Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14

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

December 14[edit]

Various categories of "National Park areas" by state[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus on all fronts. No consensus on whether the it should be "National Park Service" or "National Park System". No consensus on whether the next word should be "area" or "unit", and no consensus on whether or not to explicitly mention the affiliated areas in the category names. It's now 34 days since this CfD was first listed, and since there is no consensus after nearly 5 weeks, I am not going to relist it again.
Meanwhile, a new Category:United States National Park Service areas by state was created with sub-categories for each state after the opening of the original discussion, and there seems to be no consensus on the fate of those categories or their relationship to the categories under discussion. A fresh nomination may want to address some or all of the unresolved issues ... but please do remembe to tag all the categories under discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~I notice, within Category:United States National Park Service, various state-level categories that all seem misnamed. These are Category:National Park areas in Arkansas, etc. However, the term "National Park area in State" would refer only to National Parks within a given State, and not to other areas like National Historic Sites, National Monuments, etc. that are under National Park Service control. I think the creator/users must have intended for the broader definition to apply.

Propose 30 or so renames:

doncram (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually maybe they should all be renamed to "National Park System" areas rather than "National Park Service areas. These seem to be addressing the units within the nation-wide List of areas in the United States National Park System. And the categories correspond somewhat to entries in lists like:

etc. doncram (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move to Service. I think these System lists should be moved to Service. Reywas92Talk 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to "...National Park System," which makes the most sense to me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea of renaming. Although, National Park System may be more appropriate. While the National Park Serivce manages all these areas, the literature about the Service and the various areas, refers to them as the National Park System. I was confused when I tried to bring the listings together in a Category for the National Park Service/System and found only the titled "National Parks" in these state categories. Most authors separate the titled National Parks from other units, so they can concentrate on the 'highlights' and have fewer places to gather information from. Therefore, I support renaming these categories to simplify the links in Wikipedia and to connect the public to the wider system. (Chris Light (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support rename; prefer "system" to "service" on the basis of the logic already given, but am okay with either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, Support renaming, and prefer renaming to use System. Using "System" is consistent with the several years-old Featured List List of areas in the United States National Park System and with several newer state-level list-articles, perhaps one or two being FLs too. All these list-articles are newer than these categories, I believe. All editors here support renaming to some consistent scheme and I think all but Reywas92 are indifferent or prefer "System". It would be much a bigger change, beyond our ability to accomplish here, to change all the list-articles to use "Service". So I suggest making this change to achieve consistency, now, without attempting here to determine whether "System" or "Service" is better for the list-articles. doncram (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per National Park Service. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer that? I thot I stated good reasons to make the category change to "System" not to "Service". If you do not explain your reasoning I tend to think you did not consider all that has been discussed and then this !vote and perhaps other !votes should be disregarded. doncram (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update/problems User:Hmains has been changing categories of items in the categories under discussion, while this CFD has been going on, before and after I notified him of the CFD. I am concerned that I may not have started the CFD properly, like if there is some way I should put a notice on each category under discussion. But, given one is aware of a CFD in process, shouldn't it be obvious that the category items under discussion should not be changed until a decision is made? doncram (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides continuing further to edit more of the items under discussion, Hmains indicates at his talk page that he sees that this "...CfD is not properly formed and will be thrown out as soon as reviewed by an administrator. You are not following any of the Cfd rules which are well established. I will not write anything there." I don't participate often at CFD and I don't know what CFD rules would rule out the validity of this CFD. Can anyone else explain? doncram (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. None of the named (or unnamed) categories above were tagged with a {{subst:cfr}} to notify interested watchers of the said categories. I recommend that the reviewing administrator relist this and that somone tag each of the categories we are considering. Carlaude:Talk 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve days later, and the categories still have not been tagged. After the nominator tags them, the debate should be relisted. