Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19

< March 18	March 20 >

March 19

Category:Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize winners

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#AWARD. Local prize, with notability not yet established. List of recipients included at Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize. Elekhh (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~on Different Grounds~~: Whatever the merit of the category, it's not actually being used.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, now that I read the article further, the category could be easily expanded with the list but is a municipal prize for contributions to a continent. I think that makes it unlikely to be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why is the fact that the award is given for contributions to a continent insufficiently defining? What are the criteria for categories of this nature? (They are not stated at "WP:OC#AWARD".) How is this category less defining than, say, "Category:Costume Designers Guild Award winners" or "Category:Thurber Prize for American Humor winners"? I think the category should be retained, not least as part of a continuing effort to avoid systemic bias. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – is this awarded at national level or at local level? It seems to be the latter, in which case I support the nom. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it is awarded to artists throughout Asia. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an award decided locally for a continental (Asian) accomplishment at least according to the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is the fact that an award is issued by a single country a criterion for not having a category? I can't seem to locate any guideline on this issue. If this is the main criterion, then will categories like "Category:Costume Designers Guild Award winners" and "Category:Thurber Prize for American Humor winners" (both USA-based, as far as I can tell) have to be deleted as well? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:20, 23 March 2011 (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:Stirling Prize laureates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD. The Prize is linked to a particular building by a British architect, not the architect in general, so the Stirling Prize article is much more informative. Elekhh (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "The award ... is considered to be the most prestigious architecture award in the United Kingdom" so I don't follow the rationale of the nom. Occuli (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced statement from the Wikipedia article. So is the Royal Gold Medal less prestigious? In any case, the rationale based on the nature of the award being "awarded to the architects of the building which has made the greatest contribution to British architecture in the past year." i.e. the architect is the recipient of the award for a building considered the best in a particular year. Thus the award is linked to a building and a year, not to the overall achievements of the architect. The article provides a full listing which is much more informative (as it links the award to the building) than the category. --Elekhh (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Booker Prize winners is linked to a year, a book and an author; Category:BRIT Award winners is linked to a year, a song or album, and its performer; I could go on. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned about the loss of use of categorization when ending up with five lines of categories attached to an article, and the limited use of this one in particular, when better information is available via the link to the Stirling Prize on the same article page. WP:OC#AWARD states "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". I thought that would apply here. Other examples do not change this. --Elekhh (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the award is based off a single building, I actually think it's definitely defining and notable enough to justify a category for the buildings. I'm not so sure about one for the architects though since it evaluates one of their buildings rather than the whole body of their work. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (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:Winners of the Nykredit Architecture Prize

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. per WP:OC#AWARD. Pretty useless with one article in it, as demonstrated by as few as 10 views per month. Elekhh (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "The Nykredit Architecture Prize is the largest Danish architecture prize" and add the other winners. The criterion is 'defining', not page views per month. Occuli (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Populate: This one seems designing as the dominant Danish award for architectural career. Can be easily populated with the list from the article.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2011 (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:Speakers of Klingon

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: upmerge to Category:Klingon languages. Category:Fictional speakers of Klingon is not tagged and thus not considered, but seems very likely to survive a request for deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This and its child category, Category:Fictional speakers of Klingon seem to be completely unnecessary categories that are more fancruft than encyclopaedic. ~~Do we have categories for other languages - Category:Speakers of English, Category:Speakers of French, Category:Speakers of German, etc?~~(struck out because I don't want to side-track the discussion.) AussieLegend (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: according to sources from Klingon there are only hundreds of fluent speakers worldwide, and I doubt most are notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The number of speakers of Klingon is discussed in every reference on Klingon that I have seen and is discussed by the article, so the contents of the category is notable. According to the article, Klingon is apparently the most widely spoken fictional (non-auxiliary) language, and the speaking of Klingon is mentioned as a (stereotypical) characterization device in many articles on contemporary popular culture. Of course, WP has categories for "English people", "French people", "German people", and even English statisticians, rather than speakers of English: Speaking English is rarely notable today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited so while the Klingon language is notable, that doesn't mean the category is notable. While there may be categories for "Foo people", there aren't "Speakers of Foo" categories. Your argument that "Speaking English is rarely notable today" is at odds with your reason for keeping these categories. ie "Klingon" is notable so "Speakers of Klingon" is notable vs "Speakers of English" is not notable even though English is notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with deleting Category:Welsh-speaking people, a language with 300 thousand speakers, not counting my correct lateral fricative pronunciation of "Llewellyn". Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That category isn't relevant to this discussion, although I note that the CfD resulted in numerous other similar categories being deleted.[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Category of Welsh-speakers is a category about notable members of a relatively small language community, and another counter-example to your (well stricken, now) statements about WP categories about speakers of languages (English, French, German).

