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 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.
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 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:Child prodigies
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.
There are three articles listing child prodigies. I think a category is better than a list, as the lists are rather arbitrary. There are quite a lot of articles about people who are only notable for being child prodigies. If we think the term is too subjective, shouldnt they all be deleted? It's hard to see why
Category:Fictional child prodigies is OK but this isnt.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support deletion as per nom. Impossible to meaningfully define, or to structure in any useful manner. There is already a category for
Category:Child musicians which just about makes sense. Of the articles listing child prodigies, I identify
List of child prodigies and
List of child music prodigies. Both of these are absolute shambles with no apparent criteria, no structure and poor citations (both in number of citations and quality of the citations that exist), and should imo be deleted themselves.--
Smerus (
talk)
22:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support delete because categories are more arbitrary and less subject to requests for sources than lists. Further, entries in lists can be discussed on their talk pages. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
01:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
No reason why it couldnt be structured by country. As it is we have articles which are categorised simply as People from Foo. The fact that it is hard to define has not stopped us having lots of other poorly defined categories - activists, for example. Even children are not clearly defined.
Rathfelder (
talk)
06:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I dont think its acceptable to have several hundred articles which claim the subjects are notable because they are child prodigies and refuse to put them in a category.
Rathfelder (
talk)
07:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
So these articles will go back into
Category:Giftedness. How is that an improvement? The real problem is with the articles, not with the category. This is a problem created by the earlier deletion of the category. Deleting it again is just sweeping it under the carpet.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
It was precisely because I didn't think that
Category:Giftedness was a place for biographies that I created the category. I entirely agree with all the points made above but I dont think deleting the category solves the problem. All the stuff about subjective assessments is still in all the articles, and the lack of a common category actually makes it harder for anyone to monitor it.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
By the way it would be helpful when someone checks if all people in this category are also in the list article before the category is going to be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think so. Some, (maybe many, i haven't a lifetime to check) are very doubtful 'prodigies' - e.g.
Fu Mingxia. It's all so subjective that the list articles should also be deleted.
List of child music prodigies is an ill-referenced, complete ragbag, with 'real' virtuosi mixed up with people who won TV contests, Asian and pop musicians mixed with classical EU musicians, the subheadings confused and inconsistent, and many notable classical names missing (Joachim, Alkan, etc.) None of this stuff is 'encyclopaedic' - just quasi-informational spam.--
Smerus (
talk)
07:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The lists are not nominated for deletion so there is nothing to wait for. Besides if the lists would be deleted at some point of time, the categories most certainly should.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
<Huge sigh> I dearly wish we could keep this category... But as has been amply pointed out, it is simply, entirely too subjective. If only there were a U.N. agency in charge of making such designations! Alas, we have no choice but to Delete this, and rely instead on the many subcategories for notable
children by occupation.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
15:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
WP has a clear, and sourced, definition of
child prodigy: 'A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer.' Kids who get into university early are not child prodigies by this definition. Nor are child actors, or most child musical performers.--
Smerus (
talk)
08:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
One of those sources talks about children who have "mastered a challenging skill at the level of an adult professional". I cant see how that excludes actors or musicians. Nor is talking about "meaningful output" a very objective measure. But it does appear to me that the term child prodigy, however unsatisfactory it may be, is widely used in reputable sources. And I dont see how we can leave such articles in the encyclopedia and deny them a category.
Rathfelder (
talk)
12:11, 7 May 2019 (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:Films featuring Howard the Duck
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.
Delete. We do not routinely categorize films by individual supporting or minor character who appears in them. There can be occasional exceptions for certain characters who are the core of the franchise, but we don't keep catting for every other character — Superman-franchise films are catted for Superman, for example, but not for Lois Lane or Perry White or Jimmy Olsen. The only one of these films that's
defined by the presence of Howard the Duck is the eponymous one, and a category for one film is not needed — the other three films don't belong in this category at all, because he's just a minor character in them and not the centre of their franchise.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:15, 6 May 2019 (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:Legal categories of people
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 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:National Museum of Dance Hall of Fame inductees
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.
