Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8[edit]

Some American actors by ethnicity[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. Note that the argument of "Categories can be misused but they are governed by the same policies as anb article" is incorrect, as there are several policies that apply to articles but not categories, and vice versa. And I find the argument of "keep for procedural reasons and renominate each one separately" not compelling, per WP:BURO. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note There has been a previous nomination for these categories. It ended in "keep" but consensus seemed to be for keeping the racial categorizations put forth by the American census. And there appeared to be a more "delete" mentality for the other categories as WP:OCAT. Thefore, in this nomination Category:African-American actors, Category:Asian American actors, Category:Hispanic American actors, and Category:Native American actors are NOT included. Nominator's Rationale: These categories do meet WP:OCAT standards because having a parent of some ethnic descent (which is the case for the majority of these biographies) isn't alway a defining characteritic for the profession of "acting." On the other hand, African American and Hispanic American actors, because of reasons mentioned in the previous CfD, MAY be more defining. A strong reason people might feel that deleting these categories is bad is because Category:American actors is very big. However these sub-categories should be divided along more relevant lines such as Category:American actors by medium and if the categories get too big Category:American actor by decade. So huge categories won't be a problem here. These categories would likely be removed if category intersection came along anyway. Bulldog123 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as nom Bulldog123 10:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't see why the U.S. censuses' racial classifications should decide which categories should be kept or deleted. Why should actors of different Asian ethnicities (Indian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc) all be place into Category:Asian Americans? Either all should be kept, or all should be deleted (including the three you did not include). --musicpvm 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I didn't nominate those is because the last CfD had a clear consensus to keep them. They gave a bunch of reasons for it. I can link you here: [1]. Bulldog123 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I think most, if not all, of these ethnicity/occupation intersections are actually article topics masquerading as categories. For example, the contributions and experiences of Jewish Americans in early American film is well recognized as a distinct topic of study in film studies.[2] (which is far more than I can say for Argentine American actors) But that's a far cry from justifying Category:Jewish American actors, unless you can tell me why Al Jolson should be mentioned in the same breath as Soleil Moon Frye (unless in answer to the question, "Name two completely random individuals who are coincidentally both Jewish and actors"). Because these lack the sort of historical and social context that only an article can provide, these have no guarantee of grouping related or similar topics. Write an article on Jewish American actors in film or Native American actors in film, instead of creating these idiotically ahistorical trivia pits. Postdlf 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just that, nearly half of these people are only half (sometimes even a quarter) of the given ethnicity. Bulldog123 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If their article even mentions it. That's a problem with all ethnicity categorizations, but it definitely becomes even more ridiculous when one tries to assert through these categories that the one quarter ethnicity that their article does not even bother to mention is somehow significantly related to their career. Postdlf 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. We can't assume that because, let's say, John Travolta is half Italian, he would somehow have the exact same experience of being an actor as full-on Italian immigrants in the 1920s. The relationship merely can't hold all of them in a category. Bulldog123 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Categories can be misused but they are governed by the same policies as anb article. If there is an RS source saying somebody is Japanese American Actor then we can categorize them. If a category has the wrong person in it then simply clean the category. That's whay we have copy editing. No need to delete everytime we have an issue in an article or category. Clean up please. Thanks Taprobanus 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you've understood what the main objection to these categories is, or at least you haven't addressed it. It's not about whether they are factually accurate. It's whether the intersection between the sub-national ethnicity and the occupation is categorically meaningful. Can you respond to that? Postdlf 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The case you stated above is not applicable to all the categories though. For example, take Category:Indian American actors. The actors in this category are of full Indian ethnicity (not only a quarter or a half as may be the case with other categories). Also, representations of Indian Americans in the mainstream media are very limited. It is rare for Indian Americans to pursue and find success in acting, and for those who do, their race usually plays a significant part in the roles they play on television and in film, so I'd consider the race/occupation intersection to be notable in this case. --musicpvm 