Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:World Women's Boxing Championships[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 as an uncontested nomination with a reasonable rationale. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World Women's Boxing Championships to Category:Women's World Boxing Championships
Nominator's rationale: Rename per common sense, grammar and article names. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 8 February 2011 (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.

College basketball[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 all. Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (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:Russian and Soviet military vehicles[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: Split. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting
Nominator's rationale: The 'Weapons' and 'Military equipment' categories for Russia and the Soviet Union are not combined, so there is no reason for these categories to be. There is, naturally, a large degree of overlap between many of the Russia and USSR categories, but this will diminish over time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem with this split is that it forces us to decide whether a given piece of equipment is "Soviet" or "Russian", and this will be difficult. Many of the "Russian" products are incremental upgrades of Soviet products. Nanobear (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In cases where the equipment is neither clearly historical (i.e. Soviet; e.g. BAD-2) nor clearly modern (i.e. Russian; e.g. VPK-3927 Volk), the equipment could be classified as both Soviet and Russian—in other words, placed in two categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2011 (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:Modern Russian cruise missiles[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 first, rename second. Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Modern Russian cruise missiles to Category:Cruise missiles of Russia
Propose renaming Category:Modern Russian submarine-launched cruise missiles to Category:Submarine-launched cruise missiles of Russia
Nominator's rationale: In all or almost all cases, a cruise missile is "modern" (i.e., developed post-1945) by virtue of being a cruise missile. It is more useful to subdivide cruise missiles by type rather than "modern"/non-"modern". Note, please, that no other "Modern Fooian cruise missiles" or "Modern cruise missiles of Foo" categories seem to exist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Russian missiles are all modern because Russian missiles did not exist before the collapse of the Soviet Union (no missiles for Russia pre-Red October) 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2011 (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:Modern Iraqi tactical ballistic missiles[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Modern Iraqi tactical ballistic missiles to Category:Tactical ballistic missiles of Iraq
Nominator's rationale: The first change, from "Fooian X" to "X of Foo", is per Wikipedia:Category names#Miscellaneous "of country", which applies to all categories of weapons-by-country. The second change drops the word "Modern", which seems to be unnecessary in this context. A "modern weapon" is, according to the category description of Category:Modern weapons, one that was developed after 1945, and few or no tactical ballistic missiles (or ballistic missile of any type, for that matter) were developed prior to 1945. Thus, there is no need to separate categories for "modern" and non-"modern" BMs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2011 (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:Weser basin[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 all to "drainage basin". There's no consensus to rename to tributaries, but there is consensus to rename to "drainage basin." If certain of these need to be merged into the Weser category, that can be the subject of a new nomination. Other river categories changing only from "basin" to "drainage basin" and adding "(river)" if needed can be done Speedily.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Weser basin to Category:Tributaries of the Weser
Category:Leine basin to Category:Tributaries of the Leine
Category:Oker basin to Category:Tributaries of the Oker
Category:Große Aue basin to Category:Tributaries of the Weser or Category:Tributaries of the Große Aue only 3 tributaries
Category:Aller basin to Category:Tributaries of the Aller
Category:Hunte basin to Category:Tributaries of the Weser or Category:Tributaries of the Hunte only 3 tributaries
Category:Ochtum basin to Category:Tributaries of the Weser or Category:Tributaries of the Ochtum only 1 tributary
Category:Werra basin to Category:Tributaries of the Weser or Category:Tributaries of the Werra only 2 tributaries
Category:Werre basin to Category:Tributaries of the Weser or Category:Tributaries of the Werre only 1 tributary
Category:Lesum basin to Category:Tributaries of the Lesum
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Again basins is ambiguous. In this case it appears to be about the tributaries and not basins. I'll probably add the subcategories which are also named basins but again appear to be simply a collection of the tributaries of the various rivers. For the Werre, the category includes 1 tributary and two very small bodies of water which could be eligible for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and pass the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. These are not just tributaries, but may include higher order streams within the drainage basin, hence the title which appears to be a Wiki convention anyway. "Tributaries" would be wrong unless we wish to create even more categories. Some categories are currently small simply because the River and Germany Projects have not finished translating or creating all the river articles yet. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and I forgot to add that another feature of the "basin" categorization system used here is that it includes all water features in the basin including e.g. moors (under M), lakes (under L) and springs (under S) as well as comprehensively listing the rivers by stream order. See Category:Leine basin for example. Before wiping it all out, it is something the experts (not me!) at the River Project need to discuss IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that basin is not ambiguous? In any case, if this is to be retained it would greatly help if there was a main article on the drainage basin which is probably the type of basin represented here. I wonder if this entire structure is just the result of translating the German wiki articles into English on this wiki. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Basin" in this case is shorthand for drainage basin which is the catchment area for a river system and includes all the water features within it. As the article says: "In hydrology, the drainage basin is a logical unit of focus for studying the movement of water within the hydrological cycle, because the majority of water that discharges from the basin outlet originated as precipitation falling on the basin." The use of "basin" categories appears to be accepted English Wikipedia convention. Where the German approach differs slightly is their use of sortkeys to group articles by stream order or waterbody type (e.g. moor, lake, spring) as in the Category:Leine basin example above. My view is that this added sophistication is something that merits discussion by the River Project before going nap on the category naming and structure as it could be a lot of work and we want to get it right. