Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28

[edit]

Category:Indian male presenters

[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:  Relisted again at 2014 JUN 23 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am sure that a similarly gendered category for TV presenters was deleted at CFD, but I can't find the discussion. I am neutral on this one for now, because I think that there is a case to be made that gender is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of this occupation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would say, personally, that gender is only a defining characteristic to be subcategorized separately, if there have been serious discussions about gender for this category, or if the distribution between the two genders is very skewed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we had categories for "Individual men" etc then category intersection (WP:CATSCAN) could generate a list of articles about Indian male presenters etc. Has this ever been seriously considered? Otherwise, we're going to continually be having these discussions at CFD. DexDor (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[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:Contents of websites

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, I have no idea what the inclusion criteria are supposed to be - this could be potentially infinite depending on our interpretation, since we have thousands of articles about things on the web. A lot of things are "contents of websites". Seems a bit of a hodgepodge for now, so I think we should just delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[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:Organizations opposed to women's suffrage

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with parent category Category:Anti-suffragism, lede article Anti-suffragism and Antisuffragist, and aligned with Category:Suffragists, Category:Anti-suffragists. There may have been many organizations that opposed women's suffrage but this wasn't defining for them - however being a member of the anti-suffragist movement was (indeed, most of these organizations in the category had a sole purpose which was to rally against suffrage.). better to use the term of art used at that time - which is anti-suffragism - instead of the more wishy-washy "opposed". Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[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: Christianity in the Roman Empire

[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: do not merge. Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world was not formally nominated in this discussion. If the nominator feels that progress was made here and a follow-up nomination proposing something different will be beneficial, the nominated category can be re-nominated (along with any others, such as Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories overlap almost entirely, because Ancient Christianity existed almost entirely within the Roman Empire. A more distinct subcategory within Ancient Christiantiy would be: Christianity outside the Roman Empire (though there's few articles that would fit in this subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—it can't be upmerged because Ancient Christianity isn't an immediate parent. Also Category:Ancient Christianity has a broader coverage than the Roman Empire. As you point out in your rationale the two are not synonymous and we have to allow somewhere in the structure for articles on Thomistic Christianity, which was well outside the bounds of the Empire. I'm more inclined to agree with the alternative proposal and wonder why the Greco-Roman world category was diffused to such a degree. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear, I'm not at all against having subcategories Thomistic, Armenian etc. Christianity within Ancient Christianity, on the contrary! The point is, exactly, that we should have distinct subcategories instead of subcategories that overlap largely with the (grand)parent.
On the side, I removed 'up' in upmerging, as it concerns a grandparent/grandchild relationship. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is part of a category structure that embraces all religions in the Empire: pagans, Jews, Christians. It is a useful sub-division within the Category:Ancient Christianity although I would support the creation of Category:Ancient Christianity outside the Roman Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all ancient Christianity occurred in the Roman Empire. For example, there is a tradition of early Christianity in India which was not part of the Roman Empire. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on both: I'm not at all against having a subcategory outside the Roman Empire, or separate categories on Thomistic, Armenian etc Christianity, on the contrary! But the mere existence of an inside Roman Empire category would suggest that 99% of the Ancient Christianity articles ought to be classified as Christianity under the Roman Empire category as well (or instead?). Hopefully you agree that it doesn't make sense to have two categories that are 99% overlapping. Especially so because there's already a pretty complex category tree under Ancient Christianity, it wouldn't be very meaningful to replicate all that in Christianity under the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solution?

  1. Execute my 'alternative proposal' above, so move the current articles in Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire to Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world. Christianity under the Roman Empire will then no longer have immediate articles.
  2. Redefine Christianity under the Roman Empire to become an immediate child of Ancient Christianity.
  3. Redefine the current child cats of Ancient Christianity to become child cats of Christianity under the Roman Empire instead. So for the time being the category Christianity under the Roman Empire will be the only content of Ancient Christianity.
  4. Anyone in the future who has articles of Ancient Christianity outside the Roman empire is free either to post the articles directly in Ancient Christianity, or to create a new subcategory in Ancient Christianity for that purpose.

