Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Category:British Arabs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British Arabs to Category:British people of Arab descent
Nominator's rationale: to follow convention. I m not so sure about this one though - listed are both people who trace their ethnicity to Arab speakers (a few) and current Arab speakers (most). However most cat pages follow the Fooian people of Arab descent pattern - see Category:People of Arab descent Mayumashu (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per long precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per precedent.--Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename unlike the discussion below, Arabs aren't a major ethnic category in the UK census, and even if they were listed seperatley, like White, Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British etc. it is likely that the term Arab British not British Arab would be used Stevvvv4444 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black Britons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. the wub "?!" 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Black Britons and Category:Black British to Category:British people of Black African descent
Nominator's rationale: as per conventional naming pattern for cat pages of Fooian people by Booian ethnic or national descent (for non-United States pages), as established earlier in the year. Mayumashu (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, black British of West Indian descent could either be linked to both 'West Indian' and 'Black African' separately or have a 'Black West Indian' subcat page linked to both, either way Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first two and then keep -- It is all a matter of what one means by "Black". The problem is that there is a significant West Indian minority of Indian descent. Black can loosely be used to refer to non-white, and this includes a wide range of mixed race people. The two nominated categories need to be merged, perhaps to "Black British people", but not to Category:British people of Black African descent. Black is an identification by skin colour, and only secondarily of ethnic origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category is important as it includes all Black British people who are unaware or have not stated their national background. The fact is many of these people would consider themselves fully British and do not want to be listed under 'British people of African descent', Black British (and Black Britons) is a term used by the UK Census, and this category states all British people who will fit the Afro-Caribbean/ Black African description. Other articles such as Category:British Asians, category:African Americans exist and are perfectly accepted. The only reason i can see for this category being nominated for deletion is the fact that user Mayumashu doesn't like it. As Black British is a term used across the world, and this user is probarbly the only exception to it. Please consider keeping this article. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not being nominated for deletion, it's being nominated for a merger. But I think that Black British (or Black British people) is a better title given that that's an official categorisation used by government. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok thanks for clearing it up, I still stand by what I say as I believe it is relevant to the merging debate. I agree that the article should be renamed Black British people. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Black British which is empty anyway; Keep others. "Black Britons" is the correct plural form for "Black British", and a people category should use the plural form as all the others do. This category contains individuals and Category:British people of Black African descent and other by-origin subcats, there is no need to disturb it to reflect the convention of a group of categories it does not form part of. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Black Britons is a category that productively organizes several hundred articles. Category:Black British is a redirect now, whose existence is not necessarily needed, but causes no problems, so keep it unless there is a reason to delete it. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If 'Black Briton' / 'Black British' are the terms used by the British gov't / the accepted terms, and people are confident what the term once meant (as Peterkingiron mentions) won t be mistaken for what it is now taken to mean, then we should have a reverse merge of Category:British people of Black African descent to Category:Black British people. Mayumashu (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. Does any government in the world use "Fooian people of Black African descent" as the "official term" for people of Black African descent of their nationality? I doubt it. (There probably wouldn't be room on a census for for such descriptive language.) I thought the reason we have chosen to take this route is because it is clear, even if it may not correspond with what governments use. Why are we thinking about going back on this now? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So vote to support the nomination!! Users who want a keep did not participate in the work that was done earlier in the year is one point, not that we can t change aspects of it now. I guess in the end that for the U.S., U.K., and Canada, with large numbers of citizens with sub-Saharan roots and with English an official language, then going with what the govt goes by is an acceptable exception Mayumashu (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, I can understand that point about adopting the phrasing used by govts in the countries with large numbers. I think I'll support the nom, though I can see that either phrasing would probably be OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, for above reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK census has categories for Black African, Black Caribbean and Black Other. If we merge these all into Category:British people of Black African descent, surely that will create confusion? