Content deleted Content added
Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) →Category:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees: my interpretation |
Anne F. Figy (talk | contribs) →Category:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees: Comment I thought I had saved this but I lost session data instead. posting it now. |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
::: --[[User:Lquilter|Lquilter]] ([[User talk:Lquilter|talk]]) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
::: --[[User:Lquilter|Lquilter]] ([[User talk:Lquilter|talk]]) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::Thank you for moderating your tone as you have. It is easier to accept an unwanted outcome when the participants in a discussion are professionally courteous; as your last comment appeared to be. I acknowledge that I am not exempt from such standards of conduct, and apologize for my own condescension. For presuming an adversarial role. I'm not happy with myself at the moment and should have handled this better than I did. --[[User:Anne F. Figy|Anne F. Figy]] ([[User talk:Anne F. Figy#top|talk]]) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''—Given that the award was first given in 1988, the notability of people like [[Lowell Mason]], [[Louis Moreau Gottschalk]], and [[Antonín Dvořák]] is not conferred by the award. All three died long before the award had been thought of. In all three articles there is no mention anywhere of the award. In none of these cases would it be appropriate to mention the award in the lede. As a result this category is clearly against [[WP:OC#AWARD]]. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 09:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''—Given that the award was first given in 1988, the notability of people like [[Lowell Mason]], [[Louis Moreau Gottschalk]], and [[Antonín Dvořák]] is not conferred by the award. All three died long before the award had been thought of. In all three articles there is no mention anywhere of the award. In none of these cases would it be appropriate to mention the award in the lede. As a result this category is clearly against [[WP:OC#AWARD]]. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 09:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::You are confusing a potentially reasonable rationale for removing a category from an article with an imagined mandate to delete the category. Reliable sources mention this award, even when given posthumously, and I've shown examples where it is a lead worthy mention; other examples exist, but you declare three where it would be inappropriate. And you accept the infallibility of your own declarations. So of course you can not be mistaken.--[[User:Anne F. Figy|Anne F. Figy]] ([[User talk:Anne F. Figy#top|talk]]) 10:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
::You are confusing a potentially reasonable rationale for removing a category from an article with an imagined mandate to delete the category. Reliable sources mention this award, even when given posthumously, and I've shown examples where it is a lead worthy mention; other examples exist, but you declare three where it would be inappropriate. And you accept the infallibility of your own declarations. So of course you can not be mistaken.--[[User:Anne F. Figy|Anne F. Figy]] ([[User talk:Anne F. Figy#top|talk]]) 10:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:06, 29 May 2014
May 28
Category:Indian male presenters
- Propose merging Category:Indian male presenters to Category:Indian television presenters
- Nominator's rationale: I am sure that a similarly gendered category for TV presenters was deleted at CFD, but I can't find the discussion. I am neutral on this one for now, because I think that there is a case to be made that gender is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of this occupation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would say, personally, that gender is only a defining characteristic to be subcategorized separately, if there have been serious discussions about gender for this category, or if the distribution between the two genders is very skewed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. If we had categories for "Individual men" etc then category intersection (WP:CATSCAN) could generate a list of articles about Indian male presenters etc. Has this ever been seriously considered? Otherwise, we're going to continually be having these discussions at CFD. DexDor (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Contents of websites
- Propose deleting Category:Contents of websites - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Contents of websites - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, I have no idea what the inclusion criteria are supposed to be - this could be potentially infinite depending on our interpretation, since we have thousands of articles about things on the web. A lot of things are "contents of websites". Seems a bit of a hodgepodge for now, so I think we should just delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Contents of websites - This category is useful for articles that are about contents of websites. For example there is an article about Youtube, but the article List of most viewed YouTube videos is also exist, this article is not a website article, but this is about a content of website article.DZTREQWS (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I think I see what the category creator is getting at (trying to separate the topic of YouTube itself from the topic of YouTube content), but IMO this isn't a useful/workable division. List of most viewed YouTube videos is categorized under YouTube and under lists and that's sufficient. DexDor (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Organizations opposed to women's suffrage