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: I have tagged the three categories that the nominator listed at the top. I have not tagged any other similar categories for other states. So far there seems to be a reasonable consensus to rename these using the "System" name. The relisting here is largely procedural because the categories were not tagged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aren't these officially called 'units' with the lead article being List of the United States National Park System official units? If so then the correct name is probably Category:National Park Service units in Arkansas. The only problem with this name is that some articles are not units since they are consider to be parts of other articles that are listed as the unit. Don't know if that creates an issue with the category or not. But at least this can be sourced to the NPS documents. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that the categories should be adhere to the form: Category:National Park System Units in Arkansas as the NPS refers to them as such. This NPS page about nomenclature states that In an Act of August 18, 1970, the National Park System was defined in law as, "any area of land and water now or hereafter administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational or other purposes." My thinking is that the National Park Service administers the National Park System and the units are parts of the National Park System. Calling them official or unofficial seems problematic as all the units are official although some are are Affliated Areas. To further confuse matters the National Park Service administers the National Register of Historic Places although they are often not part of the National Park System. –droll [chat] 01:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 'unit' may be the right name administrativly, but it is so bureaucratic. 'Area' better describes the land and water that we are dealing with here and which the reader would connect with more than 'unit'. It also follows the law quoted above: "any area of land and water now or hereafter administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational or other purposes." Not 'unit'--'area'. And the main article is List of areas in the United States National Park System; the starting text of List of the United States National Park System official units states it is a subset of the 'List of areas' article. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are new categories created by Hmains on December 2 and 3, I believe all after the first CFD was started. I think they all appear in Category:United States National Park Service areas by state. Offhand I think the "United States" is not needed in a category name that uses a specific U.S. state name, though it is helpful in the overall parent name. doncram (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not acceptable to use area in the category name since it is ambiguous, unless we only plan to include the actual named and listed areas in the category. If that is the case, then we would need a new state level parent. Using Nevada as an example, Category:United States National Park Service areas in Nevada includes Lake Mead National Recreation Area so one would think that the category is for like authorized areas. But then you would find Category:National parks in Nevada which are not areas in the sense of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. So since this current structure is ambiguous a better name is needed. This is a good example of why editors should not take it on themselves to make major structure changes while a discussion is open! Based on this, if the consensus is not to use units, then either this discussion needs to remain open to consider this concern, or closed and the new categories nominated to cleanup the mess that has been created. Based on this, I'm changing from just a comment to Rename to Category:National Park Service units in Arkansas and so on. Yes, I realize that these areas are actually 'Recreation Areas', but is that distinction sufficient in this case? I'm open to reconsider based on additional discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree most of these are not "areas", a term which seems not to be used on its own by the NPS. The correct term for the 392 NPS owned and operated properties appears to me to be "units". And "affiliated areas" for a few other ones. Every item in the "List of areas of the National Park System" article is identified as either a "unit" (including most/all of the "Recreation Area" ones) or an "affiliated area". So, that leads me to think it should be:
but skipping the "and affiliated areas" in states that have none of that type. This seems "bureaucratic" but that is a good thing, to apply an accurate label. doncram (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is only Alaska, California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington DC, Wisconsin and the Northern Mariana Islands that have affiliated areas (and Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee, if their National Cemeteries are to be considered affiliated areas, as it seems they should be by my read of the List article). So for the 3 examples, it should be:
which is bureaucratic in a good way i think. doncram (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 'Area' has a general meaning of land, and that is not changed by 'recreation area' using 'area' as well. I was reading the main article as List of areas in the United States National Park System; the starting text of List of the United States National Park System official units states it is a subset of the 'List of areas' article. This article will have to change, if these components of NPS are going to be units. I did go through the effort of populating each state category with all NPS areas/units of that state, which was my primary goal. Renaming the cat names is a minor piece of work. I did not add the affiliated areas in the state NPS categories; I thought someone might want to have them separately identified at the state level. I have not seen any disussion on this; a content desision should preceed a naming decision. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are relatively few NPS affiliated areas, like zero or one or two per state, not worth creating a separate state-specific category system. Readers in most cases would be interested in navigating amongst all of, say, California's NPS units and affiliated areas together. I don't know what content decision you might think is needed. This is the discussion about creating the relevant categories; there are no existing state-level categories of affiliated areas; it should just be decided here.
