Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 30

July 30

Category:Jewish lawyers

Suggest merging Category:Jewish lawyers to Category:Jewish American jurists

Nominator's rationale: Page already exists, only one non-American listed on this page anyway. THF 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment jurists are judges and legal scholars, lawyers may include those, but also include the go to court and argue cases sort which aren't "jurists". Carlossuarez46 00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Carlossuarez46 mentions, "lawyers" include people who are not jurists. Also, there must be non-American lawyers who should go in the category once their articles are written/identified. For reference, there is also Category:Jewish jurists. --Eliyak T·C 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Carlossuarez46. Any chance the nominator is willing to withdraw he nomination? Vegaswikian 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, since many Jewish lawyers are not American. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Upmerge not a notable intersection in the first place Mad Jack 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fits in perfectly with Category:Jews by occupation. SilkTork 11:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:North Korea friendship associations

Category:North Korea friendship associations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A category with a single entry. Russavia 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually having a single member seems obligatory for Category:Friendship associations, except for Israel & the Soviet Union. I have to say I'd rather keep it - its an eloquent statement as it is. Johnbod 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Atm only one article, but there may be several in future. /Slarre 10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC) !!
• Keep, as per Slarre, there are quite many other orgs for which articles can be created and the category can certainly be populated, rename to Category:DPRK friendship associations. --Soman 11:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We avoid abbreviations in category names, especially unfamiliar ones like this. Johnbod 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The Category:Friendship associations is not overpopulated. Let's try not to overcategorise. SilkTork 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Breweries

Category:Breweries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, already covered by subcats of Category:Beer and breweries by region. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge The Binding one needs merging, or deleting. Johnbod 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to avoid recreation. Postlebury 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I created this category because I did not see any explanation or discussion of why there was no category for it. It seems a logical category to have in existence...but I can also see why one would want to have it separated by region (a big category might get too big). I have no problem with deleting it...but...let's place some sort of explanation on the Category:Beer and breweries by region page or its talk page that explains why it's better to keep them separately and not have a big category. And...I assume you all have a good reason for wanting it to be that way? I looked at the page and there was no discussion or explanation or anything. Cazort 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • See: April 4th discussion, and also here and here. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect. I think it was an honest mistake by Cazort. I wouldn't have thought anyone would misunderstand the current brewery categories, but as Cazort has, so might others, so Postlebury's suggestion of a merge to prevent future errors is a good one. SilkTork 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Split Category:Beer and breweries by region. For the project members, these seems to be a logical grouping, and in some ways it is. But for the average reader this does not make sense. If someone if looking for a Brewery, they expect those to be in one place and not mixed in with beers. Yes the two are related, but they should be two categories. How does a reader in one of the subcats know if the entry is a beer or a brewery? Since they can't in many cases, that means the category is poorly named. Vegaswikian 19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's a valid and interesting point. One of the reasons why it is arranged this way is that Wiki convention and consensus is that products should be discussed in the article of the company or organisation that makes the product (though products that gain notability split out into stand alone articles) - as such, people searching for a beer would mainly need to look for that beer in the brewery article anyway. However, there may be a case for creating a separate category for those beers which are notable enough to have significant stand alone articles; though I can see that creating an unnecessary and awkward cat division with some beers found under the breweries of a region cat while others are found under the beers of a region cat. At the moment the beers of a region are found under the same cat, with a redirect to the brewery if needed. SilkTork 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities of Costa Rica

Category:Cities of Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Cities in Costa Rica, convention of Category:Cities by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Postlebury 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Looks like a simple mistake. SilkTork 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Prominent Trivandrumites

Category:Prominent Trivandrumites - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Violates NPOV (Who is prominent and who is not). Also a category does exist as such Category:People from Thiruvananthapuram. The category uses the old name for the city, Trivandrum. Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Category:People from Thiruvananthapuram; "Prominent" is subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24#Category:Prominent_Trivandrumites -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Postlebury 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shopping centres in Avon

Suggest merging Category:Shopping centres in Avon to Category:Shopping centres in England

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The county of Avon only existed from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. Nothing should be classified as belonging to Avon apart from relevant historical articles. Hawkestone 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Postlebury 10:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Category:Shopping centres in South West England. The Shopping centres in England cat is already starting to look cluttered. There are already a number of regional subcats. The South West England is a decent size territory, yet not too large. SilkTork 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films about High Class Call Girls