- Nominator's rationale: In line with parent category Category:Anti-suffragism, lede article Anti-suffragism and Antisuffragist, and aligned with Category:Suffragists, Category:Anti-suffragists. There may have been many organizations that opposed women's suffrage but this wasn't defining for them - however being a member of the anti-suffragist movement was (indeed, most of these organizations in the category had a sole purpose which was to rally against suffrage.). better to use the term of art used at that time - which is anti-suffragism - instead of the more wishy-washy "opposed". Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Category: Christianity in the Roman Empire
- Propose merging Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire to Category:Ancient Christianity
- Nominator's rationale: The two categories overlap almost entirely, because Ancient Christianity existed almost entirely within the Roman Empire. A more distinct subcategory within Ancient Christiantiy would be: Christianity outside the Roman Empire (though there's few articles that would fit in this subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Alternative proposal: upmerge Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire to Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world. Rationale: the few remaining articles in Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire happen to fit well with the articles in Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world. That's merely coincidental, I guess, but anyway... Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment—it can't be upmerged because Ancient Christianity isn't an immediate parent. Also Category:Ancient Christianity has a broader coverage than the Roman Empire. As you point out in your rationale the two are not synonymous and we have to allow somewhere in the structure for articles on Thomistic Christianity, which was well outside the bounds of the Empire. I'm more inclined to agree with the alternative proposal and wonder why the Greco-Roman world category was diffused to such a degree. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to make clear, I'm not at all against having subcategories Thomistic, Armenian etc. Christianity within Ancient Christianity, on the contrary! The point is, exactly, that we should have distinct subcategories instead of subcategories that overlap largely with the (grand)parent.
- On the side, I removed 'up' in upmerging, as it concerns a grandparent/grandchild relationship. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members
- Propose deleting Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Classic example of WP:OC#PERF. Nymf (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. Delete per nominator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: WP:OC#PERF is clear about this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. What those above said. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 16:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete another classic performer by performance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Bollywood films of Kamal Haasan
- Propose deleting Category:Bollywood films of Kamal Haasan - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Bollywood films of Kamal Haasan - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Should there really be a category listing select films of an actor? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#PERF. The category description is a fine piece of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:PEACOCK copy, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete This is actually a performance by performer category, which we do for film directors, but not for stars of films - probably because it would lead to massive clutter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please keep the page and approve it as it gives a list of an actor's foray into the Primary Indian language --Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Continuing this theme for other actors would lead to massive category clutter on film articles, and it fails WP:DEFINING more importantly. I suggest you explore adding the key bollywood films he was in to his article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame inductees
- Propose deleting Category:Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame inductees - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame inductees - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization per minor award. It is already listified at Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_23#Category:National_Polish-American_Sports_Hall_of_Fame_inductees for a similar discussion on these Hall of Fame type categories. Hoops gza (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I dispute that this is a minor award at the level of a Polish-American sports HoF. Canada has a strong and historically important country music scene, and this would appear to be its highest lifetime achievement award distinctly for this music genre. Leaning towards oppose.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral It may be the nominator's view that Category:Music hall of fame inductees should only contain categories for international genre-based musical HoFs, or national ones across all genres (I see he did not nominate the all-purpose Category:Canadian Music Hall of Fame inductees). If so, that seems reasonable. The absence of other such national music HoF inductees by genre makes me leery about keeping. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Individuals are rarely defined by their awards (and I would argue this is typically extra true of hall of fame style awards, which are in general awarded to people who are already famous ... thus making it obvious that it's not the award that confers notability). The alternative proposed, that some subset would be included in this category rather than all the identifiable inductees, is not going to be a distinction that will be observable or policeable. --Lquilter (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees
- Propose deleting Category:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization per minor award. It is already listified at American Classical Music Hall of Fame. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_23#Category:National_Polish-American_Sports_Hall_of_Fame_inductees for a similar discussion on these Hall of Fame type categories. Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I am requesting time to prepare a defense of this category's usefulness. Thank you. Anne F. Figy (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients appears to be the guideline that governs this nomination. It says: "... recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." I believe this award is very clearly a defining characteristic of the subjects categorized by it. These "creative professionals" depend on Wikipedia:ARTIST to demonstrate their own notability and rightful inclusion in Wikipedia. The criterion says that notability exists when the subject "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; making it a defining characteristic of their very notability! Categorizing subjects by such notable criteria increases accessibility of the content itself and strengthens the notability of its member articles in a clear and efficient manner which a back-link to a list article can not do. Anne F. Figy (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Having won a prestigious award may be evidence that a person is notable - the article can then be placed in the appropriate category (e.g. categorize as a 20th-century classical composer). DexDor (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment it is worthy to note that the "American" designation is merely a geographic connotation of the hall's physical location and not a citizenship requirement of the inductees. The inductees are as eclectic an international mix as could otherwise be assembled. Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Individuals are rarely defined by their awards (and I would argue this is typically extra true of hall of fame style awards, which are in general awarded to people who are already famous ... thus making it obvious that it's not the award that confers notability). ... As an example, no general biography of George Gershwin is going to start out, "George Gershwin, member of the American Classical Hall of Fame, was born in blah blah blah." Gershwin, Marian Anderson, Stravinsky, etc. -- none of these are defined by being members of this Hall of Fame. --Lquilter (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is interesting that you would post this just as I was about to begin adding links that belie your assertion, and it is interesting that the very first example which I randomly choose does so rather succinctly. Wikipedia:DEFINING says: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining." Notice the lead paragraph of two articles that "blah blah blah" were not written by such enlightened Wikipedians as "blah blah blah" you.—Erich Kunzel[1],[2]—Elliott Carter[3] I'll add more artists who are defined by this, until it becomes abundantly clear that no one gives a Funkadelic anyway.Anne F. Figy (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that there are two people who have it in their ledes does not mean that it is "defining" in general. Consider the Nobel Award, which is the classic example; pretty much everyone who wins it is introduced in speeches and in writing and in discussion as "X, a Nobel Award winner". Now consider, say, being given a local award for being the community's Big Brother/Sister of the Year; winners would be introduced that way in certain contexts, but not generally, and while some winners might hold this award dearest and be introduced that way, it wouldn't make the award "defining" for other winners. A national HOF in a major industry is somewhere between those two poles. But for any award we can look at the awardees, and see if they are generally "defined by" winning this award. HOFs are rarely if ever going to meet that standard, because the awardees were already famous for their other contributions, and the HOF designation recognizes existing notability/fame. This is especially true for HOFs that are posthumous, as many of them are. --Lquilter (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is interesting that you would post this just as I was about to begin adding links that belie your assertion, and it is interesting that the very first example which I randomly choose does so rather succinctly. Wikipedia:DEFINING says: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining." Notice the lead paragraph of two articles that "blah blah blah" were not written by such enlightened Wikipedians as "blah blah blah" you.—Erich Kunzel[1],[2]—Elliott Carter[3] I'll add more artists who are defined by this, until it becomes abundantly clear that no one gives a Funkadelic anyway.Anne F. Figy (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Question - I guess I am a little confused here. Is this hall of fame less prestigious in its field than the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for which we do have a category for inductees? VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It would be disingenuous for anyone to suggest such a thing. Not only does the "CHOF" house and maintain the permanent display of classical music's history and the artifacts of its prestiges cadre of inductees, as the "RHOF" does for its genre, but the CHOF is also graced with a "National Artistic Council" and a "Professional Organization Advisory Council",[4] which the "RHOF" is not.
- The assertion is that the CHOF inductees are so "famous" for their "amassed prestige" that CHOF induction is merely an inconsequential blip in the stream of their life. And that only a rambling fool would think a prominent mention of it was proper. Conversely, the implications are that rock artists are so much less refined that they would be likely to define RHOF induction as a "defining pinnacle".