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sortkeys being used here are completely confusing for most readers. A better approach to convey that information is by using navigation templates like {{Leine basin}} to describe the details on what a sort key of 1 means. Consensus here has been to remove subcategories that tried to sort by order. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "basin" to "drainage basin" to eliminate the ambiguity. Changing it to tributaries would change the meaning of the category, drainage basins are more than just tributaries. Kmusser (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an acceptable option if each one is really about the drainage basin. However it would still be best if we had articles on the drainage basins before the categories are created. Otherwise, the streams are still tributaries. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tributaries isn't really correct though, as they are including sub-tributaries, sub-sub tributaries, etc, plus lakes, ponds and other features that aren't tributaries at all. For example in the Leine basin category, only those streams under the "1" are tributaries of the Leine, the streams under "2" are tributaries of the streams under "1" and so on, and the "L" "M" and "S" aren't tributaries at all. If renamed everything except the tributaries should be stripped out and I think that would invite the proliferation of sub-categories to account for the sub-tributaries and so on. That all said I do like the template better than using categories at all for purposes of navigation, but I think there is room for both. Regarding needing a main article, for most rivers we cover the drainage basin as a section in the river article, only for very large rivers have we spun out to it's own article - so the river article, in this case Leine is the main article. Admittedly Leine is missing a drainage basin section, but I think that's a problem with the article, not the category. Kmusser (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened up the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers and have already discovered that a) the use of "basin" categories is widespread e.g. Category:Mississippi basin and Category:Amazon Basin and b) so is the sortkey structure e.g. Category:ACF basin, which I had thought was just a German Wiki system. Following the "measure twice, cut once" approach this really is something the River Project folk need to thrash out as there at least 2 unwritten conventions going on here and whichever way they go will entail quite a bit of work over time to harmonize it. So this is much bigger than the debate about the handful of categories here. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the use of "basin" to mean drainage basin is widespread, that doesn't mean it isn't problematic, drainage basins aren't the only basins, there are also geologic basins, which often have the same names as drainage basins (Illinois Basin, Delaware Basin). I don't really have an opinion on the whole sortkey business, I think the templates make for better navigation, but I can see having both. If we use the sortkeys though they really need an explanation on the category page because they aren't intuitive. Kmusser (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that we need to explain the key. And it needs to be consistent. What the project guys need to come up with is a convention and probably a standard template for the basin categories that explains it all. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "basin" to "drainage basin" per Kmusser's point that a change to "tributaries of..." would significantly change what could correctly be included in the category. I'm not at all sold on using the stream order organization method but I think that's a side issue to the re-naming. As for having an article to base the category on, I think it would suffice to include links to the "X River" and drainage basin articles in the category description. --Malepheasant (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (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.

basins to tributaries[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 all to "drainage basin" per above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eider basin to Category:Tributaries of the Eider (river)
Category:Ems basin to Category:Tributaries of the Ems
Category:Meuse basin to Category:Tributaries of the Meuse
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As always basin is ambiguous. In the case of the Eider, this is also ambiguous. These are about the tributaries of various rivers and not the specific basins. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and pass the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. These are not just tributaries, but may include higher order streams within the drainage basin, hence the title which appears to be a Wiki convention anyway. "Tributaries" would be wrong unless we wish to create even more categories. Some categories are currently small simply because the River and Germany Projects have not finished translating or creating all the river articles yet. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "basin" to "drainage basin" to eliminate the ambiguity. Changing it to tributaries would change the meaning of the category, drainage basins are more than just tributaries. Kmusser (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "basin" to "drainage basin" per Kmusser's point that a change to "tributaries of..." would significantly change what could correctly be included in the category. --Malepheasant (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2011 (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:Undead in fiction[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 as is. Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Undead in fiction to Category:Fictional undead
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Fictional undead. Editor2020 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Category:Fictional undead is a set category intended for articles about individual characters—e.g., Adam (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)—whereas Category:Undead in fiction is a topic category intended for articles generally related to the genres of fiction (or the themes within works of fiction) which include undead characters. I think that these types of categories (X in fiction and Fictional X) should be merged only when the set category has few members (which is not the case here), and the direction of the merge always should be from the set category to the topic category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not a character category, while the target is a character category. The target is a subset of the source category. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categorize different things, as explained above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2011 (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:African American artists[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 as is. Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge Rename to Category:African American art artists and prune the irrelevant entries. This should be done in order to distinguish artists who are merely Black (an Overcategorization by ethnicity) from artists "whose work has been shaped thematically, stylistically, formally, and theoretically by the confluence of black Atlantic cultures" or by uniform African-American art movements that express an "African American experience" (Harlem Renaissance). That way the category actually matches the parent article African American Art and the external sources documenting African American art: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. This category can also includes articles specifically about an "African American art" work. If anyone can think of a better rename/merge, please suggest. I think this one is easiest though. Bulldog123 11:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge Art and artists are two separate topics. The nominator acknowledges that Category:African American art is an encyclopedic topic, while arguing that the corresponding Category:African American artists, which encompasses those who created that art in the first place, should be jumbled together. We have a longstanding set of structures that organize Category:Visual arts separately from Category:Artists. The sources provided by the nominator support the independent coverage of African-American art, while ignoring dozens of other books about African-American artists, such as those found in a perfunctory search of Google Books. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well African American art is being treated as the parent to the category, so, it needs to reflect its content accurately. If you don't agree with merging the categories, I said I was open to suggestions. What is your alternative suggestion to rectify this issue? The reason I am "ignoring" (your words) the "dozens" (dozens? If you see "dozens," can you please post the links? I'm not seeing them) other books is because they are collections of disparate biographies in a compiled volume, and would not be viable for a separate parent article. What would it be called People who are African American and who are artists? WP:OCAT states if a parent article cannot be created a category should not exist. If you want to create Category:People who are African American and who are artists then okay, but that's not what this category is. This category is for "African American art artists" not for "Anyone who is black and an painter, sculptor, graphic designer, and/or architect." Would you support merely pruning the category then? Bulldog123 17:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been trying to avoid this one since it's so clunky but what Renaming to Category:African American art artists? Bulldog123 17:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that the intention of this category was to be "people who create African-American art", but rather to be "people who are African-American who create art of any kind". Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the intention because it's the core category for the article. The category needs to reflect what the article says. Would you not agree with that? A black architect has anything to do with African American art? Bulldog123 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both First off, I don't see the harm, unilke, say, a poorly referenced list. Secondly, our core readership -- college students -- can use this information for both navigation and research pruposes, and need to become more culturally competent. I shudder to think how how the media will react to Wikipedia redacting anything related to race. Most importantly, art is not the same as the artist; people are not artifacts of culture. Finally, the pattern of suggested deletions reveals a troubling ideology. I can't possibly assume good faith anymore on this issue. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a CfD. I'm asking for a rename or alternative to distinguish "African American art" from any art made by African Americans. The former being defined differently. Bulldog123 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Utterly absurd. If one thinks these categories might not apply to some fields, this is surely one where it does--and very much so. For most of these people it is even in the narrowest sense an influence on their work. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not a CfD. I'm asking for a way to distinguish "People who make African American art" from "People who are African Americans and who make art." A black architect does not make "African American art." Kalup Linzy is a performance artist and he does not make "African American art" but is included in this category. This category is currently the child category of African American art. What is not clear here? I get the feeling you might just be keep-bombing anything I nominate at this point and have not read the rationale at all, and it irks me. Bulldog123 08:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename I am not at all convinced that African ethnicity is only relevant if one if making ethnographic African art. And I'd suspect that the majority of many African American artists would might find the notion that their ethnicity is only relevant to their work and self-identity if they are making stereotypically African American art offensive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the opposite statement. "I'm African American, therefore my African Americanness is undeniably relevant to me being an artist." Where is the evidence that the people being listed in this category who don't do African American art do do art differently because they are African American? Are we just going to allow that in fear of offending the segment that might feel their African American-ness is relevant. If we're concerned about individuals feeling offended, how is my example not worse? "You're black and you're an artist, therefore we're going to give you this categorization. Nevermind whether it applies, it applies for some of you, and that's enough" And what about the problem of this being the child cat for African American art then... Architects, comic book artists, graphic designers, interior designers, fashion designers are all listed in this category. These people certainly have nothing to do with African American art yet the order of the categories wold make it seem that they do. A rename (or in the very least, a massive clean-up of the people being listed) seems in order, and nothing else is being suggested. Bulldog123 10:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge or Rename. Per all of the above reactions to nom's nomination, which appear to be a resoundingly negative reaction to the nomination.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per opposers, and because the "pruning" would involve a huge amount of OR. And the proposed name is poor English. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. It's WP:OR to find refs that call an artists work African American art? Bulldog123
There are 193 articles in the cat. Even if the job were to be attempted, the subject is most unlikely to be addressed in the online references currently used in all of the articles. Existing references are unlikely to be conclusive, & there will be an absence of refs saying that an artist's work is not African American art, even if the writer, or the artist, or other critics, don't think that it is. To conclude that the artist does not produce AA art, just because no refs are found in this very limited search that say he does, is certainly OR, 7 this situation would come up again and again. In fact definitions of AA art vary widely; many if not most sources treat AA art as, by definition, all art produced by African Americans. Others define it in a more restrictede way. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude that the artist does not produce AA art, just because no refs are found in this very limited search that say he does, is certainly OR Wait a second. The lack of the category is not making a statement. The existence of one is. Not having the category does not say the equivalent to "this person does not produce AA art." Rather it says... "it's not clear" or "we don't know, because nothing reports it." However, saying that they do produce AA art when they might not is the real (and active) OR, because we as the editors are making that assumption. It's especially hazardous for some of the WP:BLP articles on there. If anything, the sheer vagueness of what "African American art" is is enough of a reason to do something with this category (if not rename or merge). If we can go through some of the books on the subject and find names like... say... Amalia Amaki, then that's enough of a criteria for inclusion... but if we're using this category as an all-including one, then maybe it shouldn't be in the hierarchy of "African American art," and more importantly, maybe it shouldn't have "For more information, see African American art" on the category page. Bulldog123 02:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current title is consistent with the usage of sources such as A history of African-American artists. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a highly significant cultural intersection. The proposed rename is hopelessly awkward, not to mention made up, and it misses the point of this category. I think the nominator needs a new hobby. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2011 (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 artists by ethnic or national origin[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, though I'm taking the opportunity to rename Category:Israeli American artists to Category:American artists of Israeli descent to match its parent category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American artists by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American artists of Arab descent
Category:American artists of Asian descent
Category:American artists of Chinese descent
Category:American artists of Japanese descent
Category:American artists of Pakistani descent
Category:American artists of German descent
Category:Israeli American artists
Category:Jewish American artists
Category:American artists of Mexican descent
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by ethnicity. None Not all of these artists make art that is specifically related to their ethnic background. Also, the term "artist" here is incredibly vague and can refer to anything from painter, to graphic designer, to cartoonist, to performance artist. Bulldog123 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approximately 85 Jewish American artists from the 19th and 20th centuries, some critically neglected, [who] have significantly influenced, and have been influenced by both their Jewish and American heritages Then I hope you understand we can only prune the category to include those artists. Otherwise it's clear-cut WP:OCAT and not backed by any case-by-case sources. Bulldog123 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you realize that the book does not purport to list the only 85 Jewish American artists, just 85 among the much larger population of Jewish American artists that it chose to focus on. As we are able to use more than a single source to serve as a reference, we can use the many other available sources to support other individuals as belonging to this defining intersection. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not sourcing people because they might have their Jewish heritage and artistry connected. We're sourcing because they do. If the book only lists those 85, and other books list others, we can only include the ones they list. I'm fine with that. However, I'd suggest re-naming the category something to make that more clear. This is a category for people whose Jewish heritage is somehow relevant to their art (for whatever reasons those books list)... not just anyone who can be defined as both things. I'm not seeing what Calvin Klein (fashion designer) for example has anything to do with those external sources. Same with the Arab cat -- and I'm personally not seeing how that one isn't WP:OCAT still. Bulldog123 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to WP:OCAT is not enough to counter the evidence that there are multiple books that cover Jewish-American and Arab-American artists as a defining intersection. As is clear from the title of the other categories, the intention is to track artists who are German-American, Mexican-American, Jewish-American, etc., who create art, not people who live in the United States who create German (or Mexican or Jewish) influenced art. You've convinced me regarding Calvin Klein (fashion designer), where I have removed the artist category, though the presence of a borderline questionable entry is never a good argument for deleting the entire category, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence from sources showing that the relationship is a defining one. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, we're not sourcing people because they might have their heritage and artistry connected, we're sourcing them because they do. You admit these categories are to organize artists based on their national / ethnic / religious backgrounds regardless of the art, but don't admit that's currently an un-encyclopedic intersection because the sources you're presenting link their heritage to their work, by way of including artists whose work at one point had focused on Jewish themes, Holocaust and Jewish migration renderings, or common household Judaica -- they're not just random choices of people who happen to be Jewish and happen to be artists. Lionel S. Reiss is an example of someone who very much can be called a "Jewish American artist." But what about Al Hirschfeld who made caricatures of celebrities? Or Charles Seliger who made Abstract Expressionist paintings? Or Ludwig Mestler whose claim to fame is his new watercolour style of painting? Or Robert Denning whose interior design was French Victorian and seemingly had no artistic output relevant to his Judaism? I can go on and on with these examples. You saw how Calvin Klein was irrelevant there... but that's only one of many. Some of these artists might have a heritage connection -- it would appear Paul Burlin, Jack Levine, and Hilda Terry at one point made art very relevant to them being Jewish -- and I'm all for that but that's not what this category is. And that's certainly not what it will become soon because it's not targeted enough for users to not start adding more people who are not supported by the material in external sources. Your Arab-American source includes only Arab-Americans whose "pieces represent the beauty of heritage, the struggles of growing up in war-torn countries, the identity conflicts of female artists in male-dominated societies, and the issues surrounding migration to a Western culture very different from one's own." -- not just anyone who is Arab-American and an artist. Again, that category too is going to need to reflect that (especially once it grows). Bulldog123 08:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all First off, I don't see the harm, unilke, say, a poorly referenced list. Secondly, our core readership -- college students -- can use this information for both navigation and research pruposes, and need to become more culturally competent. I shudder to think how how the media will react to Wikipedia redacting anything related to ethnicity. Finally, the pattern of suggested deletions reveals a troubling ideology and POV. I can't possibly assume good faith anymore on this issue. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you can accuse of WP:POV if it makes you feel better for not giving a legitimate reason why these are not WP:OCAT. Bulldog123 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, a "a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic" - in other words, if it makes sense, that is if there is a rational basis for the category, it should be kept. For example, artists are often "influenced by both their Jewish and American heritages...." An effort to delete any mass of types of articles or categories is always suspect, especially when the target(s) belong to a single ethnographic minority or language group. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you be a little more specific of what exactly you're accusing me of. Bulldog123 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Per both AlanSohn's and Bearian's well-stated comments. I, too, find Bulldog's pattern of specifically seeking to delete Jewish (and other ethnic) cats, Jewish lists (while not doing the same with much less well referenced non-ethnic lists), Jewish articles, and parts of the foregoing (while not seeking to delete to be akin to a policeman giving tickets out specifically to minorities for driving at one mile over the speed limit. AGF is a rebuttable presumption, and the evidence here is troubling to me. If Bull wants to single out a group for improvement, that's fine. If he wants to single out a group for deletion where the corresponding lists/articles in other groups are much worse often, that is not fine (and yes -- wp:otherstuffexists specifically allows one to point to other instances, where it is one part of a larger argument). Anyway, as to the more specific issue, I see no reason for deletion here, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, one massive veiled antisemitism accusation. I think we should get one thing clear. I'm not going to avoid nominating a Jewish category if I believe it fits the criteria. Sorry. Bulldog123 07:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People write books about this, and consider the classification important. Are we truly committed to the ideal that all artists have indistinguishable backgrounds, or at least so indistinguishable that nobody will care about finding ones with some particular background. Do we think the arts are so mechanical that background does not matter? We might possibly argue the relevance with respect to some fields. But the relvance with respect to artists. Almost all of these where the articles are sufficiently expanded are people for who there is sourced discussion about how the background affected them--for no body would write extensively about them without discussing it, nor do they mostly avoid discussing it themselves when speaking about their work. This is the most absurd stretch of these discussions yet; one would almost think that this was a pointy nomination, to show the absurdity, but I think it is meant seriously in good faith. Good faith, yes, but not good understanding of the subject involved. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately wrote this as my own opinion without looking at the preceding arguments, & I see that some of my colleagues here do not agree with me about the good faith involved. Perhaps it is rather of matter of wanting to remove one particular set of categories so badly that it is thought desirable to remove all possible ones to make sure of it, or that thinking about one set has led to the conclusion that they are all wrong every one of them. However one looks at it, I regard the set of these and other such nominations as ill-conceived, no matter what they may be expressing. At some level of absurdity, it gets disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of these where the articles are sufficiently expanded are people for who there is sourced discussion about how the background affected them Where? Show me. Where has it been stated that George DiCaprio's or Kurt Schaffenberger's Germanness influenced their paintings/comics? Or Manuel Neri being Mexican have to do with his sculptures? Or the Japanese-ness of Taro Yamamoto (artist) who makes exclusively movement-oriented art as an Abstract Expressionist? Or what about Maya Lin, whose article states that she "didn't even realize" she was Chinese until later in life." How can you even argue against her own comments?
Now, off topic but I think it deserves mentioning since you went ahead and commented on the editor and not the content: You can retract your assumption of faith (if you want to get suckered into this hilarious - and pathetic - antisemitic conspiracy theory Epeefleche seems to have concocted), but the truth of the matter is these categories (in their current state) are patently un-encyclopedic WP:OR. My view on considering these categories patently un-encyclopedic (as they sit right now) is no different from your niche-y view that "ethnicity is always relevant, even if we can't prove it." I don't comment on your motivation for sharing that view, or consider it distasteful at all. Now, back on topic... just because some examples may fit, doesn't mean they all fit. If you want to direct attention to the examples that do work (like, for example, Lionel S. Reiss's Jewishness very much affecting their work), then fine... but we're going to need more discussion for how to make editors understand that's what those categories are for. Perhaps through a rename or a good thorough pruning and a "NOTE" in the category. Bulldog123 08:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a great deal for me to change an assumption of good faith; even when it becomes clear beyond doubt that the assumption was wrong, I do not regret or retract having initially made it. Some people have blamed me for refusing to recognize possible wrong motives, but I am not ignorant of such possibilities; rather, I agree with our practices that a common project is best served by assuming that everyone means well. But just as a large amount of constructive work on a particular topic is taken to indicate a personal interest in that subject, a large amount of focused deletion or removal of content is taken to indicate something similar. Not necessarily something negative: if one intelligently cares about something, one wants the articles on it to be good, not inflated. It is therefore not unreasonable to think that those on all sides of this discussion have an interest in ethnicity. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have not seen a compelling argument to support such a mass deletion. In looking over the nominator contributions, he does seem have to a singular focus on removing ethnic categories. Re WP:AGF: while I can think of a lot more interesting ways to spend one's time, I'm sure he feels as if he is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the nominator's related nominations have been unanimously supported, so .... Well, I don't know what the "so" is—I'm just saying his nominations are not the type that are clearly rooted in a strange or discredited approach, and they are supported by his interpretation of the relevant guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we wikipedian *insider-types* must keep an open mind about how Wikipedia serves the interest of our readership. We should do our best to avoid letting our own ideological certitude on matters interfere with that mission. We certainly have WP:NOT to guide us and Wikipedia is not a source for mindless lists if they have no other added value—such as a well written lede introducing the subject and putting things in context. But these “List of Jews who are [you name it]” are quite popular with our readership (based on monthly hits) and the readership interest is growing on a weekly basis. Keeping the categories is an important infrastructure element for these articles; we are all here to build the project. Greg L (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this wasn't a classic WP:POPULARPAGE argument.... it would seem this argument only references the Jewish category, yet you're !voting to "keep" all of them. Care to expound? Bulldog123 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all For an example of the validity of these categorisations, see Encyclopedia of Arab American artists. This and other related proposals seems contrary to WP:CENSOR and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. The need to keep the "Jewish" and "Arab" instances of these Proposed-for-deletion cat's has been amply demonstrated in previous comments. We may assume there might be a similar need in the case of the others, and I see no real justification to discriminate. Extra cat's consume very little resources, if any. Nahum (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As noted above, if there's any field where ethnic heritage is safely presumed to play a role, both in the perception of the individual and their work, their opportunities, and often the content, it's art. Much of the last few decades of western art have been irrevocably bound up with the artist's identity, both commercially and academically. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (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 film directors by ethnic or national origin[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American film directors by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:African American film directors
