Content deleted Content added
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Category:New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally: close debate. The result was: Listify and Delete |
→Video games by designer: Keep All |
||
Line 574: | Line 574: | ||
:::* No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
:::* No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::*No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
::::*No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep All''' These are notable game designers who have created multiple notable games. This defining characteristic is one that should be made available for navigation purposes in addition to any existing list. The game designer is no less defining than the director of a film. It blows mind that an experienced admin can use "because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine" as an excuse for deletion. We might as well just jettison the entire category system as the list "will do the job just fine" is a perfect argument to delete every category that exists. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:33, 6 January 2010
December 28
Category:Medieval revival architectural styles
Category:Arača
Category:Afrikaans South Africans
- Suggest merging Category:Afrikaans South Africans to Category:Afrikaner people
- Nominator's rationale: listed are white South Africans whose first language is Afrikaans - such people are Afrikaners Mayumashu (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The category text says "This category contains South African people, using the Afrikaans language, but can't necessarily be categorized as Afrikaners. Only if it certain that they can be called Afrikaners, must they be included in the Afrikaner subcategory."
Afrikaans is also the language of the Coloured. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) - I also felt some opposition to this nomination, along the lines of what BrownHairedGirl wrote, but would like to add that if so, Category:Afrikaans South Africans should be renamed to Category:Afrikaans speaking South Africans or something similar. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Debresser's proposed renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have we other categories that categorise individuals by language and nationality? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose original suggestion per BHG. Also, not all Afrikaners are South African - there are Afrikaners in Namibia, too. I'm open to suggestions such as Debresser's (which should have a hyphen for "Afrikaans-speaking"), though I feel it isnb't quite right either, since a lot of South Africans are bilingual. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Afrikaans-speaking South Africans per Debresser (but with hyphen) per Grutness. Africaners should refer to white South Africans of Dutch descent. However the Africaans language is also spoken by more South Africans of other races. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Anahí concert tours
Category:Intra-Palestinian violence
- Category:Intra-Palestinian violence - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Whilst there have been several episodes of conflict between Palestinian groups, there is no head article Intra-Palestinian violence; the closest seems to be Palestinian factional violence, which is a redirect to Fatah–Hamas conflict, itself the head article of Category:Fatah–Hamas conflict.
This category seems to be a strange collection of articles whose purpose I cannot quite fathom. It seems to me that the existing categories Category:Intifada and Category:Fatah–Hamas conflict cover most (though not all) of the scope of this one. This one was created in September as Category:Category:Intra-Palestinian Violence and speedily-renamed in October, but it doesn't seem have found a place in the category system (it was uncategorised when I found it). I will notify WP:PALESTINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- delete; a bit of a neologism, isn't it? I would think we need an article before we start to categorize in this way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep An appropriate category to group articles for navigation purposes by their defining characteristic. There is no requirement for a parent article to exist, nor is the lack of such justification for deletion. As to the neologism claim, again misused as a justification for deletion, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is directly quoted as calling "for the immediate cessation of all intra-Palestinian violence" see here in an official UN statement. The Sydney Morning Herald stated that "Mr Gambari said 49 of the Palestinian deaths and 259 of the injured had been due to Israeli-Palestinian violence. The rest were casualties of intra-Palestinian violence." see here. The Jerusalem Post back in 2002 stated that "PA officials said yesterday they are angry at Hamas for trying to disrupt the cease-fire and provoke intra-Palestinian violence, despite an understanding between the PA and Hamas" in this source. This is a widely-used term that deserves to be grouped by the category system, especially as no policy justifications for deletion have been offered. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Lasker Award recipients
- Category:Lasker Award recipients - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award_winners: except for a very few particularly notable awards, recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category. A detailed list already exists at Lasker Award.