Comment I have added enough reliable sources to the hall of fame article to close the notability issues and remove the templates. I'm going to ignore the things I disagree with such as
WP:OCAWARD, DELETE/LISTIFY, and say that I am on the fence with the hall of fame. It doesn't seem like a hall of fame that is very active. I am really waiting to see what the proposer has to say now that the notability issues are met, and the hall's inductee list has been located on the live site rather than on an archive link.
dawnleelynn(talk)17:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Right, however the
WP:DEFINING policy says that the characteristic is based on reliable sources so the subject now has them and the characteristic is based on the subject. If I am applying that correctly...
dawnleelynn(talk)01:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Dawnleelynn: Being verifiable, is certainly a pre-requisite to being defining. The
second section of WP:DEFINING on categorizing people clarifies that not everything should be categorized once someone becomes famous. For instance
Yul Brynner's baldness is verifiable--and that reference probalby dates me. (Actually, the
third section provides a much better overview of categories and CFD than I did!).
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I have actually been thinking about this one still. It is stated that many of the articles mention the award in the lead. However, I think that part of the
WP:DEFINING applies here. "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" Just because the induction is mentioned in most of the leads doesn't mean it is appropriate. I actually think it is not appropriate. I did a test case run through of some of the inductees. I did not see one that mentioned the induction in the lead. Most mentioned it at the end among other awards that were more notable, if they mentioned it all. I do not see this hall of fame induction as appropriate to mention in the lead therefore.
dawnleelynn(talk)22:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)reply
If there are "Good" quality articles by different editors that mention the award (or association) in the lede, that can be a sign that the subject matter experts consider the category defining. It's not a perfect standard because often there aren't many or any Good articles and what is there are dominated by one or two editors. (In this case, it doesn't work at all because an anonymous editor added the HOF to the ledes of all the articles and then quit Wikipedia.) Another sign of defining-ness is whether the award is the top one for that country or industry (no just the top HOF but the top award overall.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the explanation on the "Good" quality articles and the appropriateness of mentions in the Lead. I will definitely keep that in mind. Also, it is helpful to know what is the top award in the field. Where award means award or honor or hall or fame, etc. For example, the area where I do the most of my article creation, I do know what is the most prestigious honor. Thank a bunch!
dawnleelynn(talk)01:16, 7 May 2019 (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.
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 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.
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 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:Child prodigies
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.
There are three articles listing child prodigies. I think a category is better than a list, as the lists are rather arbitrary. There are quite a lot of articles about people who are only notable for being child prodigies. If we think the term is too subjective, shouldnt they all be deleted? It's hard to see why
Category:Fictional child prodigies is OK but this isnt.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support deletion as per nom. Impossible to meaningfully define, or to structure in any useful manner. There is already a category for
Category:Child musicians which just about makes sense. Of the articles listing child prodigies, I identify
List of child prodigies and
List of child music prodigies. Both of these are absolute shambles with no apparent criteria, no structure and poor citations (both in number of citations and quality of the citations that exist), and should imo be deleted themselves.--
Smerus (
talk)
22:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support delete because categories are more arbitrary and less subject to requests for sources than lists. Further, entries in lists can be discussed on their talk pages. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
01:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
No reason why it couldnt be structured by country. As it is we have articles which are categorised simply as People from Foo. The fact that it is hard to define has not stopped us having lots of other poorly defined categories - activists, for example. Even children are not clearly defined.
Rathfelder (
talk)
06:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I dont think its acceptable to have several hundred articles which claim the subjects are notable because they are child prodigies and refuse to put them in a category.
Rathfelder (
talk)
07:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
So these articles will go back into
Category:Giftedness. How is that an improvement? The real problem is with the articles, not with the category. This is a problem created by the earlier deletion of the category. Deleting it again is just sweeping it under the carpet.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
It was precisely because I didn't think that
Category:Giftedness was a place for biographies that I created the category. I entirely agree with all the points made above but I dont think deleting the category solves the problem. All the stuff about subjective assessments is still in all the articles, and the lack of a common category actually makes it harder for anyone to monitor it.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
By the way it would be helpful when someone checks if all people in this category are also in the list article before the category is going to be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think so. Some, (maybe many, i haven't a lifetime to check) are very doubtful 'prodigies' - e.g.
Fu Mingxia. It's all so subjective that the list articles should also be deleted.