Category:American film directors of Asian descent
Category:American film directors of Italian descent
Category:American film directors of Mexican descent
Category:American film directors of Pakistani descent
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by ethnicity. None of these filmmakers make specifically Black/Italian/Mexican/Asian/or Pakistani-ish films. Bulldog123 11:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The categories aren't named "American film directors of (X ethnicity/nationality) films" as your rationale states. I suppose one could take the sole category that could (remotely) conceivably produce that reading and change it to "American film directors of African descent" or "African American directors of films" but the way it is now is grammatically correct, and widely used. Things like the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame and Black Directors in Hollywood (University of Texas Press: 1993) suggest to me that "Category:African American film directors" is viable. I'm not as certain about all of the other categories above, though e.g. "asian american film directors," and "asian american directors" do turn up sources which may address the topic in detail. I suspect there may be traditions of distinct personal experiences or contributions by these groups, and they qualify as "a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context" as WP:EGRS states, given a history of American directors being predominantly European-American. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with categories that intersect two relevant things. Like Black filmmakers who make films relevant to their ethnic heritage. However, that's not the standard that cat is taking. It merely includes anyone. How can you say Antoine Fuqua and Tyler Perry share the same "African American film directorness" -- they don't. We're just constructing it. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to prove why Antoine Fuqua being black is relevant at all. Bulldog123 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:OCAT states If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. There's a reason for that. African American directing is not a viable article unless they make specifically Black-oriented films. Bulldog123 12:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're misreading both the category and WP's position regarding such categories, and you seemingly ignored the content of my post above. Please take care not to be [[a disruptive or tendentious editor by "perpetuat[ing] disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error." It is not required that the directors make films that relate to their background. It is not required that sources exist regarding the significance of the intersection for each individual person. Given the existence of the WP article and book I gave above (and others that could be found), one could reasonably conceive an African American directors article. Frankly, one could reasonably have envisioned such an article even prior to having found those examples. Please take care that you do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it appears you don't quite understand what WP:POINT or WP:IDONTHEARTHAT specifically refer to... and use both in an attack-ish way in lieu of actually addressing my concerns above. There is nothing "disruptive" about reasonably nominating something for a CfD discussion and my nomination rationale is not an "unsupport[ed] allegation or viewpoint" - in fact, it's supported directly by policy. You're simply not understanding (or intentionally being evasive to it).
  • It is not required that the directors make films that relate to their background. No, but it IS required that if a category exists that intersects ethnicity and directing (in most cases, that would be via making ethnic-related films), the director's ethnicity must be related to their career.
  • Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. (WP:OCAT).
  • If you can't prove that's true, you can't add it. This means the entries in that category can only be ones whose ethnic background influences their filmmaking.
  • It is not required that sources exist regarding the significance of the intersection for each individual person.
  • Um... yes it is required. Per WP:V. If you're adding a category whose existence is contingent on the following: "These peoples ethnicity is relevant to their film directing," then anyone who doesn't fit that criteria can be removed on spot per WP:PROVEIT.
  • African American directors. No, I would not agree that's a reasonable article. If you would agree, why don't you start it? I think what you're looking for is African American in cinema... which is unrelated to these categories. Bulldog123 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all First off, I don't see the harm, unilke, say, a poorly referenced list. Secondly, our core readership -- college students -- can use this information for both navigation and research pruposes, and need to become more culturally competent. I shudder to think how how the media will react to Wikipedia redacting anything related to ethnicity. Finally, the pattern of suggested deletions reveals a troubling ideology. I can't possibly assume good faith anymore on this issue. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Under Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, a "a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic" - in other words, if it makes sense, that is if there is a rational basis for the category, it should be kept. A movie director of Asia descent is likely to have influences different from someone from Mexico; an Indian-American conmedian often tells different styles of jokes from an African-American. An effort to delete any mass of types of articles or categories is always suspect, especially when the targets belong to ethnographic minorities traditionally subject to discrimination. See WP:SPADE and strict scrutiny. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A movie director of Asia descent is likely to have influences different from someone from Mexico; an Indian-American conmedian often tells different styles of jokes from an African-American Straight-up WP:OR. You don't know that's true for these people, so we can't just assume it's true for them. Bulldog123 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only "original research" I've done is to be intimate with such people. ;-) See Adam Mamawala, for an example of an Indian-German-American comedian. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what does that mean? Would you support Category:German American comedians and Category:Indian American comedians?