Note that I found this category in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, and added it to Category:Award winners, but if kept it needs better categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I created the category and it's fine with me to delete it. But if I recall, there may be 3 separate lists for 3 separate subcategories of Lasker awards, each in a separate article (separate WP page). I noticed the 3 lists a bit after creating the category, and consequently somewhat regretted creating the category. Perhaps the existence of those lists needs to be made more clear and prominent in the relevant Lasker article(s) -- the lists' existence apparently wasn't evident to me when I first looked at the article(s) -- but at this point I can't remember well enough to make a clear recommendation. Thank you for cleaning this up. Health Researcher (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy listify as again another reward category. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As a defining award for the individuals so honored. Per WP:CLN, the list and category should co-exist. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reply. WP:CLN does not say that they have to co-exist, just that they can co-exist. In many cases, both a category and list are extant, but we have long precedent of not keeping awards categories except for a very few particularly defining awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- The word "can" does appear in WP:CLN out of any context, and a more complete quote may help "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.... Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." As a defining award, this is one that should follow WP:CLN's edict that lists AND categories should co-exist. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you really think that for any list that exists, a corresponding category should or must also exist? Yes or no? postdlf (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. Do you believe that all categories must be deleted if a corresponding list exists? Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Some classifications and facts work as both a list and a category. Some are better to maintain only as a category. And some are better to maintain only as a list.
- But given your answer, that you don't think lists and categories should always co-exist, your initial abstract comment then on this requires some elaboration, to explain whatever principle you're trying to invoke and to expressly apply that principle to the category at hand. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if my statement that the category should be retained "As a defining award for the individuals so honored" is too "abstratct", and I'm not sure I could put it in more concrete terms, if required. Looking through the articles in the category, the Lasker Award is one of the defining accomplishments of the individuals so honored, putting this category into the range of honors deserving of both the list AND category that WP:CLN prefers. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fundamentally then, you believe that this particular award is important/defining enough to merit treating it as an exception to WP:OCAT#AWARD? That to me seems to be the point of disagreement, and where productive discussion should focus. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if my statement that the category should be retained "As a defining award for the individuals so honored" is too "abstratct", and I'm not sure I could put it in more concrete terms, if required. Looking through the articles in the category, the Lasker Award is one of the defining accomplishments of the individuals so honored, putting this category into the range of honors deserving of both the list AND category that WP:CLN prefers. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. Do you believe that all categories must be deleted if a corresponding list exists? Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you really think that for any list that exists, a corresponding category should or must also exist? Yes or no? postdlf (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- The word "can" does appear in WP:CLN out of any context, and a more complete quote may help "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.... Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." As a defining award, this is one that should follow WP:CLN's edict that lists AND categories should co-exist. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reply. WP:CLN does not say that they have to co-exist, just that they can co-exist. In many cases, both a category and list are extant, but we have long precedent of not keeping awards categories except for a very few particularly defining awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've added this to Category:Medicine awards, where it would seem to belong. For point of comparison, there are three other categories there for medicine award recipients: Category:Donald Reid Medalists, Category:Wolf Prize in Medicine laureates, Category:Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Not worth an exception to the guideline on not having award categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- I would say listify, but gather that one exists. Nobel laureates is an exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher
Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland
Category:Islands named after days in the liturgical calendar
Architecture by U.S. state
Category:Lake George
Category:Levitt Hagg
Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize of Literature
- Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize of Literature to Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article Neustadt International Prize for Literature. I have taken on good faith the claim in the head article that the Neustadt "is widely considered to be the most prestigious international literary prize after the Nobel Prize in Literature", but have not sought to verify this beyond the ref cited, which is a a local newspaper in New Zealand (possibly not the best choice of publication for ranking of the significance of literary prizes). If this assertion doesn't stand up, then the category should be deleted per WP:OC#Award_winners; there is already an apparently complete list at Neustadt International Prize for Literature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note. Page blanked by the category creator. Does that qualify as grounds for a speedy delete? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Listify per longstanding convention for "award" categories. Debresser (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- delete per guideline to prefer lists over categories for awards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Listify (if necessary) then Delete -- as usual for award categories. A list dfoes it much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol
- Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can find no other example of a category for TV programmes by location of shooting, but I am not very familiar with the TV categories, so please correct me if I am wrong. I also think that we do not usually categorise film and TV together, so the joint category seems inappropriate.
