Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Category:Companies of Russia by city[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies of Russia by city to Category:Companies by city in Russia
Nominator's rationale: Renameto match most common form for other siblings in Category:Companies by country and city. Note I did not combine this with the UK nomination since there may be a preference to use localities rather then city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (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:Companies of the United Kingdom by head office location[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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies of the United Kingdom by head office location to Category:Companies by city in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match most common form for other siblings in Category:Companies by country and city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – most of these are not cities (eg Category:Companies based in Bedfordshire) so it is in the wrong tree. Occuli (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is a split the way to go keeping this as a parent for the city subcategory? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of the subcategories are for counties. I cannot remember whether Reading is a city, but it should probably be in the Berkshire category, not here. Birmingham is a city, but in West Midlands (county). This is largely an English category, and should perhaps be renamed accordingly. The Scottish and Welsh categories would then need to go into a re-created category with the present name. I see no reason to change this to conform to siblings. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2010 (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:Unrealized Disney resorts[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unrealized Disney resorts to Category:Unbuilt Disney resorts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match existing naming for structures that were not built. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (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:Island Republic[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Island Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can clarify what exactly this topic is — there's no head article for it, nor can I find any plausible definition on Google. As currently constituted, it merely includes a number of individual settlements in the Bayamón and San Juan districts of Puerto Rico, with no real context or explanation for how they fit into a category called "Island Republic". Unless somebody can explain coherently, delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless someone can explain); it perplexed me too when I saw it. Someone promoting PR independence somehow? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Digging a bit more deeply, I've found a whole teeming garden of very granular and oddly-named new categories for settlements in the Bayamón-San Juan area of Puerto Rico — most of which were being categorized solely as subcategories of themselves. And even if they are valid topics, most of them are highly granular even compared to the San Juan-related categorization in place on es: I've put in a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico for somebody associated with that project to review the list of categories and advise whether they're appropriate and useful. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2010 (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:Fundamentalist denominations[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fundamentalist denominations to Category:Fundamentalist Christian denominations
Nominator's rationale: There are other fundamentalisms than Christian ones. Either delete this or broaden it to include subcategories and articles related to other fundamentalist groups. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, convert to list - I'm absolutely convinced that a category is a bad way of dealing with this topic, since not all people and/or organizations that are often classified as "fundamentalist", actually self-identify as "fundamentalist". Hence some nuance is required, and binary categorization is not great on that front. The terms "Fundamental" and "Bible believer" are often preferred by those being discussed, for instance, and although "Fundamentalist" is probably the appropriate encyclopedic topic, some sensitivity to these nuances would surely be desirable. TheGrappler (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these denominations/churches in the category do self-identify as "fundamentalist"-- (or at least should and did last I checked). If you see any that are not called "fundamentalist" in the article leed, then the task is just to remove them from the category. Removing "fundamentalist" from the article should only be done by editors already familiar with these small denominations. Christian fundamentalist denominations are always small. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the reason that I suggested a list is for groups that are characterized by others as fundamentalist, but prefer to be identifed as e.g. "Bible believers" or even more ambiguously "Fundamental" (rather than -ist) themselves. Are they or aren't they fundamentalist? I don't think there's a binary distinction here, in which case a category of self-described fundamentalist churches is in some sense only partial. Are you saying that there are no such churches in the gray area I suggested? [You probably know more than me about it so I would be inclined to believe you!] TheGrappler (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of the term fundamentalist has changed over time and for that and other reasons, use of it would be inhertently unclear if it was for "groups that are characterized by others as fundamentalist"; there would be no consistent critria.