- Of course it's "hogwash"; for it elevates Wikipedia:DEFINING to a superseding role which it does not rightfully function as. And it completely disenfranchises the reader; who doesn't know that we've determined they will not foolishly search for content by a ridiculous characteristic like CHOF induction. And if they do, well they deserve to be hampered from reaching their target. The suggestions will carry the day, as they mock Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; leaving it barely recognizable in open discussion. Some categories should be deleted, this is not one, but it will be.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to infer a lot of commentary about rambling fools etc. I think instead it's simply that most of us who work with categories recognize that the vast, vast number of awards do not confer notability, but recognize it, and are therefore not defining; but this is admittedly an imperfect process, and some kinds of things develop fandoms that make them hard to work with in a rational and consistent way. In other words, I personally would delete the R&R HOF; but I haven't taken it to CFD because I don't have the bandwidth right now to handle it. If this category gets deleted, do feel free to nominate the R&R HOF for deletion on the grounds of consistency; I'll be happy to support.
- As for your comments about search etc., the problem is that categories are not really as useful for search as you might think. Search produces a category page, but the items that are within that category are only visible when you click on that category. It's best to think of categories as a navigation tree, and one that functions only when very carefully pruned. To move away from the metaphor, one problem with categories is that they are very difficult to police -- you can't "watch" a category to make sure items stay in it or don't get put in it incorrectly; you can only watch the actual subject pages. From this feature flows a lot of the rules about why we are parsimonious with categories, and apply a strict "defining" standard. It's stricter than "notability", and it's a lot stricter than simply putting content in an article. I'd be happy to discuss this background with you off-discussion if you like, to avoid taking this particular discussion too off-topic.
- Thank you for moderating your tone as you have. It is easier to accept an unwanted outcome when the participants in a discussion are professionally courteous; as your last comment appeared to be. I acknowledge that I am not exempt from such standards of conduct, and apologize for my own condescension. For presuming an adversarial role. I'm not happy with myself at the moment and should have handled this better than I did. --Anne F. Figy (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete—Given that the award was first given in 1988, the notability of people like Lowell Mason, Louis Moreau Gottschalk, and Antonín Dvořák is not conferred by the award. All three died long before the award had been thought of. In all three articles there is no mention anywhere of the award. In none of these cases would it be appropriate to mention the award in the lede. As a result this category is clearly against WP:OC#AWARD. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are confusing a potentially reasonable rationale for removing a category from an article with an imagined mandate to delete the category. Reliable sources mention this award, even when given posthumously, and I've shown examples where it is a lead worthy mention; other examples exist, but you declare three where it would be inappropriate. And you accept the infallibility of your own declarations. So of course you can not be mistaken.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- My sense is that WP:DEFINING is sometimes applied at an individual article level, like for Category:Restaurant staff - some people are notable for having been waiters, and many others who were waiters are not DEFINED by this so the category isn't added. however, other times DEFINING is applied at a category level, meaning that once the category is accepted, everyone who fits the criterion is added. For example, if we decide Category:American novelists is a defining category of some large proportion of the potential members, everyone who is known as a novelist gets added, as long as it's defining for them. OTOH, Category:American women novelists is populated with 100% of women + american novelists - in other words, there isn't an additional article-level DEFINING test applied to see if you being a woman + being a novelist is defining, and if 99% of sources simply say "Julie is an american novelist" without mentioning your gender, you will still be added to the category. I feel like awards categories are similar - once the award category is accepted, it is added to ALL people who have received that award. As such, the bar to keep such a category is whether it would be DEFINING of the majority of the members.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are confusing a potentially reasonable rationale for removing a category from an article with an imagined mandate to delete the category. Reliable sources mention this award, even when given posthumously, and I've shown examples where it is a lead worthy mention; other examples exist, but you declare three where it would be inappropriate. And you accept the infallibility of your own declarations. So of course you can not be mistaken.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Alone in the Dark series
- Propose merging Category:Alone in the Dark series to Category:Alone in the Dark
- Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category duplication: main article is Alone in the Dark, and that article covers the entire series; there is no need for two seperate categories. The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)