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those individuals would just be removed from the category—not a big deal. More like a repurposing of the category than a straight transfer with a name change. I would think it's incorrect to group Black Africans, Black Caribbeans, and Black Others all together anyway. It seems like categorization by skin color, which we generally don't do on WP. (Though I admit, there are exceptions to this when it's the govt that does the classifying, as how we use the old South African categories of "black", "white", and "coloureds".) As I said, probably either could work, and it really comes down to personal preference, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As one user has already stated 'Black Britons' is the plural of the official term Black British, although I believe 'Black British people' would also be acceptable. Keeping this category. whether it is renamed or not will mean that other excess categories such as 'Black African', 'Black Caribbean' and 'Black Other' will not need to be created, ultimately all Afro-Caribbeans are of African origin, but having a title 'British people of Black African descent' may lead people to thinking that the category only contains Black African people and not the overall Black British community. This category does prevent confusion and is an organised approach. I believe the only question now is whether it should be renamed 'Black British people' or not, as this category definately should stay. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don t mind (that much) if the overarching cat page is named 'Black British people' instead of 'British people of Black African descent' although I still prefer the longer name for its greater clarity and its consistency with alike pages for other countries (such as Brazil and France). (And I disagree that people will wrongly assume that to be of Black African descent is to have come directly from "Black (sub-Saharan) Africa", that is to be Black African. But another point that needs to be raised is that there should not be duplication when listing cat page links. If one is listed under 'English people of Sudanese descent' then they should not also be listed then under 'British people of Sudanese descent' and then 'Black British people' - one link suffices as they all connect. All three links listed on one bio is clutter. (However, one listed under 'English people of African-American descent' needs to be listed also under 'English people of American descent' as one is for ethnic origin and the other, national origin. I don t know about whether there should also be a double listing for 'English people of West Indies descent' and 'English people of Black West Indies descent', I suppose so.) Mayumashu (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LSU Hall of Fame members[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 to pre-existing Louisiana State University Athletic Hall of Fame and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LSU Hall of Fame members to Category:Louisiana State University Athletic Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the institution; "inductees" seems to be more prevalent for such categories than "members," given Category:Halls of fame inductees. -choster (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT actors from individual countries[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:  Relisted at 2008 DEC 15. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging (see below)
Nominator's rationale: We've been having some discussions in the LGBT studies WikiProject about merging some cats. One of the results is the idea that the collective "LGBT Occupation" categories need to be examined. In many cases (as with this one for actors), the sexual orientation / gender identity of an actor plays a significant part in their occupation. However, the location may not be as significant. In other words, Category:Gay actors may have different issues and may be significantly different from Category:Lesbian actors, but Category:LGBT actors from the United States probably don't have significant differences from Category:LGBT actors from Germany. So, to clarify the category structure, we're proposing merging folks from the categories:

into their appropriate categories:

If necessary, those categories can be subdivided by nationality for ease of navigation. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom. Just to clarify a bit, however, most people in the national categories are actually already in one of the L, G, B or T parents; any merger resulting from this should actually replace "LGBT actors from country" with the general "LGBT people from country" parent if the person isn't already in a different subcategory of that. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would disagree based on my research that the experiences of LGBT actors in various countries are not unique to or at least strongly informed by that country. Admittedly my experience is more focused on the US but it still remains a fairly big deal when a celebrity of any name value comes out here and American straight actors have often been strongly cautioned by their management to avoid even playing a gay character because of the questions it might raise. The UK seems much more casual about openly gay celebrities. Whether this constitutes sufficient reason for the categorization scheme is unclear to me. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, doesn't that have more to do with being gay in a particular country / culture rather than being an actor in that country / culture? By that I mean that Ian McKellen doesn't perform his job any differently than Charlie David does. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this argues against the categories. If the experience of an openly gay actor in England is significantly different from that of an openly gay actor in Canada, that would argue in favor of dividing by country on the basis of the cultural difference. Honestly I don't have strong feelings about this either way so whatever happens I'm all good. Otto4711 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terminal railroads[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Terminal railroads to Category:Switching and terminal railroads
Nominator's rationale: Rename. None of the regulatory bodies attempt to distinguish these two related kinds of service. NE2 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Betty[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 (WikiProject was deleted as well). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Betty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category for stunted Wikiproject that never got started. Wikiproject is up for deletion as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former members of the State Duma of the Russian Federation[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former members of the State Duma of the Russian Federation to Category:Members of the State Duma of the Russian Federation