About "areas", I really don't have the impression that the NPS speaks of areas, other than for some Recreational Areas, though units and affiliated areas are both commonly used by NPS. As you do, i believe the core wikipedia article in this topic area is indeed List of areas in the United States National Park System, and I agree it could be modified slightly to use "units and affiliated areas" more consistently, but I don't think that need stop things here. The way that the List of the United States National Park System official units is a subset is that it omits the affiliated areas.
I think the last proposed category changes can just be decided upon and done here. doncram (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I object to the use of the term units which is a term divorced from the geographic reality and more appropriate to a description of a bureaucracy. --Bejnar (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2009 (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:Harry Potter attractions[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 (i.e. do not rename) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Harry Potter attractions to Category:Harry Potter roller coasters
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the category is about Harry Potter roller coasters and to correspond with Category:Roller coasters. — ξxplicit 21:28, 14 December 2009 (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:International Christian Leadership[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:International Christian Leadership to Category:The Fellowship (Christian organization)
Nominator's rationale: (see below) Rename. The main page for this category has been renamed. Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name per reasons above. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name one would expect to see the Pope, patriarchs, some archbishops, and maybe Billy Graham in a category of "International Christian Leadership".--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands, the category is clearly misnamed. However, mutating it into a category for The Fellowship (Christian organization) is not appropriate, because one of the longest CfD discussions in the last few weeks has just decided against keeping a category Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship. There was a clear consensus there against such a category, and renaming another one to serve the same purpose would just be a backdoor way of achieving an outcome which has only just been rejected. --94.168.213.110 (talk)BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Kevinkor2 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That was my "delete" !vote above (for some reason I wasn't logged in). Anyway, two responses a) John Carter's proposal for a category about the Fellowship was rejected at CFD, and as I said above it's out-of-order to try to achieve the same result by another route so soon after that CfD closed; b) yes, you're right: if restricted to the narrow purpose, the category is too small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang On. Something odd is going on here. The nominator says that "The main page for this category has been renamed", and all the !votes for renaming have been cast on that basis.
    However, this appears not to be true. I can find no trace of International Christian Leadership ever having been the location of an article on the Fellowship. The revision history of International Christian Leadership shows that it was created in 2004 and has only ever been a redirect to the article on the Fellowship. Category:International Christian Leadership was created on 2 July 2009 and it was added to the article a minute later; yet at the time the article on the Fellowship was called The Family (Christian political organization).
    Given the recent efforts by a single-purpose editor (with a few supporters) to misrepresent sources to justify creating a category for "members" of this organisation, I have been scrutinising this CFR more carefully than usual, and I'm puzzled by the discrepancies here.
    Regardless of what's going on with the naming, this remains a category of only 4 articles, whose maximum scope appears to be six articles, unless it is misused for categorising individuals with hazily-defined associations with the Fellowship. I'm not suggesting that misuse of the category was any part of the intentions of the nominator, who is clearly alert to the "BLP minefield"; but even if some editors feel that this category may marginally escape WP:OC#SMALL, the possibility of its misuse for BLP purposes tips the balance strongly enough to make it a clear delete for me. The Fellowship clearly attracts some committed critics (for what I think are understandable reasons), and when there are so few articles to organise I see no point in exposing wikipedia to the BLP minefield of a category which is open to misuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Rename as nom to match main article. I see no vote there for renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So yeah, here's the first legally canvassed chime-ins. As before, leaning towards delete -- or should I say "close to tipping over" this time? Excuse my #&*%, but I ain't never seen anyone pull a stunt like this before: we're deleting a category, and then somebody comes along and proposes re-naming another category to get the exact result that was just struck down? As it stands, we could just go back to the old discussion and copy over more than half of the comments given there. Praytell, how would the arguments given in the previous discussion not apply here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the proposed name is a BLP issue and way too likely to be misused, and the current one seems only to apply to a number of articles so small I can count them on my handclaws. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 09:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think I've said why before. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and thanks for the heads=up. After dealing with a couple vampire articles over at AfD, interesting to see a vampire category. Once again, I find myself agreeing with Brownhairedgirl on the basic points- this category has six members that wouldn't be walking in the minefield- one, I note, no one has bothered to create. This category brings nothing to the project that the individual articles within it will not- so delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, similar enough to previous CfD to keep with previous precedence set forth in that decision. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted for rename above). An alternative might be to convert the category to a navbox template. If so, the category might be unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, Peterkingiron. Regardless on what we decide for the category, a navbox is easier for a reader to navigate than a category. I have started such a navbox in "User:"
  • Please edit and comment on the navbox. If we achieve consenus on it, we can move it to "Template:" and add it to the articles! --Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, at least those interested in the topic could have any changes made to the navbox flash up on their watchlist... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Kevinkor2. I think that's much better than a category, especially because as Choyooł notes it can be monitored through watchlists, and that cannot be done with a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not support the category renaming because we decided against a category. Support the Navbox as a helpful guide.Likesausages (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Navbox and delete for three reasons. First, the category is too small. Second, a Navbox is easier to navigate for the reader than a category. Third, a Navbox is much easier to monitor for BLP violations. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (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:Recipients of a posthumous promotion[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 delete or to listify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recipients of a posthumous promotion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, possibly listify. A posthumous promotion is a consequence of notability, not a cause of it, so it can hardly be considered a defining characteristic. This category groups articles from several different armed services in different time periods, so it's hard a relatively trivial issue such as this as forming a useful navigational aid between disparate groups. Two years after its creation, the head article posthumous promotion remains an unreferenced stub, which does not suggest that it is regarded by military history editors as a significant topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "consequence of notability" argument is entirely specious. Any posthumous promotion is as defining as any medal received on whatever act earned the recognition. There are numerous categories that cross branches of armed service and time periods, and subcats can be created as needed to address the issue. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. No it's not as a defining. A medal places letters after the person's name, and the fact that they are then cited Joe Bloggs DSO or Joe Bloggs VC or whatever marks them out as someone who has committed a notable deed. However, a posthumous promotion allowing Colonel Bloggs to be be listed as Brigadier Bloggs does nothing to distinguish him from hordes of other Brigadiers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Many countries do not have the practice of using postnominals, so I'm not sure this argument holds water. Recipients of the Medal of Honor do not receive letters after the name although it the highest gallantry award in the US. Victoria Cross recipients do receive posnominals. David Underdown (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a reasonable category to me. A list of recipients article would be a good idea, as would expansion of the Posthumous promotion article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have just notified WP:MILHIST, which I should have done at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding to the request for comments at Milhist. I didn't actually know this cat or article existed, if I had I'd probably have added it to Jack Grayburn who was posthumously awarded the VC and promoted for his actions at Arnhem. Both of these awards (for want of a better word) were specifically for his actions and the promotion wasn't because he had been notable before the battle. While someone like Isoroku Yamamoto was almost certainly promoted because he was already notable, Grayburn's promotion was an act of recognition in the same vein as Alansohn describes. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify -- there is ample content to Justify retention. WP does not like ranks in article names, so that the correct name does not give rise to difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate category, and do not listify as the resulting list would be too broad for an encyclopedic article. ThemFromSpace 03:46, 21 December 2009 (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:Captain America films[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 the category. If anyone wants to categorize them in any potential parent categories, they can do it easily enough - the pages are 3 Dev Adam, Captain America (1990 film), Captain America (serial) and The First Avenger: Captain America. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Captain America films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only four films. Not enough to warrant a category, as usual from this creator. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:54, 14 December 2009 (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:Pornographic actresses appearing in MILF pornography[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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pornographic actresses appearing in MILF pornography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary category criteria. Tabercil (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actresses in the MILF porn genre there was a concensus that category for actresses of the MILF porn genre is more usefull than a list. Klassikkomies (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that the AFD can be said to have formed a consensus that a category of this type would be more appropriate. If anything, the discussion would support the position that a category is equally if not more problematic, since BLP concerns were paramount. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Similar category was deleted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said in the previous AFD mentioned by Good Ol'factory, this sets a dangerous precedent where many actors/actresses could be in dozens of categories. Dismas|(talk) 08:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's what you said: Delete per nom. [Viz. "Too many reasons to even mention"] It also presents a mind numbing precedent. If actors/actresses are categorized by each sub-genre that they work(ed) in then the number of categories could number in the hundreds for a single article. I note that what are now described as "dozens" were "hundreds" then, but let's not quibble. My mind remains unnumbed by the notion of such a precedent. I mean, if people who like to create a category for each genre that a porn "actor"/"actress" (terminology I return to below) appears in, and do so according to the WP rules, where's the problem? -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subjective category and overcategorisation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category, like the list, does not reflect reliable secondary source characterizations, but the video producers' marketing decisions; the selection criteria are simply the appearance of keywords in the film/video titles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia should not be driven by the porn industries marketting hooks, there are almost never reliable, independent sources that describe someone as this. BLP concerns remain. And there is no strong argument for this category (this sort of defines overcategorization). I suppose a truly notable porn performer will have appeared in "Teen" "Milf" "Fetish" "Lesbian" etc etc porn in a career. These categories are of no use.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a clearly defined genre and easily sourceable, and sourced. Not one reasonable Delete vote given at the AfD. There are no BlP or RS issues, as was repeatedly shown at the AfD, and at the individual articles. But the article was deleted anyway, so what the [word removed] chance has this one got of surviving? [further comments removed] Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not classify by genre, as most actors and actresses work in more than one, and perpetual subdivision into sub-genres imposes a clutter cost that exceeds utility. If we don't have Category:Comedic actors or Category:Action stars or Category:Actors who portray superheroes, I don't see how such a scheme is justifiable for types of pornographic films, either.- choster 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per choster. As far as the category goes, this is not really singling out porn actors, since we don't categorize any actors by the type of film or role they appear in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't find choster's comparison with the categorization by role of regular [clothed] "actors" and "stars" satisfactory. The category under discussion now is limited by two constraints, of which one is "pornographic actresses". The regular rules of English syntax seem to dictate that a "pornographic actress" is a kind of actress. But "porn(ographic) actress/actor" is a conventionalized misnomer. These people's roles have much less in common with those of [clothed] actors than they do with, say, fairground entertainers. ¶ Still, let's pursue choster's comparison. If the weasely "star" and "superhero" were defined, just what would be wrong with Category:Comedic actors, Category:Action stars, or Category:Actors who portray superheroes? ¶ Let's look at the [clothed] actor James Stewart. He's Categories: 1908 births | 1997 deaths | Academy Honorary Award recipients | Actors from Pennsylvania | American aviators | American film actors | American military personnel of the Vietnam War | American Presbyterians | American stage actors | American World War II pilots | Best Actor Academy Award winners | Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (television) winners | Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) | California Republicans | Cecil B. DeMille Award Golden Globe winners | Recipients of the Croix de Guerre (France) | Deaths from Alzheimer's disease | Deaths from cardiovascular disease | Deaths from pulmonary embolism | Disease-related deaths in California | Kennedy Center honorees | Mercersburg Academy alumni | People from California | People from Indiana, Pennsylvania | Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients | Princeton University alumni | RCA Victor Records artists | Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States) | Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States) | Recipients of the Air Medal | Scots-Irish Americans | United States Air Force generals | Republicans (United States) | Western (genre) film actors | United States Army Air Force officers | American military personnel of World War II | United States Army Air Forces pilots of World War II | Actors who have served in the military. I notice that the poor old chap died in three different ways; that aside, there's a bizarre concentration on military stuff and borderline trivia. Among all of this, "Western (genre) film actors" comes as a breath of sanity. Thinking of such films as The Shop around the Corner and Vertigo I'd want to add "Romantic comedy film actors" and "Suspense film actors". If the editors of articles on porn flicks put more effort into categorizing their performers by genre than the editors of articles on feature films put put into categorizing their actors by what they actually did as actors, why criticize the former endeavor? -- Hoary (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving aside the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (overcategorization is a well-known and widespread issue we try to address in this forum), you yourself acknowledge that Jimmy Stewart was not just an actor in Westerns, but well-known in a variety of other genres. So what's the point of calling him a Western, comedy, romantic comedy, suspense thriller, biographic, and family film actor?