Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 00:44, 15 July 2004 (→[[:Category:Temple of the True Inner Light]]: Deleted empty category.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. While all categories listed here should be emptied and orphaned, this can't always be done for large categories.

  1. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page.
  2. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.

July 12

Category:Nirvana members and Category:Queens of the Stone Age members

These were both emptied a while ago, and the band-as-a-category is preferred to the members, I think. These two are just hanging around at this point, though. TOO 08:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, if people knew how to use categories, they might be worthwhile.. but there are more people putting things into "wrong" categories than correct ones so I've kinda given up on the idea. If people aren't able or willing to "fix" things up, then might as well delete these groups. (For people who came in late: Category:Musicians and its sub-groups should only contain musicians (people) - Kurt Cobain, Dave Grohl, Josh Homme etc. Category:Musical groups and its sub-groups should only contain bands and other musical groups - Nirvana, Queens of the Stone Age, etc.) -- Chuq 13:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chuq (except for the giving up on making categories useful part), particularly because of how subdivisions allow for easy cross-categorizing of all the subjects within a topic. With a base category for Nirvana, you could have a subcategory for "albums of Nirvana", which could cross-list to "albums by artist" or "grunge albums," for example—otherwise, In Utero would have to be tagged with all of those separately, and every time someone figured out a new way to structure information on musical albums, each individual article would have to be retagged instead of the category as a whole. Same would go for Nirvana members, Nirvana songs, etc., and the base category could be left for the main article and anything else about the band that couldn't otherwise be grouped. If we did categorization in this way, categorization would work wonders to identify an article and to link it to a network of related information without cluttering the articles with a flurry of often redundant tags. I think the best categories are precise ones that immediately tell you what something is and why you're reading an article about it before you actually read the article. Though many articles need multiple categories—Dave Grohl would be rightfully categorized under "members of Nirvana" and "members of Foo Fighters"—either category by itself tells you why he's notable in a way that simply tagging him with "Nirvana" couldn't (was he their roadie? was "Dave Grohl" the name of an album or a song?). Postdlf 19:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Postdlf has the idea :) I started with the Dave Grohl example (Nirvana, QotSA and Foo Fighters) members (also Australians would recognise Daniel Johns - Silverchair & The Dissociatives) because it was a good example of a person in multiple groups etc. and how it would all fit together. Obviously I didn't have time to do every member of every good, not even all the well known ones, but I thought people would catch on. I think the best thing to do would be to wait until we have an actual working function which generates a list of all sub-members of Category:People, and see how wrong it looks. -- Chuq 23:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 11

Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World

Well populated by User:MK, but should not exist on wikipedia -Stevertigo 19:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • This should be categorized based on occupation i.e. actors, athletes, musicians, etc.

This list is BS -- never heard of it.