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not all the actors in that category are of full Indian ethnicity; a quick browse found Norah Jones and Rozonda Thomas (both of whom are furthermore musicians who have only dabbled in acting). As for it being "rare" for Indian Americans to be successful in acting, Indian Americans as a whole are rare; according to Indian American they only represent 0.8% of the U.S. population. As for your other claim about their "race" usually playing a significant part in the roles they play, on what do you base this statement, and in what way are these roles consistent with one another from actor to actor? One also can't assume, as you seem to, that they always portray Indian Americans, or that Indian Americans are always portrayed by actual Indian Americans. Once again, if this is a discrete and coherent subject that has been academically studied, it seems like an article topic, rather than a category wrongly presuming uniformity on this point. Postdlf 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as these are intersections not anchored in significance to the content. That said, I would be in favour of such categorisation were the concept a) recognised in some entry as encylopaedic and b) were the same idea included in the entry to be categorised, c) both of the aforementioned obviously need to comply with WP:V. That said, I still believe a discussion on such categorisation for the sake of ordering enormous categories would be in order, even if I don't think this CfD would really qualify. TewfikTalk 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The last time these categories were brought up for deletion, the overwhelming consensus was that some of the categories were worth keeping, others were not, and that EACH category should be brought up for its own discussion is someone wanted to delete it. That same reasoning still applies. Many of the categories on this list are extremely valid (Japanese American actors, Chinese American actors, and so on); that said, there are a couple which might be valid to delete. But lumping them all together makes discussing the merits of them all difficult to do. I will say that most of these categories appear to be valid categories that occur outside of Wikipedia, so they should be kept. --Alabamaboy 13:59, 12 August 2007 (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.

Sesame (uncategorized)[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. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sesame Beginnings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sesame Beginnings books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sesame Street lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty, found at "Uncategorized categories", probably a C1 sppedy, but I don't know how to determine if they are empty for long. - Nabla 19:31, 8 August 2007 (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:Convicted child sex offenders[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. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Convicted child sex offenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The appropriateness of the application of this category is based upon the subject's local laws, which makes application of this category inconsistent. For example, a person convicted of possession of child pornography in the UK would qualify for the category, but one convicted in the United States would not. This creates confusion, and leads to abuse of the category, whether intended or not. This could lead to serious liability issues for the project in BLP articles. Crockspot 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many of the articles in this category have no references, this is a huge BLP issue. ←BenB4 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the discussion about the "Chris Langham" article on the BLP noticeboard shows, it would probably need a lawyer to decide whether an article should be included in this category, and what this inclusion precisely means. Neither Wikipedia editors nor readers are expected to be lawyers. High potential of misuse of this category, intended or unintended. --B. Wolterding 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are differences between differing legal jurisdictions, possibilities of ambiguity over legal definitions. And legal ramifications for Wikipedia caused by miscreants and well-intentioned people alike etc etc Davidpatrick 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment before !voting here, one should examine the Category:Criminals and all its dependent ones, and note whether they all suffer from the same infirmities: laws differ among countries, what's a crime in one may not be in another one, and BLP problems abound. I would like to defer discussion of this cat until we assess all these in that light. If consensus is to delete this one, then the others will be quickly nominated based on the precedent. Prehaps that result is for the best, but many of the people categorized among those - and this - category are frankly most notable for their convictions. To remove the cat in some sense is to question the legitimacy of this sort of "notability" for the articles so categorized (which again may be a best result), but I think a fuller discussion is probably in order. Carlossuarez46 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I think the comparison may have some validity, but goes a little too far. In my mind, there is a world of difference being labeled a simple criminal, and being labeled a "child sex offender", even among criminals themselves. I don't think that the deletion of this category automatically requires the nomination of all criminal cats. But let them be nominated. They can stand or fall on the arguments presented at each discussion. - Crockspot 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at