How about this? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought we might reach a consensus more easily by the above solution. But the solution has also a important disadvantage, namely how would we deal with issues in Christian history that are mainly about the Roman Empire part of Christianity, but not entirely so? Many issues of the Christian church in the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th century also affected Christians in e.g. Armenia and Persia. Maybe we'd better forget about this compromise and simply discuss the merger again. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose getting rid of this category. I do not pay much attention to categories, maybe I don't understand how they are supposed to work, but I see nothing wrong with a category do with the relationship between the "pagan" authorities of the Roman empire and the early church. There are not many articles in this category, I wrote one of them and re-wrote others, they are almost all on my watch list and I would strongly oppose them being put into a category "Ancient Christianity", that is not what they are about.Smeat75 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions. Could you give an example of such an article? Could you comment on my earlier statement that Ancient Christianity and Christianity in the Roman Empire are 99% overlapping? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about History_of_late_ancient_Christianity#Outside_the_Roman_Empire?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Obiwankenobi, thanks for your answer. You're giving an example of the opposite, since this belongs to the other 1% (the non-overlapping part). About that, I repeat what I've said before: I'm not at all against having a subcategory outside the Roman Empire, or separate subcategories on Thomistic, Armenian etc Christianity, under Ancient Christianity, on the contrary! I'm only contesting the need for a subcategory inside the Roman Empire. Theoretically, nearly all articles under Ancient Christianity, including its complex categorization tree under it, could be duplicated to Christianity under the Roman Empire. But it would merely be duplication, not adding anything new. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Marcocapelle above. If you look at the articles in the category, you will see three articles about persecution of the early church by the Roman empire. I wrote one of them and re-wrote another and they are not about "Ancient Christianity". They are about "why did the Romans persecute early Christians, why did they think they were a threat, how much do we know about what exactly happened and how much of it is legend?" Then there are articles about the earliest references to Christians or Christ by "pagan" Roman writers, the provincial governor Pliny the Younger asking the emperor Trajan how to deal with Christians and the emperor's reply, the Roman senator Tacitus on Christian origins in his "Annals" and a couple of mentions in Suetonius. Once again, these articles are not about "Ancient Christianity", they are about Romans and Christians and how they conflicted. I can see why you say "early Christianity was only in the Roman empire so the category is redundant" and I am not saying I don't want it to be changed to something else, maybe "The pagan Roman empire and the early church" or something like that, but it would not be right to say those articles are about "ancient Christianity", the category name has to have "Roman empire" in it, they are at least as much to do with Roman history and Roman officialdom's attitude to early Christians as they are with Christianity.Smeat75 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, your point is clear. I would take it as you're saying that my alternative proposal, to merge Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire and Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world, is a more appropriate merge than the one I suggested at first. Earlier on in the discussion, Beeswaxcandle had this same opinion.

It seems like we have reached consensus on merging Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire and Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world while the further discussion is about the right name of the merged category. **This has been added afterwards as an editorial remark. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A question for a merge like that is what would be a better name, 'Christianity and the Greco-Roman world' or 'Christianity and the Roman Empire'. I don't have a firm opinion about either Greco-Roman world or Roman Empire, to be honest. But I would say that the conjunction 'and' in the category name is more consistent with category naming conventions than 'under', also because 'and' suggests it's about the relationship between two worlds (which is what you mean) while 'under' suggests it's about Christianity in itself in a certain time and place (which is the same as Ancient Christianity). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Christianity and the pagan Roman empire"? because of course eventually the Roman empire adopted Christianity as the state religion and these articles do not deal with that era.Smeat75 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'd say the shorter category name the better. Adding an adjective may lead to unnecessary confusion, like in this case: is it only about Christianity and the pagan religion, or is it also about Christianity and the Roman government? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the category being re-named "Christianity and the Roman Empire".Smeat75 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we have reached consensus on merging Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire into Category:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world and renaming it into [[:Category:Christianity and the Roman Empire]]. Just a procedural question, should I post a rename request separately, or is this discussion sufficient? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2014 (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:Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic example of WP:OC#PERF. Nymf (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2014 (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:Bollywood films of Kamal Haasan