  • Keep ONLY for list articles; delete all links to it in every individual article about the women. I think the fact that this category was just dumped at the base level of Category:People shows that it lacked forethought to begin with. It's a pretty worthless category to tag all of those articles with—as attractive as those women may be, FHM pretty much just included all the attractive women anyone was hearing about (whether living or dead!). I think Playmate of the Year would be a viable category to link an article to, because it's actually a notable recognition (and they only choose ONE per year instead of 100) that genuinely affects the person who gets it, rather than just a silly list that in all likelihood the person being listed never even heard about. If we kept all those articles linked to those categories, why not link articles to such lists as Category:E's top celebrity newsmakers, Category:Corporations listed by Lou Dobbs as "Outsourcing America"? It could get really stupid. If people want to make list articles of such things, fine, but don't marr hundreds of articles with these trivialities. Postdlf 21:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed: there's no reason for the lists not to exist, but there's also no reason to clutter up 100+ articles with unnecessary category tags. -Sean Curtin 22:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Obviously as the person who created this category I favor keeping it. I think it justifies its existence. There are almost 300 articles currently included in this category; so it's not insignificant. The women listed were not chosen arbitrarily by me or anyone else; selection in this category is based on a completely objective basis, the poll is conducted by a major magazine, and the women and their rankings are voted on by national polls. And while it's not the Nobel Prize, the poll does have recognition; any Google search will find hundreds of references to it. And while sex symbols may not be as serious a topic as some others, it is nonetheless a subject many people are interested in and are going to be looking for information about in this encyclopedia. MK 22:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand reservations about people ending up being in 50 categories but I think when things reach that stage some kind of presentational workaround will be implemented. --bodnotbod 22:36, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, things have "reached that stage": Larry Flint is filed under Category:Time Person of the Year, and Jim Bakker is a Hustler Asshole of the Month. I should go on; I seem to recall Marvel Comics for a while featured some of its writers, editors, etc like Ann Nocenti, Jim Shooter, Fabian Nicieza, and the irresistible Tom Orzechowski. Need I go on? -Stevertigo 05:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • No, you can stop making things up now. In fact, you should probably go back and delete all the fake articles you've made. Larry Flynt was never named Time Person of the Year. Nobody suggested making a category for Hustler Asshole of the Month. And I have no idea what your comments about Marvel Comics mean. This isn't a discussion about who's sexy and who's not. This isn't a discussion about whether people should be judged by their appearance. So could you please focus on the subject of this discussion. We're talking about a real magazine, a real poll which appears in that magazine, and real people that have been named in that poll. The only question that really is under dispute is whether or not the FHM annual 100 Sexiest Women poll is well enough known to justify an encyclopedia article.MK 07:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 'No, I think my taste is more important than yours is, and since there seems to be some consensus for one particular stupid POV category, then lets open up the Pandoras box.' It doesnt matter if its "well enough known"; I write for a magazine with a very small distribution (1 people), and who is to say that this doesnt qualify? Granted, Flynt was never a Category:Time Person of the Year, but maybe he was the "AVN Person of the Year," or the "Juggs Personality of the Decade" or whatever. Let the categories roll... IF we let FHM in, what about the other Men's magazines? Can you say that "FHM is better than ..."? PS: You seem to be taking this personally. It is not personal.This isnt to single yours out MK - I know youre new, and dont really understand how policy decisions come about, but Im making an example of the FHM category because it violates POV, in the way that its applied over a wide number of articles, and the fact that categorization is about limitation, not going all willy nilly. -Stevertigo 17:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I'm not taking any of this personal. I, along with the other people here, am just trying to have a reasonable dicussion about the issue before us. The only person that seems to be getting upset, quite frankly, is you. Nonetheless I appreciate the consideration you have shown me in the mistaken belief that I'm new here but I've been here for quite a while and made a few thousand edits; I think I've got the basics down. I'd also like to again ask you to please refrain from creating fake articles in an effort to illustrate your points. MK 09:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Legitimate with wide readership world-wide. - Tεxτurε 22:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I dont buy this. Hustler probably has just as many readers, but that doesnt mean we should have a Category:Hustler Asshole of the Month. How respond you TeXtUrE? -Stevertigo 05:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent point. Besides, the category can be kept to group such articles as FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 and all the other years...it simply trivializes the subjects and overstates the importance of this POLL to have every one listed by it categorized under it. Marge Simpson is included, btw, to give an indication of how serious this thing is. Postdlf 07:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we shorten the name anyway? Maybe Category:Sexy women, and it can be a Wikipedia version of the list - updated regularly. As soon as a wrinkle shows up: off the list! ;) -Stevertigo 00:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • So essentially it's just a proxy for "women that the most FHM readers find sexy"? It still hasn't been answered why it's valid to categorize subjects based on how other people perceive them. Should there be a category for "unpopular U.S. presidents"? Tell me why this is something each article should be tied to rather than just maintained in list articles displaying the results—why is it integral to Paula Zahn that FHM readers thought she was sexy? (and apparently more important to categorize than the fact that she's a newsanchor) Postdlf 02:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This kind of thinking (logical, reasoned, rational, sensible, fair, etc.) has no place in a discussion of SEXY. Only SEXY people can participate, and only SEXY people need worry about who is SEXY. Which counts me out. -Stevertigo 05:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well *I'm* SEXY, and I say nuke it. It is, by its very nature, a POV category. - UtherSRG 05:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually I'd say the opposite; it's completely NPOV. This isn't a list of sexy women; it's a list of women who were named in a specific poll. I even included a link to the original polls so readers can confirm the accuracy.MK 07:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep. Let's face it, there is a chance that people interested in one beautiful woman are interested in others too, and this category allows a neat cross-reference for that section of our readership. By defering the decision of who is most sexy to FHM, I am sure a fine arbiter of these things, we avoid POV problems. Pcb21| Pete 08:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This discussion is getting long and with a lot of responses injected into previous paragraphs, so I wanted to reclarify what this is about. This is about whether the category should be kept in its present state—whether the close to 300 articles on female actresses, news anchors, athletes, public figures, etc., should all have category tags on them labelling them as having been judged sexy by the readers of a particular men's magazine as expressed in a poll.
This is not about whether FHM is a notable magazine or not. This is not about whether there should be articles listing the FHM poll results. This is about whether this poll is significant enough in a description of these subjects so as to categorize them under it.