However, we do have a Category:Films by city of shooting location, so it may be appropriate to create a new Category:Films shot in Bristol for the two films in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- WT:TV and WT:BBC both notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I found the similar Category:TV shows filmed in North Carolina, but, obviously a US state and a British city aren't analogous. There's also the entire tree Category:Canadian television series by production location, some of which are more analogous to the nominated category. So, I support splitting out the film articles, but lean towards keeping the nominated category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:United States Cyber Command Components
Pop songs by decade
Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons
- Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Louisiana Tech is one of the relatively few schools where men's and women's athletic programs have radically different nicknames. "Bulldogs" is used solely to refer to men's sports; women's sports use "Lady Techsters". See also Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters. Dale Arnett (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Rename to match standard used in Category:College men's basketball teams seasons in the United States. While there are many unique nicknames, we gain little by having some include "men's" while others don't, especially as not all editors will know that the team has a unique nickname for some men's teams. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't "a unique nickname for some men's teams". ALL men's teams are "Bulldogs", and ALL women's teams are "Lady Techsters". — Dale Arnett (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the confusion and offer the following explanation of my position here. We can have two approaches here for men's basketball teams: 1) only include the word "men's" when it's needed to distinguish between a women's team at the same college that shares the same nickname, or 2) always include "men's". I support option 2 as a general rule. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't "a unique nickname for some men's teams". ALL men's teams are "Bulldogs", and ALL women's teams are "Lady Techsters". — Dale Arnett (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hm. Rename. I guess the "men's" is redundant, though I can see why including it for consistency could be desirable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever we do, let's set a consistent rule of either always including "men's" / "women's" in college team titles for sports played by both, or including "men's" / "women's" only when the two teams share a common nickname. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea, Alansohn—we do need to decide which way to do it. If we could get more users to comment, we could decide which way to go on this issue ... maybe a broader nomination of some sort would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rename. Since it's impossible to have LA Tech Bulldogs women's basketball seasons, we don't need the "men's" here. For more on this subject, see this new nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Autism in Arts
Category:No Name as name
Category:Hip hop groups discographies
Category:American Jews by state
- Category:American Jews by state - Template:Lc1
- Category: Alabama Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: California Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Colorado Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Connecticut Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Hawaii Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Illinois Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Iowa Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Louisiana Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Maryland Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Massachusetts Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Michigan Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: New Jersey Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: New York Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: New York City Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Ohio Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Pennsylvania Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: South Carolina Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Texas Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Utah Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Vermont Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Virginia Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Washington (U.S. state) Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Washington, D.C. Jews - Template:Lc1
- Category: Wisconsin Jews - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete/upmerge. No other category for American people by religion or American people by ethnicity is broken down by state or by city. Since American people often spend significant parts of their life in different states of the U.S. and in different cities, I honestly don't see the point of attempting such a subdivision. The "scheme" is currently incomplete, with not all of the 50 states represented and each category typically only containing only a handful of entries, sometimes only one or two. Strictly speaking, each of these should be upmerged to its parents of Category:American Jews and Category:People from STATE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep All with some 3,000 uncategorized articles in the parent, a break down by state is a perfectly logical and defining means of categorization. This presents a model for other such laundry list religion categories that would greatly benefit by subcategorization. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, if you have a better way of dividing up a list of 3,000 let me know.--Levineps (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- There already is a pre-existing way: by occupation. No need to invent a square wheel when the round one's already out there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, if you have a better way of dividing up a list of 3,000 let me know.--Levineps (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge all to Category:American Jews and appropriate People from {State/City} categories. "American Jew" is a distinct, socially-significant ethnonational identity; "Washington (U.S. state) Jew" is not. I understand the desire to make large categories more manageable, but that does not justify creating new identities by simply intersecting two available characteristics. As far as ease of navigation is concerned, I would much rather use Template:Category TOC to navigate one ethnicity-nationality category of 3,000 people than have to search 50+ (many more if we start subcategorising by city) categories based on a detail (state or city) that is neither particularly stable (people relocate) nor significant. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- We do categories such as Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state and other occupations, when a category is so large dividing it by states makes it easier than just a laundry list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but... (1) "American Jew" is not an occupation. We have Category:American people by occupation by state, but not Category:American people by ethnicity by state. (2) I am not especially fond of the triple-intersection category (nationality, occupation, location) to which you point, and I believe that it could be upmerged to Category:Major League Baseball players from the United States (convention of Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin) and to appropriate subcategories of Category:People by state in the United States without any major loss of information. (3) If this category system is kept, then it should at least be renamed to American Jews from {State} (1st choice) or Jews from {State} for clarity. The format {State} Jews does not clearly indicate whether a category is for Jews born in {State}, living in {State}, who lived in {State} at some time in their lives, or who identify themselves as "{State} Jews" (the least likely). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Black Falcon on these points. There is no large population of people who are self-identifying as "Connecticut Jews". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's plenty of Jews in the Northeast (including Connecticut), Florida, and California. But so far it's 3-2, I've counted in favor of keeping this.--Levineps (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read what we wrote? Of course there are Jews living there; that's irrelevant to the argument. What we're saying is these people don't self-identify as "Connecticut Jews", or "Florida Jews". They self-identify as American Jews, and many if not most of them have been "from" multiple states in their lives. You are inventing ethnonational identities which has no real significance. (These discussions aren't about vote counting, they are about what is best for the encyclopedia based on its guidelines.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was going for the whole consensus argument, im sure if things were reversed you would use that argument as well.--Levineps (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of discussing or arguing who is "winning" a discussion when it's ongoing. Can't we just address the issues that are raised, rather than just saying, "well, I'm winning"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article about David Emanuel (Governor of Georgia), who qualifies as a Pennsylvania Jew under this category system, seems to be a good example of some of the points made above. Emanuel was born in Pennsylvania and moved to Georgia with his family when he was approximately twenty years old (it is unclear whether he was still in Pennsylvania at the time). He married in Georgia, raised children in Georgia, fought in the Revolutionary War in Georgia, entered politics in Georgia, became Governor of Georgia, and died in Georgia, and there is virtually no information available about his life in Pennsylvania.
- The fact is that Emanuel was neither a Georgian Jew nor a Pennsylvanian Jew. He was an American Jew and the first Jewish Governor of a United States state, but his move across state boundaries did not make him any more or less Jewish. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was going for the whole consensus argument, im sure if things were reversed you would use that argument as well.--Levineps (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read what we wrote? Of course there are Jews living there; that's irrelevant to the argument. What we're saying is these people don't self-identify as "Connecticut Jews", or "Florida Jews". They self-identify as American Jews, and many if not most of them have been "from" multiple states in their lives. You are inventing ethnonational identities which has no real significance. (These discussions aren't about vote counting, they are about what is best for the encyclopedia based on its guidelines.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's plenty of Jews in the Northeast (including Connecticut), Florida, and California. But so far it's 3-2, I've counted in favor of keeping this.--Levineps (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Black Falcon on these points. There is no large population of people who are self-identifying as "Connecticut Jews". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but... (1) "American Jew" is not an occupation. We have Category:American people by occupation by state, but not Category:American people by ethnicity by state. (2) I am not especially fond of the triple-intersection category (nationality, occupation, location) to which you point, and I believe that it could be upmerged to Category:Major League Baseball players from the United States (convention of Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin) and to appropriate subcategories of Category:People by state in the United States without any major loss of information. (3) If this category system is kept, then it should at least be renamed to American Jews from {State} (1st choice) or Jews from {State} for clarity. The format {State} Jews does not clearly indicate whether a category is for Jews born in {State}, living in {State}, who lived in {State} at some time in their lives, or who identify themselves as "{State} Jews" (the least likely). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- We do categories such as Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state and other occupations, when a category is so large dividing it by states makes it easier than just a laundry list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as usefull way of breaking up large categories, per uncounted precedent. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Show me one precedent where a religion or ethnicity category for persons is broken down by U.S. state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why not Category:American Jews by year of birth? That would subdivide them just as well. And how is it decided what state (or city--note the NYC one) their Jewishness is associated with? postdlf (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The same way the "Writers from" thing is.--Levineps (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- As with the Major League Baseball players example above, "writer" is an occupation. It is not implausible that a writer's work—it's style or subject—may be affected by location. It is, however, rather difficult to imagine that Jewishness varies greatly across state boundaries. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The same way the "Writers from" thing is.