Nominator's rationale: Merge, since we don't tend to categorize by "present" or "former" status in such categories. BencherliteTalk 12:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation people[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: Consensus seems to say Delete Category:CBC Sports people and Category:CBC newsreaders and journalists. The remaining category could have legitimate uses (noting this category), so I'm going to speedy it as an empty category rather than include it here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:CBC Sports people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:CBC newsreaders and journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all as overcategorization of "performer by performance" type. There are many precedents for deleting similar TV network people categories. The parent "people" category could perhaps be appropriate if it were categorizing people who, e.g., were corporate managers of CBC, but it is not and is being used solely as a parent for the other two categories. Note: this was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation_personalities. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then what about Category:BBC people, Category:ITV people etc. ? Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The performer subcategories of these should also be deleted, I suspect. The fact that no one has gotten around to it yet is not a reason to keep these ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as performer by performance/venue overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query – I don't see how 'performer by performance/venue overcategorization' comes into this. Jeremy Paxman has been an employee of the BBC since 1977. What is the performance? The 'deleters' need to come up with a more relevant 'OCAT' section. (I expect CBC is much the same - there will be plenty who cannot be shoe-horned into anything that can be described aptly as a 'performance'.) Occuli (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are always going to be individual exceptions to the rule, but there is strong precedent (as demonstrated by the partial list linked in the nomination) for not categorizing television personalities by the networks for which they have worked. For every television personality who's worked for one network for 30 years there are several who have hopped from network to network. Categorizing them by network will lead to the same sort of category clutter that categorizing actors by their TV appearances did. Otto4711 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that though about half of the journaists are employed over periods and are therefore valid and half are more free lance and are less so. And the ones that are, they are so entirely associated with their network, not having these cat pages seems a glaring miss. At any rate, this nomination should include the BBC, ITV, ITN, and other 'networks' too Mayumashu (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually gathered a few more similar precedents for these types of deletions. There's no question that they have been deleted on grounds similar to the more obvious "performer-by-performance" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The argument about "performer-by-performance" relates to the hypothetical concern that individual actors and actresses will appear in substantial numbers of different films or television programs -- perhaps several dozen -- over the course of their career, leading to alleged problems of "overcategorization". The far more relevant precedent is for athletes, for whom it is possible to appear in several different categories for different sports teams for which the athlete has played. Notable journalists, who tend to establish longterm relationships with their employers, and especially for those with a notable association with a major network backed by reliable and verifiable sources, it is a rather ludicrous stretch for the issue of "performer-by-performance", whatever validity it has. If the purpose of the category system in Wikipedia is to provide an aid to navigation, the stubborn demand that we cannot associate notable individuals with their notable employers is patently ludicrous, if not disruptive. That, for example, Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather is not included in Category:CBS News (or far more accurately Category:CBS News people should be a glaring sign that there is something spectacularly wrong with the foolish insistence of overapplying a "precedent" that simply does not apply and harms those who try to use our encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds pretty much like a "sure that's been the consensus, but I disagree" statement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That there is some sort of consensus on "performer-by-performance" is not relevant here. WP:OCAT#Performers by performance indicated that we should "Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. Examples of "performers" include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc.", none of which apply here. The specific scenarios offered are 1) Performers by action or appearance (Examples: Actresses who have appeared veiled, Anal porn actress, Musicians who play left-handed. Saxophonists who are capable of circular breathing), 2) Performers by role or composition (Examples: Fictional characters by actor and subcategories, American dramatic actors, Actors that portrayed heroes or villains, Jim Steinman artists, Actors & Actresses who portrayed, Actors who have played serial killers, Actors who have played gay characters, Actors who played HIV-positive characters, and Actors who have played the President of the United States), and 3) Performers by performance venue (Examples: Artists who played Coachella, Saturday Night Live musical guests, Ozzfest performers, Celebrity Poker Showdown players, Entertainers who performed for troops during the Vietnam War, and Actors by series). Despite the best efforts to ensure that any possible category that might fall into this vortex of deletion is included, there is absolutely nothing that matched the categories under discussion here. Whatever the validity (or my opinion) of "performer-by-performance", it does not apply here. Alansohn (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, although I probably shouldn't, that I find Alansohn's drive to ignore dozens upon dozens of precedents amusing, given that he has been flogging the results of a single CFD as overwhelming precedent for a viewpoint that matches up with his own despite the lack of community consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he may wish to check out the wide array at User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Performers_by_performance. It's fairly overwhelming as far as "precedent" goes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope that Otto is not trying to flog two-year old unrelated CfDs to justify deletion here. Indeed, it appears that other than those who seek to apply irrelevant "rules" in arbitrary fashion, the other participants here also question the applicability of this "precedent". The far more relevant response here may be to explain why deleting these categories improves the categorization structure for those readers seeking to find articles. Alansohn (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, "flog". Great word. I