    Futhermore, it is nearly always considered pejorative to apply the term to anyone not already calling themselves fundamentalist. Ask on my talk page if you want futher detail. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 01:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware both that the term can be considered perjorative, and that the meaning has been historically flexible; but to my mind that suggests a category isn't the best of ideas. Has "fundamentalism" been applied in an "objective although (unintentionally) perjorative" rather than in a "name-calling and intentionally perjorative" way to any group, e.g. one that prefers to describe itself as "fundamental" or "Bible believing"? That would be the kind of gray area that I'm dubious about. [Just to make it clear: my problem isn't just whether the category has been overused and people have been put into it who might feel offended. It sounds like at the moment this is not the case. But it's also a problem if the category is only ever going to be partial because only one type of fundamentalist (e.g. "self-defined fundamentalists") are included. If a definition is fuzzy or has gray areas, and especially if it can be used in a perjorative way, I far prefer using lists over categories due to their extra options for annotation, nuance-noting and referencing.] TheGrappler (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fundamentalism" has a broader historical meaning, and narrower modern meaning. While an informed reader can often discern which is intented by context-- most Americans are not even aware that it ever had precise meaning, or what the meaning is for those who self-identify as such. Since self-described fundamentalist denominations belong according to either meaning-- it is valuable infomation-- but tryng to lable groups accoring to the meaning of 100 years ago would be misleading to readers and editors, and have no advange unless we believed that word meaning cannot change over time.
    While not so always so with individual people-- self-described fundamentalist denominations make the point of calling themselves fundamentalist because they are chacterized by the being unwilling to work with other Christian groups unless those groups agree in all of what they consider essential doctrines-- even if the only difference is that the other groups will work with other Christian groups.
  • Because adding somthing to a category shows up as an edit to the article itself, categories can be seen and kept acurate by the editors that watch those pages already. If some adds a denomination to a list that, say, consists of Fundamentalist and non-Fundamentalist church bodies, only people who watch the list itself will could see this error. Any needed annotation, nuance-noting and referencing can or would be on the article page. If need be, the category page itself can be made to say more on what the expections for inclusions are.şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 16:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem isn't whether the pages are updated and checked for accuracy, it's whether the concept of "accuracy" actually makes sense in this scenario. Is there really an objective manner of determining whether an article belongs in this category or not, i.e. the binary classification of a church organization as either "fundamentalist" or "non-fundamentalist"? What about a church that calls itself "Bible believing", or calls itself "fundamental", holds the same objectively-defining beliefs as "fundamentalist" churches, but does not explicitly use the word "fundamentalist" to define itself? On some measures that is a fundamentalist church but it doesn't self-define as one. So there is a gray area, surely? We don't usually handle gray areas by saying "people can check the articles to see what the nuances are" - if there is a difficulty with binary classification, we usually use annotated lists. At the very least, the category needs an excellent (and cleary binary) description of what the inclusion criteria are. TheGrappler (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a category. While there are non-Christian denominations that are identifed by others as "fundamentalist", I am doubtful that any non-Christian groups self-identify as fundamentalist, because since the term (fundamentalist) orginated only in reference to Christianity. The rename itself might be fine simply for clairification that the denominations are not Muslim so-called fundamentalist denominations . şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restrict to self-identifying bodies It's useful as a theological category, not as a slur. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category and make a list. There are good reason for both. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Fundamentalist" is commonly a term of abuse from outsiders. If kept, it should be limited to those who self-identify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2010 (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:Numeracy in Latin America[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: Move to mainspace. Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Numeracy in Latin America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Was this meant to be an article? The only two articles it contains are "Numeracy" and an Argentine economist, but the category description is huge. TheGrappler (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (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:Hotels in Birmingham, England[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hotels in Birmingham, England to Category:Hotels in Birmingham, West Midlands
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent categories, Category:Buildings and structures in Birmingham, West Midlands and Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously. TheGrappler (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent cats.--Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match related categories. AS far as I remember, we adopted this form to prevent Birmingham categories being mis populated from Birmingham AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (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:Starwood Hotels & Resorts[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Starwood Hotels & Resorts to Category:Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2010 (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:Second wave synthpop acts[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Second wave synthpop acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Made up category/phrase. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wave synthpop N-HH talk/edits 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't every genre "made-up"...? Lugnuts (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well yeah. Indeed the whole genre game is a bit daft really, especially when you get to sub- sub-genres. However, the broader genres - "rock", "jazz", "classical" - are useful and widely used in authoritative sources, as are many more specific ones and even some "waves". See, er, "New Wave", "NWOBHM" etc - bands are regularly described as such by mainstream or authoritative specialist sources, and people write whole commentaries on/about the genre and/or musical period in its own right. However, this one is blatant original research, and self-announced as such, per the arguments/evidence at AFD. You have to draw a line somewhere, and we have policies that tell us exactly where .. N-HH talk/edits 11:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completly. 20 yrs ago, there was no Britpop, but it's now a well-established genre, so unless this can get some reliable notes on its existance, then it needs to be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd case!!!!! I do believe such a genre exists, my friend Mimzy named the genre, but it has been used by Passion Pit, who are a VERY well known band, in describing their style. So even though it was originally a neologism, oddly, it has gained currency because of it being on Wikipedia. DriveMySol (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, QED. And I can't find any evidence that the band have used this term to describe themselves. Even if they had in passing, it's questionable whether it's enough to create WP genre pages and categories. All a quick Google search reveals, fwiw, is their WP page, and a whole load of WP mirrors and/or text that was obviously lifted straight from it. And guess who added the description to the first line of their WP page, without any source in the first place? N-HH talk/edits 13:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not rename it to "Synthpop musicians" instead? Thus including artists from every possible wave that may exist. SnapSnap 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a general synthpop cat. Now the main article has been deleted, I'm going to spend some time (when I get it later today) tidying up the pages where the "Second wave .." description and link was recently included and bands entered into the cat. As part of that exercise, I may start depopulating this cat, and switching those bands that were placed in it - where appropriate - to that one instead, if that's not premature. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 29 September 2010 (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:20th-century Jews[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: speedy delete per WP:CSD G5. T. Canens (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:20th-century Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:19th-century Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pro forma nomination. WP:CSD G5. T. Canens (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2010 (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:Candidates for speedy deletion by user[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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as author requested
Nominator's rationale: Not every page here is a userpage, and the author of an article or template shouldn't be referred to as its "user". — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "user" is referring to a user of Wikipedia. -- œ™ 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rationalizes the category naming system to match other Candidates for speedy deletion as ... categories. Categorizing as by user could be misinterpreted as intended to be broken out by creator or something silly like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but my English-o-meter makes me want to say "... for speedy deletion as requested by author" Skier Dude (talk 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know my suggested name sounds clumsy, but really any name that removes "user" and mentions the author requested it should be fine with me. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The meaning of the present category name was clear to me when I first saw it four years ago, as I imagine it is to most experienced Wikipedians. I've thought about the proposed change for the past week and do not see a real benefit from renaming the category. – Athaenara ✉ 05:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Current name makes sense, proposed change is much more awkward. Conforming to the category naming system is a lousy reason to make such a change. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by author, as i think user is too bright. The category contains deletion request by the author. 13:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armbrust (talk • contribs)
  • Rename to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as requested by original author to make 100% clear and unambiguous. VegaDark (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- the last one seems the best. It is verbose, but clear. However verbosity does not matter as such a category should soon disappear. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pages go here if they are blanked by their original author, and no one else has edited the page (G7), or if an editor tags a page in their own userspace (U1). Both types of speedy deletion can be requested by editors other than the author of the page - G7 can be tagged when someone finds the blanked page, and U1 can be a page started or edited by others that happens to be in the requesting editor's userspace. Neither is the author's explicit request. Thus, the "as author requested" proposal here doesn't work, since it is more complex than that. That said, a renaming might make sense, but this ain't it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:39, 30 September 2010 (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:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a semi-protected page[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a semi-protected page to Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests
Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't have such a kind of category. Putting requests in two different categories means that one has to check more categories in order to help folks. I see no problem in simply putting "misplaced requests" into the common Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Anyone who checks this category can just as easily verify the request and act accordingly, no matter where it's placed. If it's within the article for some reason, they can either do it or not. However, as it currently stands, it can quite easily happen that a good faith request might go unnoticed for some time. Furthermore, from my experience at Commons (yes, I know it's not exactly the same, but still think it's comparable here), I've hardly ever seen any edit request on a non-talk page. Thus, I propose to put all non-talk page requests into Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 20 September 2010 (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:Yucatan Leones players[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Yucatan Leones players to Category:Leones de Yucatán players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bring into line with the team's page name as well as other such categories for Mexican League players. Dewelar (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Makes sense.--TM 05:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominatior. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:07, 27 September 2010 (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:Muppet performers[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muppet performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Muppet designers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sesame Street Muppeteers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - per long-standing consensus against categorizing people based on the creative projects for which they perform. See recent deletion of Muppet writers category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A real group of people engaged in a notable project. Dew Kane (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* That they are real people is not in question. That the Muppets are notable is not in question. Can you explain why these three categories should be treated as exceptions to Wikipedia:OC#Performers_by_performance, unlike the hundreds of similar categories that have been deleted? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This relates to a company rather than just a TV show or film. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Which is also not a basis we use for categorization. See this deletion done today as the latest in a years-long string of similar nominations. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::* Of which one, possibly two, are reposts of previously deleted categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was referring to the Disney category as a whole, not the subcats. I would be okay with merger suggested below of Muppet and Sesame Street performers. Cjc13 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some muppets are owned by Disney, some by Henson's family and some by the CTW, so a rename along those lines might be difficult and not worth splitting them up (presuming a fair amount of crossover between the three companies by the same muppeteers). And besides, these would seem to be perfectly fine subcats of Category:Puppeteers and Category:Puppet designers. - jc37 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, can you explain why these should be treated as exceptions to the consensus against these categories that dates back some five years, including a half dozen for performers associated with the parent company Disney? The crux of the arguments seems to be "we can make these" and "but Muppets are different!"
  • These aren't "Actors who performed Kermit the Frog". That could conceivab ly be deemed performer by performance. Instead, these are a type of puppeteer. I might compare it to a category on expressionistic painters, but I'm sure that that would start another tangent of how that doesn't apply to this situation. (I know I'm starting to feel like an old timer when I have the urge to note that I was the one who initially wrote WP:PERF - not that that means anything, of course.) But anyway, let's change the paradigm a bit, and return to the guideline directly. How does this category violate the ideals of WP:OC? Dumping these articles into some larger parent category? Would that "help our readers' navigation of the encyclopedia"? And if so, how? - jc37 08:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep - I don't buy how "per long-standing consensus against categorizing people based on the creative projects for which they perform" matches with the "writers" example, which clearly should have been deleted. We do categorize pro athletes by the projects (well, franchises!) for which they perform! That comment's not as askew as it looks. If pro athletes typically played for 30 franchises before retirement, we would stop categorizing them that way, but because of the way that career path works (they couldn't physically cope for that long!), we don't face that problem. Similarly we generally wouldn't categorize military personnel by regiment (they move around too much) or TV writers by show (also highly promiscuous, and often on the go with several at once!). Rather than quoting precedents blindly, let's actually think about why we have come up with those rules of thumb in the past: if it would simply be unworkable to apply that level of granularity in professional categorization, we don't do it. But puppeteers seem far closer to professional athletes to me, in the sense that their skills are highly specialized and they aren't going to be involved in an unreasonable number of projects. There just aren't sufficient puppet-based projects on TV to go round! And the Muppets aren't one-off or incidental to the careers of folk in these categories, I think that's obvious. The problem with the Muppet writers category is that it included people like Chevy Chase - particularly absurd, since this achievement wasn't noteworthy enough to even be mentioned in the article text! I am sure there is an argument for deletion that can be made, but the precedent stated is not convincingly applicable. TheGrappler (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* The precedent stated is perfectly applicable, as evidenced by the hundreds of similarly deleted categories. Working a muppet on The Muppet Show or Sesame Street is exactly the same as performing on any other television series. There used to be categories for the actors appearing in every TV show from Alias to Zoey 101 and they were all deleted. This has been the consensus for over three years and it has repeatedly been reinforced through the continual deletion of every similar category created and re-created. The supposed lack of puppet roles on TV is not only irrelevant but untrue, as a cursory examination of the articles in the performers category shows that many of them have worked on a number of non-Muppet series. If someone wants to initiate a discussion on how athletes are categorized they are free to do so but puppeteers are not athletes. People who design Muppets are no different than people who do special effects for particular films or are otherwise involved as crew members, and all of the crew members by project categories were also deleted. And hey, Category:Muppet people was deleted too. Again this seems to be coming down to "but the Muppets are different!" Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (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.

