Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 14

< May 13	May 15 >

May 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Spanish language novels

Another redundant category. The only other subcategory of "novels by language" is "novels in Esperanto." Spanish-language novels are well covered by the various categories of national literatures So I suggest delete. Jbmurray 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Courtroom dramas

These are films where "a substantial part of the action is set in a courtroom". That's a subjective inclusion criterion (WP:OC, WP:NOR), so I suggest upmerging to the better defined Category:Legal films. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers by publication frequency and one layer of subcats

I question the practicality of categorizing newspapers by how frequently they are published. This is not a defining characteristic. We already have better classifications of newspapers, e.g. by country. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about mental illness

Pretty much redundant with with either Category:Psychiatrist films or Category:Films with a medical theme. Suggest merging. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all of these films are about psychiatrists and not all have a medical theme, so neither potential merge makes sense. The category title is too vague to keep it, though. What exactly is a film "about" mental illness? Is Psycho about mental illness? Don't most films have some character with mental illness, whether diagnosed or not? Doczilla 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles

These TV shows have pretty much nothing in common except that they all happen to be set (mostly, per the cat description) in one of the USA's largest cities. Cat'ing shows by theme would be useful, but by city is not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charmed Powers

Delete - categorizing powers based on their appearance on a specific TV show is overcategorization. Otto4711 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was right the first time...delete. Many of the articles are not specific to the TV show, but instead someone just went through the existing articles on paranormal abilities and added the category tag to those which appeared on the show. They shouldn't be in the show category any more than in the powers category. Otto4711 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-language writers

At present this is a sparsely populated category, but in theory it would encompass all Latin American and Spanish writers... who are at present quite happily categorized by nationality. (See for instance Category:Latin_American_literature.) So this category seems redundant to me and I suggest delete. Jbmurray 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the entire category Category:Poets_by_language makes much more sense for some languages, notably minority languages and transnational languages (say, Gaelic or Arabic) than it does for others. And it make less sense for Spanish than for almost any other language. At least for writers in English one might add, say, Conrad or Indians who write in English. And for French one might use the category to include North African writers writing in French. But for Spanish, the category really makes very little sense except perhaps as some rather redudant meta-category that would agglutinate the categories "Argentine writers," "Bolivian writers"... "Spanish writers"... and perhaps "Ecuatorian Guinean writers." But what exactly would be the point of that? --Jbmurray 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the absence of a wider discussion of the Category:Writers by language structure. When a category is part of an established structure like this the size of the category doesn't matter. Otto4711 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you say there should be more articles or subcategories in the category, or fewer? How would you propose making the category useful? --Jbmurray 13:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto. I do a fair bit of work in the literature area, and have come to the conclusion that the writers by language category is probably more useful than the "by nationality" category. In Spanish this is especially true, given the importance of Latin American poetry and novels and the wide dispersion of Spanish around the world.A Musing 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British people of French descent

Unworkable category as ambiguous wording could lead to people added whose only French descent is from Norman families which really would include most of the native British population. We already have Category:Anglo-French people for people with a very close connection to France and some people have expressed a wish to create a Category:British people of Huguenot descent along the lines of the categories already at Category:People of Huguenot descent which would at least include slightly less people than one that includes earlier French immigration. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South American writers

This category only had two entries: a Peruvian poet, and a subcategory of "South American writer stubs." The many other South American writers are categorized under nationality, for which see Category:Latin_American_literature. This category was not being used, and serves no useful purpose. Suggest delete. Jbmurray 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it might be worth adding that Category:South_American_writer_stubs manifests the confusion that plagues Wikipedia's distinction between South, Latin, Central, and Meso America... There are a bunch of (e.g.) Panamanian and Costa Rican writers in there, who as such are not paritcularly South American. What would make sense would be to reserve "South America" for the rather limited set of articles devoted to that continent's geography, and stick to Latin America for most other uses. For instance, there's little point maintaining separate categories (or articles) for South American culture and Latin American culture. But I guess that's another nomination. --Jbmurray 13:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Category:Latin American writers to match Category:Latin American literature, but use only as a container category. The national categories should be subcatted under here rather than directly under the literature category, as is done with and . I think that it is worth retaining these Latin American categories as subcats of the Category:Latin American culture tree, but that Category:South American writer stubs should also be renamed to Category:Latin American writer stubs (but that should be a separate nomination at WP:SFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per BHG. A Musing 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th century video games, Category:21st century arcade games and Category:21st century video games

Since we've had about 30 years of video games so far, it seems hardly worthwhile to subcategorize this per century. These cats are only placeholders for the various "year" cats. Suggest upmerge to Category:Video games by year. >Radiant< 10:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical board games

Category:Historical board games to Category:Board games involving history or Category:Board games set in history (or...)

Disambiguation. (Are these board games that are old but e.g. no longer played, or are they board games involving the old...?)

Rename to either, as nom. David Kernow (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly. Unfortunately, that's what these things are called. See, for example, this page of Origins Awards where, midway down, there's the "Historical Board Game of the Year."--Mike Selinker 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name sucks, but the suggested renames suck more. If that's what they're called, that's what they're called. It's not up to Wikipedia to rename things for others. Doczilla 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chaotic BattleZone

Material not suited for a cat page. Od Mishehu 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That doesn't mean it should be deleted as a cat. However it is now empty since the article on Chaotic Battlezone was deleted. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish mathematicians (third nomination)

