- 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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Muppet performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Muppet designers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Sesame Street Muppeteers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
:Nominator's rationale: Delete - per long-standing consensus against categorizing people based on the creative projects for which they perform. See recent deletion of Muppet writers category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A real group of people engaged in a notable project. Dew Kane (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:* That they are real people is not in question. That the Muppets are notable is not in question. Can you explain why these three categories should be treated as exceptions to Wikipedia:OC#Performers_by_performance, unlike the hundreds of similar categories that have been deleted? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This relates to a company rather than just a TV show or film. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:* Which is also not a basis we use for categorization. See this deletion done today as the latest in a years-long string of similar nominations. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:::* Of which one, possibly two, are reposts of previously deleted categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the Disney category as a whole, not the subcats. I would be okay with merger suggested below of Muppet and Sesame Street performers. Cjc13 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see both sides of this debate. Perhaps we should do an end-around and rename the first and third to Category:The Jim Henson Company puppeteers and the second to Category:The Jim Henson Company designers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Selinker (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Some muppets are owned by Disney, some by Henson's family and some by the CTW, so a rename along those lines might be difficult and not worth splitting them up (presuming a fair amount of crossover between the three companies by the same muppeteers). And besides, these would seem to be perfectly fine subcats of Category:Puppeteers and Category:Puppet designers. - jc37 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, can you explain why these should be treated as exceptions to the consensus against these categories that dates back some five years, including a half dozen for performers associated with the parent company Disney? The crux of the arguments seems to be "we can make these" and "but Muppets are different!"
- These aren't "Actors who performed Kermit the Frog". That could conceivab ly be deemed performer by performance. Instead, these are a type of puppeteer. I might compare it to a category on expressionistic painters, but I'm sure that that would start another tangent of how that doesn't apply to this situation. (I know I'm starting to feel like an old timer when I have the urge to note that I was the one who initially wrote WP:PERF - not that that means anything, of course.) But anyway, let's change the paradigm a bit, and return to the guideline directly. How does this category violate the ideals of WP:OC? Dumping these articles into some larger parent category? Would that "help our readers' navigation of the encyclopedia"? And if so, how? - jc37 08:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably keep - I don't buy how "per long-standing consensus against categorizing people based on the creative projects for which they perform" matches with the "writers" example, which clearly should have been deleted. We do categorize pro athletes by the projects (well, franchises!) for which they perform! That comment's not as askew as it looks. If pro athletes typically played for 30 franchises before retirement, we would stop categorizing them that way, but because of the way that career path works (they couldn't physically cope for that long!), we don't face that problem. Similarly we generally wouldn't categorize military personnel by regiment (they move around too much) or TV writers by show (also highly promiscuous, and often on the go with several at once!). Rather than quoting precedents blindly, let's actually think about why we have come up with those rules of thumb in the past: if it would simply be unworkable to apply that level of granularity in professional categorization, we don't do it. But puppeteers seem far closer to professional athletes to me, in the sense that their skills are highly specialized and they aren't going to be involved in an unreasonable number of projects. There just aren't sufficient puppet-based projects on TV to go round! And the Muppets aren't one-off or incidental to the careers of folk in these categories, I think that's obvious. The problem with the Muppet writers category is that it included people like Chevy Chase - particularly absurd, since this achievement wasn't noteworthy enough to even be mentioned in the article text! I am sure there is an argument for deletion that can be made, but the precedent stated is not convincingly applicable. TheGrappler (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:* The precedent stated is perfectly applicable, as evidenced by the hundreds of similarly deleted categories. Working a muppet on The Muppet Show or Sesame Street is exactly the same as performing on any other television series. There used to be categories for the actors appearing in every TV show from Alias to Zoey 101 and they were all deleted. This has been the consensus for over three years and it has repeatedly been reinforced through the continual deletion of every similar category created and re-created. The supposed lack of puppet roles on TV is not only irrelevant but untrue, as a cursory examination of the articles in the performers category shows that many of them have worked on a number of non-Muppet series. If someone wants to initiate a discussion on how athletes are categorized they are free to do so but puppeteers are not athletes. People who design Muppets are no different than people who do special effects for particular films or are otherwise involved as crew members, and all of the crew members by project categories were also deleted. And hey, Category:Muppet people was deleted too. Again this seems to be coming down to "but the Muppets are different!" Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument convinced me. The puppeteers category should stay, at least.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep #1, Delete #2, and Merge #3 into #1. The Muppets are more of a troupe than they are a "performance". I see the category being more akin to Category:Second City alumni or Category:Monty Python members than the examples listed above. -Dewelar (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Meets Criteria for Inclusion and Notability. It should also be noted that User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? is indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK. QuAzGaA 14:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All as the association of these individuals with the Muppets is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2010 (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.