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.
Nominator's rationale: Trunk and torso refer to the same part of the body. Torso is more appropriate to use, as it is a medical term and less ambiguous then trunk. Trunk is a dab page that has a link to Torso. Torso is also used in the names of many other similar categories (see Category:Torso). Scott Alter 22:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, lest we be talking about the elephant's appendage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monkey wrench - should this be "human torso" rather than simply "torso"? Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with humans vs. animals on Wikipedia, I think human is implied unless otherwise stated. At least, this seems to be the perception of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. Only the top-level Category:Human anatomy and Category:Human anatomy by organ contain the word "human" - all other human anatomy and medicine categories do not contain the word. From this cfd, I'd just like to change "trunk" to "torso". If you think adding "human" is appropriate, it should probably be done as its own cfd, including all of the categories to be changed (and there are many). --Scott Alter 03:42, 17 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Category:Typography Category:Typographers mainly contains type designers and the difference between the two terms is something of relevance only to specialists in the area. If consensus is not to merge, then Category:Typography Category:Typographers needs to have most of its entries sorted into Category:Type designers (which would probably then need subdivision in some way, possibly by nationality. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that this issue has previously been discussed on Category talk:Type designers, where a consensus was rapidly found not to merge, but I believe that reopening the discussion is worthwhile, either to find a consensus to merge or to encourage people to help with sorting Category:Typography properly, as nothing appears to have changed since the original discussion in 2006. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(nom amended). I am supposing a Type designer is a typographer (so Category:Type designers should be a subcat of Category:Typographers which it is not at present). Are there typographers who are not Type designers? Occuli (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be used of typesetters too, but that is not the sort of thing you get notable doing. A lot of the entries are actually modern graphic designers, often academics too, who I suspect have never touched a piece of metal type in their lives, but there we go. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per revised nom!Strong Keep per Occuli, & contra the highly misleading nom. Category:Typography contains 190-odd articles, mainly typefaces etc, & there are 60+ in the sub, which in itself is a reason to keep them apart. On a quick scan there only seemed to be 12 people in the main cat, but even if it were 112 it would be no reason to merge them. Or has someone been at work since the nom? With hot-cat this sort of thing is quick. But what we should surely do is merge the huge Category:Typographers with the designers. I know not all typographers design the stuff, but surely nearly all notable typographers do? I have written articles & put them in Category:Typographers, never knowing the "type designers" existed. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to nomination: My mistake; I typo'd the nomination; I meant to propose we merge to Category:Typographers — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:32, 15 March 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.
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, though we had more discussion about the (very similar) category for Harper Lee than for this one. The "useless-one-article-category" vs. "part-of-larger-categorization-scheme" debate has to be one of the most enduring differences in users' approaches to categories. It would be virtually impossible to establish a general rule about it, so case-by-case resolution as here remains appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a fairly pointless category, as the author in question has only written one novel, and seems unlikely to write any more in the near future. We shouldn't have categories that can only contain one article. Robofish (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rightly or wrongly, we do, as "part of a wider scheme" - see many in the parent. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we do allow "Novels by author", "Albums by artist" and other categories of that type to contain subcategories devoted to a single work. The overarching concern is that even though single-item categories would normally be WP:OCAT, in these particular cases the categorization scheme as a whole would be incomplete if such subcategories weren't allowed. So, yeah, keep it. If somebody has concrete ideas about ways to improve the categorization of novels and albums and the like (e.g. a way to make such single-item subcats unnecessary without impairing the navigational usefulness of the whole tree), a larger discussion about that would be a reasonable thing to have — but it's a bit beyond the scope of one particular CFD. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this discussion a couple times, yet the point of a category for novels written by Harper Lee defies all logic. I am unable to reconcile the fact that To Kill a Mockingbird is a Featured Article, representing Wikipedia's finest work, and there it sports a useless nonsensical category. So TKaM, which is one of the best articles on the novel available anywhere, has a practical joke at the bottom. Who can justify this? --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every article on a novel is supposed to be accessible from within the "Novels by author" category tree, regardless of whether its author wrote 100 novels or only one. There's really nothing absurd about it at all — not allowing single-author subcategories defeats the whole purpose of the entire scheme, because the scheme itself is meant to be inclusive of all novels. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and it provides a category that itself can be placed in the "by nationality", "by language" etc. type conventions. Yes I know it appears a bit strange. But nearly every simple comprehensive classification / categorisation scheme I have seen "anywhere" has anomalies. It is unfair to call it a joke!. Slightly misleading perhaps but not a joke. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am approaching this as any average reader might: attracted to the TKaM article or the one on Harper Lee, or winding through in a stream of link consciousness, and I know the value of categories because I've gotten bored and clicked through all articles in a category just to see... But the very definition of a category means that multiple things are being placed into classes for ease of locating by class. Respectfully, a category for one item is patently absurd to a reader unfamiliar with categories, and to me as well since I have minimal experience with categories. Being accessible through "Novels by author" - I just can't reconcile this. It simply makes no sense to me, and it appears that categorization has reached the point of diminishing returns. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is created and used to spam various fictional characters page. User who created this cat. also claimed to WP:OWN this cat. since s/he is the sole contributor in the talk page and refused moving it to a correctly named page(i.e. fictional characters of special forces, not special forces). The possible puppet of said user also expressed views and continued to spam articles with this cat. The category has an incorrect name and is totally no notable to any sense, let alone being totally WP:OR of the cat. spaming blocked user and his/her sock puppets. MythSearchertalk 08:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag the category for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going on the 'Air force' example (many of them), which should arguably be 'Air forces', of course. Category:Air forces gives no clear lead. Occuli (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply renaming is also an acceptable alternative, yet, sometimes it would be almost impossible to declare if the tagged article's character is really a special force or not, that is the problem. MythSearchertalk 10:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are similar criticisms of most fictional characters categories. However I don't personally see any difficulty in categorising Rambo as a Green Beret, or Duke (G.I. Joe) (say) in this category. If there are doubts about a particular article, cast it out. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it as soon as possible - I commented about this on its talk page in December when the page was started I think. I recommend it be renamed Fictional Covert Operators. Personnally it would be better to just remove it, as it is just some teenager's wet dream category and just makes character pages even more messy in the category section. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name is incorrect, pure and simple; it needs a rename. Furthermore like I said, it is not a needed article. In the defense of "more information, not less", fine keep it, but rename it. They are Fictional Covert Operators. It is what they are. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:59, 14 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category only contains one article (the film it pertains to), and that film is of very little importance. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Kbdank71 13:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Foo songs and Foo albums categories are usually reserved for musical acts/artists. One could think there is an artist named "James Bond". The rename should be along the same lines as other "Songs from films" categories. Thanks.
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:Spree shooters who played video games[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a non-notable crossing of categories, something akin to "Spree shooters who wear red socks", that reeks of over-categorization. There is no basis to point out such an intersection, since there are far far more people who play video games who aren't spree shooters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think it is non-notable? Must I bring sources to show you that the crossing is well-noted? The basis for pointing out the intersection is the fact that reliable sources point out the intersection to touch upon a possible connection. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While by no means a purely random intersection, this really isn't a good rationale for a category. I see from a discussion on the creator's talk page that he raised the idea of specifying "violent video games", but even that would not be a suitable basis for a category. The nature of the relationship between watching of violent video games and spree-shootings is very complex, and really doesn't lend itself to categorization. A much better approach would be to discuss (or at least list) all the relevant cases in the articles that deal with these subjects, if that hasn't already been done. Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping, with the category, to include articles only if the press covered the violent video game connection. The category can be used to compare cases side-by-side for researching the alleged connection. You are open to a list? Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the association murderer / videogame is completely irrelevant. Sure, after each shooting spree, we'll hear media and politics roughly claim that the guy became a killer because of videogames, but it's never based on any serious research. I think Wikipedia:Verifiability applies here - since there's no proven association between video games and violence, there shouldn't be a category on the topic. Laurent (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You admit that "we'll hear media and politics" bring up a possible connection (which is precisely why this category can even exist), yet you insist upon a "strong" delete. It isn't quite irrelevant if press and politics bring it up; Wikipedia is supposed to be built from reliable sources, and here you have reliable sources (the press) consistently discussing the "association murder / videogame" as relevant.Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The intersection is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" because the police, the press, and politicians discuss the possible connection (whereas they do not for "spree shooters who wear red socks"). I can provide tons of sources discussing this matter (which I will probably pull from the articles or their talk pages) if necessary. RS and notable voices definitely intersect the two to explore the correlation-causation debate on the matter, and to delete the category because we disagree with the conclusions of one side ("since there are far far more people who play video games who aren't spree shooters") is not acceptable, and hinders research. Note that this category does not actually take a side, but rather allows the user to view the cases side-by-side to research the debate for himself, and possible come to his own conclusions. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category is not the right way to help people make their own mind. For that we have articles. If an article discusses the attention given by media to video games and spree killers in a NPOV way then fair enough. The problem here is that this category strongly implies that there is an association between killers and video games - it makes it look like an objective fact. However we know that this kind of association is highly controversial - there are NO reliable source to prove that somebody became a killer because he played videogames. The fact that media talks about it doesn't mean there should be a category for it. Plenty of notable people also claim that the WTC attack was actually a controlled demolition - does that mean we should put the September 11 attacks into the Hoaxes category? Laurent (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False analogy. Calling something a hoax is indisputably subjective (being plain opinion as it is), and in this case, a fringe view. This category simply includes spree shooters who played video games. It is rather objective, unless you (a) contest that they are spree shooters, or (b) contest that they played video games. In either case, you'd be holding a fringe view. You also contend that the category "strongly implies that there is an association between killers and video games." Well, according to RS at least, there is an association, in that the correlation between the two is the subject of controversy, and the police may even make a statement that the killer played the typical shoot-em up games. The category does not, however, affirm or deny the alleged causation... in case that is what you meant by "association." Chedorlaomer (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category by its existence asserts the conclusion that there is a link between playing video games and becoming a spree shooter. If there is scholarly research into the topic and there is a link (correlative or causative) then an article, which can include citations to that material, is the correct venue. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. It only asserts that the spree shooter played video games; no element of the wording suggests causation. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto4711 and I frequently disagree, but in this case we agree that the name of the category clealy implies an association (whether correlative or causative) between the two topics. I personally happen to think that is plausible, but that's my POV, which isn't appropriate as a category. Cgingold (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "association" (in that the two have been associated with each other in RS), but there is no consensus on whether or not it is correlation or causation, and the category itself does not take a side. Consider Category:Antisemitism: it includes topics that RS have associated to antisemitism by virtue of debating whether or not the person or event was antisemitic. Perhaps it is, technically, a point-of-view that the association exists, but it happens to be a POV shared by many reliable sources. We are supposed to represent significant POVs, with most weight given to the most reliable/mainstream views. Why would we deny an association made by so many RS? The sources intersect the two; Wikipedia should follow suit. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, when you created this category you didn't provide any parent cats, which suggests that you may not be as familiar with the requirements and functions of Categories as you may be with other aspects of Wikipedia. The thing is, Categories must meet a somewhat higher bar in certain regards than what is required for articles. It comes up all the time, and takes a little getting used to I suppose. Cgingold (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that none of the above categories have ever been discussed by mainstream media, whereas this one has been. If there had been actual media stories along the lines of 'is fast food turning people into killers?', then perhaps that category would be justified, but it isn't. Robofish (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pointing out that this whole tangent has nothing at all to do with the merits or validity of the category in question. It's somewhat like demolishing a strawman argument. And it's even more worth pointing out that you completely ignored the issue I laid out below, which applies to this category regardless of your views on whether it's appropriate to crystallize the putative association in the form of a Category. Cgingold (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any possible connection can be discussed in the articles on the individuals/events and/or be linked to Video game controversy. As a category it doesn't make sense. Шизомби (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly doesn't make sense? See WP:UNENCYC. I cannot see where you are coming from. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right, of course, to note that the category is unencyclopedic: I would agree that it is. That's not what I said, though. I said it's nonsense. It is also Overcategorization. Шизомби (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An additional issue, which pertains to all categories across the board, is that categorizing one topic by all plausible associations with other topics is not a wise approach, because it leads to a massive proliferation of categories. In this case, we could also create categories for a whole array of other factors, such as Category:Spree shooters who were clinically depressed or Category:Spree shooters whose parents owned firearms or Category:Spree shooters who were bullied in school, etc. etc. That would lead to a welter of such categories on each article. I hope this makes it more obvious why this is a poorly-conceived basis for categorization. Cgingold (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I saw that this category had not been given any parent categories, which is often a pretty good indicator that a new category probably wasn't thought through well enough in terms of where it fits and how it functions in the larger category structure. Although I believe it should be deleted, I have nonetheless given it two parent cats -- one of them a brand new category that I just finished populating. I created Category:Violence in video games because this is indeed a very important subject, with a good assortment of articles (and sub-cats) already available for inclusion. Cgingold (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are interesting points. Would it be better to use more general categories, like those parent categories? Or perhaps just a "see also" link at the bottom to the main article for video game violence controversy? Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume they're already all listed somewhere in the Spree shootings category tree, so the question is whether they belong in Category:Violence in video games. That should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If the video game issue is only mentioned in passing, I think not; but if the subject has a section (or at least a full paragraph) devoted to it, that seems reasonable for inclusion in the category. Links in "See also" sections of other articles are another possibility; as always, use your best judgement. Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable intersection. Regardless of whether there's any merit to the media accusations at all, it's frequently claimed that 'many mass murderers played video games' or something along those lines - the existence of a category would make it easier to verify and assess the legitimacy of those claims. Basically, this topic has been mentioned and discussed by many sources over a long period of time (see Video game controversy, Jack Thompson (attorney), Killology...), and the existence of the popular association between video games and killers justifies having a category, regardless of whether that association is justified. Robofish (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no proven connection between criminal behavior and one's preference of video games. Wikipedia doesn't have to cater to stereotypes, just because many people think something is true we don't have to create categories for it. (what about "Category:Black people who speak hip hop slang", "Category:Jews who are good businessmen", et.?) (Also, this would open the door to the category "Spree shooters who took antidepressants", which is the other common stereotype about them. People under psychiatric treatment face enough prejudices, there's no need to fuel them.) – Alenshatalk 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not Wikipedia's job to diagnose causes for mental illness, especially this haphazardly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason that playing electronic form of wheel of fortune, or playing Tetris, or playing Pong, or playing Scrabbulous, or playing video pinball, or playing video poker, or playing Stationfall is a notable attribute of spree killers. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the categorization implies some sort of correlation between spree shooters and video games. I assume that the implication is that playing video games somehow causes participants to go on shooting sprees, rather than the reverse or that the two are coincidentally linked to some other factor. Given the scope of video games -- say Ms. Pac-Man or Dig Dug -- it seems hard to associate all video games with spree shootings. Nor is there any convincing evidence of a correlation of any kind. Spree shooters, such as Charles Whitman, also appear to pre-date video games. A parent article with some convincing evidence of a connection of any kind might convince me that it is meaningful to group articles by this characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, you disagree with a correlation explored by RS, and so want to delete the category? This may be in reply to Alansohn, but it could easily apply to many of the other delete votes (with a few notable exceptions). I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia does not consider acceptable a deletion argument roughly equivalent to "I don't agree with it." Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria to keep a category and an article should not be the same. In an article, you can have several point of views as long as you document them and make it clear that they are just that: points of view. However, in a category you can't do such thing. If a category exists, it mean that the association exists, that it's a proven fact. I think Alensha made a good point, you don't have categories like "Category:Black people who speak hip hop slang", "Category:Jews who are good businessmen" because that would be pushing the opinion of a minority (actually even if they are a majority it still doesn't matter as long as nothing prove that it's a relevant association). Laurent (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would these be better as lists? Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:33, 18 March 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.
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.
Merge (if necessary) to Category:Environmental issues. There just isn't any sort of agreed upon standard for which Environmental issues are of sufficient urgency and magnitude to be considered "Environmental crises". Cgingold (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto & Cgin. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 15 March 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.
