[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19

[edit]

Category:Mind sports

[edit]
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: Delete, but seriously, do not empty a category before CfD is complete. Doczilla STOMP! 08:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mind sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of existing category structure for games/sports. Recreation of previously deleted category with no substantial alteration. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as soon as possible. Duplicate structure, as well as the focus of a single editor with his/her own idea that a game and sport are the same thing and thus should be duplicated everywhere. (Also suggest preventing recreation at least for a few months to editor loses interest.) 2005 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the suggestion to block recreation of this category for some time period. This user has created many sock puppets for his/her purpose which can be seen here. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golf, backgammon, pool, table tennis, Go, Skat, Archery, Chess, .... basically any game or sport where you have to use your brain in any way. 2005 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging by the information that has been supplied it does sound like this category is redundant or duplicative of existing categories, but I would much prefer to see the whole picture directly (and I know that I'm not alone). In the future, please take care not to preempt the CFD process by emptying out a category in advance. Cgingold (talk) 01:44, 20 May 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.

Fair use → Non-free

[edit]
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: rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fair use sounds to Category:Non-free sounds
Category:Fair use music samples to Category:Non-free music samples
Category:Fair use music samples by artist to Category:Non-free music samples by artist
Category:Fair use video samples to Category:Non-free video samples
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category (Category:Wikipedia non-free content) and to reflect the renaming of Wikipedia:Fair use to Wikipedia:Non-free content over a year ago (see log entry). –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:48, 19 May 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.

Category:Antique albums

[edit]
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: rename both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Antique albums to Category:Antique (duo) albums
Rename Category:Antique songs to Category:Antique (duo) songs
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Antique (duo). In this case, there is a real possibility for confusion between "albums by Antique" and "collectable albums" or "songs by Antique" and "really old songs". –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:26, 19 May 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.

Category:Ancient temples

[edit]
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: delete, having recategorized the remaining article. BencherliteTalk 08:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ancient temples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category for "ancient temples all over the world" seems unneeded, given the existence of the more specific categories found in Category:Temples (such as Category:Ancient Egyptian temples). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 19 May 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.

All sub-categories of Category:Concert tours

[edit]
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: rename all. BencherliteTalk 08:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(except for Category:Warped Tours which refers to a proper noun)

Previous CFD decision resulted in the current title of Category:Country music concert tours to match the parent Category:Concert tours. I asked whether the sub-categories should follow the same convention, but anyone who may have read my comment chose to ignore it. Nominations follow. — CharlotteWebb 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

list of sub-cats (TL;DR)
Neat, eh?
  • Rename per nominator, for three reasons: (1) some of these titles may be confusing (e.g. "Prince tours"); (2) not everyone will immediately recognise all of these names as being those of musicians or musical groups; (3) having subcategories be consistent with their parent category reflects long-standing practice, and deviations from it could be a source of confusion for users who are not overly familiar with categorisation guidelines and practices. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:01, 20 May 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.

Category:Albert Edelfelt

[edit]
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: copy the images to commons and delete the empty categories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albert Edelfelt to Category:Albert Edelfelt images
Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be enough material in the mainspace related to Albert Edelfelt to justify an eponymous category. Since this category currently contains only images by Edelfelt, it should be renamed to reflect that and made a subcategory of Category:Images of paintings or Category:Images of art. The only category that is really similar to this one (that I could find) is Category:Vincent van Gogh images. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 19 May 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.

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni

[edit]
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: Keep. Doczilla STOMP! 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:University of Wisconsin alumni to Category:University of Wisconsin System alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was proposed for merger to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni with a result of no consensus. Some months later an editor unilaterally redirected the category to the proposed target, I presume in good faith. There are currently five categories for alumni within the UW system: Category:University of Wisconsin-Green Bay alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Platteville alumni. Others are possible, for the remaining schools within Category:University of Wisconsin System. I propose that the nominated category be renamed and repurposed to serve as a parent category for the various university alumni categories in the system, which was suggested at the previous CFD as well. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 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.

Category:Playboy Cyber Girls

[edit]
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: Delete and salt. Doczilla STOMP! 08:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Playboy Cyber Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted back in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Category:Playboy_models and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Playboy_Cyber_Girls.) Rather than speedily deleting as having failed two prior CfDs, relisting for discussion to see if anything has changed since then. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 19 May 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.

Category:Italian-Irish people

[edit]
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: rename after removing all miscategorised articles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Italian-Irish people to Category:Irish people of Italian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Irish people by ethnic or national origin, and because the current title is ambiguous. It is sufficiently confusing that at least one editor tried to redirect this title to (non-existent) Category:Americans with Italian-Irish ethnicity, and the majority of articles currently in the category appear to be about Americans, not Irish people. Nonetheless, the parent categories in which this was placed make it clear that it was intended to be about ethnic Italian people in Ireland. Russ (talk) 15:08, 19 May 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.

Categories:Santa Catarina

[edit]
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: rename all to use Santa Catarina (state). –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: disambiguate necessary as there is a city by this name in Mexico as well as an island within this (Brazilian) state and various towns in Guatemuela and Mexico (see Santa Catarina). Mayumashu (talk) 14:26, 19 May 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.