NFL returners[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 (secondary proposals). Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American football punt returners to Category:American football kick returners
Propose merging Category:American football return specialists to Category:American football kick returners
OR
Propose merging Category:American football punt returners to Category:American football return specialists
Propose merging Category:American football kick returners to Category:American football return specialists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm unconvinced all of these need to exist. Yes, punts and kicks are different, but the returns are not that different. For example, Steve Suter is in Category:American football kick returners, Category:American football punt returners, and Category:Canadian football return specialists (though not Category:American football return specialists, for some reason). There are a couple of options here. Only one of these three positions is a position you might find on a roster (kick returner is abbreviated "KR"), so we could merge them into the kick returner category. Or we could put them all in the less specific return specialist category, even though that's not on a roster. Or we could delete them all, since anybody who's a kick returner has another position on his team. The "KR" designation makes me pick the former option, but I'm not wedded to it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A kick is not a punt, period.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was. But a punt is a kick, and a return is a return.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging both Category:American football punt returners and Category:American football kick returners into Category:American football return specialists? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine with me (and I've retagged it above). Some of the players (e.g., Reggie Bush) have a more dominant position than returner, so can imagine some quibbling with the word "specialist." If people don't like that, it could just be "returners."--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (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.

NFL players by position[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 all. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:National Football League centers to Category:American football centers
Propose merging Category:National Football League cornerbacks to Category:American football cornerbacks
Propose merging Category:National Football League defensive backs to Category:American football defensive backs
Propose merging Category:National Football League holders to Category:American football holders (or delete)
Propose merging Category:National Football League linebackers to Category:American football linebackers
Propose merging Category:National Football League middle linebackers to Category:American football middle linebackers
Propose merging Category:National Football League offensive linemen to Category:American football offensive linemen
Propose merging Category:National Football League placekickers to Category:American football placekickers
Propose merging Category:National Football League punters to Category:American football punters
Propose merging Category:National Football League running backs to Category:American football running backs
Propose merging Category:National Football League tight ends to Category:American football tight ends
Nominator's rationale: Merge. About nine months ago, this effort to mirror Category:Major League Baseball players by position started, but didn't go anywhere. There are no more than 4 members of each except for running backs, which has 16. All the target categories have hundreds of members, and each player in the nominated categories has at least one NFL team category. There is a well populated Category:National Football League quarterbacks, which can be evaluated along with these (now nominated here). See below for the "holders" category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There really is no need for the National Football League position categories. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I nominated the MLB categories but the CFD did not attract much interest and a couple of supporters of the overcategorization allowed the categories to stay. Lets not have that happen for these. Thanks, Mike.--TM 05:50, 21 September 2010 (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:American football holders[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American football holders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This position doesn't really exist. The job exists; that is, someone has to hold the ball on every field goal, but the player always bears another position designation (quarterback or punter, usually). All of the players in this category have another category called "American football (some other position)s", so no one will be without a position category if this is deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this position really isn't notable enough to support its own category. All players who are holders will also be playing another position. –Grondemar 12:35, 29 September 2010 (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/2010_September_20&oldid=1142498768"