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should there really be a category listing select films of an actor? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing this theme for other actors would lead to massive category clutter on film articles, and it fails WP:DEFINING more importantly. I suggest you explore adding the key bollywood films he was in to his article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In India, there any many states and different languages and have the regional film industries in alomsot every languages, but Hindi is the biggest market in Indian films and for a actor from regional states ( not north india), his/her dream is to do a film in Hindi. In this case, Kamal Hassan has achieved this feat doing many Hindi films as lead hero itself. His foray to Hindi is an inspring tale for all other regionl actors, so it will be always good to have this category active showing a list of his Hindi films. Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but inspiring tales are not a good reason to have a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (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:Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame inductees

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization per minor award. It is already listified at Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_23#Category:National_Polish-American_Sports_Hall_of_Fame_inductees for a similar discussion on these Hall of Fame type categories. Hoops gza (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate this one, but in general I would delete all "hall of fame" awards. By their very nature and definition, they are recognizing famous & notable people / things. Those famous / notable people & things are notable for the things they accomplished -- not for winning the Hall of Fame awards. Sometimes awards might establish or create notability (like the Nobel); other times they simply recognize already gained notability. Hall of Fame awards basically define themselves as recognizing already gained notability, and so I think they're category cruft. --Lquilter (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individuals are rarely defined by their awards (and I would argue this is typically extra true of hall of fame style awards, which are in general awarded to people who are already famous ... thus making it obvious that it's not the award that confers notability). The alternative proposed, that some subset would be included in this category rather than all the identifiable inductees, is not going to be a distinction that will be observable or policeable. --Lquilter (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for every reason I've elaborated in the discussion below.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm trying to be reasonable (and non-chauvinistic). Unlike the category below, which does include international inductees, it can reasonably be argued that this HoF is not Canada's highest music HoF honour for country musicians, given the existence of Category:Canadian Music Hall of Fame inductees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2014 (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:American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization per minor award. It is already listified at American Classical Music Hall of Fame. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_23#Category:National_Polish-American_Sports_Hall_of_Fame_inductees for a similar discussion on these Hall of Fame type categories. Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients appears to be the guideline that governs this nomination. It says: "... recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." I believe this award is very clearly a defining characteristic of the subjects categorized by it. These "creative professionals" depend on Wikipedia:ARTIST to demonstrate their own notability and rightful inclusion in Wikipedia. The criterion says that notability exists when the subject "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; making it a defining characteristic of their very notability! Categorizing subjects by such notable criteria increases accessibility of the content itself and strengthens the notability of its member articles in a clear and efficient manner which a back-link to a list article can not do. Anne F. Figy (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is worthy to note that the "American" designation is merely a geographic connotation of the hall's physical location and not a citizenship requirement of the inductees. The inductees are as eclectic an international mix as could otherwise be assembled. Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individuals are rarely defined by their awards (and I would argue this is typically extra true of hall of fame style awards, which are in general awarded to people who are already famous ... thus making it obvious that it's not the award that confers notability). ... As an example, no general biography of George Gershwin is going to start out, "George Gershwin, member of the American Classical Hall of Fame, was born in blah blah blah." Gershwin, Marian Anderson, Stravinsky, etc. -- none of these are defined by being members of this Hall of Fame. --Lquilter (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I just saw another entry in this category: Library of Congress Classification:Class M -- Music. I hope we can agree that having a "Hall of Fame Award" applied to a library classification system is not an intrinsic or defining feature of the classification system. I'm pretty sure that nobody in librarianship or music is going to describe LC "M" by its "Hall of Fame Award" winning status. --Lquilter (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you would post this just as I was about to begin adding links that belie your assertion, and it is interesting that the very first example which I randomly choose does so rather succinctly. Wikipedia:DEFINING says: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining." Notice the lead paragraph of two articles that "blah blah blah" were not written by such enlightened Wikipedians as "blah blah blah" you.