every subcategory of Category:Criminals and none of them are anywhere near as broad of varied as this one. Category:Convicted child sex offenders classes people who have raped and murdered children with those who have downloaded child pornography. Apart from anything else, categorizng such loosely related people together is of little encyclopedic use. Crazysuit 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Let's take a few examples. Category:Fraudsters, what is fraud? It certainly differs jurisdiction by jurisdiction: after this discussion we deleted Category:Pseudo-scientific fraud. In many jurisdictions, fraud is both civil and criminal, are those found liable for civil fraud "Fraudsters"? And pray tell, how are those in Category:Confidence tricksters not also Fraudsters? And for Category:Terrorists, I'm sure that definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, otherwise extradition would be a simple endeavor. And Category:Bigamists, bigamy isn't even illegal in some jurisdictions - Saudi Arabia, for example. And is there a world-wide definition applicable to Category:Stalkers or Category:Spies (the USSR put some of its most celebrated ones on postage stamps not in jail) or Category:Outlaws or even the catch-all Category:Criminals? And as a final example: Category:Sex offenders, what's a sex offense; is prostitution? well not in some European countries, but certainly in 49 U.S. states it is. Is adultery? differs from time to time and place to place. Getting closer to this category: Is having sex with a person under the age of 18? In many places yes, in many places the age of consent is under 18 - which is what brings us here, but really doesn't suffer from any unique infirmity among these categories. The sting of this one is perhaps in some views worse than others, but are most of the people categorized are (with some exceptions) probably most famous for their conviction or the acts which led to it? E.g., most of the convicted (former) Roman Catholic priests among these - few or none were famous for anything other than their crimes. How do we classify them then? Should all these people be re-categorized among the subcats Category:Sex offenders by nationality so that we minimize but do not eliminate the legal differences (person of British nationality may be convicted of crimes in Vietnam, say). Carlossuarez46 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a defining characteristic. The inconsistencies are really rather hair-splitting. The idea of deleting all categories for criminals on the basis of seriously over the top legal concerns would be cutting off our nose to spite our face: basically it is suggesting that a large swathe of people cannot be categorised on the basis of the main (most often the only) reason why they are covered in Wikipedia. That's ridiculous. It is also very patronising to assume that users will not appreciate that laws differ between countries. Postlebury 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but please note that I have nothing against targeted, crime-specific categories. "Sex offender" is just a problematic term to use for a category. It's a legal term in many jurisdictions (in most/all states in the U.S., at least) indicating who is required to comply with certain registration and reporting requirements where they live or work, because of the sexual nature of a crime they have been convicted of. Technically, you aren't convicted of being a "sex offender," but rather you are designated one because you have been convicted of a qualifying crime as specified by the relevant sex offender statute. Most importantly, crimes as disparate in nature and severity as rape and indecent exposure may be classed "sex offenses" within a jurisdiction, and the criteria for being a "sex offender" will further vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So, yes, as B. Wolterding indicated, it would take a lawyer to sort it out. This category is furthermore ambiguous; it could refer to an individual convicted of a sex offense involving a child victim, or it could refer to a juvenile who has been convicted of a sex offense regardless of the victim's age. Postdlf 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly problematic category, and potential for misuse based on editors' own interpretations of local definitions of the law as it applies in different countries. Serious BLP concerns for such a broad and ill-defined category. There has been discussion regarding Chris Langham's inclusion in this category, I cannot find a single source referring to Langham as a "convicted child sex offender"[3] which shows that this category is being used based on an editor's own interpretation of the term, rather than the legal definition of it. Crazysuit 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Convicted child sex offenders by country and split up into individual country categories. Since we have Category:Australian convicted child sex offenders, we could likewise create categories for other countries.