Think about what an average visitor to this site is going to think when they see one of these articles tagged in this way. The categories function to classify article subjects—they appear with an even greater claim of factuality and objectivity than the content of articles. A reader will think that wikipedia believes that being ranked in this poll is one of the most important things about these women, as if that were somehow integral to understanding them or a notable achievement. A reader may also think that wikipedia contributors are a rather immature lot of boys if one of the only ways that we know how to classify someone such as Paula Zahn or Lady Diana is that she was ranked sexy in a men's magazine once. Why not categorize articles about women based on their breast size? That's verifiable in many circumstances, and factual, and could also result in substantial numbers of articles in each category. But is it a sensible way to classify them? Is that what the subjects of these articles are about?
Considering also the number of annual, monthly, daily, polls and lists about everything in western culture, the floodgate concerns mentioned above are very real, and so categorizing any subject according to its ranking by someone else should be kept to a bare minimum, to the most prestigious awards directly given to individuals (such as the Nobel or Academy Award, or the Olympic Medal), to perhaps less prestigious awards or recognitions that the subject themselves sought out or is otherwise substantially connected to (such as Playmate of the Year or Miss America) such that knowing of the recognition is really integral to knowing about the subject, or only the most notable lists by notable institutions (such as, perhaps, the American Film Institute's one-time list of top 100 influential films). Anything less than this kind of scrutiny and we are classifying subjects by mere external trivialities and burying them in categories to the point of rendering categories all useless. Movie articles could be categorized based on Category:Movies Gene Shalit loved and thought were much better than Cats or Category:Subjects of behind-the-scenes features on E!, and articles on women could also be classified not only as to whether FHM readers judged them sexy, but under Category:Women labelled Feminazis by Rush Limbaugh—all of these totally factually verifiable, and all of these totally worthless, perhaps not as mentions within articles on Gene Shalt, E! or Rush Limbaugh, but worthless as classifications of the hapless subjects of these "recognitions."
I haven't seen real responses to any of the above arguments because the defenses of this category seem to focus on whether or not information about the poll should be on wikipedia in some form, which is not the issue. I think this debate cuts to the heart of the power that categories have in wikipedia, and the trash they could turn into (and turn articles into) if we don't use them properly. Trivial information can be buried at the bottom of an article, but trivial categories bury the article itself. Postdlf 19:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Postdlf for presenting one side of this issue in a rational manner. He (or she) also sent me a message asking me to respond to his (or her) post; I'll do so and present what I feel is the other side of the issue.
In my opinion, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. We shouldn't be judging whether a subject should be important; we should only be acknowleging whether it is important. To prejudge and censor out information according to some arbitrary set of standards would be the ultimate violation of our NPOV principle.
The subject of this list is, in general terms, women who are regarded as "sex symbols". Some people might be discomforted by that. But I think we all have to admit that the concept of "sex symbols" is a recognized part of human culture. We should acknowlege that part of the reason that people are interested in Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Hurley or Beyonce Knowles is because of their looks. To pretend otherwise would be to the type of self-censorship I described above.
Obviously there are some people who oppose any mention of sex in this encyclopedia. They equate any mention of sex as being the equivalent of pornography. (There were, for example, apparently people who argued in favor of deleting the Penis and Vagina articles.) But I think the majority realize that it's possible to provide information about a sexual subject without being obscene. And I think this category avoids any possible hint of pornography; it is after all just a list of names. There's no nude pictures or lurid stories or links to x-rated websites. It's just links to articles about famous people and an acknowlegment that those people are generally considered to be attractive. Anyone looking for pornography on the Internet is going to find much worse than this with ease.
Some people have argued that this category is POV. I'll admit if this category was just "Sex Symbols" or "Sexy Celebrities" or "Good Looking Women" or "Movie Stars I'd Like To Boink" it'd be easily open to POV accusations. But it's none of these things. I didn't pick who was put into this category. The criteria for being in this category are quite specific; if someone isn't named in one of the polls they don't belong in the category. I even provided links to the original lists so people can confirm the information. So this category is absolutely NPOV. If ten people each set out independently to compose this category, they'd each come up with the exact same names.
Others have argued against the original polls themselves. But I think these poll are as impartial as any such poll could be. The women on these polls were not chosen by a single individual or small group (with the already noted exception of one poll out of the fifteen). And despite what some posts have said, FHM is not an obscure magazine; it's one of the best-selling magazines in the world and is widely read. As I wrote before there are hundreds of references to this list that you'll find on a Google search. These polls of who is considered "sexy" were voted on in national surveys in the UK and US. The selection process was more open than the process used to select most major awards so why should we consider it biased in this particular instance?
The next issue is whether the category is necessary or if the original lists and articles should be enough. The reason I created the category was because I saw a need the lists didn't fill. The category is the only place which presents all of the relevant information on a single page in alphabetical order. Anyone trying to gather this same information from other articles would have to jump around from page to page and because the lists are ranked not listed alphabetically would have to search up and down each page for a specific name. I feel the category page organizes and summarizes the information in a concise and useful manner.
So to summarize my position: I think acknowleging that some women are regarded as sex symbols is legitimate information. I think the FHM polls are a comprehensive and impartial survey of who these women are. And I think this category is a useful way to present this information. MK 09:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Allowing this category is a slippery slope that ends in an article whose text is subsumed in the list of categories to which it belongs. I think that an article documenting the FHM lists is far more acceptable than a category. A category intrudes into the article, listing the information at the top in a prominent position. A single individual can fall into hundreds of categories if we so decide to create them. Should we have Category:Brunettes, Category:People with blue eyes, Category:People with a Q in their name, Category:People that have lived in Virginia, Category:People listed on any top 10 list, ad infinitum. No. These should be list articles, if they are compile here at all. A list article does not intrude into the articles which are the subject of those lists. Categories should not be used just so that an automatically sorted list can be created. The benefits of the sorting are outweighed by the intrusion of innumerable categories an article is placed into. Perhaps this intrusion can be minimized by creating a new set of articles such as Lists and Categories Paula Zahn is a member of, then listing those lists on that article, and adding that article to all of the appropriate categories you wish to create. - UtherSRG 21:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