It would be worth discussing whether this category should be a list, for example, on the talk page of the Klingon language.

"Fancruft" seems to go against WP:AGF. I speak no Klingon and was unaware of Klingon-speaking's notability (before an inspiration from (Saint) Elen of the Roads this week). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Category criteria, it would appear that speaking Klingon is important to the identity of persons of 3 (or more) WP articles, Lawrence M. Schoen of reality, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory, and Comic Book Guy of The Simpsons (whose Klingon use is part of his Trekkie characterization, documented by his thesis translating The Lord of the Rings into Klingon).^[1] ).

^ "Three Men and a Comic Book"

The centrality of Welsh-speaking to the identity of the WP persons was, imho, the primary reason Welsh was preserved and other languages deleted). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Fictional, Delete or Merge Main Cat: Kiefer Wolfowitz has reluctantly sold me on Category:Fictional speakers of Klingon; there do seem to be multiple characters who are partially defined by speaking Klingon. Whatever the hypothetical value of Category:Speakers of Klingon, it contains only 1 direct article so the Klingon categories should either be merged or the parent one deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world (sic.) linguist Marc Okrand is best known as the creator of Klingon, and is fluent in Klingon (but notes that others are more "fluent"). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 18:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument that this is defining for Okrand. (Actually, I think it's more defining that he ceated it than speaks it but close enough.) But, is speaking Klingon defining for any other real-world people? If it is, let's populate the cat and leave it.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're spot on suggesting that "it's more defining that he ceated it than speaks it". He has an article because of that but it's not necessary to include him in a trivial category. However, Sheldon Cooper is not defined by the fact that he speaks Klingon. He also plays XBox ganes and uses Linux. Do we include him in "Fictional XBox players" or "Fictional users of Linux"? Jean-Luc Picard obviously knows some Klingon but is it necessary to include him (or anyone else) in the category? Does Wil Wheaton (a real person who has a recurring role as a fictionalised version of himself in The Big Bang Theory) qualify for inclusion because he understood Sheldon Cooper when Sheldon spoke in Klingon? My point is that this is trivial categorisation and it is now becoming somewhat ridiculous. A check has revealed that the following tree now exists under "Speakers of Klingon":

Speakers of Klingon

Fictional speakers of Klingon

Klingons

Klingon languages

Speakers of Klingon

This makes all of these categories their own great-great grandfather. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Okrand and Shoen are better categorized as "linguists associated with Klingon" rather than as "Speakers of Klingon", the former being a subcategory of the latter. Thanks for the constructive criticism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klingons are no longer listed within "fictional speakers of Klingon", since some Klingon persons have been portrayed as being raised outside of Klingon culture, and ignorant of Klingon language. The current tree is therefore correctly depicted as:

Klingon languages

Speakers of Klingon

Fictional speakers of Klingon

Thanks again for constructive criticism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 17:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really makes no sense for Klingons not to be listed as "fictional speakers of Klingon". Excluding Kahless in particular is bound to start a war between the Federation and the empire. You'd better learn how to avoid a Bat'leth. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To exclude Klingons, you'd need to rename it to Category:Fictional non-Klingon speakers of Klingon. I dare you. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(The relation between speakers and a language is similar to the relation between dancers and a dance, which vexed Yeats: "How can you tell the dancer from the dance?" WP categorizes dancers within dance, btw; I did not dare to check on prancer, donner, etc.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (perhaps more for curiosity than anything else) Category:Middle-earth languages has no subcategories for Category:Speakers of Quenya or similar. LadyofShalott 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In another life, I might have had my curiosity raised by LOR. Indeed, Comic Book Guy would populate the intersection of the two languages! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Klingon languages The linguist category is not properly a child of this category, and without it, there's no need for the category. In any case the name is a problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly.... Can you think of any linguist highly associated with a language utterly lacking fluency in the language? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable, particularly in this case, is that they are linguists; the speaking is a side effect of that. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2011 (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:Television episodes by director

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 all - while the vote is even, Bearcat gave an explanation after which all the votes were to delete. It seems to me that the only reason for the "keep" votes is that they came before Bearcat's explanation. Note that this explanation was given over a month ago - plenty of time for anyone who still thinks they should be kept to react. The fact that the original nominator is a sockpuppet is clearly irrelevant once any other user votes to delete these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Television episodes by director