-Andrew c [talk] 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Crazysuit. Avb 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very convincing by the way. Bulldog123 14:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per the arguments by Postdlf. "Sex offender" is a broad term for a whole spectrum of different crimes, and its meaning varies wildly from place to place. I do not agree with those who say this is a BLP issue, as the word "convicted" takes care of that quite nicely, but this is not a specific crime or even type of crime. I'm in favor of categorizing criminals by their actual crime, and not by some vague, semi-subjective description that has completely different meanings in different jurisdictions. In addition, I'd like to point out that the current name is confusing. When I first saw this, I assumed it was for juvenile offenders, not those who offend against juveniles. Xtifr tälk 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & per arguments of Postdlf. Wherever possible, these individuals should be categorized on the basis of the specific crime they were convicted of having committed, rather than on the basis of an overlybroad, poorly-defined and inconsistently applied designation. Cgingold 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue of different laws can be dealt with by fully subcategorising this category by country. As for the argument that this is still inconsistent, there's nothing uncommon about that. "Engineer" has different meanings in Germany (where it is a legally protected status) and the UK (where it is not), so we might as well delete Category:Engineers as well. Beorhtric 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just that few people will feel offended if incorrectly referred to as an "engineer", while this may be different if they are incorrectly referred to as a "convicted child sex offender". --B. Wolterding 10:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I had no other concerns about this category, this suggestion would not be adequate, because we would need to sub-categorize not just by country, but also by state in the U.S. (and perhaps elsewhere, for all I know). Impossible. Cgingold 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. BLP issues and inconsistency based on subjects locale. Navou banter 03:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlos' rationale. Unless there is a proposal to categorise by more specific crimes across the board, I see no reason to treat this category different from other substituents of Category:Criminals. TewfikTalk 08:35, 12 August 2007 (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:Audio 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: rename. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Audio books to Category:Audiobooks
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (Audiobook). kollision 16:02, 8 August 2007 (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:Public services in Cincinnati, Ohio[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Public services in Cincinnati, Ohio to Category:Public and private services in Cincinnati, Ohio
Nominator's rationale: This will allow for greater flexability as I categorize these items, and will leave room for hospitals and schools. I am currently organizing many Cincinnati-related articles for WP:CINCINNATI, which I founded. Mind meal 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed language would only exist to provide a place for private schools and private hospitals in the "services" arena for Cincinnati. This is not an "unnecessary" layer, as you have stated. Categories and subcategories all exist for a reason on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll just be splitting up Education in Cincinnati by grade schools, high schools and universities and then by "public or private". This proposal would actually make for less categorization in the long run. Most individuals consider hospitals and schools a public utility, regardless of their status as private or public. Had I thought in advance to include this language when creating this category I would have, as this wouldn't even be an issue. But now it seems it is. Such is life. Of course, you started off with "if retained", so perhaps it would be an issue. Is there a reason why you used such language? Certainly cities offer public services. Perhaps Category:Utility services in Cincinnati would be better, as an additional thought. I should have just created the new category, emptied this one out and nominated it for deletion. Oh well. (Mind meal 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I said "if retained" because I had initially included a suggestion to delete. In thinking about it a little further I decided not to do that but neglected to remove those two words. I would not, should consensus form to delete this category, object. Otto4711 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Public and private services" is too broad to be useful. Indeed, the same might be considered to apply to the current category, so there would be no objection from me to deletion. Postlebury 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The distinction between public and private services is not clear cut. Given that specific categories can be created for each field, it isn't necessary to try to make it in any case. Beorhtric 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary and unprecedented category, TewfikTalk 08:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion (Mind meal 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. This is simply an ambiguous category. If you try to expand this to other countries it becomes more confusing and subject to regional variations, adding public/private does not really help. Even in the the US I'm not sure how you would define services to not include everything available in a city. A drugstore is a service so is a hospital, and a dry cleaner. Vegaswikian 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public services - (Mind meal 00:22, 13 August 2007 (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:People with craters of the Moon named after them[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. And list seems already there, I'll give it a few days to cross-check that against the cat, then delete the cat. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them to article List of people with craters of the Moon named after them