think with such strong precedents, the onus is really on those who want to keep this to explain why it's different than the several dozen related ones (unrelated? perhaps you didn't examine them?) that have already been deleted over a period of time, not all of which are "two-year[s] old". In fact, there was one just one week ago. We've heard about Dan Rather and CBS but nothing about the CBC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus Can Change, and it appears to be changing already. I'm arguing that organizing these articles in the current categories meets the purposes of categorization and that deleting these categories only serves to disrupt navigation, and this is supported by comments from other open-minded editors here, such as "What is the performance? The 'deleters' need to come up with a more relevant 'OCAT' section", et al. You're pitching some unrelated precedent which is intended to deal with actors who can appear in hundreds of performances over their career. As with all categories, you need to come up with some reason for why removing these categories will improve navigation using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't know how much more clear I can make this—they are not unrelated precedents in the way you're suggesting. They are about television network presenters or reporters or those who work for a specific media outlet, the same as those here. The direct link to these is here. For instance, there are ones for Fox News, CNN, TSN, WABC-TV, Sky Sports News, UPI, CTV, CNBC, MSNBC, ESPN, and others. These were not "actor" categories, they were for reporters and news presenters. How is this one any different? Or are we just going to disregard the previous decisions from over 2 years? Personally I see no change of consensus, unless you are suggesting that two commenters on a given day override 30 months' worth of other comments. I have a little more respect for the opinions that have come before, even when I personally disagree about an issue in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus "appears to be changing already"? And you base that on what exactly, your disagreement with it? When consensus against this sort of category has remained undisturbed from the time it was established to a week ago, it is difficult to believe that under any definition of the word "changing" of which I am aware that consensus is changing at all. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read below. If you would like this category deleted, convince anyone that deletion of this category improves the navigation experience for Wikipedia readers. No one, certainly not you, has offered a justification for deletion other than single-minded blind observance of unrelated precedents. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one, certainly not you, has offered an explanation as to how a series of CFDs resulting in the deletion of categories holding people by the broadcast network for which they have worked are unrelated to this CFD for categories holding people by the broadcast networks for which they have worked. Explain exactly how this CFD is different from those or stop claiming that the precedents are unrelated. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Alansohn, I would appreciate it if you didn't imply that I or any other editor is doing what they are doing in the name of "blind" oberservance of precedent. You have no information on how much anyone has considered this issue, as far as I know. As far as I can tell from Otto's long involvement with CfD, he has been involved with these specific issues for a number of years now, and I can't believe in an AGF way that he's never actually thought about the implcations of the issue in all that time. Part of assuming good faith is not inventing motives for other users, or assuming that they have none beyond some strange "blind" application of precedent. Honestly, I don't know any editors who do that or who would think it would be a good thing. This is the second recent CfD where I've had to bring this up because your rhetoric (if that's all it is) is going a bit off the rails into ascribing bad faith (or at least "stupid faith") to others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your nomination. It offers no justification for deletion other then "overcategorization of 'performer by performance' type". Perhaps if you had offered an explanation as to why journalists, sportscasters and all CBC network employees are "performers" there might be an argument worth considering. Perhaps an explanation of how navigation is aided by deleting these categories, you might have a shot. Offer an actual argument and I'll be happy to consider it. But all you and those voting delete have offered is "performer-by-performance". These aren't performers and they aren't performances, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. If there was a consensus, it seems that it has changed. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you still haven't read the precedents which have been linked to, which have from the start been an integral part of the nomination. I didn't quote them all verbatim for space considerations. Suit yourself, but if you're not even reading the whole nomination, it's no wonder you're confused as to the proposed rationale for deletion. If I'm wrong and you have read through them and examined them, then perhaps you just didn't understand that their rationale is herein incorporated by linking to them. That was my intent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The Canadian ones should not be singled out, even if it is inadvertently. Mayumashu (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be an argument for deletion, since most have been deleted and keeping these would "single out" the Canadian ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the U.K. and other ones should be put up too - that s all. U.K. users will have a rather different take on this, I hazard to guess, and if they remain then the U.S. and Canadian ones should be around too, in my opinion Mayumashu (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see—I was confused about what you meant. Thanks. Past practice has been to pick these off one-by-one, which is why I hesitated from doing a broader nomination. That, and it was the first time I had nominated ones of these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepish Comment - Like Occuli & Alansohn, I don't feel that categorizing network-level television journalists by the networks they've worked for is properly analogized to "performer by performance", which is well understood to be an unsupportable mode of categorization. That standard was misapplied in the previous CFDs, which erroneously assumed that it was a valid analogy. (Moreover, most of those CFDs were for "television personalities", which is a catchall term not confined to journalists.)