  • Keep As above. This is one of the arts, and it is true in the arts that ethnicity is relevant, and there are general sources for it. As far as I am aware all filmmakers of any ethnicity I have ever read about discuss their ethnicity in relation to their work; it never fails to be one of the questions they are asked about--I find it hard to imagine an interviewer being so incompetent as to neglect it. We always use opinion and our own knowledge in discussions about how to handle something --that is different from articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with you that the assignment of ethnicity to some of the articles in this and other such categories is extremely dubious. I'd certainly not include the tag until there is actual evidence in the article from something more than a gossip magazine. I'd hazard the guess that some of the people may have been added based on the form of the family name--an insufficient form of evidence, considering that if the family name one happens to have can depend on such things as marriages, remote ancestors, and adoptions. It can be taken into account as collaborating evidence, when used carefully, by an outside source--but if the outside source used nothing else, I wouldn't add it. Sloppy editing causes many problems, & is particularly unjustifiable in BLPs. You've done good work in removing some of them from many articles. But the rest of your statement shows why if we do know ethnicity, it should be listed without our trying to figure out the exact implications. I actually agree with you that having a discussion here like the one you suggest as an absurd example is indeed absurd. It's nonetheless relevant information, & the user can do what they will with it,as with al our information. fwiw, since these discussions are getting repetitive, I've tried to summarize my position in the essay Wikipedia:Ethnicity is important. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have not seen a compelling argument to support such a mass deletion. In looking over the nominator contributions, he does seem have to a singular focus on removing ethnic categories. Re WP:AGF: while I can think of a lot more interesting ways to spend one's time, I'm sure he feels as if he is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Ethnic classifications are fine. For example, see Making it in America: a sourcebook on eminent ethnic Americans which includes prominent directors such as Ang Lee. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep all, per the overwhelming consensus of the editors who commented above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2011 (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 pornographic film actors by ethnic or national origin[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 all except African American and Asian. Ruslik_Zero 13:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American pornographic film actors by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:African American pornographic film actors
Category:American pornographic film actors of Albanian descent
Category:American pornographic film actors of Asian descent
Category:Mexican American pornographic film actors
Category:Native American pornographic film actors
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like pretty standard Overcategorization by ethnicity. Albanian, Native American, and Mexican are no-brainers. African American and Asian could have some type of connection to pornography that's catering to "interracial fetishes" (Ethnicity of performers in pornography) but there doesn't seem to be any proof that this is relevant to these particular pornstars' notability. Bulldog123 11:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:EGRS states " the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources." As noted by the nom, it has been so established, as documented (albeit fairly poorly at present) in Ethnicity of performers in pornography and related articles. While those articles could stand to be greatly improved, and articles for individual people would have to have sources regarding their ethnicity and their porn career, it doesn't appear to me that sources are needed regarding the relationship of that intersection to each individual person. I could see deleting or merging ApfaoAlbaniand and MApfa, because I don't know that there's any significance to the intersection of those national ancestries with the career (though it's not impossible that there may be). I could see a "Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors category," though.
That said, I don't particularly like getting rid of tools that facilitate navigation, searching, browsing. If one wanted, for whatever reason, to find articles on Albanian-American pornographic film actors, without the existence of the category one would have to resort to using an external search engine. It seems like Wikipedia's search engine should be able to handle the search Albanian incategory:Pornographic_film_actors however it didn't work for me. But there's probably not consensus for overturning EGRS on the basis of WP's search engine capabilities being disgracefully lousy. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:African American pornographic film actors, delete others. I agree with the nominator that there's no meaningful intersection in most of these categories, but being a Black porn star is a meaningful category. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of titles released every year that focus on specifically that intersection. (Titles or sources available on request, or use Google.) There are also the Urban X Awards, created to recognize Black talent in the industry. Therefore I recommend keeping Category:African American pornographic film actors while deleting the others. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Malik Shabazz. Here, deletion of some categories makes sense, but not others. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This ts not my subject, but I was under the impression that this is one place where what someone looks like matters. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From what I hear, African American and Asian performers are identified as such in this branch of media, while I've heard little about the market for Albanian porn. I'm not sure about Native American or Mexican performers. Alansohn (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least the Albanian descent ones. Not knowing much about the topic of pornstars (wink wink), I couldn't really say how relevant the other intersections are. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but African-American category per Malik Shabazz. In addition, the remaining categories are particularly subject to inaccuracy/unverifiability based on choice of kayfabeish persona for marketing reasons. See, for example, Catalina Cruz. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm happy to support readers generally being able to look to wikipedia for information, and don't feel a need to censor our editors and readership here. I must disagree with my esteemed colleague HW as to whether anticipated problems with verifiability are cause to delete a cat -- I think that is an issue for membership of an article w/in a cat, but not reason to delete a cat.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2011 (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.