--Levineps (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: I added two more categories to the nomination: Category:Louisiana Jews, which was apparently missed, and Category:Hawaii Jews, which was created about a day after the nomination. Levineps, please postpone creating additional categories or adding articles to existing categories until the end of this discussion. Surely there is no harm in waiting six more days to see if there is consensus to keep the categories, and if there is consensus to delete them, then fewer articles will have to be recategorised. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/upmerge Levineps, this isn't about sitting back and waiting for the vote total to tilt your way, we're here to ask and answer questions, ideally every question asked and not just those for which you can make a curt quip. Where these people may have happened to reside for a few years is often completely irrelevant to who they are, while of course the thing they are notable for is the very purpose for their article. Ergo, if the general "American Jew" category needs to be broken down, it should be by that for which they are notable. Calling Bea Arthur a Maryland Jew is ridiculous. She was born and spent her first eleven years in New York. Her family then moved to Maryland, but sent her to high school in Pennsylvania, presumably three years later if not earlier, and presumably for four years or more, depending on their grade system. She then went to college in Virginia. If people want to cite her as being a person from every last place she ever lived, that's bad enough, though at least it is giving an honest data point; but to then doubly cite her as being a Jew from every last place she ever lived is absurd. It's overcategorization. It just plumb sounds offensive. Maryland Jew. What the hell is that, it's a neologism. "New York Jew" may mean something — or other — but "Maryland Jew"? Shall we then have "Maryland Unitarian"? "Maryland Atheist"? If it's not really a recognized category in the first place, it doesn't seem reasonable for us to categorize as such. Unless there is reliable sourcing for their Jewishness being linked to a region, they should not be placed in a list for such an awkward category. Abrazame (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well writers have moved all over, so if a writer has lived in five states, should we list all five or just where have been writing but once they've stopped writing can we list those places too?--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- These aren't in the form of "American Jews from Maryland", where the "from" implies place of origin (birth and/or upraising), not merely anywhere they've hung their hat. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then I would suggest doing Jews "from." The New York, Baltimore, South Florida, LA, etc communities have rich Jewish culture and traditions--Levineps (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- How does the fact that a relatively small percentage of settlements—none of the examples you provided were of states (even "South Florida" is just a region of a state) and I am sure it has to do with the non-existence of Jewish communities that are "coherent, static" (postdlf, 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)) and state-specific—in the United States "have rich Jewish culture and traditions" and significant Jewish populations justify creating categories for every state? Also, to what extent are "Jewish culture and traditions" different from one state to another? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then I would suggest doing Jews "from." The New York, Baltimore, South Florida, LA, etc communities have rich Jewish culture and traditions--Levineps (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- These aren't in the form of "American Jews from Maryland", where the "from" implies place of origin (birth and/or upraising), not merely anywhere they've hung their hat. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well writers have moved all over, so if a writer has lived in five states, should we list all five or just where have been writing but once they've stopped writing can we list those places too?--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge all per nominator as excessively narrow intersection. And note wider concerns about the number of problematic categories created by this editor, who I urge to refrain for now from creating more categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- For those of you against this by state method, I would like you to suggest a better way to divide them up.--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- That would depend on what the purpose of division is. If it's because you thought American Jews are best understood by state-specific groupings, that it's how historians and cultural scholars study them, then please demonstrate that. If it's only to make a big category smaller...then you still have to justify your particular choice of division. It's not a question of whether there's a suitable alternative presented. It's a question of justifying this subcategorization. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom and per above; Abrazame explains it well. I think part of the problem people are having though is that this combination of state with ethnic/religious group implies a coherent, static community. Like Pennsylvania Amish. But these categories obviously do not document such a thing. The only argument I see in favor of these so far is that they make a big category smaller, but that doesn't explain why this division is a good or useful one. And I have yet to see any indication that this structure is not completely unprecedented as a classification system, in its intersection of different facts. I'm open to a discussion, however, as to whether renaming to "American Jews from [state]" may help cure some problems (maybe none, I don't know), but I would still want to see a justification as to why by state is useful here at all. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge per above. If these categories must exist, they should be renamed "Jews from [state]". The only category that has any real-world usage is "New York Jew", and that's used only as an epithet. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. There may be a way to break out the American Jews category, but this isn't it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Recommend manual upmerger. If this discussion is closed as "merge", please can the merge be done manually?
Having checked some of the edits which populated the categories, I am concerned that simply getting the bots to do an upmerger will have some undesirable effects. Take a look at the following few sample edits I checked: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. In every one of these cases, a bot-driven upmeger will cause some overcategorisation, in most cases because the people concerned were not previously in Category:People from whatever-state, but in a by-town or by-county sub-category of it.