—Erich Kunzel[1],[2]—Elliott Carter[3] I'll add more artists who are defined by this, until it becomes abundantly clear that no one gives a Funkadelic anyway.Anne F. Figy (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are two people who have it in their ledes does not mean that it is "defining" in general. Consider the Nobel Award, which is the classic example; pretty much everyone who wins it is introduced in speeches and in writing and in discussion as "X, a Nobel Award winner". Now consider, say, being given a local award for being the community's Big Brother/Sister of the Year; winners would be introduced that way in certain contexts, but not generally, and while some winners might hold this award dearest and be introduced that way, it wouldn't make the award "defining" for other winners. A national HOF in a major industry is somewhere between those two poles. But for any award we can look at the awardees, and see if they are generally "defined by" winning this award. HOFs are rarely if ever going to meet that standard, because the awardees were already famous for their other contributions, and the HOF designation recognizes existing notability/fame. This is especially true for HOFs that are posthumous, as many of them are. --Lquilter (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your position; and respectfully disagree. Soon, I will begin an RfC to discuss the "defining" clause which I unequivocally believe is misleading. The example of "lead worthy inclusion" is being misinterpreted; unto misapplication.
A person is defined by the "sum of their parts", not the "summary of their parts", and a thing that would be appropriate for mentioning in the lead should not be juxtaposed to mean "must in fact be mentioned". The lead is a summary, therefor it is impossible to suggest it is also the "all inclusive repository of a subjects defining characteristics".
For example: the lead might say "... subject A is nationally acclaimed, and internationally recognized for his work, having won 5 Grammy awards, including Best Classical Album, and the Nobel Peace Prize for something he did." Other "defining awards" are included in that summary, and do not become less "defining" because "creative editorial discretion" chose not to list them in "lead mention". If the "editors discretion" had instead "appropriately chosen" to say: "... subject A is an internationally recognized MacArthur Fellow and Kyoto Prize Laureate". The configuration of the second example does not cause his Grammies or Nobel Prize to become "non-defining".
The "rigid interpretation" of Wikipedia:DEFINING that has come to mean "must be stated in the lead" is plain wrong. And: "is not mentioned in the lead" does not translate to mean "would not be appropriate to mention in the lead", yet these are the very standards being enforced. Something has gone terribly awry, and good, hard, collaborative work is being "trampled". The situation "must be corrected"! I will be dedicating my focus, from here, on seeing to it.
It would be great to begin making amends right now, by correcting the unfounded decry of deletion, and suggesting we keep this category instead. Or at the very least, demonstrate a valid reason for why it should be deleted.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your enthusiasm for the topic is commendable, although I disagree with your conclusions. I might suggest that your RFC would have a greater likelihood of success if you spent some time at CFD becoming familiar with the various issues that we run into, that have led to the policies with which you disagree. Your option, of course. As for valid reasons why this category should be deleted, I'm comfortable standing by deletion, based on (a) the point that these categories are in no way defining of many of their members; and (b) even if I accept (solely for the sake of argument) that the category is defining for some of its members, it would be too hard to police a category that has a definitively membership criteria but only a subjective "defining" criteria. --Lquilter (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiasm is a descriptive anachronism when related to my current contributions. My enthusiasm was vanquished by this discussion; throughly eradicated. I am defending this category because I am defending the prospect of me being a useful editor here. And when I am throughly defeated, article coverage of classical music will revert to its condition prior to my arrival, as if I hadn't come at all. If I should then depart, exhausted from the thankless task, this record will be all that remains; as the sole testament that I even tried.
No, this is not enthusiasm at all, this is manic desperation; an obligatory penance for having come, and proof, in perpetuity, that I did. In parting, I'll leave you with some statistical truths of the research I've done.
There are 128 inductees in the American Classical Music Hall of Fame. All 128 inductees have a Wikipedia article and all 128 are now members of this category. As a result, Google now returns all of the 128 articles when "American Classical Music Hall of Fame" is searched. When this category is deleted, only 17 articles will return for the same configured search.
It belies reason that anyone professing to build this encyclopedia should call this appropriate; hampering the dissemination of our own content. It does not matter at all, in terms of search-ability, that all 128 articles are on the list article. Their presence on that list does absolutely nothing to affect the search index, or enhance the return of results. Unless our reader happens to find the list article, they will not find the content related to such a targeted search.
This is exactly why Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates says; precisely:

the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. (my emphasis). It also says: It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.

