Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:28, 20 August 2008

< August 19	August 21 >

August 20

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army

Propose renaming Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army to Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Army

Nominator's rationale: Two reasons: consistency with other subcategories of Category:United States Army personnel, and the fact that "Judge Advocates General" is the preferred plural (similar to Attorney General --> Attorneys General. Eastlaw (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Korean baseball players in Korea

Propose renaming Category:Non-Korean baseball players in Korea to Category:Expatriate baseball players in Korea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to the format used in soccer player cats, and other baseball cats (Japan, Taiwan) Neier (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preschools in Ohio

Category:Preschools in Ohio - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete; contains one redirect. No other preschool categories seem to exist, probably for good reason. --Eliyak T·C 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peerage work group articles

Propose renaming Category:Peerage work group articles to Category:Peerage and Baronetage articles

Nominator's rationale: Kittybrewster ☎ 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the categories below, in this case baronetage is not part of a proper name, so it should be renamed to Category:Peerage and baronetage articles. Cgingold (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trainers

Propose renaming Category:Trainers to Category:Athletic shoes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous, as a number of things are called Trainer. We have no article on athletic shoes called "Trainer" and Trainer (footwear) is a redirect to the category's lead article, Athletic shoe. Otto4711 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classic trainers

Suggest merging Category:Classic trainers to Category:Trainers

Nominator's rationale: Merge - thoroughly subjective category. What constitutes "iconic status" for a shoe and according to whom? Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland

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 by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of Ireland' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of Great Britain' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of the United Kingdom' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of England

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of England' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia

Propose renaming Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia to Category:Baronets in the baronetage of Nova Scotia

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with "List of ..." Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that 'Baronetage of Nova Scotia' is a proper noun -- ratarsed (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 20 August 2008 (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.

Intersections of fictional characters and occupations

Nominated categories

The main idea here is that the occupation of a fictional character is at the whim of an author. And especially given the fact that (temporary) occupational changes are often used simply to accomodate the plot of a single episode of a TV series, chapter of a book, issue of a comic, etc. For example, how many summer jobs did the Hardy Boys have? Or how about Hal Jordan?

And attempting to require a limitation to just those which are "notable" means subjectivity, since "notability" requires references, which we can't do in categories, so this should be a list. (See WP:CLN.) Besides, the work itself is often likely to be the only source in most cases. - jc37 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify all as nominator. - jc37 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Horatio Hornblower is defined by his occupation, and Sherlock Holmes, etc. The problem is "temporary employment", which can be made a restriction, short-term or temporary employment can be made a disqualifier for category membership. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - some of these categories may be worthwhile, others not. Clearly for some characters their occupation is their strongest defining characteristic (what category is better for Mary Poppins then fictional nannies?). These categories should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A mass nomination of this size is unworkable. Otto4711 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To ask "what category is better" suggests that you support the intersection between fictional characters and occupations. (If not, please clarify.) I'm suggesting that all of these be deleted, and listified. This is overcat. WP:OC#Trivial intersection, for one thing. The main problem here is that, unlike "real peaople", fictional characters don't necessarily have "real world" concerns when it comes to having an occupation. The occupation of the character is at the whim of the author.

