Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Category:Low-budget films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Low-budget films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As discussed in low-budget film, this is a subjective term and its application depends on a number of factors, including the genre of the film, the country where the film was made, and other factors. Having any particular cut-off defined for the category would be arbitrary. It is an inappropriate designation for categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it depends on a number of variables that does not mean it is subjective. The articles low-budget film mentions a lot of films that have an consensus about their low-budget status. --Bothary (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective and vague. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - massively subjective, also no defining characteristic. Neutralitytalk 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No precise definition of "lowbudget".Curb Chain (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article Low-budget film actually provides little, if any, guidance. The article itself acknowledges the difficulties in defining the topic and offers little in the way of objective guidelines. A category should be clear enough that a person should not have to undergo an extensive analysis of an article to determine whether or not it belongs and it should not be open to much, if any, debate.Agent 86 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 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:Chinamen[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: deletion (WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinamen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category just redirects to Category:Chinese people, but I'm not sure if having it is a good idea. The OED entry for "Chinaman" says, "A person (esp. a man) of Chinese birth or origin. Now derogatory and offensive." (See also Chinaman (term).) Because the term is derogatory and offensive, I don't think we should use it for a redirect. In any case, I doubt anyone will go looking in WP for a category about Chinese people by searching the category tree for "Chinamen". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (as creator) – I heard the term used casually on QI. Dictionaries, style guides etc. may say it's offensive because they're trying to be as PC as possible so as to not cause a moral outrage amongst a certain group of people. I don't think "Chinaman" is derogatory but I'm not Chinese. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you heard it on QI: I've heard that Britian is a racist society.Curb Chain (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from being anachronistic, it is also sexist (as a result of being a term from a period when women did not count). 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that you and all the other feminists who think words ending in "man" or "men" are sexist read a dictionary. "Man" was originally the name for our species and any word ending in "man" does not only apply to males, for example "woman" and "human". McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on now, be serious. In your opinion perhaps it's no more or less offensive, but it's also no more or less needed than Category:Hottentots, Category:Pygmies, or Category:Cripples. Also see CfD 2005/Jul/3 Mulattos.- choster (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it wasn't offensive, it's rendered redundant by the more commonly acceptable Chinese people. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Potentially offensive to a large audience of viewers, and that is all what matters. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Chinamen" is a racist 'term'. It wouldn't be a good idea to have this as a redirect. I'm not saying that it is wikipedia should censor, but to have it redirecting to "Chinese people" is a way of saying "Chinamen means "Chinese people"!", which I don't think many people would agree.Curb Chain (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously, a racist category. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 2 June 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:Left handed musicians[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. I understand there are some passionate arguments here, and the reasoning in abstract is sound. But it's not sound for the category system. That there is an effect of left-handedness does not make it worth categorizing. Let's consider athletes for a second. We don't categorize pitchers or quarterbacks, both of whom have significant differences to their play than their right-handed compatriots. We haven't found that worth categorizing either. To avoid the spread of handedness categories, I'm breaking the tie in favor of the current system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Left handed musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar categories for left-handed musicians have been deleted before, but not since this one in 2006. The music produced by left-handed players isn't really any different than that produced by right-handed musicians, so this is trivia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are a number of reasons that this is not mere trivia and that this is a notable subject. For one, there is the perennial debate that musicality is in fact strongly affected by handedness (or at least is strongly correlated with it). This is something I noticed as a musician, that around half of the musicians I worked with were left-handed, while more generally they represent about 10% of the population. Of course, anecdotal evidence is worth nothing on Wikipedia, but this is a subject that is covered in some detail in the academic literature, for example:
Kilshaw, D; Annett, M (1983), "Right- and left-hand skill I: Effects of age, sex, and hand preferences showing superior skill in left-handers", British Journal of Psychology, 74: 253–268
Kilshaw and Annett showed that left-handers were twice as likely to become musicians as right-handers. This has been supported by evidence from other researchers:
Giotakos, O (2004), "Handedness and hobby preference", Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98: 869–872
There is some evidence that there is a genetic basis for this which confers an advantage in terms of hand control on those who are left handed or who come from families that are left handed:
Keane, A.M. (2001), "Motor control of the hands: The effect of familial sinistrality", International Journal of Neuroscience, 110: 25–41
Left handedness creates challenges for aspiring musicians and this is also reflected in the academic literature:
Pickard, B.B. (1986), "Repertoire for left-handers + 2-hand keyboard music for left-handed students", CLavier, 25: 22
This is clearly a notable subject, and I would argue that there is sufficient justification for the inclusion of this category. Whether there is no difference in the quality of left-handed musicians' outputs, that is entirely subjective and has no place in a discussion of this sort. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 09:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a decent list article written about this with citations for those who are included before categorization is even considered as a possibility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates states that this is not necessary. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 14:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was mandatory, I said what I would like to see, because I think that a list would be far more appropriate for this type of information. The guideline is, of course, subject to consensus decisions made as to what form of presentation (list vs. category vs. template) is most appropriate for in a given situation. The guideline does not prohibit me from being in favour of deletion of the category and creation of an appropriate list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and keep! Some of the most notable guitarists in history have included Paul McCartney, Jimi Hendrix, Doyle Bramhall II, and that's just off the top of my head. I wonder if many people know that the reason that Ringo Starr never played drum rolls was because he was left-handed, but was made to learn on a right hand drum kit? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a re-created category. Otherwise delete as there is no quantitative difference between the music produced by a left-handed player and a right-handed player. That something like left-handedness and playing music may make a correct subject for an article doesn't mean that there should be a ctegory for examples of the subject. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the speedy rationale, as consensus can change. However, I don't think there will be a compelling argument to keep it in the longrun. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a recreated category, therefore speedy deletion is invalid in any case. The deleted category was [[Category:Musicians who play left-handed]]. This category is about left-handed musicians, many of whom do not play left-handed. In any case, there can be a qualitative technical difference in left-handed musicians who play right handed, particularly those who play keyboard instruments and who have their stronger hand playing bass notes (hence the article in Clavier on repertoire for left-handers).