New York places categories

[edit]
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: no consensus on Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York and merge Category:People from Riverdale, New York into Category:People from the Bronx; the arguments below seem to make a much better case for the Greenwich Village category than the other one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Riverdale, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a relisting of this CfD discussion based on the outcome of this DRV. Primary concerns with the category were overcategorization and lack of verifiability, but concerns were raised during the DRV regarding categorization of individuals from well-known neighborhoods that are not official political divisions, in the cases where verification can be provided. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Both neighborhoods are unique and categorizing the people that have lived there is acceptable. People are routinly categorized by towns far smaller then these neighborhoods with thousands of inhabitants. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of other categories for defined political units like towns does not serve as justification for these categories. "But this neighborhood is special!" is a dandy argument for maintaining a sourced list of notable residents, which can include information on how these notable residents contributed to the specialness of the neighborhood. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to city parent/Delete - I am saddened that we have to go through this all again, because the problems remain exactly the same and the arguments for keeping the categories remain arguments for maintaining a list. People can live in dozens of neighborhoods over the course of a lifetime and only in extremely rare cases are they defined as being "from" a particular neighborhood. Implementing a category structure on the basis of neighborhood will result in enormous category clutter and will deeply impair navigational utility by fragmenting the already heavily fragmented people from city category structure into tinier and tinier slivers. Yes, Greenwich Village is clearly a notable neighborhood (I know little about Riverdale). The notability of the neighborhood does not serve as justification for a category for residents. Not everything that is notable is categorizable, otherwise every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own eponymous category. A list of notable residents is far and away the best way to present this information, because it can include reliable sources for their residency and can also include information on what impact if any they had on the neighborhood and what impact if any the neighborhood had on them. Otto4711 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am saddened that we have to go through this all again, but all you've done is provide excellent reasons for eliminating the use of categories from Wikipedia in their entirety, not these specific ones. None of the tens of thousands of categories have sources to document the connections between the articles listed and the parent article. Wikipedia policy makes clear at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, that "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." As Wikipedia policy supports both lists AND categories, it would appear that the argument presented is just an arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one but you seems to be hyperbolically suggesting that these arguments are in favor of eliminating all categories on Wikipedia. The arguments are in favor of eliminating two specific categories which will result in clutter and fragmentation. It appears that you are unable to distinguish between what is notable and what is categorizable. Not every piece of factual information about every person, place, thing serves as a good basis for a category and, as noted below in addition to my comments, being "from" a neighborhood can be a transitory thing. While lists, templates and categories are not in conflict with each other, there are certain organizational jobs that are better handled by each of them. In this instance, the information is best handled in list format because of the information that a list can contain that a category can't. Otto4711 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still trying to understand the argument. The fact that lists can have sources and categories can't, is an argument that applies to every single category; Why are these two categories different from all other categories in this regard? Why appeal to this as a justification for deletion, when this applies to all categories in Wikipedia? While people can and do move between different neighborhoods, people can and do move between multiple suburban communities, all of which would result in multiple categories for equally transitory stays. A simple standard exists, as proposed, which is to base the connection on reliable and verifiable sources establishing a connection between a notable and a municipality or neighborhood. Greenwich Village and Riverdale are two of a small handful of neighborhoods where it would be possible to establish meaningful connections between an individual and a neighborhood. It seems to make far more sense to create an objective standard that would establish people from categories based on the presence of strong sources, rather than a concern about shifting boundaries. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless that objective standard is reflected in the category name itself, it essentially doesn't exist, because no one has to read a category's description page to add the tag to an article. And generally the more you have to explain why someone is included in a category, the less value that category has. You miss the point about lists and categories. Not all groupings need sources to justify the inclusion of an item, or organization for those groupings to be meaningful (see my comment below on this point). In some cases, those groupings can be properly maintained as both lists and categories: a category grouping articles on everyone who held the office of U.S. President makes sense as readers are likely to want to navigate between them and they share a core definitional trait, for which inclusion is self-evident. A list also makes sense because it can organize those articles chronologically and provide additional information such as term dates, etc. (while a list that provided nothing more than alphabetical organization would be redundant to a category and should probably not be kept). A category grouping films considered the worst ever would not make sense because why a film was considered the "worst" and by whom would differ for each film. Only a list can provide sensible, meaningful context to that organizing concept. There is also the issue of slicing groupings too finely—"overcategorization." Any article could be categorized by thousands of traits that it shares with other subjects, and the more of these the article has the more useless they all become because they turn into noise. Actor articles used to get categorized by every TV series they had ever been on, which caused the articles to get flooded in category tags, and recurring cast to get grouped with one episode guest stars so that the categories themselves ended up being useless too. List articles instead allow the information to be preserved, with cast separated from guest stars and context as to specific appearances provided, all without causing a deluge on individual actor articles. Those of us criticizing these "people from [neighborhood]" categories are making the same complaints—it will result in overcategorization as neighborhood categories proliferate, it will meaninglessly group those who had a tenuous connection to the neighborhood (and maybe a dozen others) with those whose public identity was tied to it, and it will group those who had associations of completely different natures. This is why categories are a bad idea here, and why lists are a good idea here; only lists can present the desired information while avoiding those problems. And yes, as has been stated in the prior CFD and the DRV, these criticisms all can be applied to all subnational "people from [x]" categories, but those problems are present to a much lesser extent with municipalities because they have formal boundaries and people are more likely to have fewer and more stable, meaningful relationships with a municipality than with a neighborhood. So the existence of "people from [city]" categories in no way dictates that "people from [neighborhood]" categories be kept. Postdlf (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume that "People from Greenwich Village, New York" could not be any clearer as to the objective standards for inclusion, without much additional explanation. My concern is that there seems to be little appeal to Wikipedia policy as to which categories should be retained and which deleted. My statement regarding objective standards was intended to clarify Wikipedia policy so that appeals to "judgment calls" can be eliminated. My other unaddressed concern relates to undercategorization. Categories with several hundred entries (e.g., Category:People from Manhattan and Category:People from the Bronx) are far greater barriers to navigation than when these can be broken down into meaningful subcategories, even if there is a small possibility of individuals falling into multiple subcategories; Few people are meaningfully associated with multiple New York City neighborhoods that could be supported by reliable sources. Category:American actors, with just short of 2,000 entries is even more useless as a category, let alone the nearly 275,000 Category:Living people. In a balance between overcategorization and the feared slippery slope of too many categories, is the proposed existence of a small handful of subcategories for those well-defined neighborhoods with reliable sources establishing individual connections to those neighborhoods to prevent the equally dysfunctional problem of undercategorization. I did not create either of these categories, but I still feel that a perfectly valid argument exists for their retention under Wikipedia policy and as a matter of improving navigation for Wikipedia users. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1
[edit]
  • Keep both New York City has a handful of neighborhoods whose identity and boundaries are strongly defined and well-known. Greenwich Village and Riverdale are two such neighborhoods. In addition to meeting the textbook definition of the purpose categories are intended to serve, the problem of undercategorization has also been ignored. Both Manhattan and The Bronx have some 1.5 million residents and long histories of notable residents. Forcing all of these into mass categories by city or borough, each of which has nearly 500 entries, loses valuable information that can be obtained for the small number of neighborhoods where there is a clear definition of the area, a track record of notables associated with the area, and all of this supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Both Greenwich Village and Riverdale meet this criteria, and The New York Times, the national paper of record, is extremely helpful in documenting these areas, their notability and teh connection of notables to these neighborhoods. Parent categories exist for both neighborhoods (a claim that was associated with justifying deletion at the original CfDs), with a substantial number of entries associated with each. Lists and categories are NOT intended to compete with each other. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." As these categories meet all relevant Wikipedia policies, no justification exists for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both. No one disputes that NYC, or other cities, have significant, notable neighborhoods worthy of documentation in Wikipedia. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether it makes sense to categorize people by their association with unincorporated and geographically small areas whose boundaries shift over time. It makes perfect sense to draw the line at municipalities, as those are objectively defined by the existence of a formal government and have formal, objective boundaries. And it's less likely that someone's connection to a municipality will be tenuous than to a neighborhood simply by virtue of size if nothing else (I myself have lived in three separate NYC neighborhoods in the past three years). I think these also put the cart before the horse, in that the neighborhoods' notability are more defined by who has inhabited them (whether distinct ethnic groups or historically significant individuals) rather than individuals' notability being defined by what neighborhood they are "from." We simply cannot say that every individual has a categorically significant relationship with a given neighborhood. For every Jane Jacobs who wrote about Greenwich Village extensively and lived there for decades, there is a Sarah Jessica Parker who...I don't know, bought a brownstone there or something? (the category had been applied to Parker's article with no mention of the neighborhood in the text...I think she was actually a West Village resident, but I digress) There certainly is "valuable information" on neighborhood topics (and I myself have written a number of articles on neighborhoods), but categories are a HORRIBLE way to preserve it, in that they lack any internal organization, annotation, and sourcing. DO IT IN ARTICLE TEXT. Explain it, source it, and organize it. Set forth who actually had a lasting impact on the neighborhood, and separate the chaff of those who just had a coincidental and trivial connection. Postdlf (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another argument for eliminating all categories, as a category simply cannot preserve any of the internal organization, annotation or sourcing that is possible in a list. Yet Wikipedia policy specifies that Lists and categories are NOT intended to compete with each other, stating at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates that "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Your argument that "We simply cannot say that every individual has a categorically significant relationship with a given neighborhood" applies to any and every category, not just neighborhoods. Is there any Wikipedia policy that supports your choice for deletion, or is this an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all groupings require internal organization to be meaningful. To give a couple examples of clearly proper categories, all U.S. Presidents are equally U.S. Presidents, all buildings in Manhattan are equally buildings in Manhattan, so those are categorically meaningful relationships that will group like subjects. Being a U.S. President in and of itself merits an article, and buildings don't tend to move locations so those qualities are furthermore defining and will not result in a proliferation of clutter. But being associated with a neighborhood does not categorically define notability, and it is not categorically significant of individuals as one may be associated with a multitude of neighborhoods throughout one's life. I don't believe these neighborhood categories are proper classifications for biographical articles and I believe they hinder navigation. All of the criticisms I and others have given are valid ones that have always been recognized in CFD, as reflected in the WP:CAT guidelines. If you're asking for a policy that would expressly forbid this category, that's clearly not necessary. The application of general principles of good categorization to a particular category or category system of course requires a judgment call, which in my case comes from my four years of experience creating and dealing with categories. Does that necessarily make my position more valid than yours? No, but that's where I'm coming from, and I regretfully feel that you just are pushing the subject matter rather than thinking about general structural utility and organization. I love the neighborhood, but I hate the system of categorizing people by neighborhood for the reasons given above. Postdlf (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is rather hard to understand that a direct appeal to Wikipedia policy is being overridden by a claim that you just "don't believe these neighborhood categories are proper classifications". While I appreciate your personal "judgment call" and your appeal to priority (or ownership) based on prior creation of some of these parent categories, that should carry zero weight in determining a matter of policy. As I am someone who has created and edited a substantial majority of the articles in the New York City categories, I would hope that you would deign to grant equal (if not greater) standing to actual policy, rather than personal whim. Your argument would have far greater weight in the future if the relevant Wikipedia policies were revised to match your position, subject to consensus, so that individuals creating categories need not be subject to an arbitrary standard that seems to be "I know in my gut which categories should exist and which shouldn't and you just need to accept it". Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn, you are not advancing your arguments or this discussion. If you want to respond to the criticisms of these categories that others have set forth, please actually respond substantively and further explain yourself, rather than just throwing out straw man mischaracterizations of others' comments. That is neither civil nor productive, and it is not how CFD works, so please stop it. Postdlf (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have referred to Wikipedia policy in advancing my arguments and I am not the only editor to advance these arguments. I have referred directly to the comments made as counterarguments. I have quoted directly from your statements to try to characterize and better understand your comments. If CFD decisions are based on "judgment calls", I am more than happy to "end this now". I would strongly recommend that if this is accepted practice at CFD, it would seem to be a rather counterproductive way to build consensus based primarily on an argument that "The application of general principles of good categorization to a particular category or category system of course requires a judgment call". Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates is not a policy. It is an editing guideline. You have not made a policy-based argument. You have made a guideline-based argument. And frankly, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the guideline means. All the guideline says is that these three forms of navigation are not in competition. It's saying that the different systems complement each other. But if one form of navigation is unsuitable under actual Wikipedia policy or another guideline such as WP:OC, the guideline does not require that the unsuitable navigational form be utilized. The guideline does not mandate categories never be deleted in favor of lists. It does not mandate the existence of any category, list or template. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both per my comments at the DRV: clear overcat, while I could rant about the whole "people from" tree being an exercise in weasel words, "from" meanining whatever it means to any one at that moment in time, I will focus on its wholly inappropriate application to neighborhoods, which due to their notability have articles - rightly so; because it makes no allowance for whether someone "from" Greenwich Village has anything to do with whatever made the neighborhood notable. We don't have that issue with cities, towns, villages, settlements; they are inherently notable, so you can be from Detroit and have nothing to do with MoTown music or the auto industry, it's just where you're "from" (whatever that means), but being "from" Greenwich Village, or "from" The Castro, say, has an implied meaning that doesn't apply to everyone who meets someone's definition of "from" and gets dumped into the cat. The other reasons that this is overcat is that even if we could absolutely define the extent of these neighborhoods, which seems to be in flux and differs according to the period or whether the neighborhood is "in fashion or not" in real estate agents' parlance, people move around between and among neighborhoods with some frequency more than between various cities (especially given the liberality of someone clearly from a distant suburb being dumped into the category as being "from" the distant main town any way); it's transitory and having lived for a year or two in a particular neighborhood is probably trivial .... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I am from Greenwich Village. If you're from New York, you'd pick that up after talking to me for two minutes -- you'd never think I'm from Bed-Stuy or even the Upper East Side. I have a friend from Bayside. Not Queens, Bayside; not Flushing, Bayside. Why do we care? Because this isn't a trivial matter of "oh, I live a couple blocks further that way than you." These are distinct neighborhoods, with populations in the tens of thousands, with histories going back 400 years. They are associated with specific schools, specific immigrant communities, specific Community Boards. The boundaries between them, despite all the idle discussions that New Yorkers like to have, are actually written down and followed. It's a relevant way to group people, just as relevant as the 134 separate governments of Pittsburgh or the 188 separate governments of The Twin Cities. Just because New York City unified their governments does not mean that their neighborhoods are any less real than Pittsburgh's or The Twin Cities'. --M@rēino 03:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, great arguments for maintaining a list of notable residents, so that their connection to and impact on the neighborhood can be documented from reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. A list like this would be hell to maintain -- how are editors supposed to keep track of the hundreds of thousands of people who have all lived in a major town or neighborhood? It's much safer to trust the editors of the individuals' articles to know whether that individual has lived there. That's why we encourage "People from" categories for cities. Nothing about the fact that NYC neighborhoods are incorporated into the city would make it any easier to maintain a list instead of maintaining a category, so why treat it specially? --M@rēino 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list would be far easier to maintain than a category for the simple reason that lists can be watchlisted for changes and categories can't be. Any concerned editor could watchlist the list article and monitor it to make sure that only appropriately sourced material would be added. That can't happen for a category, where wrongly placed articles can sit for days or weeks or longer until someone who happens to know the article doesn't belong happens to see that the category's been added. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The neighborhood of Greenwich Village (GV) has a population of about 72,000. The population of the village of Saratoga Springs, NY is about 26,000. The incorporated village of Amityville, NY (famous for the Amityville Horror) has a population of about 9,400. Greenwich Village has a population larger than the vast number of towns and villages. In fact, only 618 municipal governments in the USA have populations larger than GV (about 19K with less). GV was a separate village before the creation of New York, and with a population larger than ten NY State counties, it deserves to have it's own category. To upmerge would be a travesty, as would a delete. But even more importantly, it has a history going back way before the creation of New York City. It has an tremendous richness of history as well as it's many famous inhabitants. I'm not as familiar with Riverdale, but others have argued for it's retention and they make sense. However, I'm more concerned with GV for it's cultural and historic importance relative to a great many famous and notable people. This CfD seems to be more of delete because we don't do neighborhoods as categories regardless of how notable or important they, or their inhabitants, are. And that kind of logic is just incomprehensible. Keep both. — Becksguy (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another great argument for List of Greenwich Village residents and List of Riverdale residents. The category does not and cannot convey the "tremendous richness of history" associated with the neighborhoods, does not and cannot convey its "cultural and historic importance" to anyone and does not and cannot convey the cultural or historical impact that GV or Riverdale residents may have had on the neighborhoods. A list article, which can include sourced information on the person's relationship to the neighborhood, would be a wonderfully compelling read and greatly increase the encyclopedic knowledge of those reading it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is patently untrue. You know, or you ought to know by now, that because something makes for a good list it doesn't automatically make it a good category. How many hundreds of categories have we listified precisely because they weren't reasonable as categories? Yes, we have all acknowledged that lists and categories can work synergystically. Just because some lists and categories can work well together doesn't mean that all list/cat combos do work well together or that these list/combo categories would. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Patently untrue" is a tad on the strong side, in what seems to be boiling down to a matter of preference. Your arguments are fantastic ones for the case that lists are better than categories. The problem is that in making this decision, I would hope that the case for deletion is based on some element of Wikipedia policy, rather than an argument that makes the case to delete all categories as lists are inherently better. Why can't the list and the category work synergystically here, as they do in thousands of other people from categories? Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion arguments do not need to be rooted in policy. They can also be rooted in guidelines, as you have rooted your keep argument in a guideline. The guideline in play here for deletion is Wikipedia:Overcategorization. As I've argued far upstream, there are several reasons why this is overcategorization. People can live in many different neighborhoods and categorizing by neighborhood can lead to multiple of neighborhood categories on an article, resulting in category clutter. Categories lose utility the more of them there are on the article. Most people are not defined by the neighborhood in which they live. Categories should be used for defining characteristics. Dividing by city categories into by neighborhood categories fragments the city-based categories. Categroies become less useful the more fragmentary their scope. I don't believe that these arguments can be used to justify the abolition of the category system and, were someone to try to use my arguments to implement said abolition I would argue against it. Nor do I believe that my argument means that lists are inherently better than categories. I've created and maintained any number of lists and categories so I recognize the value in both. What I am saying is that in this instance lists are superior to categories because of the problems noted and the way that lists can convey information that categories can't. Choose someone in the category. All the category tells you is that at some point in his or her life she lived in a particular area of NYC. But what does it mean that that person lived there? What did they contribute to the neighborhood? What effect did the neighborhood have on them? For that matter, when did they live in the neighborhood? All fascinating potential material for a list article (and also material that can be added to the person's article, thus enhancing two articles for the price of one) that is lost in a category. The list can be placed at the top of the from city or fron borough category and linked through the Greenwich Village article so people interested in it should have no problem finding it. If the from city category needs to be broken down, a simple alphabetical breakdown would suffice and not fragment the category the way a by neighborhood category would. Otto4711 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take Category:Buildings and structures in Manhattan as an example. All this category tells me as that these are articles for buildings that are (or were) located somewhere in Manhattan. How tall is the building? What architectural significance does the building have? Who was the architect? When was it constructed? Is it still standing? Where is it in Manhattan? Is it located in the Financial District, Midtown, the Upper West Side, or maybe even in Greenwich Village? It would seem that in the instance of buildings, lists are far superior to categories, as categories can provide none of this vital information. All the category tells you is that it's a bunch of buildings. This argument can be applied to any and all categories. The deficiencies you have cited in categories are not related to Greenwich Village or Riverdale residents, but to all categories. I recognize that there is value in organizing articles in lists AND categories, a sentiment that Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates agrees with. Does the "lists are better than categories" argument offer any means to distinguish between cases where lists are so markedly superior that a category should not be used, and those where the synergistic relationship justifies using both methods? Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A building or structure in Manhattan, in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances, is going to be a building or structure in Manhattan from the moment it is built until the moment it is demolished. In very few instances is a resident of GV a resident of GV from the moment of birth until the moment of death. A building in Manhattan will be eligible for only one category. A person could be eligible for a dozen or more neighborhood categories. A building in Manhattan is defined by being in Manhattan for its entire existence. A person who temporarily resides in GV along with living in any number of other neighborhoods is in almost every instance not going to be defined by having happened to have spent some time residing in any of those neighborhoods. WP:CAT and WP:OCAT offer a number of means for determining when a list would work better than a category, a number of which have been presented here unrefuted. Otto4711 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my perspective, all of the arguments have been countered or refuted. The argument presented now is one of permanence: Buildings will almost always remain in one location, while people move. The problem is that few people remain in any one subnational location for their entire lives, an argument that would apply to all people from categories. Wikipedia:Categorization of people#by place, the relevant guideline for categorizing people, seems to have no issue with the size or status of the subnational location. I have repeatedly looked through WP:OCAT, and I can't find any designation or category that is violated here. I understand the slippery slope, and people can live in many neighborhood arguments, but these appear to be addressing personal tastes and preferences, not Wikipedia policy. I agree that someone who temporarily lived in Greenwich Village should not be listed in a GV cat, but someone who lived briefly in Podunk, Iowa, should not be listed in the People from Podunk, Iowa category either; The two categories should be governed by the same objective standards requiring reliable and verifiable sources documenting a meaningful connection to the location, be it incorporated or not. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OCAT itself is violated by these categories! The listed types of overcategorization is not an exhaustive list and the opening paragraph of the page sums up why these are overcategorization: Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter". Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 2
[edit]
  • STRONG KEEP, Positively and absolutely essential categories. The whole deletionist argument is fallacious and gratuitous..Greenwich Village and the people who populated it and who continue to populate it, is a landmarked, historical, valuable, crucial part of the American culture, the culture of New York City and the culture of Western art. No question that this category should be kept. The deletionist ideology must give way in the case of a place like the Village. WP:IAR and WP:UCS were written for a circumstance like this. Modernist (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no argument here that supports a category, which can impart no information whatsoever about how landmarked, historical, valuable or crucial GV is to the city or art. Whereas a list can explain in detail who caused the landmarks to become landmarks, how the people contributed to the culture of the city and how they contributed to art. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invoking WP:UCS would be kind of insulting here, if it had any real meaning in the context of this discussion. It's fairly obvious that both sides believe they are exercising common sense and so claiming that either side should prevail on the basis of UCS is ridiculous. As for WP:IAR, it too is a rather nonsensical argument because those suggesting the listification and deletion believe every bit as much that deleting the categories will benefit the project as those in favor of keeping believe that keeping them would be beneficial. And quite frankly, those wanting the categories kept have still offered no substantive argument for keeping. The entire keep case rests on the notion, acknowledged and accepted by both sides, that in some instances categories and lists can work well together. Those advocating deletion have offered a number of reasons why this particular list/cat combination doesn't work well. So really, you've made no argument here whatsoever, other than "the category is important." This is for all intents and purposes WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that "those wanting the categories kept have still offered no substantive argument for keeping" is completely, totally and knowingly false. I and others here who believe the category have stated that this category meets any and all requirements of WP:CAT, satisfying the same standards as every one of the thousands of people from categories. Other than supposed penumbras and emanations, there has been no valid claim that this category fails any Wikipedia policy, including WP:OCAT. We have heard bizarre explanations of why lists are better than categories, but not why categories work successfully elsewhere, but not here. We have heard that buildings are permanent but people are not, but no policy explanation for why Wikipedia policy grants all municipalities a people from category, but not far better known places such as Greenwich Village. We have heard huffing and puffing that this is overcategorization, yet no explanation of what part of the rather exhaustive WP:OCAT is violated. For all intents and purposes, all we're getting are rather longwinded arguments that boil down to a very simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will interpret that as a stab at injecting some much-needed humor. To be more specific, it seems that some editors have a categorical dislike of people from Greenwich Village and Riverdale. Alansohn (talk)
  • I've explained that these categories violate WP:OC itself and that the list at WP:OC is not exhaustive. I guess it's easier to dismiss this as "huffing and puffing" than it is to, you know, actually read either WP:OC or the comments here. Otto4711 (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they violated WP:OC they would have been deleted and would not have been overridden. It does not state in WP:OC that categories can only exists for incorporated municipalities. You believe that these categories violate some emanation of the penumbra of what you think is included in WP:OC. There is an opposing group of editors that believes that these categories fully comply with every single aspect of Wikipedia policy on categorization. I understand why you don't like these categories, I just don't agree that your personal opinion is enough to justify deletion, nor that there is a need for you to challenge every individual who has a differing viewpoint on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, what you claim is a "policy" is actually a guideline and you should really learn the difference and stop falsely claiming that your support of these categories is based on WP policy. Second, that editors piled on at DRV to force this second superfluous discussion can't, by any rational understanding of how things work on WP, be construed as deciding that these cats don't violate WP:OC. Finally, there is no question of the "penumbras" of WP:OC (nice attempt to tie this, however bizarre, to abortion politics). The black letter of WP:OC, which I posted here and which stands unrefuted, demonstrates how these categories violate WP:OC with no need to look to penumbras and emanations. The defenders of these unnecessary categories are growing ever more desperate and their desperation is leading them further and further afield in their search for any straw at which to grasp in their attempts to save them. Otto4711 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean no policy expressly dictates the result here? Golly. If only there were a separate page for and process by which individuals could set out and discuss arguments for why a category should be deleted or retained, why it is or isn't an example of overcategorization. A "categories for discussion" page, if you will. Postdlf (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors piled on at both initial CfDs and a majority of these editors agreed at the "categories for discussion" that neither category violated any Wikipedia policy. It's called consensus. An admin took it upon himself to decide to ignore consensus. More editors piled on at DRV. Their consensus was that the deletions were in violation of Wikipedia policy and were therefore not legitimate. Now we're back here arguing that consensus should be ignored. Every single claim of alleged policy violation has been countered and refuted. There is nothing in WP:OCAT, other than your own personal interpretation, that would require deletion of these categories. These categories fully comply with every single aspect of Wikipedia policy on categorization. There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy not fulfilled here. Policy supports it; other editors support it; you don't like it. I understand your categorical dislike, but it's not enough to support deletion. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CAT is not a policy. It is a guideline. Let me repeat that, since you seem, despite having been told this repeatedly, not to understand the difference. WP:CAT is not a policy. It is a guideline. No matter how many times you falsely call it a policy after having bewen told it's a guideline, it's not suddenly going to become a policy. And you have yet to refute a single allegation that these categories violate WP:OC. "Nuh uh" really does not constitute a refutation, no matter how deep into your ear canals you stick your index fingers or how loudly you go "la la la la la!" Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll play this game for at least one more round. Which part of WP:OC do these categories violate? I've refuted every claim put forward so far, policy or guideline, but you can feel free to make more claims. Alansohn (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) I've already posted to this discussion how these categories violate WP:OC. Please review the discussion and, if you continue not to grasp the multiple times that this has been explained to you, let me know and I'll try to explain it again. Otto4711 (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, not a single point that's been raised about how these categories violate WP:OC has been rebutted. Unless you think that "rebutted" means something very different than what it actually means. The issue of category clutter has not been rebutted. The issue of navigational utility has not been rebutted. The issue of fragmenting already fragmented categories has not been rebutted. The issue of non-definingness of neighborhood-level categories has not been rebutted. The issue of the violation of the general principle laid out in the introductory paragraph of WP:OC has not been rebutted. The only arguments you've advanced are to put forth a guideline that says that list/cat combos can work together (which does not mean that this list/cat combo does and in no way mandates these categories), references to WP:CAT (which you consistently misrepresent as policy when it's not and which in no way mandates or even encourages these categories) and appeals to the specialness of these neighborhoods. Otto4711 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Residency in Greenwich Village is as defining if not more defining than residency in Pittsburgh or Podunk, Iowa. Breaking down residency to Greenwich Village is more defining than merely stating residency in Manhattan, an agglomeration of 1.6 million people in vastly diverse and well-defined communities. A neighborhood category adds no more "category clutter" (an undefinable subjective non-standard) than any other people from category. The "navigational utility" argument states that lists are better than categories (because they can have sources, details, explanation, etc.), features that apply to every single category in Wikipedia, not just these two. The introductory paragraph of WP:OC applies an overbroad definition that could be applied to any category that you don't like, which is why it contains a rather lengthy list of definitions, none of which apply here. Again, I and other editors read Wikipedia policies and guidelines and see every aspect complied with and absolutely nothing wrong. You don't. I'm OK with that. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the WP:OC guideline carefully shows that it does not have any specificity on "People from...." categories, or on local governmental subdivision categories. None of the provided examples apply here, and there is nothing there that prohibits these two categories as illegal, immoral, or even fattening. Claiming that municipal boundaries are fixed and neighborhoods aren't as a rationale to exclude neighborhood categories is a red herring. The Town of Woodstock, NY has about 6,200 people. GV has more than 10 times as many people, and yet, using the opposing logic, Woodstock could have a "People from...." category, and GV shouldn't. That flies in the face of common sense. It's a travesty. It's an accident that what was a separate village became a neighborhood of NYC. If GV were a city, it would be the 7th or 8th largest city in NY State. Also, if the 64 named notable inhabitants of GV were upmerged into Manhattan, they would be completely lost among the multiple hundreds in that population, as it is at least an order of magnitude larger. Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million. It absolutely needs to be subcategorized to be useful. Each boro is simply too populated and fractured in terms of culture, demographics, history, and notable inhabitants for the inhabitants of each boro to be lumped together. If these two cats (especially GV) had entries in the low single digits, I would agree that it was over categorization, and therefore not helpful. I spent more than an hour browsing through People from... categories and found a vast number of then have entries in the single digits, many only one or two entries. That's category clutter. And this CfD would replace what you like to refer as category clutter with entry clutter, resulting in a Manhattan people category so large after upmerge, that it would be completely useless for finding and navigating among GV people. It seems to me that the arguments against these categories are arguments against the category system in general. Categories can be navigated in a way that lists can't, as as such have a place here, and generally. Have lists also, but we need these cats. However, Otto, what I really don't understand is how you and I can be on the same side in the Queer Studies CfD, and not here. :-) — Becksguy (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The size or existence of other People from categories is irrelevant here, as is the size of either of these categories. We have deleted categories much larger than either of these and simply having a sizable potential population for a category does not mandate the category. Personally I find the People from categorization scheme in need of serious overhaul, rather than this continual fragmentation into smaller and smaller slivers. If People from Manhattan is large, try splitting it alphabetically or by century, some way that won't lead to an untenable categorization scheme which will result in who knows how many neighborhood categories on an article? And for navigating amongst GV people, Make a list and put it at the top of the Manhattan category. A simple elegant solution that allows for those interested in specifically GV people to find an entire list of them which can include information on why the person's ties to GV are notable. A solution that can be implemented for every notable neighborhood in Manhattan (or elsewhere), so that those people who move from one neighborhood to another to another will be in one category and not several but still associatable with their specific neighborhoods along with sourced information as to why their presence in that neighborhood was notable or significant. Otto4711 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a list pretending to be a category, when it should be a subcategory. It has not the navigations features of a category, so it doesn't work. It's not a solution. — Becksguy (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A list pretending to be a category"? Poppycock! It's a perfectly serviceable list, actually a section of the main article on Riverdale, that does a terrific job of linking together the notable residents of Riverdale and has the added bonus of being able to explain the timeframe, connection and duration of association with the neighborhood, something that categories are not equipped to do. Otto4711 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 3
[edit]