As I've said on other occasions (and as Alansohn pointed out above), network-level television journalists are much more comparable to major league baseball or football players -- who are, in fact, categorized by each team they've played for during their career. To illustrate that point, here is a random sample of 11 football players taken from the first page of Category:Miami Dolphins, each followed by the number of team-categories for their article (not including their college teams):

  • Chris Akins - 5
  • Gene Atkins - 2
  • Tim Bowens - 1
  • Terrell Buckley - 6
  • Damion Cook - 7
  • Randy Crowder - 2
  • Jack Del Rio - 5 (+ 4@coaches)
  • Jim Druckenmiller - 2
  • Randy Edmunds - 3
  • Craig Erickson - 5
  • Jason Ferguson - 5

The average number of teams played for is approx. 4 -- which is almost certainly a higher figure than the average number of networks that tv journalists work for during their careers. We certainly would not want to categorize them by all of the local stations they may have worked at before they reached the network level. But it seems to me that if we are willing to tolerate multiple team-categories for football players, by the same principle we should also accept multiple network-categories for tv journalists.

That said, there's no need for 3 categories here. I would prefer to merge these into a single category, Category:CBC television journalists. Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for categorizing sportspeople by every team they've played for, I personally don't find that necessary either. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the use of "performers-by-performance" as an excuse for deletion, but I see its possible relevance in certain cases. Actors appear in movies, television programs, radio programs and plays, and can appear in dozens upon dozens over the course of a career, adding up to hundreds for some actors, creating a possibility of "category clutter' for some actors. Athletes can play a for a dozen or so teams over the course of their careers. Consensus is clear that these categories aid navigation, which is what categories are for, even if they play for multiple teams over their career. Newsreaders and sportscasters are not performers. The relevant precedent is for athletes, not for actors, nor is there any reason to believe that these categories will lead to "category clutter". Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. The relevant precedents are not for athletes by team, which to the best of my knowledge has never been raised at CFD. The relevant precedents include but are not limited to:

with those of most significance to this discussion bolded. Now, I suppose it's possible that all of those people commenting in all those CFDs for all those months have gotten it wrong and you've gotten it right, but somehow? I doubt it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dreaded laundry list. When the "performers-by-performance" crusade started, there was some logic to it. Actors can appear in hundreds of performances. It has been persistently abused and overapplied. It does not apply here. Come up with a reason for why this category should be deleted and I will be happy to listen. That you have been successful in deleting other categories not only does not impress me but provides evidence of the extent of the disruption caused by this abuse of "performers-by-performance". Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read all of the relevant precedents? Ample discussion/reasons are found therein, which by linking I have incorporated as part of the rationale for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a note soliciting input from WikiProject Journalism. Cgingold (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on previous deletion (nominator). I should have discovered this before, but the parent category is indeed re-creation of deleted material under a slightly different name. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation_personalities. This somewhat changes the nature of the discussion. Now, unless we have a consensus to re-create and keep, it can be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of thing can quite easily be turned into a list without having to overturn an established precedent. Indeed, List of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personalities already exists, so a category isn't necessary. A prime example of why this is WP:OCAT clutter: if they were permitted, Kevin Newman would have to simultaneously be in categories for CTV, CBC, Global and ABC — and there's no convincing reason why it's necessary to categorize, rather than listing, journalists by television networks they've worked for. And if anybody ever actually brought the athletes-by-team categories here (which, as far as I know, nobody has ever done), I'd vote to listify and delete those too, on exactly the same grounds. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent and the points in the nomination and follow on discussion. I think whoever decides to close this needs to consider the strength of the various arguments as well as the long list of precedents. These should not be kept for being singled out since they are not. All of the other ones were deleted long ago so the charge that these categories are being picked on is simply false. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burial places of Popes[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. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burial places of Popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. WP generally does not categorize places by the historical role of one person buried there. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is a Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria included? This aside, I would have thought a buried pope would be a defining characteristic of a burial place. So I lean towards keep (and populate). Occuli (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - didn't we just delete another of these, for presidents or kings or something? Same reasons apply here as applied there. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precisely because there are so few, and it is highly defining for these churches, and sufficiently for the Popes. I think a note on the category page is enough to deal with the Coptic etc issue. Johnbod (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of the above reasons and more. Good suggestions on improving this cat. And other refinements can be made, too. EstherLois (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the general definingness we have established for cemeteries, burial sites of popes are often sites of veneration and pilgrimage, above and beyond their basic definingness. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always supported deletion of categories for settlements based on who was born or died there (e.g., birthplaces of U.S. presidents), but I could certainly see the burial of a pope at a particular church as being defining of that church. Can we rename this to make sure it doesn't expand to include the settlements in which those churches are located, or are we comfortable that it's not a concern? At present it does only include church articles and burials at Foo church subcategories. Postdlf (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Pope is canonised, the church will become a place of pilgrimage. This seems to me a harmless category, but I would not wish to see too many parallel categories on other prominent figures. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Venues of the 2008 Summer Olympics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to rename. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 2008 Summer Olympics to Category:2008 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 2000 Summer Olympics to Category:2000 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1992 Summer Olympics to Category:1992 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1988 Summer Olympics to Category:1988 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1984 Summer Olympics to Category:1984 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1980 Summer Olympics to Category:1980 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1968 Summer Olympics to Category:1968 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1964 Summer Olympics to Category:1964 Summer Olympics venues
Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 1952 Summer Olympics to Category:1952 Summer Olympics venues
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with parent categories like "Category:2008 Summer Olympics" and "Category:Summer Olympic venues", primary article 2008 Summer Olympics venues, and the existing "(Year) Summer Olympics venues" sister categories. (Pre-2000 categories lack a primary article but the other criteria still apply.) Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category structures that exist put the qualifiers before the 19?? Summer Olympics, for example Category:Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics. The proposed name would be inconsistent and would be awkward to use as a standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Admittedly, the categorization is inconsistent across the various Olympics categories but this nomination tries to bring all of the "venues" categories into line, exactly matches the parent categories (and in some cases, primary articles) as detailed above, plus sister categories such as Category:2008 Summer Olympics events and others. - Dravecky (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - as violations of Wikipedia:OC#Venues_by_event. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Given that many or most of these venues were constructed explicitly to host the Olympics of that year, this is not the same sort of overcategorization that WP:OC#Venues_by_event seeks to avoid. - Dravecky (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Wikipedia:OC#Venues by event, cited as a rationalization for deletion, specifically excludes "categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way". I couldn't think of a more notable way of using a venue than as a site to host the Olympic games, all of which must meet specific standards set by the International Olympics Committee. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tulane Sports Venues[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tulane Sports Venues to Category:Tulane University sports venues
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with parent category "Category:Tulane University", similar categories such as "Category:United States Air Force Academy sports venues", and per best practices and countless precedents. Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for capitalization and consistency.-choster (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use full name of university and only capitalize the proper noun. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Defunct sports venues in Philadelphia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct sports venues in Philadelphia to Category:Defunct sports venues in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with parent category "Category:Sports venues in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" and per best practices and countless precedents. Dravecky (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename for clarity; spelling things out instead of letting readers guess is alwasy better. Hmains (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Defunct sports venues in Louisville[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct sports venues in Louisville to Category:Defunct sports venues in Louisville, Kentucky
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with parent category "Category:Sports venues in Louisville, Kentucky" and per best practices and countless precedents. Dravecky (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename for clarity; spelling things out instead of letting readers guess is alwasy better. Hmains (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_24&oldid=1074801212"