Procedural nomination. This category was deleted as part of a prior nomination. The deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for separate consideration. Please review the two prior discussion. As thge closer of the deletion review I'm abstaining. ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two previous CfDs are here: [1] [2]--Brownlee 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments were put forward at length on the talk page of this category and the previous two (unsuccessful) CfDs.--Newport 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant intersection. There is no Jewish way of doing mathematics. Was properly deleted and should not have been overturned. Postlebury 10:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This argument ha already been rejected. There is no French or German way of doing mathematics either but it is accepted that we have mathematicians by nationality. The fact that so many mathematician have been jewish shows that it is a relevant intersection. Very many Jewish mathematicians were born in one country but spent much or most of their lives in another, so categorisation by nationality is not very helpful for them.--Brownlee 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Neither religion nor ethnicity are relevant categorizations for mathematicians. Geometry guy 11:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not?--Brownlee 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but leaning towards delete. First, I'm not entirely clear why the April 29 CfD was overturned at DRV. I have read the recent deletion review, and it seems that a common thread in the "relist" or "restore" votes was the category should have been discussed separately from other religions, because Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. A further argument was that Judaism should also be considered as a nationality.
I have also reviewed the discussions at CfD 2006 Sept 12 and CfD 2006 May 12 … and after reading it all, I have yet to find a single clear statement of a valid reason for keeping this category.
It's a general principle that we do not divide occupations by religion or ethnicity, unless there is evidence that the intersection is itself notable: in other words, that people of that religion or ethnicity will be practising that occupation in a particular manner because of their religion or ethnicity. We have generally accepted that the intersection is notable in the case of literature and philosophy (and indeed elsewhere in the humanities), where religious traditions and beliefs frequently do have a strong influence; and we have also accepted that case in law and politics, so we have categories of Jewish lawyers and Roman Catholic politicians.
So this category does not fit the general map of intersection categories which we keep. There have been a lot of arguments at DRV and CfD which amount to WP:USEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which are valid reasons for keeping a category. Before making up my mind, I want to hear the arguments. Is there any any reliable evidence that there is a particularly Jewish way of doing mathematics?
A further argument at previous CfDs and at DRV was that Jewish people should be regarded not just as an ethnic/religious group, but as a nationality. So far, that looks unlikely to me as anything other than a minority view: the article Jew opens with the sentences "Jews are members of the Jewish people, an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East and others who converted to Judaism throughout the millennia. The ethnicity and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, and converts are both included and have been absorbed within the Jewish people." Does anyone want to offer evidence that this is wrong? (Note that the important article Who is a Jew? is asking a different question, so please don't just link to that article as an answer. It asks who is a member of the group, but he issue here is what the group is).
So on the evidence so far, there is no reason to keep this category. But at DRV there were many editors who argued that there was something to add, so before confirming my !vote, I want to hear their arguments. Does anyone have anything to say that actually addresses the questions I have raised? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of those editors who thought this would be the appropriate place to discuss the differences, though I also expressed skepticism as to whether the category would survive. I accept the idea that Judaism is both ethnicity and religion, and wouldn't question the idea that a "Jewish writers" category, for example, should survive. But can someone make the case for this being a notable intersection, where ethnicity (or, indeed, any element of Judaic history or culture, including religion) has some significance?A Musing 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we categorize mathematicians by nationality as well as century, not by ethnicity or religion. Hence we don't have Category:African-american mathematicians either, for instance. >Radiant< 13:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a rather bureaucratic rule, that we only do certain intersections and all others are irrelevant. Why not have another category if someone shows the relevance of the intersection?A Musing 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Jews would be far too large a category if there were no subcategories. It is accepted practice to classify Jews by occupation; since so many Jews have been forced to be refugees, it is at least as goo a basis as Jews by nationality. What distinguishes mathematics from other occupations?--Brownlee 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happy5214

Not needed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual editors do not need their own categories. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move discussion to W:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern Rite Catholicism

Propose renaming:

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match the main article Eastern Catholicism, which was renamed in February 2007: see discussion here and vote here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: CfD for the subcats of Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - "Eastern Catholic" appears to be more commonly used. The rename of Eastern Catholicism was relatively uncontrovesial and supported mostly by people of that religion. The categories should be renamed to match the article. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Agreed. InfernoXV 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dr. Submillimeter. Majoreditor 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boston University Terriers head basketball coaches

Propose renaming Category:Boston University Terriers head basketball coaches to Category:Boston University Terriers men's basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, conform to naming standards to include all coaches, not just head coaches. fuzzy510 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henry Iba Coaching Tree

Overcategorization. Text is even taken straight from Henry Iba's article. fuzzy510 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be the only coaching-style subcat of Category:American basketball coaches, and there is nothing here that cannot be covered well enough in Henry Iba's article, which allows the reader to find the notable coaches who use that style. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: 1960s American cartoons + similar

Propose renaming Category:1960s American cartoons to Category:1960s American animated television series

Propose renaming Category:1970s American cartoons to Category:1970s American animated television series

Propose renaming Category:1980s American cartoons to Category:1980s American animated television series

Propose renaming Category:1990s American cartoons to Category:1990s American animated television series

Propose renaming Category:2000s American cartoons to Category:2000s American animated television series

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because "American cartoons" is unspecific and could cause confusion as to the inclusion of theatrical animated short subjects and animated feature films. FuriousFreddy 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big 12 Conference head basketball coaches

Completely unnecessary branch on the hierarchy for college coaches. We already sort by school and include all coaches in the respective categories, so in a way, this one has the unique distinction of being both too exclusive and too broad at the same time. fuzzy510 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional morphine addicts

Delete, Overcategorisation. And odd. Just odd. Dudesleeper · Talk 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as amounting to a recreation of the deleted "fictional drug addicts" category. Otto4711 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Otto4711 as recreation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy away; let's leave a bit of finality to these decisions, please, at least until someone can make some new arguments or enough time has passed to justify re-seeking consensus.A Musing 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]