Category:Films about High Class Call Girls - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - inclusion is too POV (is Holly Golightly a "call girl"?) and the subject itself seems a bit rarefied. Although I have to admit I'm almost rooting for this to end up serving as a sibling to such items as Category:Films about Toothless Crack Whores. Otto4711 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Films about prostitutes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The creator also made Category:Films about Prostitution. PrimeHunter 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete suffers from the same thing that most "films about" categories suffer: how much "about" the subject must the film be and what WP:RSes tell us that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What a film is "about" involves an interpretive judgment as to its plot. Unless the assertion is supported by reliable sources (rarely the case), articles should not be placed in such categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Closer

Category:The Closer - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Material does not warrant category. Otto4711 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Good to see these TV WP:OC issues being systematically culled. Eusebeus 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my arguments in the CfD (below) for Category:Burn Notice. In short, the group of articles about a TV series constitutes a natural "island" in that, in the absence of the main article on the TV series, the others would not exist. The issue is not one of mere association, but direct dependence. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actors by film or TV series, writers by TV series, directors by TV series, etc. form "natural islands" but they were deemed unnecessary for categorizing purposes. The articles here are extensively interlinked and the category does not add any navigational utility. Otto4711 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • They do not form the type of "natural island" to which I referred. Actors by film is a relationship of association, not direct dependence. If we deleted the article on the film, we could still keep the one on the actor. If we deleted the article on the actor, we could still keep the one on the film. If we delete the main article for a TV series, there's no point to keeping the articles on its episodes/characters. The relationship between a TV series and its episodes/characters (which have no existence in its absence) is significantly closer than that between a TV series and its actors, writers, directors (which can/do exist even in the absence of the TV series). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Politics in Derbyshire

Propose renaming Category:Politics in Derbyshire to Category:Politics of Derbyshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename (changing "in" to "of"), per convention of Category:Politics of England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rename per (very welcome return of) nom. Johnbod 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Burn Notice

Category:Burn Notice - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Per strong precedent category not warranted for the show article and ep and character subcats. Otto4711 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• What about the other 180 categories in Category:Categories named after television series? I don't want to make a WP:WAX argument, but my impression (quite possibly mistaken) was that TV shows received separate categories once there were a couple of articles about them. Category:Burn Notice and its 2 subcats contain a total of 16 articles at this time. Perhaps you could point to the "strong precedent" that you mentioned ... it might help clarify the issue for me. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  There have been probably close to 100 of these sorts of categories deleted over the last several months. If the category contains nothing but the show's article and subcats for the characters (which should be under Category:Television characters by series) and episodes (which should be under Category:Television episodes by series) then the category is not needed. Additionally, if the category contains only a small amount of other articles (like an article on a fictional town where it's set for instance) in many but not all instances it too has been deleted. I'll go back through some old CFDs for examples of deletions. Otto4711 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  OK, the following CFD daily logs contain examples of deleted TV show categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_8; Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_6; Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_3. Otto4711 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks, I see now what you mean. As I understood it, the argument for deletion is that the main article already has links to the individual episode and character articles, so the main category has little added utility. I can understand that but also find the use of two separate categorisation schemes (Category:Television characters by series and Category:Television episodes by series) for a single TV series to be rather unwieldy. Eponymous categorisation for TV series seems, to me, a more natural grouping than categorisation into "characters by series" and "episodes by series" parent categories alone. Under the latter scheme, the "episodes" and "characters" categories for each TV series are separated by 7 other categories. To get from one to the other, one would have to take the following route:

  1. Category:Burn Notice episodes
  2. Category:Television episodes by series
  3. Category:Television episodes
  4. Category:Television series
  5. Category:Television programming
  6. Category:Television
  7. Category:Television characters
  8. Category:Television characters by series
  9. Category:Burn Notice characters