  • Your reason for wanting the GV cat kept last time was that it was a large category and had a "logical parent," neither of which strike me as particularly strong arguments for keeping given that we routinely delete much larger cats which also have logical parents. You went on to state that it was the residents of the neighborhood that contributed to the cultural significance of the neighborhood. Which is again a terrific reason for having a list which can explain why, when and how these notable residents contributed to the neighborhood's cultural significance. Otto4711 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is again a terrific reason for having a list which can explain why, when and how these notable residents contributed to the neighborhood's cultural significance. Which is again a wonderful reason to delete all people from categories from Wikipedia, and explains nothing about why these two categories must be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many comments above as to why a line here excluding neighborhood categories makes sense, whether you agree, the explanations have been given above. But yes, the whole "people from" category system is a mess, because "from" doesn't mean anything in particular and so just expands to any kind of association, so that people are included for very different reasons. An egregious example I saw recently was Category:People from Fire Island, New York, which includes individuals that the Fire Island, New York article lists as "summer residents." This is fueled by the unfortunate tendency for people to try and categorize every fact in an article (which CFD largely exists to push back against) and probably because of local vanity to a certain extent, as everyone wants to claim hometown heroes. The smaller in scale the subnational categories become, the more likely that the connections will be tenuous and the category tags will build up on articles because people move around too much. I'm hardly a notable person, but in my humble three decades of life, I've lived in four states, six municipalities, and four neighborhoods that have articles. None of that even includes my place of birth. Yet by current practice, if I were to have an article, I'd be categorized as "from" all those places. We either need to rename those categories so they exclude the trivial, or replace them all with annotated lists so the associations can be explained and grouped. Postdlf (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no disagreement regarding inclusion standards in people from categories. After the initial CfD for Riverdale had been created, I went through and added reliable and verifiable sources for as many of the individuals I could find, establishing a tangible connection to the community, covering about three dozen notables. I'd prefer to see these standards tightened for all such categories, and I think that most neighborhoods would be unable to support an adequate number of reliably-sourced residents to merit a category. While your concerns are entirely legitimate, they need to be addressed across the board for all people from categories, and shed little light on inclusion of the two categories up for discussion here. Alansohn (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insisting that the systemic issue be addressed first is unreasonable. I think even you would agree that a hypothetical Category: People from 123 Main Street, Greenwich Village, New York would be overkill, but if someone were to create such a category requiring that the People from system be fixed before deleting it would be absurd. That the overall categorization structure is flawed does not mean that particularly problematic portions of it can't be addressed until the structural flaws are fixed. Otto4711 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Category: People from 123 Main Street, Greenwich Village, New York would be overkill, unless, hypothetically, that house was particularly very famous and notable. (And it was on Bleeker Street ☺). And that is the beauty and strength of categories, as they can drill down depending on need and suitability. The taxonomic categorization of life is probably the best example of that, and it has 8 or 9 levels. Otto, I don't dispute your elegant arguments about lists and their advantages, in fact, I love lists. Together with categories, as they both serve a need to help readers find information, just differently. Why can't they coexist? And you are right that very many (maybe even most) "People from X" categories are in poor shape. But not these two, and especially not the one for GV. — Becksguy (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Postdlf, you are correct. Not that it effectively changes Alansohn's argument however, which I, unsurprisingly, agree with. — Becksguy (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all are indeed agreed that a line needs to be drawn. However, from WP:OC: Location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million people, so I think it should be obvious that it needs subcategories. If GV were a city, it would be the 7th or 8th largest city in NY at a population of about 72 thousand, so it's obviously not too small. GV is an obvious, rational, notate, veritable, cultural, historic, and very useful subcategory. And it's a NYC government recognized neighborhood, as documented above, not some real estate marketing ploy or developers game plan with dubious boundaries. It existed well before NYC did. — Becksguy (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop quoting population figures as if those have relevance here; obviously not all 1.6 million people who currently live in Manhattan have or will have articles. Category:People from Manhattan has 494 entries at present. I don't know what purpose is hindered by having a category with a population of that size, considering how easy it is to browse through the alphabetical TOC. What do you want to do with that category that is difficult right now? If there are too many entries in Category:People from Manhattan, which ones do you want removed? What do you want that category to accomplish, and how well is it accomplishing it right now? But even if we assume that 494 is too large, for whatever reason, that in and of itself doesn't provide justification for any specific subcategorization. Location has already been used as a way to split the people categories. I understand your arguments about why GV is different, but that's part of the problem—categorization by one neighborhood will necessarily lead to categorization by all neighborhoods (which you may or may not have a problem with). But let's say it doesn't—let's say GV is the only Manhattan neighborhood that will merit its own category. Then all you've accomplished is the segregation within Category:People from Manhattan of those who can be associated with GV; all other entries will still be in the base category. And, if any of those GV residents were also connected to another part of Manhattan, then they couldn't just be categorized as being "from" GV; they'd still have to be categorized by Manhattan generally to capture that non-GV Manhattan connection. How many entries in Category:People from Manhattan are only associated with Manhattan through Greenwich Village? Postdlf (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how many Manhattan entries are only GV related, and I have no time to check, as with about 500 entries there are just too many. I however did check all 64 people listed as notables in the GV article. Only four of them are listed in Category:People from Manhattan, therefore if the GV category were upmerged, there would be 554 members of the Manhattan category, assuming these numbers are correct. That's almost nine times the number of notable GV residents, and the 64 GV entries would be completely lost among 554 Manhattan entries. Actually you have provided an argument for the keeper side of this discussion. Why should someone have to look through multiple alphabetical breakdowns for the 64 GV residents if they don't even know who they are. That's one very good reason for a "People from GV" category. And again, per WP:OC, Location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. And that is a policy/guideline based argument to keep. A catagory with 554 members is, by anyones definition, a large category, expecially when looking for connections that have been deleted by a misplaced desire to reduce so-called category cluter. So yes, population figures are highly relevant to this discussion. No one is suggesting subcatorizing "People from GV" further, but this subcategory does follow WP:OC and WP:CAT in both intent and letter. All that this deletion will accomplish is to make it extremely difficult for readers to navigate GV residents. And the same for Riverdale, with different numbers. And that is against the intent of WP. — Becksguy (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very confused by the bizarrely mechanistic readings that people are giving WP:OC and WP:CAT. Neither contains any guarantee that any category is or isn't valid, but instead set forth general considerations ("guidelines", if you will), leaving us to discuss the applications based on editorial judgment, practice, and functionality. Location may be used to subcategorize, but that obviously doesn't mandate that it's always proper; that's where the reductio argument based on the hypothetical "people from X building" example comes in. There are plenty of comments above, whether you agree with them or not, as to why neighborhoods generally are not a good locality for categorizing people (to the extent you think GV uniquely avoids these complaints, see comment re: systemic problems below).
  • But I'm still unclear on what purpose or function for which Category:People from Manhattan is too large (and actually, Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York is empty at present, so upmerging would only preserve the current number, not that I think that matters). A list of people associated with Greenwich Village would obviously be placed in Category:People from Manhattan to allow people to navigate between GV residents (and would furthermore group them meaningfully, by shared nature of association and/or by shared time period).
  • And do you have no comments on the systemic problems of other neighborhood categories? If the GV category stays, either everyone "from" Manhattan would have to be categorized by every neighborhood that they are "from" (that's assuming that all of Manhattan can be subdivided into notable neighborhoods), or everyone who is "from" GV but also otherwise "from" Manhattan in a manner that does not involve GV would still have to be categorized by both to preserve the non-GV association with Manhattan. Postdlf (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, just in case it's not clear, I believe that everyone in this discussion wants to improve WP, but that we do seem to have different ideas on how best to do that. And some good arguments have been made here. It's also clear to me that there are serious issues with "People from X" categories, and maybe even more generally, but I believe not with these two categories. — Becksguy (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two guidelines neither prohibit nor require these subcategories, true. Just as the deleters have provided arguments against neighborhoods, the keepers have provided arguments for keeping them, and I believe the keep arguments are more compelling, logical, and provide more value and utility to the readers. This is an issue of optimum category size. You can't have a category too large nor too small, as they loose usefulness at either extreme. I see many categories at CfD for being too small. Large categories are too difficult to navigate and find entries in a meaningful way. The size of the category should be such that it is useful and easy to find items, that is, the right size.
  • NYC is humongous relative to other cities, to the point that instead of being within the boundary of a county, NYC contains five counties. The normal local government is different and everything is at a larger scale. Allowances need to be made for that, rather than trying to force an existing real life structure into an arbitrary and limited structure here because of a claimed "category clutter". If it's useful, it's not clutter.
  • Also, categories are not hierarchical, that is, just because there are two neighborhood subcategories does not mean that one has to create subcategories for all the other neighborhoods, unless there is good and sufficient reason for them. Not every notable person in Manhattan has to be in a neighborhood category just because there is this subcategory that contains a small number of them. If you disallow neighborhoods, then the smallest geographical category is the boro, for example, Manhattan with a population of 1.6 million and 554 notable inhabitants that we know of so far, and that's too large for a category to be useful.
  • And adding a list to the category is not a solution, as navigation ability is lost, and there is no category link at the bottom of the article to alert readers that this person has some relationship to that neighborhood and indicates that others also do. Utility, navigation, and information is lost.
  • And the argument that the relationship to neighborhoods is more tenuous than to boros or cities may or may not be true, but that is unsupported speculation, and not relevant. I don't know why the GV category is currently empty, but that can be fixed. The arguments are true for Riverdale as well. — Becksguy (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate on how a category with a large population is difficult to navigate. I don't understand what that means in concrete terms. Also, if I understand your position, you don't think the existence of the people from GV category would necessitate or lead to the creation of any other neighborhood-specific "people from" categories. In that case, please respond to the problem I identified above for categorizing those whose connection to Manhattan is in part through GV, but not exclusively. Postdlf (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category structure does not require nor enforce members of each child category to also be in the parent of that category, nor that members of a parent category be grouped into child categories, since the categories are not hierarchical, ie - they are not tree structured. See: Wikipedia:Categories#Categories do not form a tree. That is, the software does not impose a membership structure on categories. We organize the categories into Grandparent-Parent-Child-Grandchild categories to make it easy for us to keep track of them. For example: nation-state-county-township-village that reflects the political or cultural structure. Members seem to be added to categories by editors without regard to the parent-child relationships of the categories. In other words, a person could be in the Manhattan cat, without being in the NY State cat, or in both, or in just the NY cat, or in neither. So the answer is that there is no need to have other subcategories for the non-GV related people in Manhattan, as they will remain Manhattan category members and their relationship with the Manhattan category does not change because either there is a neighborhood category, or there isn't. So therefore I see absolutely no need to establish other neighborhood categories for that. While checking the 64 named notable people from GV, I noticed that 60 of them weren't in the Manhattan category and many weren't in other parent categories (NYC, NY, USA) either. Also, there were 3590 People from NYC, but only 1042 People from NY State which shows how lopsided the categories are. I will answer the other question later. Thanks for engaging in meaningful discussion and I hope I have answered this part. — Becksguy (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, you misunderstood my point about the relationship of articles to parent categories and their subcategories. We don't place articles in both parents and subcategories when it would be redundant to do so: a building in Manhattan is necessarily a building in NYC, and thereby a building in NY state, and does not exist in NYC or NY state outside of Manhattan; it should never be placed in more than the most specific one in such a case. But if a parent is split in such a way that an article may relate to it in multiple ways, then the article would have to be put in multiple subcategories of that parent to capture all the ways in which the article relates to the parent. An American actor who has acted on stage, on television, and in film would have to be placed in "American stage actors," "American film actors," and "American television actors," all of which would be subcategories of "American actors." So if only one subcategory existed, such as the American stage actors category, then a stage, film, and television actor would have to still be placed directly in "American actors" as well as in the stage subcat to reflect the fact that they aren't just an American actor on stage. Similarly, if someone is "from" Greenwich Village, "from" the West Village, "from" Midtown, and "from" Turtle Bay, then the placement of that individual in only a category for people from Greenwich Village will fail to capture the whole relationship with Manhattan. If categories for those other connections do not exist, then the individual would need to be kept in the Manhattan category notwithstanding inclusion in the GV category because GV is not the totality of their association with Manhattan, and may not even be their most significant connection to Manhattan. This undermines the argument that the GV category would somehow reduce the population of the Manhattan category, whatever virtue there is in that. And it illustrates one of the main problems with trying to create a category for only one member of a group (the group here being neighborhoods—submunicipal areas). Postdlf (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well now I understand the disconnect between us, as it seems we have very different views of the WP Category structure. Apparently you view WP categories as a hierarchical database, where each child category is—in set theory— a subset of the parent and therefore one does not duplicate entries by placing them in both. I see WP categories as more like a network of nodes, where no child inherits the inclusion criteria of the parent, and the parent does not include the members of it's children. This concept came form Wikipedia:Categories#Categories do not form a tree which is pretty specific about it's not being hierarchical. For example, if a building was added to Category:Buildings and structures in Manhattan, but was not explicitly added to Category:Buildings and structures in New York City, then as far as WP categories is concerned, the building does not exist in NYC, it only exists in Manhattan. This is a characteristic of the the structure of categories in WP, despite not seemingly to reflect what people assume about WP categories. And this view is best supported by the Wikimedia software when it displays each category. There is no aggregation of counts or contents, as it counts the members of that category only and displays those pages only, it does NOT include the members of the child categories. If you want the count and the pages of a child category, you have to select that category and view it separately. So having a subcategory of People from GV does not decrease the Manhattan category, since the members are in both. In your example of an American actor, he would have to be placed in all four categories, including the parent. — Becksguy (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand your view of parent-subcategory relationships (if a subcategory doesn't possess the inclusion traits of a parent, why would it be proper to include it in that parent?), particularly since this started off with you discussing the GV category as a way of "splitting" what you considered a far-too-large People from Manhattan category. If having a subcategory of "People from GV does not decrease the Manhattan category," as you just said, then the largeness of the Manhattan category would be completely irrelevant to whether a GV category were created/maintained/populated. So you've either abandoned that argument or there is confusion somewhere. Postdlf (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is that members in a subcategory are not automatically included into the parent category. If we want buildings in Manhattan to also be buildings in NYC, we have to explicitly place them there. Same with people in GV. Finding GV related people in a People from GV is easy, finding them in People from Manhattan is extremely difficult. I'm not arguing to decrease the Manhattan category, rather I'm saying that if you want GV people to also be Manhattan people, then you need to explicitly include them there. Otherwise they are people from GV only, which is fine. In either case, GV will contain about 64 entries which make them extremely easy to find. If they were also contained in the Manhattan category, then they would be extremely difficult to find there, but that doesn't effect the GV category. It's an editorial decision whether to include those 64 people in Manhattan, or not. Or in any other parent category, such as NYC or NY State. I mentioned inclusion criteria for completeness, but yes, the criteria can be different, as each category has it's own separate description. For example, the criteria for Manhattan buildings could require American Institute of Architects listing, whereas the NYC buildings don't. Or vice versa. Or some other criteria like skyscraper height. The common inclusion criteria would be it's a "building". However, it really has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and this thread is becoming somewhat tangential. I don't believe I referred to splitting out GV people from Manhattan to decrease it's size, since only four GV members are currently in the Manhattan category. The large size of the Manhattan category is relevant to finding GV members only if there is no GV category, since then they would be lost among all the rest. Having a separate GV category has been argued for in this discussion with several strong arguments and reasons, one of which is WP readers ease in finding and navigating GV members. — Becksguy (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're operating under a few misconceptions about categories generally. Obviously an article is not physically listed in every parent category of every subcategory for which it has been tagged. But conceptually an article is nested and classified within that organization, such that we would not apply the tags for both Category:Buildings and structures in New York City and Category:Buildings and structures in Manhattan to the same article, because by definition to be in Manhattan is necessarily to be in New York City. That is why the Manhattan category is a subcategory of the NYC category; all of its members relate to the parent NYC category in the same way.
    • Your example about AIA listing is a poor one, because you're reading the problem of parent-child inclusion criteria in the wrong direction. All entries in a "AIA-listed buildings in Manhattan" category would still necessarily be included conceptually in "buildings in NYC" because being in Manhattan alone is enough to include them as being in NYC, regardless of the further specificity of being AIA-listed (in which case, there should be an additional parent category of "AIA-listed buildings" relating to that trait). But we couldn't place "Buildings in Manhattan" as a subcategory of a "AIA-listed buildings in NYC" category, because not all buildings in Manhattan are AIA-listed. Furthermore, a category's inclusion criteria should follow from the natural language of the category name itself; otherwise it is a poorly named and/or poorly conceived category. Criteria for Category:buildings and structures in Manhattan would not require an AIA listing unless the category were changed to Category:American Institute of Architects-listed buildings and structures in Manhattan. You can write descriptions on the category page that present elaborate inclusion criteria until you're blue in the face, but in practice what gets included in a category always depends on a broad application of how it is named, because the category name is the only thing that appears as the category tag on the included articles, and no one has to read the description to apply the category tag. This is clearly reflected in CFD discussions to rename categories so that they properly target or identify the articles that they are supposed to.
    • Anyway... So as Greenwich Village is, and only is, in Manhattan, to be "from" Greenwich Village is necessarily to be "from" Manhattan. And so the problem then arises for people who aren't only "from" GV, but who are also "from" other parts of Manhattan. This is a particular kind of overcategorization, where such specificity cannot encompass the whole of the typical entry's relationship to the broader category it subdivides. This either necessitates the creation of "people from" categories for all neighborhoods (and there are many comments above on why a neighborhood level to this "people from" categorization scheme is undesirable), or we must tag articles for such individuals with both the GV and Manhattan categories. Those of us opposing these categories don't want to see either alternative. Your only goal appears to be to segregate, for identification purposes, those who are "from" GV. A list would preserve that information while avoiding the systemic categorization problems. Postdlf (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the AIA criteria was a bad example. I was trying to show that since categories are independent nodes, loosely networked via hyperlinks, one could technically describe them as one wanted, regardless of parentage, since the software doesn't care. But that was overly general for here. Yes, conceptually the child-parent categories are connected with hyperlinks, but since the child members don't physically display as pages in the parent category, they aren't the same as being included in the parent so that the reader could see them. Anyway, I think we are arguing somewhat in circles and overly on categories in general. — Becksguy (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 4
[edit]