June 30

June 28

Category:Norwegian languages

Category:Norwegian languages seems a typo for Category:Norwegian language (since it doesn't follow the model of Category:Danish language and Category:Swedish language), which I have created, since I wasn't able to rename the category with the 'move' feature. The category contained one article which I recategorised under the new category (but the typo category still lists the article for some reason). -- pne 14:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the Bokmal/Nyorsk issue. Secretlondon 23:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


June 27

(Don't know if it's the right place) Category:Left-Hand_Path and Category:Right-Hand_Path both seems useless to me. If they are to be kept, articles like Paganism should be only in Left-hand_path and not in Religions (the mother) but I'm not convinced that this would help visitors to find they way. I have a very bad connection (in China) and I'm not sure I can delete all this without asking, so I write my concerns here. gbog 04:59, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

  • I don't like the idea of dividing up religions in this way—it seems rather subjective, and I have serious doubts as to how legitimate these concepts are for purposes of academic classification. Perhaps I read the articles wrong, but it seems as if there would be some degree of moral opprobrium attached to being associated with the left-hand path. I would delete both categories. --Postdlf 17:11 27 June 2004 (UTC)
  • In favor of deletion - making this our way to classify religions makes the distinction seem more important and generally accepted than it actually is. - Andre Engels 10:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

June 20

Geneva Conventions, unnecessary subdivision of Category:Human rights instruments --Catherine | talk 04:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 19

June 16

Category:Monsters

Overly broad; previously included everything from Scylla to Rodan to Loch Ness Monster. -Sean Curtin 09:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't see the problem with this. I'm begining to see there are completely different philosophies involved. I think broad categories are a good thing, I don't like categories that are too narrow. My vote is to keep. --Woggly 11:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Category:People doesn't include Hercules or Sherlock Holmes; likewise, fictional monsters shouldn't be in the same category as mythological or cryptozoological ones. The latter two are already better covered by Category:Legendary creatures and Category:Cryptids, respectively. -Sean Curtin 11:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that mythological monsters and cryptozoological monsters are fictional ones. Compare to the article on fictional characters, which lists Darth Vader and Mr. Spock right next to Robin Hood and Odysseus. Legends and myths are subsets of fiction.
        • Things that are, or that have been, thought to actually exist shouldn't be categorized alongside things that are known works of fiction. Some people believe that Ogopogo is real, some people used to believe that Eros was real, but everybody knows that Batman is made-up. -Sean Curtin 02:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm sooo disappointed! I thought Batman was real! What do I do with this autograph I got now??? --ssd 04:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Sell it to some poor sap on eBay!  ;-) Has anyone considered leaving Monsters as a category of categories? Mike 05:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Category:Legendary creatures does not cover only monsters. A monster that is a legendary creature can have both categories applied. And there are also fictional legendary monsters such as the Great Beast of London in Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere where in the fiction it is a legendary, but still real, monster, that is real within the fiction.
    • Votes for/against deletion need to be signed to get counted. -Sean Curtin 17:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

June 12

Category:Berkshire County, Massachusetts

here
Template:Category:Berkshire County, Massachusetts

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=4645783"