Nominator's rationale: This seems to me to qualify as overcategorisation as a non-defining characteristic. If it were important to all these people's articles then it would be mentioned there, and it isn't on (for example) Mendel, Anaximander, nor Neil Armstrong. However, it seems to me a notable subject for a potentially excellent list. RobertG ♬ talk 11:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify these seems like a good example of something that should be a list, not a category. Categories are for the most defining aspects of something, not for trivial lists of information. These people aren't notable because they have moon craters, they were notable before hand. I will note that this category was created from a consensus rename about a year ago, see this.-Andrew c [talk] 15:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and cleanup. The first article I looked at random, Leonhard Euler, has a asteroid named after him, not a crater on the moon! Lugnuts 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom. These people aren't known for their moon craters, but rather the moon craters were named after otherwise notable people. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify—and I've already done the basic work at User:Xtifr/List of people with craters on the Moon named after them, just in case. (Never mind, duplicated work.) This is a classic case of overcategorization by a non-defining characteristic. It is really information about the Moon more than it is about these people, so it should be linked from articles about the Moon, rather than (necessarily) from articles about the people. (Although a "see also" link to the list would probably be appropriate for some of the people.) Xtifr tälk 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom. Vsst 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom, TewfikTalk 08:41, 12 August 2007 (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:Deceased TV characters[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 debate was SPEEDY DELETE and BLOCK. Postdlf 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deceased TV characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (possibly upmerge) per precedent. RobertG ♬ talk 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No material difference from recently deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 13#Category:Deceased TV Series Characters. Hqb 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete / block as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as re-creation. If the same person is making all of these dead TV character categories, can they be politely but firmly advised to knock it off? Otto4711 14:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, please do what is needed to stop these being recreated.--NeilEvans 17:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreated deleted content. Beyond that, it seems like a dumb thing to categorize, considering the thousands of tv characters who are "killed" every week. - Crockspot 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block recreation, per all the reasons it was deleted in the first place. Carlossuarez46 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is looking like a snowball speedy. - Crockspot 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and block recreation. We don't categorized as alive/dead. Wryspy 00:27, 10 August 2007 (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.

Lord Lieutenants[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. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy, so moved here. I was the original nominator, and still support the renaming from "Lords Lieutenant of foo" to "Lord Lieutenants of foo", per the explanation below by Choess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the Oxford English Dictionary Pl. lords-lieutenant(s, lord-lieutenants. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Lords lieutenant" like "passers by" strikes me as perfectly good English. The OED citation appears to be mangled, so I can't tell what it is you were trying to indicate that OED says. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: While there's some debate about it, it seems that "Lieutenant" rather than "Lord" should be the substantive (in contradistinction to, say, Attorney General.) The OED entry is, I think, indicating that "Lords Lieutenants", "Lords Lieutenant", and "Lord Lieutenants" are all recorded as plural forms of the word. However, I think "Lord Lieutenants" is preferable because the officer is first and foremost a Lieutenant of the Sovereign (as in the Middle Ages there were "King's Lieutenants" of Gascony, etc.), "Lord" merely indicating its quality, as with Lord Chancellors, Lord High Chamberlains, etc. Contrast, again, with Attorneys General, who are attorneys, for the generality of England and Wales or wheresoever they may be appointed. For whatever it's worth, in describing the word, the OED uses the plural "Lord-lieutenants". Choess 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a British office, so British pluralization (pluralisation) applies and the OED is quite persuasive, while per Choess it recognizes (recognises) various plurals, that it employs the one requested (with a hyphen to spare: query was the OED usage as an adjective?) seems to indicate the preferred style. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but hyphenate Choess' OED extract does not really help the choice as it seems to allow all permutations. However, at first glance I would have said that Lds Lt sounds right... but there were some changes in legislation over the last few years and I dug up this from Burkes peerage for Scotland on PDF page 62 : "By Royal Warrant of 30 June 1999, Her Majesty The Queen did make certain amendments to The Scale of General Precedence ... that the reference to Lords Lieutenant shall be replaced with a reference to Lord-Lieutenants...". I hope that this change did not solely apply to Scotland! The article on Ld Lt would also need changing to reflect this clarification of terminology. Ephebi 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyphenate - excellent research. ←BenB4 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with hyphenation - just putting together that list looks daunting :-) TewfikTalk 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. Search/replace for the win! >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (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:Annie Lennox singles[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. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Annie Lennox singles to Category:Annie Lennox songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename per previous discussions. musicpvm 06:15, 8 August 2007 (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:Mash-ups[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. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mash-ups to Category:Mashup songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with Category:Songs by genre and Mashup (music). musicpvm 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete Unqualified Mash-ups could equally well apply to one of the other kinds of mashup: web application or video. But since there are currently only three songs in the category, and it's not clear that there will ever be significantly more notable ones, perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply delete the category entirely for now. Hqb 09:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. My concern at first was actually that there would be too many of these articles, but that doesn't seem to be the case as the definition of Mashup is pretty narrow. I just added List of mashup songs and one of its members to the cat, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more articles in the pipeline, so I think this is worth keeping. ×Meegs 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to fit the convention without prejudice to deletion if the topic turns out to be one that doesn't warrant a category. TewfikTalk 08:45, 12 August 2007 (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:Owners of Slytherin's Locket[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. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Owners of Slytherin's Locket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per previous deletions such as 2007 July 27#Category:People Killed by Lord Voldemort. It is overcategorization to categorize fictional characters by events in the plot. musicpvm 05:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – overcategorization, surely. I was interested to find, though, that we have Category:Bearers of the One Ring. That set, however, has an article attesting to its significance. ×Meegs 09:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There is no indication in the series that there is any shared significance between the owners of the locket. This list is not at all notable. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, over-categorisation. –sebi 00:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent, TewfikTalk 08:45, 12 August 2007 (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:Death in the United States[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, no objection to creating new cats if somebody can find a suitable objectively definable purpose. >Radiant< 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Death in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Mix of articles that relate very very loosely to Death and/or the US. Includes films, haunted houses, a comic book character, some singer's hospital hallucination, and suicide prevention agencies among other. No real purpose. Does not aid navigation. Relationship of articles vague at best. Appropriate health-orientated category concerning human death already exists. ZayZayEM 04:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Purpose is to group articles that pertain to death and death related topics in the United States, such as: Human deaths in the United States, Animal deaths and extinct animals in the United States, and Cultural representations of death in the United States (such as Personifications of Death in media (Ex: Death (Marvel Comics), or Death-related cultural locations (Ex: McRaven House)). Category:Death is very broad and for whom navigation in regard to the United States would be improved if there was a category to group relevant articles. Please note that there is no Category:Human death, which can make categorization decisions here unclear in regard to what would be best included in Category:Death and what would be most appropriate in Category:Human death in the United States. Overall, this category may have inadequate sub-categories, giving the appearance of too loosely related contents. It is also very likely underpopulated at this time. Kurieeto 10:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like a way of rephrasing Kurieeto's reply is that this category is meant to take any articles that fall under Category:Death and that also fall under a category which is United States specific. However, while that is a pretty clear cut method of determining whether or not to include an article, there are still two problems. First is that it's not clear why the United States is being singled out for subcategorization. Wouldn't something like this function better under something like a "Death by country" scheme? Second, it seems to me that almost all the articles involved would actually be biographies of people who either were from the US and died or who died in the US or who died due to some US action. Notice that this creates a bit of overlap with articles about dead people in one country who are linked to the US appearing in multiple Death-by-country categories.