The fact that there is genuine academic interest in this subject renders this a useful category by definition. I cannot see any compelling argument to delete it, certainly not per Wikipedia:Categories#What categories should be created. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 08:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a defining characteristic? Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 21:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you include it in a lead sentence of an article? Would you write "James Marshall 'Jimi' Hendrix (born Johnny Allen Hendrix, November 27, 1942 – September 18, 1970) was a left-handed American guitarist and singer-songwriter."? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't include it in the opening sentence for Jimi Hendrix, but equally I wouldn't write "James Marshall 'Jimi' Hendrix (born Johnny Allen Hendrix, November 27, 1942 – September 18, 1970) was an African-American rock lead guitarist, Grammy Lifetime achievement winner, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, soldier and singer-songwriter of Cherokee descent from Seattle, Washington who died an alcohol and drug-related death whilst living as an expatriate in London where he played in the Jimi Hendrix Experience."
I'd say that "defining characteristic" is not necessarily defined by where you'd place it in the lead, if at all. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, the other possibility is that the categories you mention are not defining either. That's the danger of using the "other stuff exists" argument. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would classify it as an intersection that, while not quite trivial, is also not defining. This is because while left-handedness might be associated with differential motor control, creativity, musical development, and so on., it is not a defining characteristic in the way that occupation, genre, nationality, etc. are. There is "genuine academic interest" on links between X on Y for many subjects, but it would not be appropriate to have categories for them all; we would not have (to give a few hypotheticals) Category:Opera singers who can speak Italian, or Category:Hip hop artists who grew up in inner-city communities or Category:Country musicians who grew up on farms. All of these characteristics probably do affect individual musicians and their music, and indeed these biographical details ought to be included (with proper references, etc.) in their article, but they are not appropriate for categories. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-- Left-handedness has had a significant role in the development of many musicians. Ringo Starr has never attempted drum rolls in public, according to Paul McCartney, who says Ringo was forced to learn to play drums on a right-handed drum kit, which was in part, where his sound-- and that of The Beatles came from.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:42, 12 June 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:Hindu Holocaust[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Hindu Holocaust to Category:Persecution of Hindus
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no article for Hindu Holocaust—the term redirects to Persecution of Hindus. Since there is not separate articles for both concepts, I see no need to separate categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nominator. No justification for seperate category. Davshul (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge/delete per nom. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom. No need for this fictitious category. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no separate article on Hindu Holocaust. Hindu Holocaust redirects to Persecution of Hindus. However, I hope that you would agree that genocides and massacres are not the same thing as persecutions. Therefore I would request to keep the category. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A genocide or a massacre certainly is a type of persecution. Given that there is dispute as to whether certain killings of Hindus constitutes "genocide", it seems reasonable to group the incidents within the broader term. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 2 June 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:Films directed by Seth MacFarlane[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: Withdrawn per WP:OUTCOMES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films directed by Seth MacFarlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, no chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why is there "no chance of expansion"? Seth MacFarlane is still alive. He is in the process of directing Ted (film), which I have added to the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:FILMCAT which states "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." The director of a film is a defining attribute to that film. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 30 May 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:Airports in the Norwegian Antarctic Territory[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Airports in the Norwegian Antarctic Territory to Category:Airports in Queen Maud Land
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as the 'Norwegian Antarctic Territory'. Norway has two territorial claims in Antarctica, Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island; these are not collectively referred to as 'Norwegian Antarctic Territory', which seems to be an attempt to use British terminology. The top-level article which 'Norwegian Antarctic Territory' redirect to is dependencies of Norway, which also contains the sub-Antarctic Bouvet Island. Within these three dependencies there are only airports in Queen Maud Land. Arsenikk (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Always happy to support those who detect creeping irredentism, even in Norway. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. Davshul (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I doubt the category was named for irredentist reasons, since the nominator is also the category creator. I suspect his understanding has simply developed since the category was created a few years ago. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 2 June 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:Red Shoe Diaries[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Red Shoe Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category for a long-canceled series. Unlikely ever to get any larger. Category is not needed for two pages. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:54, 29 May 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:Showtime network shows[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Showtime network shows to Category:Showtime (TV network) original programs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The lead article was recently moved to Showtime (TV network) and there are multiple Showtimes to which this could refer. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:52, 29 May 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:Bokononism[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: upmerge to Category:Kurt Vonnegut. A granfalloon is not a religion, so I'll put that in Category:Fictional organizations as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bokononism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, upmerge as appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 29 May 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:Families by ethnicity[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Families by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Families by ancestry/Category:Families by nationality, unless I'm missing something here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete: Merge the ancient categories into the ancestry group before deleting the ethnicity group. I note that there is already a model in place for Category:People by ethnic or national origin, which might be a better model? Ephebi (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to Ephebi. The Ancient families are useful as an independent categorisation, but they are not well categorised under "Category:Families by ethnicity". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 8 June 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:Horror[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 05:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Horror to Category:Horror fiction
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. This is about the genre, not the emotion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the potential for confusion is pretty low since no reader would expect a category about the emotion. Still, it makes sense to have a title that matches the corresponding article. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to throw it out there, there are a lot of sub-categories that use the unambiguated term "horror". Assumptions about what may or may not be meant by the term seem a little presumptuous. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily rename per C2.D – This category is definitely only about fiction (and art but I suppose that's fiction). McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:30, 4 June 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_May_29&oldid=1136463039"