That advice appears to have been wasted on me; literally. For I did believe I'd done a useful thing; manipulating the search index through categorization to make it return 100% of our content, associated with ACMHoF inductees, instead of 13%; which it did, and apparently will again.
Lastly, if this is such an inappropriate category, why has it not been removed from any of the heavily watched articles where it was added; not one? It is not because of a phantom anomaly; that no one noticed the added category. Check the page view statistics and observe the traffic spikes right after I added the category. Some of it is undoubtedly the page's watchers, making sure I wasn't messing up the article. Also observe the increased daily average of views with the category in place; doing what categories do to increase article accessibility.
Who, of you here, will boldly go to an article and remove the category their self; risking a reversion from those same page watchers? And who, of you here, will be proud after seeing a reduction in traffic, that will occur, after the article is made less accessible?
How about Georg Solti for example; it has 72 watchers, spiked 20 views when the category was added, and settled to an average of 40 more views per day than before the categorization. Or try Jessye Norman's 37 watchers; it spiked 25 views when the category was added and now averages 50 more views each day than it did previously. Or use your own example; George Gershwin with 145 dedicated watchers; spiked 100 views when added, now averaging 110 additional views per day. I could do this for 125 more articles, but strongly suspect it won't even be read, and am nearly certain that it wouldn't sway the entrenched opposition even if it was.
If you do remove the category, ensure your edit summary says that it doesn't belong as a categorized attribute of the subject. I promise you this: if you were to remove it from all 128 articles, you won't be saying; as I do: not once were you reverted. And you won't be talking, only to me; anymore, about the category's usefulness. Prove me wrong on this, and I'll voluntarily push the delete button myself. Peace; out.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be disingenuous for anyone to suggest such a thing. Not only does the "CHOF" house and maintain the permanent display of classical music's history and the artifacts of its prestiges cadre of inductees, as the "RHOF" does for its genre, but the CHOF is also graced with a "National Artistic Council" and a "Professional Organization Advisory Council",[4] which the "RHOF" is not.
The assertion is that the CHOF inductees are so "famous" for their "amassed prestige" that CHOF induction is merely an inconsequential blip in the stream of their life. And that only a rambling fool would think a prominent mention of it was proper. Conversely, the implications are that rock artists are so much less refined that they would be likely to define RHOF induction as a "defining pinnacle".
Of course it's "hogwash"; for it elevates Wikipedia:DEFINING to a superseding role which it does not rightfully function as. And it completely disenfranchises the reader; who doesn't know that we've determined they will not foolishly search for content by a ridiculous characteristic like CHOF induction. And if they do, well they deserve to be hampered from reaching their target. The suggestions will carry the day, as they mock Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; leaving it barely recognizable in open discussion. Some categories should be deleted, this is not one, but it will be.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to infer a lot of commentary about rambling fools etc. I think instead it's simply that most of us who work with categories recognize that the vast, vast number of awards do not confer notability, but recognize it, and are therefore not defining; but this is admittedly an imperfect process, and some kinds of things develop fandoms that make them hard to work with in a rational and consistent way. In other words, I personally would delete the R&R HOF; but I haven't taken it to CFD because I don't have the bandwidth right now to handle it. If this category gets deleted, do feel free to nominate the R&R HOF for deletion on the grounds of consistency; I'll be happy to support.
As for your comments about search etc., the problem is that categories are not really as useful for search as you might think. Search produces a category page, but the items that are within that category are only visible when you click on that category. It's best to think of categories as a navigation tree, and one that functions only when very carefully pruned. To move away from the metaphor, one problem with categories is that they are very difficult to police -- you can't "watch" a category to make sure items stay in it or don't get put in it incorrectly; you can only watch the actual subject pages. From this feature flows a lot of the rules about why we are parsimonious with categories, and apply a strict "defining" standard. It's stricter than "notability", and it's a lot stricter than simply putting content in an article. I'd be happy to discuss this background with you off-discussion if you like, to avoid taking this particular discussion too off-topic.
--Lquilter (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moderating your tone as you have. It is easier to accept an unwanted outcome when the participants in a discussion are professionally courteous; as your last comment appeared to be. I acknowledge that I am not exempt from such standards of conduct, and apologize for my own condescension. For presuming an adversarial role. I'm not happy with myself at the moment and should have handled this better than I did. --Anne F. Figy (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing a potentially reasonable rationale for removing a category from an article with an imagined mandate to delete the category. Reliable sources mention this award, even when given posthumously, and I've shown examples where it is a lead worthy mention; other examples exist, but you declare three where it would be inappropriate. And you accept the infallibility of your own declarations. So of course you can not be mistaken.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I am neither confused nor infallible. (Nor do I believe that I have a mandate for deletion.) I would ask you to moderate your argumentative tone and start to apply the principles of WP:AGF. I can understand that, having created the category, you have strong views on this category, but those views do not justify the tone you have taken against several editors. I would also remind you that by "submitting your ideas to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them" (quoted from WP:OWN).