Now alternatively you could maybe instead sort biographies by the location in which the person died. But that would be a different category than this one, something like "People who died in the United States" and would be a subcategory scheme of Category:Deaths by location. Notice that there is no such scheme at the moment.
So all in all I'd recommend deleting this category for now, and then if desired starting a discussion with the Biographical wikiprojects to see if they would like a scheme to categorize dead people by country. This sort of thing is going to be a pretty large endeavor to undertake, and so it would be prudent to see what system, if any, the people who would use the system actually want. This single country ad-hoc approach isn't the right way to go, in my opinion. Dugwiki 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first point, the United States isn't being singled out, I just assumed that it would be the country with the most relevant Wikipedia content, so I started there. Australia probably also has enough to warrant such a category. In regard to your second point, this category would contain material beyond biographies - Ex, Euthanasia in the United States, and Suicide organizations (Ex: Suicide Prevention Action Network USA). If this category is to be deleted, how could such similar topics regarding death issues in the United States be acceptably grouped in the Category namespace? Kurieeto 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying there isn't the potential for something useful here, Kurieeto. But my point is that what if you DO come up with a well defined category for "Articles related to Death in the United States" or something like that, it would almost certainly be something that could be equally applied to a bunch of other countries. So given the potential scope of what this would encompass, I'd highly recommend deleting this category for now and revisiting it within a broader discussion of whether and how to divide articles related to death by nationalities involved. I'd start by bringing it up for discussion with one of the major Biographies projects. Dugwiki 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe with a list? This is just too broad a category to be very useful. - Crockspot 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Death related topics in the United States. When I first read the rationale for this nom, I too thought it was a rather silly-looking assemblage of articles. But after looking into the contents of its parent cat, Category:Death, I see that there is, in fact, a valid rationale for the category. Category:Death contains a very wide array of topics, all related in some way to the subject of death. Nobody seems to be challenging the validity of that parent category. The category we're discussing here is simply a sub-cat, in this case for the nation which is inevitably going to have the largest number of articles pertaining to the subject at hand. This category makes perfect sense to me, but it should be renamed as I've proposed. And I suggest that we also consider renaming the parent cat to Category:Death related topics, which would introduce an element of consistency that's currently lacking. Cgingold 12:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - The fact that the U.S. is currently the only country with such a category is not in itself a valid argument against keeping it. There are countless categories with just a single analagous subcategory, and there's certainly no rule against that. If there are other countries with sufficient articles to merit their own categories, they should be created too. There might also, for example, be enough articles for Category:Death related topics in Europe if individual European countries don't have enough for their own cats. Cgingold 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Concepts make for poor category schemes because there is never any clear criteria as to what gets included; the category contents then read like a free-association list poem rather than a list of like subjects. And I strongly oppose renaming it to "Death related topics"—there's really no better way to make a category subjective and vague to the point of uselessness than to define it by simply whatever is "related." Really, what isn't arguably "related" to death to some degree? Postdlf 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category improves the organization of many topics related to death in the United States, like suicide, euthanasia, cultural aspects of death that are specific to the United States, and extinct species in the region. The only other option is to create categories at the sub-topic level, such as Category:Suicide in the United States, Category:Euthanasia in the United States, etc. But a category will be needed for organizational reasons to group these together. The scope of topics permissible in Category:Death should equal the scope of a Category:Death in the United States, as per all other by country categories. A category is needed to group these articles with a shared topic. Keep or rename. Kurieeto 12:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what seems to be a coincidental relation paired with WP:OCAT (Death of Dale Earnhardt is already in Category:Filmed deaths, Death, Desire and Loss in Western Culture is already in Category:Death, List of motorcycle deaths in U.S. by year is already in Category:Death-related lists). I don't see this type of vaguely defined category as being helpful, were it to be a larger "by country" scheme. TewfikTalk 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. This category is a mixture of too many disparate things to be useful for WP. Hmains 18:50, 12 August 2007 (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/2007_August_8&oldid=1079189572"