The Melancholy of POV Overcategorization
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Cult anime and manga (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Late Night Anime (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Otaku anime and manga (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete all: "Cult" status, as defined by this category, is "anime with large fanbases". Not only is this against the very definition of a "cult film", it is a nebulous and subjective thing to quantify, and is therefore a POV statement about the anime, and unsuitable for a category. "Otaku" suffers from a similar POV problem: who defines, in the category's view, an "eccentric" person or an "otaku"? What is an
otaku? The third category in this nomination, "Late Night Anime", also relies on a subjective view based on one country's time zone. What about shows such as Eureka Seven, which aired in the morning in Japan but on the late-night Adult Swim block in the United States?
- The creator of these categories,
Tokyo Manga909 (
talk ·
contribs), created these categories, among others, solely to overcategorize
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and
Lucky Star; while it may be possible to extend them to other shows, that would almost certainly be a subjective POV, unsuitable for Wikipedia. —
TangentCube,
Dialogues
23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mayors of the City of Miami
Category:Mayors of municipalities in Puerto Rico
Category:Leaders of cities in Hawaii
Category:Middle Ages in popular culture
Category:Fictional computer experts
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fictional computer experts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-defining characteristic for many of those included, also vague inclusion criteria. What constitutes an "expert"?
Otto4711
19:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:United States Law Firms cited for Misconduct
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
13:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:United States Law Firms cited for Misconduct (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category created for one law firm, it seems. Who is qualified to cite, anyway? Potential for abuse far outweighs any slight benefit this category may produce. --
Y
not?
19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep, who is qualified to cite is easy: a judge. And possibly the Bar.
David Boies's firm
Boies, Schiller & Flexner (which really should have an article) was recently charged with misconduct after a case in Florida, although I'm not sure what the outcome there was. But in any case, it's not that unusual for a firm to be charged, and possibly convicted. And I don't see the category as having any more potential for abuse than many other categories, e.g.
Category:murderers. My only qualm about the category is that since the subject is lawyers, it might be slightly safer to use a list, where references can be provided directly, and which is easier to police. But I'm not convinced that's sufficient reason to delete.
Xtifr
tälk
10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- good idea - like how rare this actually is for large firms.
Johnbod
13:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete, vague as to what "cited" and "misconduct" mean. This will inevitably be misused. To the extent it captures valid information, this should be explained and contextualized in article text. I would interpret being "cited for misconduct" to mean formal censure by a state bar, but the one firm presently included was only "cited" by a judge for a conflict of interest and censured only through disqualification from a particular case, which the judge explained would have resulted regardless of whether the firm deliberately or inadvertantly failed to disclose the conflict. The category seems agenda-based to me, like its only purpose is to stigmatize. Re: the comparison to
Category:Murderers, whether or not a person has murdered another is a rather defining quality of that person. Whether at least one attorney within a law firm did not comply with all rules of professional responsibility on at least one occasion is not a defining quality of that firm, and is definitely not uncommon.
Postdlf
14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete I agree "cited" and "misconduct" are loose terms. Are we talking about firms that have lost major malpractice suits, firms reprimanded by bar association disciplinary committees, or any firm which has ever had to pay any kind of court sanction for stuff as minor as going over the page limit on a brief?
Wl219
18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: as I tried to suggest above, I believe that "misconduct" is a formal charge, and thus should have no elements of ambiguity at all. Yes, it can be used informally, but so can "murder". On the other hand, it sounds like it's unclear whether the sole (so far) member of the category belongs there if one goes by a formal definition, so I dunno. My overall opinion of the category is unchanged, but could be swayed by domain experts.
Xtifr
tälk
22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete: Even if we were to assume that this category is conclusively and unambiguously: 1) well-defined; 2) correctly-applied 100% of the time pursuant to the known definition; and 3) appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place [none of which have been established so far, by the way], general audience readers (and even some lawyers, depending on the jurisdiction) simply will not know what this means absent thorough explanation in a stand-alone article or disclaimer. Therefore, it should be deleted on the basis of potential confusion alone.
- ... and that's ignoring the substantial "downsides" (as already indicated by
Postdlf and
Wl219). Misconduct can indeed encompass anything from criminal negligence to using the "F-word" during a trial or hearing. The probative value of this category is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. It should go.
dr.ef.tymac
00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Magnanime class ships of the line
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping.
Pascal.Tesson
23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Magnanime class ships of the line (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category created from an error in a source, there were no Magnanime class ships of the line. All articles in the category have been recategorised appropriately, and the category itself is now empty and can be deleted.
Benea
17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Currents within green politics
Category:Famous Leeds United fans
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Feature films (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The feature film artilce says they are usually from 90 to 210 minutes long. And when I read more I see that most movies could be classified as feature movies, so delete this already. (Yes, I'm still on a vacation, but I had feeling this has to go.)
