories: four for U.S. presidents, and the other four for candidates in the current U.S. presidential election (Obama, McCain, Palin, and McCain-Palin jointly). I've always hated the word "controversy" as it's often applied on Wikipedia there is not actually a documented controversy, but rather just something that someone may think is grounds for criticism. But I know I'm not going to get a lot of support for doing away with that word entirely. They are obviously being used to include not just articles that are about such "controversies" specifically (such as Jeremiah Wright controversy, but rather articles that merely relate to such controversies (such as John Hagee). If kept, they should be limited to the latter, but it doesn't appear that there are enough of those to justify keeping. But if there's not an easy consensus to merge or delete these at this time, the issue should just be taken up again after the U.S. presidential election has occurred rather than debated ad nauseum at this time. These categories may just reflect presentist bias; whether there's a need for them will only become more clear over time after the election has passed, when passions have cooled and historical perspective is more established. Postdlf (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Postdlf - no prejudice to recreation for the winner only, after they have had time to accumulate some more. A sub-cat to Category:United States Presidential controversies is mandatory it seems. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Postdlf. To have a category for a specific whole presidential administration seems reasonable, but not for an individual. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as appropriate to Category:John McCain per above. Occuli (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also upmerge to Category:Political controversies as appropriate, if the articles are not already there. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - OK as a generalist category, but the use of the word controversy in relation to anyone is far too loaded a conclusion, and too great a categorisation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge These are Category:Political controversies - identifying them with just one person violates WP:NPOV. ~ priyanath talk 18:56, 18 October 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:Barack Obama controversies[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:Barack Obama and Category:Political controversies. An administration-specific category similar to Category:Clinton administration controversies could be created in the future after more have accumulated during his tenure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Barack Obama controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Controversies" is fairly loaded to begin with but the inclusion of items here is purely subjective and based on the POV of anyone who adds it. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:46, 13 October 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_October_13&oldid=1074801288"