Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14

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

February 14[edit]

Fauna of the Isle of Youth[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fauna of the Isle of Youth to Category:Fauna of Cuba
Propose merging Category:Birds of the Isle of Youth to Category:Birds of Cuba
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, overly specific. The Isle of Youth, Isla de la Juventud, is the second largest island comprising the nation of Cuba, so this is categorization of species' range by a subnational entity. None of the species listed are endemic to Isla de la Juventud, many are not even endemic to Cuba, and many articles do not even bother mentioning Isla de la Juventud. So listifying would be a good option if and only if someone can find a source for that island's fauna. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (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:Scottish politicians convicted of fraud[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:Scottish_politicians_convicted_of_crimes and Category:British politicians convicted of fraud. The usefulness of a category with just one entry is doubtful. The existence of any wider categorization scheme has not been established—Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud contains only a category for British politicians. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Scottish politicians convicted of fraud to Category:British politicians convicted of fraud
Nominator's rationale: The patent category contains only six entries - there is simply no need to subdivide this any further. The subcategory ends up with only one entry Jim Devine who was a member of the British House of Commons serving for a Scottish constituency.

The subcategory was created by User:Mais oui!, a long-time Scottish Nationalist POV-pusher. I've no problem with Scottish categories when we're subdividing a large category for aid of navigation, but we do it for the reader's navigation not for ideological or nationalist reasons. Else will we subcategorise by Scottish counties too? A reader is more likely to be helped by the very few British politicians who have been convicted of fraud being found in one place. Scott Mac 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and populate. Per WP:OC#SMALL small categories are acceptable where they are part of wider scheme, in this case categorising Scottish people separately. Scotland has a long political history, and I'm sure that this country has other political fraudsters who can in due course be added to the category.
    I don't always agree with Mais Oui, but the nominator's assumption of bad faith by the category creator is completely inappropriate for a CFD nomination; the only POV-pushing I see here is the nominator's bizarre insistence that creating a small Scottish category can be done only "for ideological or nationalist reasons". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Populate with what? I'm unconvinced that there's a string of Scottish politicians with fraud convictions - can you provide some examples? The correct thing to do would be to create this if and when a lot of politicians with fraud convictions began to fill the British category and subdivision would then aid navigation. I say there's nothing to populate this with (you might find another one or two examples, but I can't think of any). As for the POV-pushing - the creator goes about replacing "British" with "Scottish" at every opportunity, in fields he doesn't otherwise edit (see his contributions for evidence) I don't think it is assuming anything much to suggest ideological motivation.--Scott Mac 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think that labelling a Scottish person or entity as "Scottish" is POV-pushing, then I think that's more of reflection on your POV than on anyone else's. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? No, I didn't say that - I'm Scottish and proud of it. However, expunging all mention of Britain is POV pushing. Categories should be worked out on navigational and pragmatic reasons of utility to the user, and not because someone thinks Scottish must always be used in preference to British. As I say, subdividing British into Scottish Welsh and English is often useful - it just isn't here. Devine, for instance, was a member of the British parliament - not the Scottish one.--Scott Mac 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you believe that an editor is "expunging all mention of Britain", then you should open an RFC/U, provide evidence of this "expunging", and accompanied by an explanation of why you think that each incidence is inappropriate. In this case, you are mistaken; Devine was not a member of the Parliament of Great Britain, which ceased to exist 210 years ago, but of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He is, however, a Scottish politician; a Scottish person elected by a Scottish constituency to sit in the UK Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course he's a Scottish politician, that's beside the point. He's also British, European, from Livingston and more besides. The point is whether it is good practice to take a category of six entries and subdivide to create a category of one entry - when there's little evidence that the category will ever have more than one (or maybe two or three if you can find the - can you?) people in it. Nationality ought to be beside the point, pragmatism and use of navigation is the point. Can you explain how such fractured sub-divisions are useful for navigation?