Most of these categories can be depopulated accurately by simply using rollback on the last edit by Levineps, and there are only ~200 articles in all, so it's not a daunting task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally
Category:Alumni of The Law Society, University College Cork
- Suggest merging Category:Alumni of The Law Society, University College Cork to Category:Alumni of University College Cork
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. None of the people in this category are notable for having been a member of The Law Society, University College Cork, and I am aware of no other category for members of such societies (and only one of of the 3 articles in the category even mentions the society). We do have some categories for officers of particularly notable societies, such as Category:Presidents of the Cambridge Union Society (a huge proportion of holders of that office go on to become major figures in public life, so the office is notable as a launchpad) .. but I can find no other category for people in the UK or Ireland who were just members of a student society. I think we used to have categories for members of US Fraternities and sororities, but I think they have all been deleted: there don't seem to be any left at Category:Fraternities and sororities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No need to merge, as all three articles in the Law Society category are already in the broader category. I'll trust BHG that we had members of fraternity categories at one time- if we have them anymore, they're very well hidden. Merge if needed for procedural reasons. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- The fraternity members categories were deleted in a flurry of CfDs in March 2007. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16#Fraternities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Miss Universo Italia
Category:Old Anandians
Category:Beauty pageant contestants
Category:Volyn tragedy
Category:Wood-free paper production in Egypt
Video games set in the Xth millennium
Category:Video games set in the early 20th century
Video games by designer
- Propose deleting:
- Category:Video games designed by American McGee - Template:Lc1
- Category:Video games designed by Dave Grossman - Template:Lc1
- Category:Video games designed by Peter Molyneux - Template:Lc1
- Category:Video games designed by Ron Gilbert - Template:Lc1
- Category:Video games designed by Tim Schafer - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete all as overcategorisation, because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine.
I found these uncategorised categories, and added them to Category:Video games. However, so far as I can see there are no other categories of Category:Video games by designer, and plenty of other ways of categorising video games: by company, by game engine, by genre, by graphical style, by language, by platform, by region, by software license, by source, by theme or setting, and by year. We already have eleven category trees into which video games can be placed. Do we really need yet a twelfth way of categorising them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Category creator notified. WikiProject Video games notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Video game designers getting their own categories is definitely overcategorization.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Likely replacable with a navbox template for each of the designers (which seems perfectly reasonable). --MASEM (t) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Leaning towards delete: Few video game designers come to mind that have designed enough games to truly warrant a whole category. And as mentioned above, lists and navboxes in the relevant articles seems to accomplish the job well enough. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
- Delete - overcategorisation. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all and replace with templates if anyone is so inclined. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to be part of Category:Games by designer. We have an established scheme for designers' games, and these should go in it. For example, we have Category:Hideo Kojima games, Category:Sid Meier games, and Category:Alexey Pajitnov games, among others. Making the nominated categories fit this approach would change the nomination to:
- Category:Video games designed by American McGee to Category:American McGee games
- Category:Video games designed by Dave Grossman to Category:Dave Grossman games
- Category:Video games designed by Peter Molyneux to Category:Peter Molyneux games
- Category:Video games designed by Ron Gilbert to Category:Ron Gilbert games
- Category:Video games designed by Tim Schafer to Category:Tim Schafer games
- I've added these categories to Category:Games by designer, and removed them from Category:Video games, where they were causing clutter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reply. Mercifully it seems that not many of the Category:Games by designer categories are for video games; it seems that this sort of categorisation has rarely been applied to video games. However, renaming these categories to remove the word "video" seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes: it retains the categories, but cuts them off from the Category:Video games hierarchy. What's the point of that?
My preference is to delete them, but if kept they belong in a Category:Video games by designer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly have no objections to Category:Video games by designer being created. I did put Category:Games by designer in Category:Video games just to connect the two for now. I can't claim to be neutral on the concept, since another user has created a category for my games in this scheme. But I will say that I think it makes just as much sense for designers of video games to have creator categories as it does for board games like mine, or for books or albums or paintings. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reply. Mercifully it seems that not many of the Category:Games by designer categories are for video games; it seems that this sort of categorisation has rarely been applied to video games. However, renaming these categories to remove the word "video" seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes: it retains the categories, but cuts them off from the Category:Video games hierarchy. What's the point of that?
- Keep All These are notable game designers who have created multiple notable games. This defining characteristic is one that should be made available for navigation purposes in addition to any existing list. The game designer is no less defining than the director of a film. It blows mind that an experienced admin can use "because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine" as an excuse for deletion. We might as well just jettison the entire category system as the list "will do the job just fine" is a perfect argument to delete every category that exists. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)