Getting back to this CfD, the deletion arguments are, in summary: (1) that these subcategories are over categorization, (2) that neighborhood residence is too transient, (3) that neighborhood boundaries are less precise than political subdivisions, (4) an issue of verifiability, and (5) that this subcategory would require all other neighborhood subcategories to be added. Following is a summary of the major keep points (If I forgot any, I will add):

  • The claim of over categorization, per WP:OC is, I believe, incorrect. That guideline explicitly allows categories as stated: Location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. People from Manhattan, as an example, has/or will have, over 550 notable people with a relationship to Manhattan and are alphabetized. That's clearly a large category needing subcategories. Yes, to be from GV is also to be from Manhattan in the real word. However, Manhattan is organized alphabetically and GV members can't be found that way.
  • The claim that neighborhood residence and connection is more transitory than boro, city, or other political subdivisions may, or may not be true, but it's just speculation without reliable sources and therefore original research. Anecdotal comments don't cut it, as one can always find those that support another side. I have a few on the keep side. It's also a fact that only the location of one's birth is fixed in place. Everything after that is, or could be, transitory.
  • The claim that neighborhood boundaries change is also not a valid opposition to these neighborhoods. Neighborhood boundaries may, or may not change, but again, without WP:RS, it's speculation and WP:OR. The official nyc.gov website lists neighborhoods by name as part of the community boards [1], which is an indication that they are sufficiently fixed for NYC governmental purposes.
  • The issue of individuals verifiability to be included is not a reason for deletion of categories, it's a reason for exercise of the normal editing process, per WP:DEL.
  • The claim that those form GV would be better served with a list ignores the issue of navigability, per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates and also the fact they aren't supposed to compete with each other. Without categories, there is no indication at the bottom of the article that this person is of GV interest vs much the more generic Manhattan or NYC interest categories, and therefore will not navigate to other GV persons.
  • The claim that these subcategories would require the creation of all other possible neighborhood subcategories is, after a voluminous discussion, still a mystery as to why they are needed. There is nothing that shows it's necessary, as categories are not hierarchical, per Wikipedia:Categories#Categories do not form a tree.
  • Many of the arguments against these subcategories are also arguments against all categories and/or People from X subcategories, and don't impact these two any more than others.
  • Finally, there are many keep arguments, which I will not repeat, from various editors, as to why these neighborhood subcategories are desirable, notable, and useful to readers, despite the arguments against. I believe the arguments for keeping prevail and there is no consensus to delete.