  Even if the route was somehow shortened, it would still be longer than placing them both into a category for the TV series. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  My thoughts are that someone looking for information about the show is going to start by typing "Burn Notice" in the search box. This will get them to Burn notice which links to Burn Notice (TV series). That article has direct links to List of Burn Notice characters and List of Burn Notice episodes, which contain links to all of the character and episode articles. They will be able to get to any character or episode from their respective list article and presumably the individual characters and episodes are appropriately interlinked through text links or episode infoboxes so as to allow for easy navigation. Should someone find their way to the episodes or characters category without going through the main article, the categry descriptions contain links to the main article and so navigation down that path is assured. Otto4711 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed, Black Falcon's route isn't the one a reader would probably take. Much more likely is that they would go from the category to the main article then to another category. So the route would be Category:Burn Notice episodes -> Burn Notice (TV series) -> Category:Burn Notice characters. Or even more likely, they'd simply start at Burn Notice (TV series) and go straight from there to the characters. Dugwiki 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Otto, The mechanism you have outlined above ensures navigability for readers. It does not, however, address the issue of linkage between related categories. In terms of the precedent of the previous discussions, this category and the ones above and below it on this page are not substantially different. However, I do not agree that such categories are overcategorisation and maintain that they serve a useful purpose by providing a natural and simple means of categorising articles (episodes, characters) that are essentially subtopics of one main topic (the TV series). I find categorisation via the separate "characters by series" and "characters by episodes" categorisation schemes to be unnecessarily cumbersome and inferior.

  I realise that I will not be able to overturn a steady stream of dozens of deletions and will not object if this category is deleted, but I also cannot endorse this deletion merely on the basis of a precedent that I view to be mistaken. Perhaps part of the reason that we disagree is simply a difference in personal styles of navigation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, think of it this way. All articles, be they about television shows or people or albums or companies or events, have other articles that are related to them. No article is an island, so to speak, and they all depend on other articles that the reader might be interested in going on to visit. Theoretically, then, every article in Wikipedia could also have its own eponymous category that specifically includes all the other articles directly related to it. So every music album could have a category including all the songs and band members and record companies associated with it, and every person could have a category including all the places they've lived and all the people and organizations they've been seriously involved with.

But imagine the category mess that would result if you tried to do that. Every article having its own category would mean articles having a category tag for anything related to them. You'd end up with possibly hundreds of categories per article for large articles, and the whole thing would be impossible to maintain by editors. And for all that, what is the benefit to the reader? Keep in mind that in almost all these cases the related articles already are linked within the main article itself, so a reader can navigate to those articles that way instead of using the category system.

Therefore as a general rule eponymous categories for specific articles are a bad idea because they don't provide much benefit, if any, to the readers but they do significantly increase potential editorial maintainence and category clutter at the end of articles. Thus the goal is to keep eponymous categories to a minimum, using them only in certain well structured schemes which are both reasonable for editors to handle and which readers will probably find useful. That's why we've been (with Otto's huge assistance) removing almost all the eponymous categories for television shows and bands and people.

Anyway, that's my take on the whole thing. Feel free to disagree of course, but I thought I'd clarify some of the rationale behind what's going on. Dugwiki 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference I see between TV categories and the examples you provided above is that the relationship between a TV series and its episodes and characters is strictly hierarchical, unlike the relationship between a person and their place of residence, for instance. The group of articles about a TV series constitutes a natural "island" in that, in the absence of the main article on the TV series, the others would not exist. In the absence of an article about a person, the article on their city would still exist, and vice versa. The issue is not one of mere association, but direct dependence. I think eponymous categories are justified when the existence of several articles hinges on the existence of the main article. I realise that my view may be (likely is) a minority view, so please let me know what you think. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Otto's quite right. Eusebeus 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my arguments above, especially the last paragraph. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per previous discussions. If navigation is needed, a navigation template can be added. The template can be better since it lists the characters, episodes and locations that are significant that are still lacking articles, something a category can not do. The nav template also provides navigation between the main article, episodes and characters in one compact place. Vegaswikian 19:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That argument could be used to justify deletion of virtually any category which includes a clearly defined set of sub-articles (e.g., Category:The Beatles, Category:Chief Justices of the United States). Templates can often provide navigability in place of categories, but replacing categories with templates can undermine the navigability of the category system. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

Category:Extreme Makeover: Home Edition - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized person by performance articles the remaining articles do not require an eponymous category. All are interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OC per otto. Eusebeus 21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:List of universities in Colombia

Category:List of universities in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Convert to article, this isn't a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There is already List of universities in Colombia and those with articles are in Category:Universities and colleges in Colombia. --Bduke 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the existing cat, in case this has ones not already there. Johnbod 03:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing that needs to be merged. The creator of this category seems to be confused about the different roles of lists and categories in Wikipedia. Greg Grahame 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A more comprehensive list already exists, so there is no need for a merge. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)