--Scott Mac 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Scott, dividing categories by nationality is routine across all sorts of biographical topics, and by doing so consistently we keep a category tree which interlocks logically and neatly. You appear to have some sort of objection to categorising Scottish people in this way, and it would be helpful if you explained by why you are so keen to single out Scotland as an exception to the rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this nomination really is rich. I only created the category in the first place cos Doc Glasgow kept removing Category:Scottish fraudsters from the Jim Devine article. The formulation "convicted of fraud" was meant as a compromise. Doc Glasgow seems determined to remove Devine from all subcats of Cat:Scottish criminals. And it really is profoundly disappointing that an Admin is being allowed to so clearly abuse WP:NPA, which explicitly disallows attacks on any User on the grounds of their political persuasion ("some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor". Not just that, but I entirely reject his description of me as a "Scottish nationalist". I am nothing of the sort. In my long experience here at :en Wikipedia, it is the British nationalists who persistently and blatantly breach WP:NPOV, not the Welsh, Scottish, English or Irish nationalists. Some articles/categories are plain laughable with their Brit Nat propaganda, but no Admin ever bats an eyelid. Go figure. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the cat Category:British politicians convicted of fraud so I'm hardly trying to cover up the crime. You needlessly and pointlessly subdivided it. That's all. (And it isn't a personal attack to make an observation on your long established editing pattern - I'm not attacking your politics, merely saying that they should not be the motivation.)--Scott Mac 16:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements are so full of blatant factual errors that they make a good collander. As just one small example, when Jim Devine sttod for election, he chose to describe himself as the "Scottish Labour Party Candidate". And yet you are trying to contend that he is somehow not a "Scottish" politician?!? Simply risible. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Of course he's a Scottish politician (and he's a Livingston politician) and he's a British Politician - and no doubt a European too. But there's little pragmatic reason to stick him in a box of one article (which is never likely to have many more than one article in it), when the parent category is also appropriate and has only six articles in it. This has nothing to do with how with how we describe him, and everything to do with useful navigation.--Scott Mac 16:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Devine isn't the first Scottish politician to be convicted of fraud (in my memory there was a senior Strathclyde councillor convicted in the mid 70s and a stream of investigations in Dundee). There were also various MPs/MSPs who had "difficulties" with office expenses around 10 years ago and were maybe fortunate to be allowed to pay back without the legal consequences that the current crop have getting. So even if it has one entry just now, I'd expect additions in the future. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the councillor have a wikipedia bio? People who have been investigated or have had "difficulties" don't count. We are talking about people notable enough for a Wikipedia bio, who have actual convictions. I suspect there will be a maximum of two (maybe three).--Scott Mac 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now but recreate if other entries are found The only current entry is Jim Devine, who was a member of the British Parliament not the Scottish Parliament. It's much better to describe and categories by the level served at. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Merge - as above. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. For an explanation of why this was relisted, see the close and the update on its original listing. An admin will close this discussion at his or her own risk. :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, risk at all. Just either conclude it is a merge or a not-merge, and resist the temptation to delete any other category that's not the subject of this debate.--Scott Mac 21:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And never, ever try to be helpful! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, drop it. No doubt you were trying to be helpful, but when you ignore all the rules and do something beyond the normal powers, then you have to be ready to have that decision criticised or reversed. If you can't handle that stick to following process. It is absolutely fine to try to be helpful, but don't make highly contentious decisions and then complain when people contend with them. You made a poor call here, that's all.--Scott Mac 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was highly contentious to you and to exactly no one else. You were seemingly completely incapable of simply waiting, with no prejudice to the future actual outcome of the discussion, which surprised me and others. Then you violated 3RR via continuing to re-create it. It was your way or the highway, so I chose both. Someone anxious to have it dropped should not continue to make comments about it, I suppose. Personally, I'm in no hurry to do so, as I think it's a great case study for certain issues. (But what the hell does "facial feminization surgery" have to do with this? (I know, I know...))Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting things, unsupported by any policy and without discussion, will usually be contentious. I have no idea why you couldn't simply wait either - the DRV will close first and doesn't precisely relate to this debate anyway - so there was really no call for your early close. You really don't seem to see the problem with your actions here. It is fine to try an IAR action, but when someone undoes it, it is best to realise it is contentious and not try to enforce it with admin tools and asserting being an admin gives you some right. Anyway it is moot now. So, go with the facial feminisation surgery if that's the limits of your imagination.--Scott Mac 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an obvious parent category for the categories discussed above, the category at the DRV and what happens with it is obviously "related" to this debate. That's the one missing factor from what I've heard from you thus far. It is great to hear an admin who will violate 3RR to get his own way lecture others about the virtues of backing down, as if you had done it and proved its worth or something. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious to you. Basically, you needlessly speedy closed a CFD by deleting a category that wasn't nominated, an act without any support in policy, but because you were an admin and it seems good to you, no one was allowed to revert your IAR move, and you'd keep using your delete button to enforce it. And you really can't see how anyone in good faith could take issue with that? Now, since you'll obviously want the last word, I concede it in advance. Unwatching.--Scott Mac 11:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not obvious? Category:Scottish politicians convicted of fraud would not be a subcategory of Category:Persons convicted of fraud? You can run away if you want, but I'd rather see that one explained. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The DRV has been closed as "no consensus". The close included the statement "please don't create another new category without a CFD". Since these categories were created during the DRV, they are arguably caught within this directive. Now my rationale for closing this CFD temporarily hopefully is starting to become a little more evident to the confused. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Factually incorrect - only the nominated category was created during the DRV.--Scott Mac 10:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is it factually incorrect, but I do not recognize by what authority the afore mentioned "directive" has been given in the first place. There is no consensus on record to delete the category that was discussed in that DRV, nor was it deleted because of an obvious policy violation. Asking us to respect this directive is asking us to respect the say so of an admin, without any grounding in policy or convention. The unprecedented manner in which events have unfolded have now put us in the position where we might indeed be compelled to resist the directive, in order to protect the core principles of the Wikipedia, which are indeed threated by non-policy, non-community consensus based administrator mandates like this one. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I thought you had unwatched this. "Factually incorrect - only the nominated category was created during the DRV." Let's check some dates, shall we? The DRV was started on 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC). The category was first created by you on 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC). Date stamps don't lie, but users can. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Users misremember and make mistakes. People failing to assume good faith, sometimes attribute this to lies.--Scott Mac 21:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this was a mistake, I accept that, but I did find it strange that you would make this mistake after making the same error on my talk page a few days ago, because we had quite an extended discussion after I corrected you using the same timestamp evidence. When a user repeatedly makes the same factual mistakes after being corrected, at a minimum other users start to wonder what exactly is going on ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I am not convinced that there have been enough politicians who have been convicted of fraud to warrant more than one UK category. We can split it later if there are enough entries to warrant that. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2011 (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:Awards of Libya[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Awards of Libya to Category:Libyan awards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the subcats of Category:Awards by country are in this form (Fooian awards), and other categories related to Lybia are in the form of "Lybian foo". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:38, 14 February 2011 (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:Missing values[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Missing values to Category:Missing data
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article for the category had a similar renaming following an extremely brief formal discussion, and this would match. Melcombe (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (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.

Society in...[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:Ottoman Empire society and Category:Somaliland society. When in doubt, we use the country name as the demonym in this category scheme. There are a few others, and they can nominated for speedy renaming.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Society in the Ottoman Empire to Category:Society of the Ottoman Empire
Propose renaming Category:Society in Somaliland to Category:Society of Somaliland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Other related categories where the location name comes after the word "society" are all "Society of...", not "Society in...". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- actually most sister categories are in the form "fooian society". These are different becasue of the lack of an obvious ethnic adjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2011 (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:Georgian society[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. It's worth noting that this is in conflict with the above close on Society categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georgian society to Category:Society of Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Georgia (U.S. state). This was the format which was chosen in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, and the "of" is based on other subcats of Category:Society by nationality. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 14 February 2011 (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:Where's Waldo[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Where's Waldo to Category:Where's Wally?