As for the size of the nom, if I had only nominated a few, we'd then be hearing WP:ALLORNOTHING... - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't follow the argument that inclusion in a category does not require a source - a category added to an article is making an implicit claim and can be challenged at article level just like any other claim. A whole novel is at the whim of the author. Temporary fictional jobs should be handled just like temporary real jobs, and in general do not merit a category. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of questionable cases does not detract from the existence of unquestionable cases. There can be no dispute, for example, that Cliff Clavin is a (fictional) postal worker, Rocky Balboa is a (fictional) boxer, and Tommy Gavin is a (fictional) firefighter. bd2412 T 10:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something may be deemed to be "true", doesn't mean we should categorise based upon that. - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now. I essentially agree with Otto and BD here. There are certainly some of these categories that I maybe would agree could or should be deleted, but all of them? Certainly not. I don't think it would really be worthwhile for me to list the ones I would delete, since doing that is not going to garner a consensus in such a broad CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Certainly not." - If not, why not? What's your personal dividing line? And how would that line not be subjective or arbitrary? - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. All that's really needed is a headnote stating that these are for primary occupations only, not for temporary jobs, etc. Cgingold (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And who decides what a "primary occupation" is for the character? You? Me? Obviously not. That requires a reference/citation on a case-by-case basis. (As noted rather clearly even in the comments in this discussion.) Something which is not possible in a category. "Hatnotes" can only provide a reference for the theme or inclusion criteria of the category, not for the individual membership. - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify - I think these need to be looked at on a case by case basis, taking Category:Fictional gymnasts as an example, whilst the characters in it have traits of being gymnasts (strictly speaking, I'd refer to most as acrobats) are they really defining characteristics of the characters (and given the category is a subcategory of Category:fictional sportspeople, and none of the characters apply their gymnastics as a sport; then there is a case for Category:Fictional gymnasts to be deleted. Taking Category:fictional waiting staff, where there is no category for notable waiting staff; I'd be surprised it not include Rachel Green (from Friends, where she was a waitress for at least one seriees), yet the character appears in Category:fictional cheerleaders, for which I do not know of a single episode for which she cheers (It might be mentioned as "background information", but I wouldn't deem it a defining attribute, in her case) I can see a case in keeping some of the other fictional occupations, such as Category:Fictional police detectives, as there would be little question in it being a defining characteristic of Columbo, Inspector Morse, etc. -- ratarsed (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody is arguing that every last one of these categories should be kept. But I strongly agree with Otto's point above, that "A mass nomination of this size is unworkable." This is quite possibly the largest mass nomination I've ever seen -- most of the 147 categories in Category:Fictional characters by occupation. On that basis alone this nomination should be opposed. Cgingold (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does look as if the original nominator has taken the time to only nominate the more questionable ones, but I do agree that as a mass nomination, it's a little unworkable (there might be a case for Category:Fictional writers, for instance); Maybe it would be best to break this down into a mass nomination for those without a non-fiction category (like the waiting staff/bartenders/mechanics/etc.),and then the other more questionable ones (like gymnast, voice actor or activist) -- ratarsed (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he made any distinctions. Cgingold (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination does not include all subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by occupation; in particular, it excludes: criminals, leaders and officials, military personnel and "secret agents", religious occupations, martial artists, and spell casters, as well as possibly a few minor others. In essence, any occupation that can't plausibly be temporary "summer jobs" is excluded from the nomination. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are more ambiguous that some of the nominated categories. Dawn Summers was a shoplifter; should she be in Category:Fictional criminals? Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Black Falcon. Even if it's "only" say, 135 categories, it's still h-u-g-e. Cgingold (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "h-u-g-e" (as you say) because I was attempting to include every intersection of occupation and fictional character. If you include all instances of something, there's a possibility that you may have a decent sized list. I only excluded those which I thought that people might say were "more" than a profession (such as military/agents, religious, etc.) And those which really weren't (or were borderline) "occupations". (Such as martial artists or spellcasters or superheroes.) Same with the criminality semi-related ones. And things like the category for the characters from Scrubs, which had also been added. That still left quite a few. So if this is kept, then what? 147 individual nominations? The interesting thing for me is that we've had much more disparate groupings of categories in a group nom. In this case, the criteria was/is clear: the intersection of "Fictional character" and "occupation". - jc37 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Listify/delete per nom. While "primary occupations" are easy to determine in some cases (e.g. Columbo), that is not always the case. Hatnotes, while a step in the right direction, generally don't work well enough since few people always check a category before placing an article into it. Only a list can offer context to justify the presence of a particular fictional character (e.g. a link to a series episode in which the character is portrayed as a bartender, for example). In addition, these categories categorise characters based on a purely in-universe characteristic, which may or may not be comparable across fictional universes (e.g. the duties of "firemen" in Fahrenheit 451 differ substantially from those of firemen in Rescue Me (TV series)). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why any articles about firemen from F-451 would not go into the category, which is named Fictional firefighters. There is no ambiguity that would lead anyone familiar with F-451 to add its characters to the cat. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==== Category:Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army ====
 :'''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Army]] to [[:Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Army]]
-:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Two reasons:  consistency with other subcategories of [[:United States Army personnel]], and the fact that "Judge Advocates General" is the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judge%20advocate%20general preferred plural] (similar to Attorney General --> Attorneys General. [[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] ([[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Two reasons:  consistency with other subcategories of [[:Category:United States Army personnel]], and the fact that "Judge Advocates General" is the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judge%20advocate%20general preferred plural] (similar to Attorney General --> Attorneys General. [[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] ([[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Non-Korean baseball players in Korea ====