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nomination is based on the closure of this CFD. These are the remaining categories in the structure that's now largely dismantled. Lafe Smith (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Instead of closing this as a keep and relisting it, I'll take this nomination over. Either these all need to be deleted, or all of the ones that were deleted before need to be restored and repopulated. So a "keep" close will also result in the restoration of all those categories in the form of "Television episodes directed by (X)".--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep only 2 people made any comment on that CFD so can hardly be construed as a consensus to delete a whole category tree. Anyway if there is genuine consensus the articles should be merged to the equivalent Category:works by author. Tim! (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks. I don't mind being outvoted, but 1 comment and 1 question in the original conversation doesn't amount to a consensus.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining attribute to the TV show/episode in question and the person in the directors' chair. Lugnuts (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query – if we look at Night of the Dead Living (say), which appears to be a solid article not at risk at afd, it possesses various attributes in its infobox: "Directed by Michael Lehmann, Teleplay by Frank Pugliese, Story by Frank Pugliese, Tom Fontana, Cinematography by Wayne Ewing". Which of these are defining and why (or why not)? (I don't think the director is the author. Neither do I agree with the rationale of the related cfd.) Occuli (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet. Is this nomination still valid? OCNative (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Close as keep. Lugnuts (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the host of similar categories deleted in this CFD be reinstated, as the rationale collapses without Lafe Smith? Occuli (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They should be recreated, but with the standard name of "Television episodes directed by..." Lugnuts (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, there's no difference between this and "films directed by ---". Directors always place their unique marks on their work, so I feel the categories should stay to help people discover a director's work (many articles lack lists of which episodes they did). Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 15:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, and restore the category tree. The prior CFD was a joke, particularly when you scan the list of deleted categories and see how many were for episodes directed by highly notable film directors, while the one substantial deletion comment (by the sockpuppet, no less) had little to say beyond questioning whether you can tell one Star Trek actor's direction work from another. postdlf (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The previous CFD was actually a CFR. I hope that if those categories are restored that they are renamed to Television episodes directed by Foo. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the rename is a good suggestion and I don't foresee any objections to that. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, this nomination is now a choice between deletion of these categories or a restoration and renaming of the previously nominated categories to "Television episodes directed by (X)."--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this is contextually similar to the structure of the film directors tree. However, it's also true that a film director is often a famous person in his own right, for whom at least some of the film's audience is choosing to see the film because that particular director made it — whereas exceedingly few television directors ever reach that level of fame or audience recognition. With the possible exception of an Aspie or two, almost nobody ever seeks out television episodes by director instead of by series, and very few could even name more than four or five television directors if they tried. The only three in the above list I've ever heard of are Burrows, Abrams and Lynch — and (a) I'm a media geek who knows more television insider shit than most people, and (b) Lynch is a film director first and foremost, and for that matter he and Abrams are both cult auteurs who are known and followed much more for complete and total top-to-bottom creation and management and writing and "do everything but turn the TV on for you" showrunning of their TV projects than for individual episodes that they may have directed themselves. And for that matter, the power of a television director to leave his or her own creative stamp on the episode is far less than advertised; if they weren't involved in creating the show in the first place, then they typically have to subsume their own style into the show's established signature — the famous Joss Whedon episode of Glee, for instance, featured virtually no identifiably Whedonesque imprint whatsoever. Which is a long, convoluted way of saying that unless the show is an anthology or the director created it himself and consequently gets to set its creative terms, a television director doesn't define an individual episode the way a film director defines the film; the fact that Lynch created Twin Peaks defines the show's episodes far more than the fact that he directed some of them, but farmed others out to Duwayne Dunham or Caleb Deschanel or Diane Keaton. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Bearcat's excellent explanation of how the auteur theory does not apply to directors of episodes of television series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. I think he makes an excellent case for why these should not be kept. Clearly, with some limited exceptions, these are not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My original nomination was just for the name change, but I am convinced by the argument by Bearcat that these categories don't even need to exist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat's summary is masterful. I trust and agree with what he has said. Being a director of a television episode is not generally defining for the episode in the same way that it is often defining for films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 12 April 2011 (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:Caribbean Community (organization)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Caribbean Community (organization) to Category:Caribbean Community

Nominator's rationale: Removing disambiguation. I'm not aware of any other Caribbean Communities.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: I'm guessing the disambiguater was there because "Caribbean community" (lower case "c") means the part of several American cities I've lived in with a large population of Caribbean immigrants. I don't see this as confusing though and this would make the category match the main article.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2011 (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.

[1]