Propose renaming Category:Where's Waldo books to Category:Where's Wally? books
Propose renaming Category:Where's Waldo videos to Category:Where's Waldo? videos
Propose renaming Category:Where's Waldo video games to Category:Where's Waldo? video games
Propose renaming Category:Where's Waldo episode images to Category:Where's Waldo? episode images
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This franchise is called "Where's Waldo?" in North America and "Where's Wally?" elsewhere in the English-speaking world. However, the creator is English and the original name for the character was "Wally". Hence, the main article is at Where's Wally? and all of the articles about the books use "Wally", not "Waldo", in the title. The question mark also seems to have gone missing. The articles for the videos, video games, and the TV program all use the name "Waldo", so simply adding the question mark should be sufficient for those. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2011 (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:Alfred A. Knopf books[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. We have supported "works by publisher" before in record labels, games, comics, newspapers, and other such forms. Books seems no different, as the Keep arguers suggest. However, I do agree with the Buckland point; it's not the notability of the publisher that matters, it's the notability of the work. So that discussion seems like it could be reopened, especially if an article about Buckland is created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion Category:Alfred A. Knopf books
Nominator's rationale: What possible purpose does this category serve, other than to advertise a publisher? WCCasey (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The question is, for most books does it matter who published them? Looking at what has been created thus far, I'd say that the answer is "generally not". Of the four possible exceptions among the subcategories, one is of self-publication, which is almost without exception notable in the history of a work; the other three are religious publishers, and of those the publisher is redundant to the religion in question in two of the cases. The sole remaining case, Zondervan, is perhaps only justifiable because it's harder to pin down the religious outlook that they represent. After that, well, we know that O'Reilly publishes works on using software, and when we get to the general publishers it seems to me that it hardly matters whether Knopf published a book, as opposed to Penguin or Random House. The album by label structure is perhaps nearly as questionable, but even so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as using it as model for this. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as Good Olfactory says, the (first) publisher is a fairly basic (and essential) component of a published book. There is also Category:Films by studio ... this is CompletelyAnalogousStuffExists. Occuli (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below. The albums may be analagous, but books are not. You can write a big book without a publisher, and many do; you can't make a big film without a studio. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole tree, or most of it. English-language book rights traditionally comprise two territories: North America and "World excluding North America" (whereas eg German language rights are normally worldwide). The system is now breaking down, but until the last 10 years, most successful authors had contracts with (normally) both a London and New York publisher. Sometimes they would publish more or less at the same time, sometimes not. Look at A Bend in the River, by an English author, which the infobox attributes to the UK. But Knopf, who have never to my knowledge been a UK imprint, are credited as the publisher, which I strongly suspect is "wrong" - they were only the US publisher, & probably it was first published by ?Jonathan Cape in the UK. Publishers do not create novels and most non-fiction books, they distribute them. A film only has one studio, but many distributors. A book has one author, but many publishers. The publisher is not a defining characteristic of a book, except maybe for reference works and some types of popular fiction, where a strong house style is imposed. For example, in Category:Penguin Books books, probably only those with "Penguin" in the title should be retained, though personally I would add Lady Chatterley's Lover, which they were only the first large publisher to publish in full (oddly I see Knopf preceded them with an "abridged" US version in 1928!), but had to fight the milestone UK obscenity trial over (strangely the trial has no article). Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with this, and while I hadn't thought it out, the checkered publication history of The Lord of the Rings came to mind as I was writing. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is Fantastic Mr Fox, which the text says was "published in 1970 by George Allen & Unwin in the UK and Alfred A. Knopf in the U.S" but the infobox credits only Knopf, & only Knopf is categorized. Presumably as an English author (with an English illustrator), whatever editorial work was required was essentially done in the UK with the London publisher. There are several similar cases. If kept, the category should probably be renamed Category:Books first published in North America by Alfred A. Knopf, but this would show up the pointlessness of the whole tree. The "albums by record label" tree no doubt has similar issues, as I think I've said in the past. Maybe ok for older rock, where Stax etc produced the stuff they put out themselves, & had a house-style, but irelevant for most records since about 1970, & many before. Another problem is the very low level of coverage in these categories. Also I see that as long ago as 1960 Knopf was bought by Random House, presumably considerably diminishing whatever distinctive style they were able to bring to their authors' books. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to be ignoring the fact that the scheme is comparatively very young. I'm sorry I and other users haven't been able to comprehensively categorize every book by publisher in a matter of 3 days in a manner that would lead to satisfactory results as described above, but sometimes scheme development does take time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That this is a novel categorization is a factor in me thinking it worth discussing, but not in my opinion on the categorization. I'm not convinced that much of the "product by company" tree is worthwhile, but the reality of discussions like this is that the time invested in creating large sets of articles or whatever weighs against getting rid of them. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why are they not all nominated, instead of cherry picking one out? What good would it do to delete this category, only to have the other two dozen or so categories in Category:Books by publisher remain? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's treat this as a test case for the general proposition. As I said re Penguin above, some limited categories may be justifiable. In fact the Knopf category seems to be by far the biggest of them all. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if someone commits to follow it up. In my experience, there are about, oh‚ maybe 3 editors on WP that will follow up on a "test case" nomination. Everybody else just lets it slide and we're left with a fairly useless partial deletion result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The publisher is a strong defining characteristic of a book. I regularly read book reviews and I can't think of one that I've ever read that doesn't mention the publisher as a vital piece of information about the book, nor can I imagine a Wikipedia article for a book that would not mention the book's publisher in the text and / or an infobox. Organizing books that share a common publisher is a perfectly logical means of navigating across titles from the same publisher. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But which publisher? Have you actually read the discussion above? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two questions here: The first one is if the publisher is a defining characteristic of a book, which I argue it most certainly is,and which is the key question that needs to be raised in determining whether we should retain the category. The second question, a peripheral one which you raise, is who is the publisher, focusing on the fact that many English-language books have two separate publishers, one in the US and one in the UK. Both are the publishers of record -- book reviews in The Economist, a UK publication written for an American audience routinely list both publishers as part of the vital information about the book -- and both should be listed in the text of the article and / or the infobox, and both should be included in categories. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree that this category should probably be renamed Category:Books first published in North America by Alfred A. Knopf? Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. If the book is published by Knopf, i don't care where it's published. Not only do I have no issue with a book having two publishers listed in the article and in categories, for most major books I would expect that two publishers would be listed. I read The Economist, so I see this all the time, as at this link for a book released in the U.S. by Knopf and published in the U.K. by Atlantic Books. Both are the book's publishers and I fail to see what the issue is in including both. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well most of our readers and editors don't read the Economist and the editors of infoboxes repeatedly demonstrate that they lack your understanding of the issue. Why is the secondary publisher, who is essentially only a distributor, defining? We don't normally even bother to mention in the articles the publishers of editions in other languages, who at least have to get the thing translated. Not do we normally list or categorize any subsequent publishers in English, of which there may be many. The claim that the initial publisher is defining must rest on the work they may (or may not) have done with the author(s) to commission and edit the original manuscript. Later secondary publishers can only rarely claim any part of this & are essentially just distributors and marketers of an existing product. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can deduce based on reading American and British book reviews, it appears that distribution rights are split between the US and UK / Commonwealth and that the publishers on each side of the proverbial pond share primary claim to being the publisher of the book. A translation, alternative format or re-released edition, etc., would be a derivative work of the original book that would not deserve mention or categorization, and it appears that we would agree that such publishers should be excluded. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I explain (from some professional experience) how book rights work above. But, for example with a newer author, the "other" rights may only be acquired well after the book is first published, and the text is settled. How is being such a secondary distributor defining? Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Infobox Book has included a "publisher" parameter for at least five years. Has that ever proven problematic, or been judged trivial? postdlf (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like almost everything in infoboxes, it is very often wrong, for the reasons explained above. If the box is done by a US person they will give the US publisher, if by a British one they will give the UK one, regardless of where the book was actually first published (often hard to establish in fact). Often the "publisher" and "country" are contradictory. But wrong information in infoboxes is so normal it cannot be called "problematic" I suppose. No one is saying it is trivial, but I am saying it is not defining. Nor is anyone saying it should be removed from the infobox; but plenty of infobox fields are not suitable as categories. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same infobox has an entry for page numbers, for example. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given that those infobox fields, like most categories, provide no context or explanation, what is the understanding as to what does belong there? Which publisher, which edition's page numbers? If there isn't an easy answer to that, then it's appropriate neither as infobox fields nor as categories unless it's qualified further in some way to give guidance. But if editors have been using those infobox fields without much controversy, then it suggests that the categories are workable. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt that this system could work and be accurate—the problems highlighted by users above are largely a product of the fact that very few editors have worked on these categories up to this point, so the problems have not been "ironed out". (As I write, the (still untagged) nominated category is all of 28 hours old.) When I populated some of these, I followed the template. If the template is wrong, then both the category and the template need to be corrected. There's no reason I can see that it can't accurately be determined what publisher was the first to publish a particular book. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you only want a year of publication, that is tedious but do-able, though probably beyond the capacity or patience of most infobox-fillers. If you are concerned about who came first when both were published in the same year, that gets much harder for books before the web age. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such cases could just include both if they were released essentially simultaneously, or more appropriately neither if it really can't be determined. I don't think anyone's going to squawk about it if it's that close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are aids to navigation. This one has 242 entries, so is fit for purpose. The fact that some editors here don't see the need for such categories (presumably because they would never wish to sail this way) is irrelevant. Others will desire to seek other books published by the same publisher. HairyWombat 06:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the debate you will see that the arguments are that such categories introduce inaccuracies and are not defining under WP:CAT. Categories people "desire" are deleted here all the time. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If navigation is the point, then that conclusion is invalid: the categories should exist regardless of notability." I dispute that conclusion, as I did in the discussion. If a publisher is non-notable, why do we need a navigation device between articles of books that it has published? Categories are for navigation within Wikipedia's overall context, not just among isolated articles in the abstract. The category creator appears to have closed the discussion to avoid any finding with respect to this issue that he disagrees with. He stated that "The non-notability of the publisher was irrelevant to the result", but that was only his own position in the discussion—the others who commented in the discussion disagreed with him. It looks almost like an abuse of process to self-close in this manner. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can find multiple books by the same publisher, in terms of navigation alone it's unimportant that it appears we cannot write an article on the publisher that says more than where it is. The interest in finding other books published by the same house can still exist; indeed, it can motivate someone to pursue writing an article on the publisher. I could even argue that publishing multiple notable books makes a publisher notable. The direction this is taking is that for the most part this navigation is only going to exist for the cases in which it is least interesting: the big general interest houses presumably all have articles, but mostly their books don't have anything to do with each other. Conversely for small specialty houses the commonality of the books they publish is likely to be higher, but these are the categories which are less likely to exist if notability of the publisher (meaning, really, can someone defend writing an article on them) is an issue. Mangoe (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, it should just be that the article about the publisher come first, IMO. Very rarely do we have categories that refer to corporate entities that are not the subject of a WP article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been looking for a really good argument for deletion which I could support, but I don't think there will be one. Essentially, I agree with what Alansohn has been saying, which is so nice for me and him that I'm going to say "per Alansohn". These should only be applied for the initial publisher of a book or to editions which are otherwise defined for some reason by having been published by a particular publisher. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (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:Pearson[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pearson to Category:Pearson PLC
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match article Pearson PLC. Pearson is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article and address ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (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:E-Reader games[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:E-Reader games to Category:Nintendo e-Reader games
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are video games for the Nintendo e-Reader platform, but the category name makes it sound like they're games which run on various E-book readers. Pnm (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (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:Redneck video games[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Redneck video games to Category:Rural-themed video games
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In order to better describe a video games that either take place in a rural setting or depict a sporting event that is traditionally rural. GVnayR (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Support I would hardly say that Redneck Rampage is all that rural-themed, or that drag racing has any rural-theme at all. I support creation of a rural-themed category, but I do not think that everything should be moved to it. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nominated category or at least rename it somehow. To my knowledge, "Redneck video games" is not an established genre. Simply having "Redneck" in the name doesn't mean we create a neologistic genre named after it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rural is not the same as "redneck," neither is a well-known genre, and whether or not many of the entries merit characterization as either is questionable. Plenty of suburban folk follow WWE, and MotoGP is not exactly the stuff of trucker caps and PBR.- choster (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2011 (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/2011_February_14&oldid=1074807240"