TheBlazikenMaster
13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Oh, and I forgot my vote:
- Delete.
TheBlazikenMaster
13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, nearly a duplicate of
Category:Films, and it's subcategories. --
Prove It
(talk)
14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Lord Sesshomaru (
talk •
edits)
16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, scope is probably too broad to be of much use; the Films cat already has several categorizations which are more than ample (country, language, year, etc.).
Girolamo Savonarola
17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete category with arbitrary inclusion criteria.
Wryspy
07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per all except Wryspy
Johnbod
01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, most films we're going to have articles on are
feature films, so the better practice is to sub-categorize those that aren't, such as
Category:Television films and
Category:Direct-to-video films.
Postdlf
01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete not defining.
Carlossuarez46
16:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Yorke Peninsula, South Australia
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Yorke Peninsula, South Australia to
Category:Yorke Peninsula
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, To standardise the category name in line with other categories for
South Australian peninsulas such as
Category:Fleurieu Peninsula and
Category:Eyre Peninsula. The main article,
Yorke Peninsula does not appear to need the South Australia disambiguation and neither does the category.
Mattinbgn\
talk
13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment & Support what about
Category:Adelaide Hills, South Australia? Also its only the template
Template:Yorke Peninsula that is adding this cat so it will be easy to change. --
TheJosh
14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support the Yorke Peninsula rename, but not Adelaide Hills - there's also an Adelaide Hills in Nova Scotia.
Grutness...
wha?
23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support per nom. ::
maelgwn -
talk
10:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Coastal towns of Massachusetts
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was redirect.
the wub
"?!"
13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Propose redirecting or deleting
Category:Playstation 2 game covers to Category:PlayStation 2 game covers
Nominator's rationale: This category should redirected or deleted as there is already a category for PlayStation Games,
Category:PlayStation 2 game covers. The 's' in station is clearly a missed object.
Salavat
12:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:×××HOLiC characters
Category:Lifetime Television's Ban of certain episodes Fact Or Fiction
Category:Canadian hoteliers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was no consensus. After reviewing the situation and the votes, I believe Xtifr made a proposal that addressed some of the keep's concerns, and the following 2 users supported that proposal. I've decided to be bold and to adjust this closure from no consensus to merge per Xtifr. Also, this is a clear example of overcategorization, where the occupation is too specific (and only 4 individuals are in the category, and there isn't an exablished "..by nationality" parent cat). -
Andrew c
[talk]
23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Canadian hoteliers to
Category:Hoteliers
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - the parent
Category:Hoteliers is not so large as to warrant subdivision by nation.
Otto4711
05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge - per overcategorisation.
Onnaghar
talk !
ctrb
15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep,
Category:Canadian people is so large as to warrant subdivision by occupation.
Kappa
20:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Kappa. Even if it is unnecessary for
Category:Hoteliers, it is very valuable for
Category:Canadian people by occupation.
LeSnail
21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Canadian people by occupation has a
template:catdiffuse on it.
132.205.44.5
21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggestion one option that might solve everyone's complaints here is to merge to
Category:Hoteliers and to
Category:Canadian businesspeople.
Xtifr
tälk
10:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per Xtifr. Parent may be too large, but this was clearly poorly-thought.
Circeus
02:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per Xtifr.
Bearcat
21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Aya Hirano anime
Category:Female Race car drivers
Eponymous musician categories - M
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.
The result of the debate was delete all.
the wub
"?!"
13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories contains one or more (and in several cases none) of the subcats: albums; members; songs; along with the article for the band and in some cases a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Note that there are album or song articles in a couple of categories; they are double-catted in the parent and the subcat.
Otto4711
00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- You can also, if you desire, link the related categories directly. Anyway, in most cases, chronological organization (as provided by discographies) will be more interesting to most people than purely alphabetical listings of either songs or albums. And the use of templates for linking musician or musical group articles is also strongly encouraged.
Xtifr
tälk
01:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, this is all part of a firmly established precedent and guidelines hammered out as a compromise between the deletionist and inclusionist camps after long and contentious debate. The consensus and precedent has held up to deletion review, and hundreds of categories have been processed under these guidelines. No new arguments to counter the existing consensus have been offered. This is considered the basic minimum set of categories and articles that every musical artist should have, and therefore insufficient justification for an eponymous category, since eponymous categories are discouraged except in extraordinary cases. As I mentioned above, the use of templates (see
Category:Band templates) is strongly preferred for linking this sort of information, as it presents the information is a format that is generally much more useful to the average reader.
Xtifr
tälk
01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per nom & ample precedent.
Carlossuarez46
17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Animal video games