- choster 16:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point would be that somebody looking for actors in suspense thrillers (for example) could thereby find him. There are dead-tree biographical dictionary/encyclopedias of film. Somebody who's interested in romantic comedies can look at a dictionary of romantic comedies and find Steward there; somebody else interested in suspense thrillers can look in the analogous book and find Stewart there. It doesn't matter to either reader that Stewart also appears in a book irrelevant to her own interests. Similarly, it doesn't worry me that Stewart is in lots of (to me) mumbojumboish military/aviation categories (though it does slightly amuse me): obviously they're significant to some editors, and if those editors want to maintain those categories then good for them. Who would be inconvenienced, and how, if the editors of articles on porn performers categorize these people by genre? What does "overcategorization" mean in this particular context? -- Hoary (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have less of a problem keeping a genre that was well defined and where the actors had better, more strict, criteria for inclusion in that genre but there just isn't any here. The production companies that make porn films don't have any problem with slapping the "MILF" label on any film that has some actress that simply looks older than her male co-star. I've seen numerous instances where a production will be termed as MILF and I know by having read about the female lead that she's only in her late 20s and doesn't have any kids. Our MILF article states "...generally between 35 and 50 in age and not necessarily an actual mother". There is simply no strict criteria. Furthermore, would this category include those who are playing the part of the "daughter" who is being taught how to please a man by her "mother"? The actress wouldn't be playing the part of the MILF but it is a MILF film... Furthermore, when I think of overcategorization, I think of Cindy Crawford. At one point her article had over 100 categories! An overwhelming majority of them were for clothing companies that she had worked for just once or twice. Not to mention the products that she had appeared in advertisements for such as Pepsi. And finally, porn companies are well known to produce compilation videos where there isn't any original content. They simply gather together four or five scenes of previously filmed material and repackage it as "Best of" collections or some other name. If a previously filmed scene which wasn't part of a MILF film to begin with were put into one of these compilations, I don't see how that would justify placing the actress in the MILF category. Dismas|(talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to say I'm sorry for some harsh words, and I hope we all meet in Heaven. Dekkappai (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2009 (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:Sherwood Pictures[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sherwood Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with many non-notable articles which deserve deletion. All started by a single user for the purpose of promotion SuaveArt (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the articles deserve deletion, then try WP:AFD. In the meantime you've given no reason to delete this. Grouping these (admittedly lesser known) Christian films by distributor isn't unreasonable (we do the same for distributors of secular films). PS please don't depopulate the category before nomination.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate category contains a number of appropriate articles relating to the main subject Sherwood Pictures. Seems that the nominator simply doesn't like this film studio and has going on a disruptive campaign of largely blanking the articles to one sentence stubs and prodding them for deletion.
  • Delete. If the nominator believes that the articles are on non-notable subjects, then that's a matter for AFD; but unless and until they are deleted, concerns about notability are irrelevant to a decision to keep the category. What is relevant is that the category contains only 8 articles: 4 films, two people, one church, and its film-making activities. All of these articles are quite adequately interlinked, so even if all 8 articles are not deleted, the category is still un-necessary per WP:OCAT#SMALL. --94.168.213.110 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were just three or four articles, I may agree. But there are 8, with two more (Erin Bethea and Tracy Goode) that could probably be added back into the category. That's plenty for a proper category. —Farix (t | c) 23:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category groups articles by a defining characteristic. Notability is not properly addressed here. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scott MacDonald. American Eagle (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep on procedural grounds: Wrong venue for the complaint. Unless and until the allegedly unworthy articles don't exist to populate the category, the category should remain per TheFarix's response to the anon 94...110, above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:29, 15 December 2009 (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/2009_December_14&oldid=1143704248"