Now, with respect to your argument that some of the category members can stay and others should be removed: for an award category to be useful it has to be applied to all recipients on whom we have articles. Removing the three composers I used as examples (they were just the first three I clicked on at random) would not be true to the purpose of the category. At the same time, none of them are defined by being inducted into this particular hall of fame. So we're stuck unless there's a different mechanism of collecting the inductees together. Fortunately, there are other possibilities to using a category, such as a list or a nav-box. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that WP:DEFINING is sometimes applied at an individual article level, like for Category:Restaurant staff - some people are notable for having been waiters, and many others who were waiters are not DEFINED by this so the category isn't added. however, other times DEFINING is applied at a category level, meaning that once the category is accepted, everyone who fits the criterion is added. For example, if we decide Category:American novelists is a defining category of some large proportion of the potential members, everyone who is known as a novelist gets added, as long as it's defining for them. OTOH, Category:American women novelists is populated with 100% of women + american novelists - in other words, there isn't an additional article-level DEFINING test applied to see if you being a woman + being a novelist is defining, and if 99% of sources simply say "Julie is an american novelist" without mentioning your gender, you will still be added to the category. I feel like awards categories are similar - once the award category is accepted, it is added to ALL people who have received that award. As such, the bar to keep such a category is whether it would be DEFINING of the majority of the members.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the category that you are speaking of when you say: has another category? Thank you.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Per nom)...As the nominator wrote at the beginning of this deletion request: This is overcategorization per minor award. It is already listified at American Classical Music Hall of Fame. This is the category of which I am speaking. A list is considered a type of category. Fylbecatulous talk 15:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. But that's besides the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list is not the same thing as a category. Categories are multidirectional and so facilitate browsing from any entrance point, as well as faceted searching. See WP:CLN. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accept correction graciously. Even though I use HotCat and love categorising and have the above named CLN page watchlisted, the nuanced difference escaped me. I am striking my misguided text. However, my delete !vote still stands as per nom. I shant change it for all the tea in China. Fylbecatulous talk 21:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've obviously been all over the map on this today, and I apologize. I spent some more time researching whether I could find a single reliable source, an example of notable coverage, of international conductor Zubin Mehta being added to this Hall of Fame, and the answer is no. Now, I realize that Google News Archive search ain't what it used to be, but if this is a truly distinguishing top-level award, as claimed, there should be something. A Gsearch, Gnews and Gbook search for the terms "Zubin Mehta" and "Hall of Fame" yields better results for other regional Halls of Fame, unrelated terms -- but really nothing for this Hall. An award that truly meets WP:OC#AWARD would not have this problem -- even for someone of Mehta's stature, it would garner significant mentions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting comment from the widest possible cross-section of Wikipedia's editing community to determine if the programed elimination of Wikipedia's "Hall of Fame" categorization scheme is the genuine desired outcome that a consensus of thoughtful editors agree to assent. Currently there is polar disagreement where one pole states a belief that consensus already exists, and guidelines already "clearly define" an affirmation of the former question, and the other pole does not believe that consensus already exists, nor that existing guidelines define any such affirmation; challenging the prose as ambiguous The core guidelines this request seeks comment on are: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients and Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining characteristics.

!Voting to Delete or Keep the specific category being discussed is not required, nor is it disallowed. A "stand alone" Comment will enhance the discussion to an equal degree, and is no more or less welcome and appreciated. Thank you. --Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (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:Alone in the Dark series

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category duplication: main article is Alone in the Dark, and that article covers the entire series; there is no need for two seperate categories. The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_28&oldid=1074813663"