— Becksguy (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to Becksguy for this recap, which accurately summarizes the points that have been made in favor of retention of these categories. I would hope that we can at least agree that there are valid arguments to be made for retention of these two categories in full compliance with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I believe that the arguments to keep remain rooted in misinterpretations of various guidelines which have been more than adequately addressed. For example, that lists and categories can work together in no way requires that lists and categories must co-exist. That location may be used to subdivide large categories does not mean that every possible way to subdivide by location is reasonable. "Categories are not hierarchical" is a distortion of Wikipedia:CAT#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree, which states that "categories do not form a strict hierarchy." (emphasis added). Further the general guidelines clearly state that categories should be used with restraint because they become less effective the more there are of them and strongly imply that categories are hierarchical to a degree in their admonition not to house an article in both a parent cat and a subcat of that parent. I also believe that desirability is not the standard for categorization, that notability is not the standard used for categorization and that useful is also not the standard for categorization. GV members can be found alphabetically by creating a list of them and housing it in Category:People from Manhattan and said list may be linked in the articles for those notable GV residents. As for this suddenly-floated trial balloon of "original research," the same sort of sourcing that indicates that someone is a resident of GV also serves to determine if they are a notable resident of another NYC neighborhood so the notion that the transitory nature of neighborhood residence being somehow suspect is bollocks. After all of the sturm und drang from those wanting the categories kept, the basic and compelling arguments for deletion have simply not been answered. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single issue you have raised has been addressed and rebutted. The arguments that we have heard repeated over and over (and over) raise issues as to the structure of all categories in Wikipedia and the entire people from category structure, without offering any valid justification for why all other such categories should be retained and these two deleted. After all of the sturm und drang from those demanding that these categories be deleted, there has been no argument made supporting the claim that deletion is required under any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as many times as you trot out the dog about how this calls into question the entire People from category structure, the simple point still remains that flaws within the overall categorization scheme does not mean that a particularly egregiously flawed section of that scheme can't be addressed as they are discovered. And the pony about how nothing "requires" the deletion of these categories? In almost no instance is it "required" that a category be deleted, so setting the bar at "required" is arbitrary and unsupportable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close If we can't agree on keeping/deleting these categories, can we at least agree that this CfD has gone on long enough (almost 11 days), and it's unlikely anything really new will be said? I request that this deletion discussion be closed. — Becksguy (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I commented at the DRV, and still no one has explained how this cat helps navigation, how it's not already handled better by the list article, why the category is relevant for people who have only lived on Rivendale for a short time (aka, this is not like living on 10 Downing Street, Rivendale does not give notability for living on it), and how this cat is not described perfectly by applying WP:OVERCAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those objections have been more than adequately answered above. It should be fairly obvious that having a People from GV category at the bottom of a person's page will lead readers to others from GV. Lists don't do that unless you already know someone is from that neighborhood and go looking for it. I'm here because of Greenwich Village primarily, but the two categories are together. BTW, it's Riverdale. You could say the same about People from Manhattan (or a great many other places) in terms of conferring notability. And no, this is not a case of WP:OC as many neighborhoods in NYC are notable and have articles, especially GV, and there are notable people that have notable relationships with those neighborhoods. For example, Bob Dylan has both a strong residential and musical relationship with GV. Categorizing people by what house they live/lived in would be (unless it's Gracie Mansion maybe). — Becksguy (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, you keep saying things like "many neighborhoods in NYC are notable and have articles" as if notability has some relevance to categorization. Notability has nothing to do with categorization. If it did, every single article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own eponymous category. "Keep because the neighborhood is notable" is no argument at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You quoted me incompletely and therefore out of context, Otto. I referred to the intersections of notable neighborhoods, notable people, and notable relationships. Would you agree that Bob Dylan has such a relationship, as an example? However, per WP:CAT: Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category. And in many cases, that just might be the name of the article. — Becksguy (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the clearest, most concise, and the best common sense statement made here. It encapsulates the major keep argument so well. Thank you, Mr. Norton. — Becksguy (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "undercategorization"? Is it the notion that if the article is not in the most precisely defined possible subdivision of a parent category then it's not properly categorized? Seems like kind of nonsensical notion to me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the opposite of the overdramatized problem of "overcategorization", which is the notion that if the article is not in the most broadly-defined parent category possible then it's not properly categorized. Seems like a nonsensical notion to me. A balance needs to be struck and categories for well-defined areas within extremely large conurbations meets that definition. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations, you have successfully mis-stated the prupose of WP:OC as wrongly as I have ever seen it mis-stated. WP:OC simply means that not every fact in every article requires a category. The fact that a person lived in a particular neighborhood, an association that is in many if nothing more than transitory, is such a fact. Otto4711 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which specific clause (or clauses) of WP:OC do these two categories violate? Pick one or more of - 1) Non-defining or trivial characteristic, 2) Opinion about a question or issue, 3) Subjective inclusion criterion, 4) Arbitrary inclusion criterion, 5) Trivial intersection, 6) Intersection by location, 7) Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, 8) Narrow intersection, 9) Small with no potential for growth, 10) Mostly-overlapping categories, 11) Unrelated subjects with shared names, 12) Eponymous categories for people, 13) Candidates and nominees, 14) Award recipients, 15) Published list, 16) Venues by event or 17) Performers by performance? This WP:IDONTLIKEIT strategy is understandable (if arbitrary), but it's not a valid justification for deletion of anything in Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've explained over and over and over again, WP:OC itself is violated. The purpose of WP:OC is to help control the proliferation of unnecessary categories like these. As has also been explained repeatedly, the listed items at WP:OC are not an exhaustive list of all possible things that can be overcategorized. That is a list of those things around which consensus is firmly established. A category may still be overcategorization even if it doesn't exactly match one of those enumerated items and this continued pretense that it can't be is both intellectually dishonest and extremely tiresome of you. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we agree that despite all of the time and effort expended on assembling a list of 17 different groupings of categories that violate WP:OC, that there is not one defnition that would forbid the categories in question. There is absolutely nothing that states that a category for a neighborhood violates this guideline. If you can't point to any violation, it's time to agree that this is just your own personal bias and that there is no valid justification under any policy or guideline requiring deletion of these two categories. The fact that all we have here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT repeated ad nauseum some 30 times is both intellectually dishonest and extremely tiresome of you. Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you actually this obtuse or are you playing some sort of game? Or do you somehow think it's clever to misrepresent my words with this "so we agree" bullshit? I'm sorry that you are apparently unable to grasp the notion that the list at WP:OC is descriptive of the sorts of categories for which there is firm consensus and is not an exhaustive list of every single possible manner of overcategorization ever. Do you think that the list sprang into existence from nothing, full-formed as Athena from the brow of Zeus? Or perhaps does the list, as it says in the guideline which you are apparently unable to read from the beginning, merely reflect the consensus that has developed on the basis of CFD discussions? Your continued claims that the rationale of me and of other people objecting to this category is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is insulting. I could just as easily point to WP:ILIKEIT as your excuse for wanting these categories kept. And seriously, try coming up with your own material next time instead of just copying and pasting me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read both WP:CAT and WP:OCAT. I have read each of these guidelines dozens of times. I see that categorization by place of residence is a perfectly valid means of categorization. I see nothing that forbids it. I see nothing that draws a line between incorporated municipalities and well-defined neighborhoods in major cities. You read these same guidelines and come up with an interpretation that creating categories for people from is unacceptable if its for a neighborhood, and that this would constitute overcategorization. I don't see it. Plenty of other people don't see it. You're entitled to your personal opinion, but consensus here and at the two original CfDs is that these two categories are perfectly valid, not just because I think so, but because there are multiple other editors who read the same policies and feel the same way. I would hope that you would finally respect this difference of opinion. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do respect the difference of opinion. That that I respect the fact that you have a different opinion doesn't mean that I can't think that your opinion is 100% wrong. And sorry, but consensus at the original CFDs was not that these categories were "perfectly valid." The fact that an editorial pile-on got the correctly-decided CFD overturned doesn't make the outcome valid, perfectly or otherwise. Otto4711 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your opinion equally and oppositely 100% wrong, yet one more subject we can agree on. I would be sorry for the "editorial pile-on", which I guess means whatever happens when people disagree with what you have decided is correct, but otherwise is what we people on Wikipedia call "consensus". The consensus in the original CfDs -- despite your persistent objections -- was for retention, and it was this improper action that resulted in the consensus to overturn the original CfD results. I sincerely hope that an "invalid outcome" is not simply a case where consensus differs from your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break 5
[edit]
That's something I can agree completely with. Endorse. See my motion to close above. — Becksguy (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Important relative to the inhabitants" is not the standard for categorization. Pointing out a problem with another aspect of the People from categorization system, aka WP:WAX, doesn't justify the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a meaningful statement about the inhabitants is part of the standard of categorization. Pointing out that one of your complaints about a group of categories also applies to another group of categories that are being supported here is not WP:WAX, as that essay makes clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thomas Wolfe is an excellent example of the importance and the historical relevancy of this category...To say: Thomas Wolfe American novelists, Harvard University alumni, American writers, North Carolina writers, People from Asheville, North Carolina, People from the Triangle, North Carolina, is one thing; but to then add: People from Greenwich Village; lends an immediate further characterization to Wolfe's historical matrix: contacts, milieu and even his relevancy as a writer. The Village address completely changes our understanding of Wolfe...- lending specific, Bohemian, artistic, aesthetic meaning and understanding to the biography and his position as an American writer. The connotation adds meaning to the subject and to the article. Enough already! ......Modernist (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the job of the category system to add connotations to articles. Nor is everyone who ever lived in Greenwich Village necessarily "Bohemian" or "artistic. If being placed in this category is going to create that impression, it's another reason for the category to go. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the entire point. The job of the category system is to provide a means of grouping people by meaningful characteristics. User:Modernist and the majority of editors here see that a category of people from Greenwich Village (among other neighborhoods) groups those people who have resided there in a useful fashion as part of the entire people from structure. This is just one of the main reasons that these categories have to stay. If there are no legitimate policy issues requiring deletion of these categories -- and none has been offered yet -- it's high time that this CfD were closed to reflect the consensus already demonstrated at the previous CfDs. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the CFD should be claosed and the delete consensus implemented in the lack of any compelling response to the numerous issues that have been raised in that CFD and this one. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse me Otto, I didn't say everyone in or from the Village is a bohemian, I said the category adds additional meaning to understanding Thomas Wolfe, and the fact that he lived there and not in North Carolina all his life, and to several others who live and/or lived in Greenwich Village by choice, because IT IS AN HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT..place..that does connote valuable information..and meaning albeit differently to different people..This has become an exercise in absurdity...and I (yawn) realize you are simply playing the WP:IDON'TLIKEIT game again...ad infinitum... Modernist (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, thanks for that rousing assumption of good faith there, pal. Warms my heart it does. It is not the job of the category system to "connote" (I think you mean "denote" but either way) the sort of information you're saying it does about Wolfe. It is the job of his article to explain why his residency in GV is important to him, and it would also be a fine job for a list article as well. The category system is not designed to impart "meaning" to articles. All that a category says is that he lived in a certain place at some point in his life. It tells us nothing about why he lived there, or when, or when and why he left or if he left, what effect his living there had on him or what effect he had on the neighborhood. The category system is simply not capable of this function and indeed if the category leads to the sort of assumptions of additional "meaning" then the category is even more flawed. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm, hey pal - I can't believe what I just read - if a category says or means too much then it must be flawed.....hmm..really, and you make the rules..as well as interpret them. Denote or connote, doesn't matter a whole lot at this point, the game is - lets delete the categories. However Otto to give you the credit that you've earned - most of the time you use excellent judgment. This time we disagree..Modernist (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for the compliment about my judgment. I take it you typed it entirely with your left hand? I don't believe that I ever made any claim that I made the rules, beyond of course helping to form consensus on various Wikipedia issues, which I suppose is reasonably characterized as interpreting the rules. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All that a category says is that he lived in a certain place at some point in his life." This is what all people from categories do and exactly why these categories should be retained. I couldn't have said it any better. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of that I have no doubt. And considering that your and Modernist's argument from the start has been that the categories are justified, nay, mandated, because of the unique and special nature of the neighborhoods and their cultural history, I take it from your agreement that the categories don't impart anything about the uniqueness and specialness of the neighborhood or its history that you will retract your various arguments on that basis. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing two different arguments. I have repeatedly indicated that these categories for well-defined neighborhoods with numerous notables with properly sourced connections meet the exact definition of the purpose of categories. In your 47th (or is it 48th) attempt at rebutting all of the arguments posed by those in favor of retention, you may want to address our concurrence on the purpose of categories. Alansohn (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one appears to be arguing that the people in these categories don't have the concept of the category in common. The proper response to that is "so what?" For pretty much every category that gets listed here, its constituent articles have the concept of the category in common. What you seem constitutionally unable to grasp is that not every fact that two or more articles have in common serve as an appropriate basis for categorization. I have addressed your "concurrence" repeatedly by pointing this out to you. Perhaps I didn't point it out 47 times, but it's been more than once. Could you maybe clue me in as to the number of times you need to have this address of your concurrence pointed out to you before you acknowledge it? Not like I believe you'll ever accept it, but at least acknowledging it would be nice. Otto4711 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 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.

Category:Darkwave groups

[edit]
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: Rename. Doczilla STOMP! 06:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Darkwave groups to Category:Darkwave musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories of bands. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 23:19, 19 May 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.

Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates

[edit]
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: Delete - but how many times and how many different ways do we have to tell people not to empty categories before CfD is complete? Doczilla STOMP! 08:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates
Nominator's rationale: While the number of Wikipedia articles in this category was small, there are a large number of affiliates that could fall into this group. I instead broke this up into two categories, one is Category: University of Maryland, College Park research projects and the other is Category: University of Maryland, College Park research centers. I think these are more logical distinctions than the generic term affiliates, and both of these categories scale better if more articles are created. Jussen (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Gidonb about not pre-empting the discussion by removing the articles. There seems to be no general scheme of categorising 'Affiliates' of universities, but neither is there any general scheme for 'research projects' or 'research centers' (that I can find). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:16, 25 May 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.