Washington (U.S. 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: speedy rename, and allow for speedy renaming of all subcategories without tagging. There's been no objection, so we can put all of the subcategories of these through CFDW without cluttering up the nomination pages. I've created a list of the affected categories here. (I've closed the stubs nomination so that those can be moved too.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This is now done. If any stragglers are found, they can be moved to CFDW without listing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Washington (U.S. state) to Washington (state)

Rationalle: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 29#Category:Washington (U.S. state). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 7 February 2011 (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:South Africa Tennis Open[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, leaving a category redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South Africa Tennis Open to Category:SA Tennis Open
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If cat is renamed as nominated, at least a redirect from the old cat is required, since many if not most searches for it are likely to be under the full name. Nahum (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't oppose to make Category:South Africa Tennis Open a redirect category. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:39, 19 February 2011 (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:Computing[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: procedural close. I'm closing this because it seems like no one else wants to, and because there's no "delete, keep, or rename" required by this nomination. It seems like consensus is not achieved for putting it in top level, but maybe moving it closer (say, under both Formal Sciences and Applied Sciences) might make sense. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose adding Category:Computing to Category:Main topic classifications, in place of Category:Computers.
Nominator's rationale: Support swap. Category:Computing is about an abstract idea, and Category:Computers is about a specific device. The abstract category is a logical parent, and more like the others in Category:Main topic classifications. Pnm (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that Category:Computing should be in Category:Main topic classifications, instead of Category:Computers. This just needs a couple of edits however. Occuli (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pnm, before I knew you listed this nomination, I removed Category:Computers from Category:Main topic classifications per the discussion on my talk page. I can put it back, but I believe neither of these belongs anywhere near the main topic category, which is not used for such specific categories. The category hierarchy goes Category:Main topic classifications -> Category:Technology -> Category:Technology by type -> Category:Digital technology -> Category:Computing -> Category:Computers. That's way too buried for inclusion in main topics.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think listing it directly under Category:Technology would be the most appropriate place. —Ruud 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it. Thanks for pointing that out. --Pnm (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to ask the participants who oppose adding Category:Computing to Category:Main topic classifications to explain their rationale. I am leaning towards supporting adding computing to the main topic category. Categorizing it under digital technology is inappropriate. There is no requirement that a computer must be digital. A computer can be analog, and there have been analog computers in the past. It also fails to take into account biological and quantum computers. Categorizing computing under technology is also inappropriate. It does not take into account the theory of computation, computer science, a formal science, the basis of the technology; and it fails to take into account computing practices such as information technology, a field of study and a professional skill (IIRC, this view is supported by the ACM and IEEE). I objected to the categorization of Category:Computing under Category:Computers last year on the grounds that it was at odds with what computing is and what computers are, but was dismissed because my position was at odds with what laypersons think these topics are. I understand the need for categorizations to be assessable to laypersons for usability, but I oppose the belief that logically consistent categorizations are unacceptable when at odds with the preconceptions of laypeople. Ideally, both needs (that of what the topics are, and that of what laypersons think the topics are) should be met. That might require a complete rethink of how computer-related categories and articles are categorized, and this might be the place to get things started. Rilak (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Computer science ≠ computing. I'm not sure if one can justify making Category:Computing a main topic such Category:Science, Category:Society or Category:Technology. I'd like to hear a good argument why it should first. —Ruud 14:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said computing is computer science, I am saying that computing is a broad term that can and does encompass computer science. The main topic category presently states that it is appropriate to include categories that can and do belong in a parent category as long as the category itself can be considered a topic on its own, and I am of the opinion that computing can be considered its own topic. For instance, libraries using the Dewey Decimal System have code 000 for computing. It is not under 500 for the various natural or formal sciences, or under 600 for applied science and technology. Plus, I think that the computing category is a good way to connect all the three main computer topic areas (science, engineering, and practices) for easy navigation. Rilak (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought swapping Computing for Computers as a main topic was a pretty obvious improvement. I'm undecided as of yet about whether both should both be removed. As Rilak pointed out, computing spans formal sciences and technology, and the Dewey Decimal classification treats it conspicuously. The Open Directory Project has always included Computers/ as a top-level category. Although an encyclopedia isn't a library or a web directory, I think those are three good reasons for inclusion. I also don't see good reasons to exclude it. It's not too specific – Category:Agriculture (!) and Category:Mathematics are even moreso. It's not too concrete – Category:Arts, Category:Business, and Category:Geography are just as. The inclusion standards aren't extremely judicious – Category:Politics, Category:Law, Category:Education, Category:Culture, and Category:Humanities could/do go under Category:Society), Category:Chronology could/does go under Category:History), and Category:Applied sciences and Category:Technology are pretty similar. That being said, it's worth pointing out that unlike the Open Directory Project or Dewey Decimal, Wikipedia categories can have multiple parents. I could see adding Category:Formal sciences to main topics in place of Category:Mathematics and listing Category:Computing under Category:Technology despite the imperfect fit. The theoretical and engineering aspects of computing that aren't adequately covered by technology would be adequately covered by Formal sciences and Applied sciences. Since computers was listed until a couple days ago, so I think we need to raise arguments both ways rather than put the burden on those supporting the add. --Pnm (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support basic nom. Not sure about the further points. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2011 (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/2011_February_7&oldid=1139666369"