List of child music prodigies is an ill-referenced, complete ragbag, with 'real' virtuosi mixed up with people who won TV contests, Asian and pop musicians mixed with classical EU musicians, the subheadings confused and inconsistent, and many notable classical names missing (Joachim, Alkan, etc.) None of this stuff is 'encyclopaedic' - just quasi-informational spam.--
Smerus (
talk)
07:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The lists are not nominated for deletion so there is nothing to wait for. Besides if the lists would be deleted at some point of time, the categories most certainly should.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
<Huge sigh> I dearly wish we could keep this category... But as has been amply pointed out, it is simply, entirely too subjective. If only there were a U.N. agency in charge of making such designations! Alas, we have no choice but to Delete this, and rely instead on the many subcategories for notable
children by occupation.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
15:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
WP has a clear, and sourced, definition of
child prodigy: 'A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer.' Kids who get into university early are not child prodigies by this definition. Nor are child actors, or most child musical performers.--
Smerus (
talk)
08:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
One of those sources talks about children who have "mastered a challenging skill at the level of an adult professional". I cant see how that excludes actors or musicians. Nor is talking about "meaningful output" a very objective measure. But it does appear to me that the term child prodigy, however unsatisfactory it may be, is widely used in reputable sources. And I dont see how we can leave such articles in the encyclopedia and deny them a category.
Rathfelder (
talk)
12:11, 7 May 2019 (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:Films featuring Howard the Duck
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.
Delete. We do not routinely categorize films by individual supporting or minor character who appears in them. There can be occasional exceptions for certain characters who are the core of the franchise, but we don't keep catting for every other character — Superman-franchise films are catted for Superman, for example, but not for Lois Lane or Perry White or Jimmy Olsen. The only one of these films that's
defined by the presence of Howard the Duck is the eponymous one, and a category for one film is not needed — the other three films don't belong in this category at all, because he's just a minor character in them and not the centre of their franchise.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:15, 6 May 2019 (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:Legal categories of people
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 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:National Museum of Dance Hall of Fame inductees
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.
Comment I have added enough reliable sources to the hall of fame article to close the notability issues and remove the templates. I'm going to ignore the things I disagree with such as
WP:OCAWARD, DELETE/LISTIFY, and say that I am on the fence with the hall of fame. It doesn't seem like a hall of fame that is very active. I am really waiting to see what the proposer has to say now that the notability issues are met, and the hall's inductee list has been located on the live site rather than on an archive link.
dawnleelynn(talk)17:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Right, however the
WP:DEFINING policy says that the characteristic is based on reliable sources so the subject now has them and the characteristic is based on the subject. If I am applying that correctly...
dawnleelynn(talk)01:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Dawnleelynn: Being verifiable, is certainly a pre-requisite to being defining. The
second section of WP:DEFINING on categorizing people clarifies that not everything should be categorized once someone becomes famous. For instance
Yul Brynner's baldness is verifiable--and that reference probalby dates me. (Actually, the
third section provides a much better overview of categories and CFD than I did!).
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I have actually been thinking about this one still. It is stated that many of the articles mention the award in the lead. However, I think that part of the
WP:DEFINING applies here. "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" Just because the induction is mentioned in most of the leads doesn't mean it is appropriate. I actually think it is not appropriate. I did a test case run through of some of the inductees. I did not see one that mentioned the induction in the lead. Most mentioned it at the end among other awards that were more notable, if they mentioned it all. I do not see this hall of fame induction as appropriate to mention in the lead therefore.
dawnleelynn(talk)22:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)reply
If there are "Good" quality articles by different editors that mention the award (or association) in the lede, that can be a sign that the subject matter experts consider the category defining. It's not a perfect standard because often there aren't many or any Good articles and what is there are dominated by one or two editors. (In this case, it doesn't work at all because an anonymous editor added the HOF to the ledes of all the articles and then quit Wikipedia.) Another sign of defining-ness is whether the award is the top one for that country or industry (no just the top HOF but the top award overall.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the explanation on the "Good" quality articles and the appropriateness of mentions in the Lead. I will definitely keep that in mind. Also, it is helpful to know what is the top award in the field. Where award means award or honor or hall or fame, etc. For example, the area where I do the most of my article creation, I do know what is the most prestigious honor. Thank a bunch!
dawnleelynn(talk)01:16, 7 May 2019 (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.