Category:Queer studies

[edit]
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: Keep per consensus. -- Doczilla STOMP! 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Queer studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Queer studies.
Nominator's rationale: The term queer is derogatory. Skoojal (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt queer studies is a real phenomena, but not all phenomena have to have their own categories. Categories with offensive names must go. The queer studies article is a different question entirely. I don't think it needs to be deleted, because it doesn't look as though it's wikipedia endorsing the term queer. Skoojal (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So..."queer" is so overwhelmingly derogatory that it can't be in a category name, but its use in the name of a nationally televised series doesn't warrant the same vitriol? Interesting. Otto4711 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear about it: I don't like 'queer' because it suggests insanity. That's a good reason for not liking it. Are there terms that would be less derogatory? Yes, almost anything would be less derogatory. Gay or even homosexual would do. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging your point of view. I also acknowledge that is it not a neutral point of view. You are exposing an underlying agenda of promoting a cause in your reasoning. Please see: WP:POV. "Queer studies" is an accepted academic term that represents "the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." - Davodd (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why no one is responding to my point about how queer is offensive to most gay people? Just why do you think that what a small group of academics who do not represent most gay people and whose work may or may not be reliable thinks is what matters? Is this a conflict of interest thing? Skoojal (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that most of the gay people voicing opinion on this discussion are in support of keeping the name as is - as a reflection of what standard academics calls the field: Queer Studies. I'm sorry you find personal offense with the term, but Wikipedia is not censored to be non-offensive. Please see: WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." - Davodd (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that most of the gay people voicing opinion on this discussion do not represent gay people in general and that their views should not be what matters. Articles on wikipedia are not intended to be read primarily by academics; still less are they intended to be read primarily by academics who like calling themselves by a name that traditionally suggests insanity. I note that you have no comment on the conflict of interest question. Your point about offensiveness is not relevant - wikipedia policy specifically states that category names must not be derogatory. Queer is derogatory. Skoojal (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment. The POV article says, 'The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.' Note first that this applies to articles, not categories, second that it's contentious to claim that queer studies writers are, 'the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue', presumably homosexuality, and finally that that page is described as an essay, not policy or guidelines. Skoojal (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. Queer is a derogatory term and is understood that way by the large majority of gay people. That you may happen to like it is irrelevant; you cannot force other gay people to accept something that suggests insanity. So the reason given for deletion is correct. And while I note that this discussion is going against me thus far, I don't accept that this is a good reason for keeping queer. It violates the policy against derogatory terms in category names and should go. Skoojal (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stupid question, but I'll answer it. Yes, I am gay. I've made this clear a number of times. Skoojal (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well my gay brother, I'm sorry that you felt the need to answer my question by calling it "stupid," but to the best of my knowledge I've never seen nor heard of you before so I simply wanted to get a better idea of whether you were speaking from within the community or not. Can you please link to the specific "policy against derogatory terms" to which you are referring? Otto4711 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Wikipedia's policies, my sister-in-struggle, you really ought to be familiar with the difference between a policy and a guideline. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is not policy. It is a guideline. And nothing in that guideline appears to me to mandate the deletion of this category on the ground of "offensiveness." Perhaps you would be so kind as to copy and paste the section of that guideline that you believe forbids the use of "queer" in a category name? You might also wish to familiarize yourself with an actual Wikipedia policy, which trumps guidelines, and which has been linked here several times: Wikipedia is not censored. Otto4711 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that I wasn't your brother because I am not your relative and do not care for you. It was not a statement about my gender. Your use of the expression sister in struggle is sexist and gratuitously insulting. It is also implicitly homophobic. Granted that the page I mentioned is a guideline, it still provides good enough ground for deleting queer studies. This has nothing do with censorship. Skoojal (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, lighten up, Francis! For someone who's such an expert on what gay people do and think you would think you'd have some familiarity with genderplay. And, once again, girlfriend, would you please respond to the repeated requests that you quote the section of the guideline that you believe supports the deletion of this category? And then would you explain how that guideline trumps policy? Pretty please with sugar on top and a cherry? Otto4711 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not merely a "real phenomena" [sic], it happens to be a widely used term that designates a real academic field of study. There's no reason for Wikipedia to shy away from using correct and accurate terminology that is based on actual usage in the real world. Cgingold (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black people are sometimes called niggers. That is also actual usage in the real world. If that's not a valid reason for wikipedia having a category called 'nigger', and it isn't, then neither should there be a 'queer' category. Skoojal (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT - or whatever - would do just as well for arranging articles on gay subjects. Queer should not be used because it is offensive to average gay people. Speaking of the articles in this category, one of them is about conversion therapy. It is particularly inappropriate to have the word queer at the top of an article about how homosexuality has been treated as an illness. Skoojal (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point of clarification: The "world view" tag is there because the article comes up short on coverage of queer studies programs in other countries - not because of the name of the article.
  • The name is also US-centric. I don't know, but I doubt any UK or Australian universities call their courses this, All the examples cited below are American. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Queer studies is well established concept in the UK. I can't speak for Australia. As an editor of an academic journal on visual culture I can assure you that it's common. Here are some links to issues of UK journals that I happen to personally possess [2] [3]. Here's my colleague Jason listing his academic interests [4]. Paul B (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the personal liking for the term is interfering with some editors' perceptions of the modern neutral reality. The term queer is considered derogatory by the large majority of gay people. That is what matters - not what a tiny sect of academics thinks (a sect evidently over-represented among wikipedians). Skoojal (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: WP:POV. "Queer studies" is an accepted academic term that represents "the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." - Davodd (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to repeat yourself. Try considering your own POV issues. And how do you figure that what queer studies writers produce is reliable? Where is the proof of this? Skoojal (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:RS: Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy states that derogatory terms shall not be used in categories. Queer is derogatory, its use by a minority of academics notwithstanding. Skoojal (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policy does not state that derogatory terms shall not be used in category names. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and your insistence on clinging to this falsehood is, to say the least, puzzling. Wikipedia is not censored. That is policy, so if you want to change that policy take it up on the policy talk page and see how far you get. Otherwise, find a way to deal with the existence of this category under this name because it's pretty obvious from the discussion thus far that your nomination is going down flaming. Otto4711 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's generally accepted guidelines state that derogatory terms shall not be used in category names. That's good enough for me and should be good enough for any reasonable person. Why you think that this has something to do with censorship, I have no idea - unless you think that removing anything from wikipedia for any reason is 'censorship.' Skoojal (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote this "generally accepted guideline." Then explain how a guideline, which is a recommendation to editors and should be applied using common sense and allows for exceptions, is not trumped by WP:NOT#CENSORED. Your sole reason for nominating this category is that you find the word to be derogatory. This is not a valid reason for deletion based on bedrock Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:CHILLOUT, I've said my piece and am off to other projects. Additionally, I would like to thank you for having such a passion in your attempt to make Wikipedia better, even if I disagree with this one. - Davodd (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The term queer is considered derogatory by the large majority of gay people." I don't believe this to be the case. It's certainly true that "queer" was still widely considered derogatory 30 or more years ago, but things have changed greatly since then. I think this may to a degree be a generational issue. I know a goodly number of gay people of varying ages (not academics), and I think most of them would be puzzled by the assertion that the term "Queer studies" is beyond the pale. Cgingold (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'I don't believe' - that doesn't amount to an argument. Perhaps there are people who think the n-word isn't offensive these days? Skoojal (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an argument, it was part of an observation. It seems to me that the burden is on you to provide credible evidence to support your contention that, regardless of context, the term is so irredeemably offensive to a clear majority of LGBT people that Wikipedia would be obliged to avoid using it in any context whatsoever. Cgingold (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'It seems to me' is also not an argument. Denying that queer is usually considered derogatory is stupid. I appeal to administrators to remove this category regardless of consensus because that is the right thing to do. Skoojal (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread use in mainstream media! Extraordinary! There can't be a limit to the obvious falsehoods people will use an argument. There is no evidence of this and it is not true. Skoojal (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It shouldn't be made a sub-category. The term shouldn't be endorsed by wikipedia in any way. Skoojal (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Queer studies" and "queer theory" are perfectly legitimate academic terms and are quite widely used. The word is not derogative in this context. WjBscribe 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, sorry, I hope I don't appear as though I am "going after you" as that is really not my intention but I think the point you make about using the most common term needs to understand in the context of the subject. Queer theory is a very specific area of gender study that cannot simply be replaced with something else. The study of LGBT history or literature or film etc is not what Queer studies is all about. Having an LGBT category would just not suffice to explain what is meant. I hope the interview I have provided a link to goes someway towards explaining this. Take careIntesvensk (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course, but possibly rename to Category:LGBT studies if that name would be more internationally appropriate. -Sean Curtin (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep without a rename. Queer studies is, as many have said here, the name of an well accepted and established academic field of study, with departments named as such. The term queer and LGBTQ (with Q=Queer, and/or sometimes Questioning) is also seen outside of academia. For example, groups that use the word "queer" in LGBTQ centers here and this one, as well as many student support groups that use the word queer in their description or name, in universities such as: Arizona State U, Brown U, Colgate U, Connecticut College, U of Toronto (Canada), U of Chicago, U of NC, and so on. The New York Times (and others) report that the Venice Film Festival will be awarding a "Queer Lion" to the best gay themed movie [5]. In fact, queer comes up over 1200 times in a site search on The New York Times since 1981. Yes, queer is seen as derogatory by some members of the gay community, and as a re-claimed term of self-empowerment by others. I don't see where one can say that the majority of gay people are offended by the term without references that support that, and all I've seen so far seem to support the opposite. Ultimately, it is up to the gay or LGBTQ communities to decide for them selves how they wish to be called, not others, including well meaning others. — Becksguy (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this is your evidence, is it? A general reference to academic departments, which of course do not represent most gay people. A handful of student support groups, which also do not represent most gay people. One reference to a queer award from a film festival in the New York Times. Ridiculous. Please remember that not all gay people live in major urban areas, the places where the above mentioned things go on - they live in rural areas or small towns where queer is a deadly insult. Skoojal (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First of all, nobody denies that the word "queer" is still a very strong epithet in many settings. Secondly, let's be absolutely clear about something: nobody is proposing to use the word "queer" outside of this very specific context -- in other words, no serious editor would propose creating, for example, Category:Queer people. That would never fly. And lastly, the term "Queer studies" was most assuredly NOT invented by a Wiki editor: as has been referenced ad nauseum, it's a widely used name for real, functioning academic studies programs -- so in all fairness, any complaints should be aimed in that direction. If and when they decide to use a different term, the name of the category will undoubtedly be changed to reflect that. Cgingold (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That queer is a strong epithet in many (actually most) settings is why it is derogatory, a perfectly sufficient reason for removing it. There is no reason why there has to be a category called 'queer studies' (it could instead be called, for instance, gay studies, a term also used in academic studies programs). Skoojal (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not an academic in this field and even I have heard of the term and find it in no way offensive. AS for being US-centric, the term is found in both the UK and in Sweden too and in neither places is it offensive "to the majority of gays". It has a very specific meaning that would be lost by a rename to LGBT studies.Intesvensk (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reason for that is because Queer Studies forms a part of other subjects (for example English literature, history, sociology and especially something like gender studies) rather than being taught as a course in itself. If one searches google for queer studies modules then it can be seen that the subject is popular at many universities in the UK. Furthermore (for any one who speaks Swedish :) ) googling queerteori shows that it is a popular term there too. I was under the impression that "queer" had been "reclaimed" for the sole reason as to render it inoffensive. I would be interested to see evidence that the word still carries offensive overtones for so many people.Intesvensk (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use "" in your search (round "queer studies") and the hits fall dramatically; most seem to refer to books etc. I couldn't see any UK modules even actually using the term, though I haven't searched the lot of course. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search on some university websites for queer or queer theory and got hits: here, here, here, here, here, here and here I hope they provide some substance to the claim that "queer" is a pretty widely used term within British academia. If anyone would like further examples then I will be happy to find them.Intesvensk (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one, except the nominator, is saying it is not a widely used term. That does not mean it is the most commonly used term, which is what we should use for both category and article. I remain to be pursuaded that it is, in the US, let alone the UK. Only one of these would seem to lead to a certificate saying "Queer studies" to put on your wall. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is hard to get a certificate with Queer Studies to put up on your wall, but I'm not sure that is the point. The reason for this is that, as I said above, Queer studies forms a PART of other courses, which I think my links show. I am unsure as to why it has to be the most popular term. It is a category that is distinct from LGBT studies and is therefore required. I suppose I would be happy with it as a sub-category, but it definitely needs to exist by itself.Intesvensk (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not an authority on the subject, but my understanding is that there is, in fact, a distinction between "Queer studies" and the somewhat broader term, "LGBT studies", as suggested by Intesvensk. That's one of the reasons I suggested above that we should consider the possibility of keeping Category:Queer studies as a sub-cat of Category:LGBT studies. Cgingold (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if you had both, which of the current 13 articles would you put in the subcat? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here. A few days ago, the nominator changed a lot of the uses of "gay" at Conversion therapy to "homosexual" [6]. There was a brief flurry of reverting, reverting the reverts, and more reversion. The term "homosexual" is often considered derogatory, as I pointed out on the talk page Talk:Conversion_therapy#.22Gay_and_lesbian.22_vs._.22homosexual.22, with major media organizations recommending the term not be used and others conspicuously avoiding it. The nominators only rebuttal was that it was "not derogatory", no matter what they said. In that light, I have a suspicion there is a WP:POINT issue here, though I hope I'm just being overly suspicious. eaolson (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word 'homosexual' was first promoted by sex reformers who were supportive of gay rights, as properly informed people are aware. The word 'queer' as applied to gay people originally associated homosexuality with madness, and still does to most people. To think that homosexual is generally considered more derogatory than queer is laughable. Skoojal (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'll find that all this was true about thirty years ago but the meaning of words change. Today, the word "queer" is frequently used by those supportive of gay rights whilst homosexual is the preferred term of such groups as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America. Without wishing to appear harsh, it seems that you are the only person here that doesn't realise this. You appear to be confusing "queer" as used by someone who shouts it as an insult and "queer" as academia or gay rights organisations are using it. If you would like me to find you some examples then I will.Intesvensk (talk)
  • 'Those supportive of gay rights' - which organisations did you have in mind? What mainstream gay rights organisations are there that use the word 'queer' in their name or advocate calling gay people queers? GLAAD notes that, 'it is not universally accepted even within the LGBT community and should be avoided unless quoting someone who self-identifies that way http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/glossary.php.' That the word queer is generally taken as derogatory is what matters, not people's motives in trying to use it positively, which are at best confused. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not talking about calling people queer here. We are talking about using the term to describe a valid branch of academic study by people who either DO identify as queer or are discussing people or concepts so identified. Your link does not even back up your claim that the term is offensive to the majority of gays, merely noting that "it is not universally accepted". I doubt anyone here would disagree but that is not your claim. Anyway, as mentioned below Wikipedia is not censored so your proposal is not allied with Wikipedia policy.Intesvensk (talk)
Show why my proposal has anything to do with censorship or stop making this argument. If there is a generally accepted guideline which states that derogatory terms shall not be used in category names, why is removing such a term 'censorship'? Your other arguments are astonishingly dishonest - yes, 'queer studies' is about people who are 'identified as queer', but that includes gay people who are identified as queer against their will by the queer studies writers. Skoojal (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're reasoning for removing the category is because it is offensive to people. Things are not removed from Wikipedia because they are offensive to people. It really is that simple. You have to come up with a better argument than that. Please provide evidence that people are being identified as queer against their will. Queerness is fundamentally about self-identification. Intesvensk (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the generally accepted guideline is that derogatory terms shall not be used in category names, then removing a term because it is derogatory is correct. You offer no argument as to why this has anything to do with censorship. Keeping category terms with derogatory names may perhaps make sense in the case of queer theory, but not queer studies, which inappropriately includes the article on conversion therapy. Skoojal (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in this context it is NOT derogatory. I think this is the issue you aren't grasping. You are the only person who finds the term offensive in this context. Are we to delete Category:Fairies because it is derogatory towards gay people? Or are we to sensibly realise that, in this context, it is meant with no malice whatsoever? Intesvensk (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What determines whether a word is derogatory or not is its use in the general culture at large. It's a delusion to think that the term is somehow not derogatory because someone wants to attach a vague, purportedly positive meaning to it. In any event, even aside from its being a bad word, there's no reason why this category should exist anyway. Skoojal (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It matters not a whit whether some people think that "queer" is offensive or derogatory, because, sing it with me children, Wikipedia is not censored. I would also like a cite for the oft-asserted and rather bizarre notion that the word "queer" is associated with "madness." Queer makes no reference to any such association and I've not run across it in my extensive reading on the topic. Otto4711 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My proposal that wikipedia should follow its own generally accepted guidelines in this instance has nothing to do with censorship, a concept you appear not to understand. As for the use of queer, go educate yourself. Wikipedia is not an invariably reliable source. Skoojal (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either quote the specific section of this "generally accepted guideline that you keep prattling on about and explain how it trumps actual Wikipedia policy or shut up about it. You've said, what, a dozen times or more that there's a magickal guideline that forbids this category name but you have yet to quote the specific text of this guideline. I can only conclude that your unwillingness to do so means that there is no such guideline, that you made it up, that your nomination was made in bad faith and this CFD should be closed immediately. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is here [7]. You have done and can do nothing to show that it conflicts with wikipedia policy; obviously it wouldn't be there if it did. Sure, the guideline says that it allows for exceptions, but there's no reason why this should be one of them, because 'queer studies' is a pointless category. Skoojal (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The origin of the word is irrelevant. In the 1920s, gays started using the word "fairy", which is now derogatory. Yes, context matters. A bunch of rednecks driving by in their pickup shouting "Queer!" at you is entirely different than someone describing themselves as "genderqueer." There has been a deliberate and conscious effort over a period of years to reclaim the word "queer." As others have pointed out the specific and particular term "Queer studies" is the one actually used by the people in that field of study. We have an article on the United Negro College Fund, even though the word "Negro" isn't used anymore because that is the correct name for the organization. eaolson (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a difference. The behavior of the rednecks in your example is ugly, but I'd actually prefer to encouter that than to see people call themselves 'genderqueer', which is pathetic. Skoojal (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not opposing the existence of an academic branch of study based on your perception of what is pathetic? Or is it just that concept of genderqueer (I use the term genderfuck)? The empowerment of insulting terms was used most effectively by Mel Brooks in The Producers. Mr. Brooks wrote the worst play imaginable, and putting it on in front of an unsuspecting audience is one of the most enduring scenes of hilarity I have ever seen. "Springtime for Hitler" sung by goosestepping Nazis who dance Busby Berkeley-style while the audience stares slackjawed was Brooks' way of taking the hurt away from the identification of Nazis as the controllers of the fate of the Jews. He made it possible for people to laugh at Nazis instead of remembering them in fear. In a similar way, gay people use the word "queer" to alter its meaning so that it refers to a blend of sexuality and gender instead of the hurtful image of a circus freak. I take this to a whole new level off wiki and label myself every colorful euphamism I can think of. It works - the names I have been called are just words that I laugh at. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing abolishing the queer studies category both because it conflicts with wikipedia guidelines and because it is pointless. What is and isn't pathetic is another matter and I won't be drawn further into this digression. Skoojal (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see it where? Link please. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you might find [this] a useful resource. It is an interview with Sedgwick where she discusses some of the meanings of the word "queer" and how they are different from simply "gay" or "lesbian". It is for this reason that I think the category is necessary. In the same way that there are separate categories for Category:Hermeneutics and Category:Literary criticism there needs to be a separate category for Queer studies. IMHO.Intesvensk (talk)
I suggest reading Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet. See Introduction, p. xii, she defines it as 'a continuing moment, movement, motive – recurring, edifying, troublant. The word “queer” itself means across [...] English athwart.' See also Leo Bersani, Homo, p. 71... I think David Halperin and Lee Edelman also grapple with a definition... It is a widely used term. For an example of Queer Studies, see Marilee Lindemann's Willa Cather: Queering America - this is how the term is used in queer hermeneutics. I could go on and on but I suggest you read all those books and more, and take a Queer Studies course.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...first off, no it's not, unless you're using the word "contemporary" to mean something very different than what I understand the word to mean, and second it's been explained more than a few times that LGBT studies and Queer studies are not the same thing. Otto4711 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stated yes, explained no! Nor has anyone explained why we don't apparently need a category for LGBT studies, or if we do, how to divide up the current 13 articles here. Some have claimed QS is a subset of LGBTS, but not explained why we need the narrower category, but not the wider one. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me again. I would offer the main reason why we don't need an LGBT Studies category is that Category:LGBT already exists and covers anything that Category:LGBT Studies conceivably could. Personally I can't think of anything that the latter could incorporate that the former could not. Queer studies on the other hand is not LGBT and requires its own category.Intesvensk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as several people have said, context matters. Saying "John Doe is a big ol' queer" is very different from referring to the academic field of Queer studies. In that context, it is an accepted term, and is not at all derogatory. Aleta Sing 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aleta took the words right out of my queer mouth. APK yada yada 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep For all of the reasons already stated above. It's an accepted and perfectly legitimate academic and literary term, and I am certain the vast majority of LGBT people would join this big ol' queer in fighting to keep it. End of discussion. Skoojal needs to get a life and find another cause to champion, this one's utterly ridiculous.Textorus (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flaming Keep For obvious reasons, no since in me stating them again. And this should be snowball closed immediately. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 07:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and triple keep. The nominator should have identified what queer studies is before making this frankly silly CfD. Queer studies is a hugely well established academic phenomenon. The term "queer" was adoped precisely to differentiate it from "gay" or LGTB, sonce those terms are bey definition restrictive (however many letters you eventually add). "Queer" refers to the concept that human sexuality is inately strange and uncategorisable and may manifest in many paradoxical ways. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth raising the question though - do we really need two very similar categories "category:queer studies" and category:queer theory"? Paul B (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a current college student and member of my college LAMBDA Student Association, I can speak from personal experience when I say Queer Studies is a viable field of academic study. Although my college does not offer it yet, they are considering adding Queer Studies as a course. Queer Studies is used in a NPOV context nation wide to teach LGBT history in college courses which have implemented the program. Until the name of the academic field of study changes, it should have the same terminology on wikipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure Skoojal was in good faith when he started this topic, but some of his comments have become quite uncivil. I suggest he step back from this vote since he has clearly made his case and to stop belittling users and suggesting they're lying about something for voting keep. (ex: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22) I'm also trying to figure out how Otto can be homophobic? I want to be accused of homophobia so I can display one of the userboxes SatyrTN has. APK yada yada 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I retract some of my comments - especially the part about understanding wikipedia policies. But abolishing 'queer studies' is still the right thing to do, even though it's a guideline and not a policy I'm appealing to. And just so long as we are going to be commenting on each other's behavior, let me say that it's dumb to deny that calling a man a woman as an insult is a vulgar form of sexism, and that use of sexist insults against a gay man is by implication homophobic. Skoojal (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It appears that we have a WP:FANATIC disrupting things. This is an excellent example of the importance of staying cool. As is re-printed in WP:TIGER, a past posting on WikiEN-l is particularly pertinent:

Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.

But as the ancient Hebrews, say, This too shall pass. - Davodd (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without renaming, as per all above. Established and accepted academic branch of study. Neutral, not at all derogatory. And btw, queer and gay are not the same. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "Queer studies". Nominator's rationale is that "queer" is derogatory. In some contexts, it is, but not in this one. "Queer studies" is an accepted and widely used term in academia.--BelovedFreak 16:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - without a doubt - though, possibly, rename if there is a strong argument for 'queer studies' and 'queer theory' to be a global north or western-centric term. It is certainly not US, in response to those who don't expect it in the UK - see The Royal Geographical Society / Instiutute for British Geographers Space, Sexualities and Queer Working Group [8] and their use of the term queer geographies is common and accepted in academia (by queer geographers and other) [9]. However, I don't know of the term being used outside of UK/US/EU/AUS academia. More generally, rather than queer geographies, you'll hear the term Sexuality and space. There is some academic dispute between what should or should not be used. queer theory and queer studies are accepted and commonly used terms in academia. However, some argue that the 'queer' moniker delimits what the field is said to study (a limiting axis of straight / queer), and is discriminatory of studies of other sexualities. At least within academia, it's understood to be more than just 'lesbian and gay studies', in line with Sedgewick's use of the term noted above, and additonally, some argue, in keeping with the (still important) political process which 'reappropriates' the term. But until academics settle on a commonly used alternative term, queer studies is appropriate and accurate --Cooper-42 (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is what the field is called. The word "queer" in this context is not derogatory. The bigger issue is whether there are enough articles that belong in this category. Not counting the articles that got randomly thrown in here and seem to belong in some more general LGBT category, there are still enough relevant articles to justify the category. --Alynna (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Words have meanings. Innocent words can often be perverted for use as a derogatory term. "Bent" is an example of such - it's primary and correct usage is to suggest that something has been twisted or affected by bending, though has a minority derogatory usage which is improper and offensive. However, we aren't going to ban that word are we?
Queer in the context of queer studies refers to people or practices which are queered by society (and doesn't specifically refer to homosexuality, and in it's broadest form, isn't even limited to what's commonly accepted as LGBTQ,) which is a correct, non-offensive, non-prejudicial use of the word "queer" - it is used as distinct from a non-matching term such as "Strange or unusual people and behaviours according to society in general or at least large parts of it studies", which in itself, though not ideal, would not be entirely derogatory. In a comment above -- "The behavior of the rednecks in your example is ugly, but I'd actually prefer to encounter that than to see people call themselves 'genderqueer', which is pathetic." -- the nominator clearly displays predjudice by an implication that the idea people refering to themselves as in any way "queer" is pathetic - ...or in other words, a practice marginalised or queered. such behaviour or prejudice would thus in fact come under the umbrella of "queer studies". The nominators own words prove the correct usuage of the term. Crimsone (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best argument for abolishing the 'queer studies' category yet. The study of, 'people or practices which are queered by society' (apparently including conversion therapy?) is a hopelessly vague and ill-defined enterprise that does not deserve a category. Skoojal (talk) 06:42, 24 May 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.

Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players

[edit]
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: rename. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players to Category:Florida International Golden Panthers football players
Nominator's rationale: spell out initialism per convention and drop the word 'university' per convention for American university sportspeople cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 05:05, 19 May 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.

Category:Operating system remakes

[edit]
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: merge Category:Operating system remakes to Category:Operating systems. Even those in favour of it seem to agree that "clone" would be something of a neologism in this case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Operating system remakes to Category:Operating system clones
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The only ghits for this phrase are derived from the wiki (note the singular form has 0 ghits) and the use of the word "remake" to describe this type of OS software is obviously not in popular vernacular. It describes operating systems that have been built to be compatible with existing, well-known commercial operating systems. I am tempted to suggest Category:Reverse-engineered operating systems but I'm not sure if this would apply in every case, and it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the category was for an OS produced by reverse-engineering, or for an OS that has been reverse-engineered. Suggestions would be lovely. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:26, 19 May 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.

Category:Gaming operating systems

[edit]
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: delete. With one exception (Category:Game console operating systems), there is no need to upmerge. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gaming operating systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is basically an attempt to generalize Category:Game console operating systems, itself kind of a premature category because these operating systems are rarely notable when detached from the game console itself. Anyhow, the category in question includes three much broader categories, for DOS, Windows, and Linux (no Mac?), using the criteria that "many games are ported to these platforms", which is really just a narrow, domain-specific way of saying "a lot of software is made for these platforms" or "these platforms are popular". It is non-defining, as none of these operating systems are expressly for games, and what qualifies as "many games" is POV. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:58, 19 May 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.

Category:Location map templates Netherlands

[edit]
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: rename. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Location map templates Netherlands to Category:Netherlands location map templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All similar categories use the more grammatical form "Foo location map templates". Grutness...wha? 02:00, 19 May 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.

Category:People from São Carlos (city)

[edit]
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: rename Category:People from São Carlos (city) to Category:People from São Carlos. Unless São Carlos is somehow in need of disambiguation, there's no need to disambiguate the category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from São Carlos (city) to Category:People from São Carlos
Nominator's rationale: there are no states, counties, cantons, departments, provinces, etc. with this name and therefore the disambiguate "(city)" is wholly unnecessary Mayumashu (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this would mean working towards establishing precedent for every city to be followed by a country (Category:People from Paris, France, Category:People from Detroit, Michigan, United States a lot of extra wordiness and clutter - if you don t know where it is, typing it into search and pushing Go is easy enough Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now how exactly does a single added word equate to "a lot of extra wordiness and clutter"? And why on earth not spare all of our readers the bother of looking up each and every unfamiliar city they come across when we can easily provide that info in the category name? I have yet to receive a good, direct answer to that question. Cgingold (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and you would persume to know which cities are and which are not well-known? Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh???? What's that supposed to mean? More to the point, when is anybody going to answer the bottom-line question? Cgingold (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it to be determined which ones are and which ones are not in need of adding the name of the country? That is the answer to your "bottom-line question", as you put it. The only NPOV answer to my reply to your question is every single one, wouldn t you agree? Mayumashu (talk) 04:10, 19 May 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.

Category:My Gym Partner's a Monkey

[edit]
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: Delete. Doczilla STOMP! 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:My Gym Partner's a Monkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only holds two articles, seems a little redundant as it won't actually grow. treelo talk 00:43, 19 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_19&oldid=1140219247"