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: Category has already been deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians involved in gay sex scandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems like a BLP nightmare category. The wording, "especially those whose political decisions actively oppose gay rights", pretty much says this is a revenge category. LadyofShalott 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (forgot how to format this stuff. pardon.) anyhow i suggest removing the last part instead of deleting the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.213.17 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — 70.36.213.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Category:Politicians involved in gay sex? wha? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Sex scandal figures" was deleted last year and so too was "Politcal sex scandal figures". This seems to just be a more specific iteration of those categories, so this should be deleted as re-creation of previously deleted material. Also delete because there's no non-subjective way of deciding when someone's private sex life becomes a "scandal". The word itself is loaded and categories that use the word are best reserved for articles that are explicitly titled "such-and-such scandal". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - The category itself is a subset of already existing category Political Sex Scandals. Although this entry includes BLPs, it also includes deceased people. The accepted category Political Sex Scandals itself contains a number of BLPs, one of which includes the Mark Foley Scandal, which is listed under this category. Although the above mentioned statement "especially those whose political decisions actively oppose gay rights" likely expresses the creator's impetus for creating the category, this does not mean that the category is a revenge category per se. Entries are added based on existence of evidence or admission. Suggest, at maximum, the removal of the offending quote. I am a contributor to this category. Ryanthompson (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the category to Category:Sex scandals only because it was the nearest fit. But it is quite imperfect because the category categorizes individuals, not articles named after/about sex scandals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it should probably be mentioned that Dan Savage mentioned this category on his blog this afternoon, so there may be a fair amount of attention paid to this CfD. (Just to be clear, Dan posted well before the cat was nominated.) - htonl (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - I'm the category creator. I admit it's inspired by the long-running joke at the expense of closeted Republicans on the part of Dan Savage and other bloggers, but I thought of it myself, so for the record it's not because of him. In any case, the category is not intended to be anything more than a marker for something that's already in BLP pages and simply not tagged in a way that makes them easy to find. I see it as a subset of the political scandal category, and I think inclusion in it should be punted to the same standards that already govern whether such information can be included in BLP pages to begin with (ETA: e.g. that it's about a public figure, salient to their role in public office, described as such in the media, etc).

As for the comment in the header, I'm okay with deleting it, but I would point out that when a politician who's pro gay rights gets caught being gay, it's not really a scandal because it's not news. It's only when someone goes against what they proclaim that it becomes scandal. Sai ¿?✍ 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETA2: I misparsed htonl's comment before as referring to Dan Savage's history of this running joke. I did email him the category page because I figured he'd find it amusing and his readers could help maintain it better, so the blog post referenced came about because of my action. Of course, standard caveats apply, i.e. I have no intention of it violating BLP standards or otherwise fucking with the wiki, but rather of merely crowdsourcing the maintenance of a potentially large category involved in breaking news. Sai ¿?✍ 01:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - The content is newsworthy, as evidenced by it's inclusion in major news outlets. Perhaps the category name should be more general (Politicians>Scandals or Scandals>Sex>Politicians) but the word "scandal" itself is not a problem. To engage in behavior contrary to public oaths or public statements made as a public figure is scandalous. This isn't a revenge category. A scandal page could as easily list politicians who speak harshly of corporate influence and then take large corporate campaign donations. Knappen ¿?✍ 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knappen (talk • contribs)

• — Knappen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• FWIW I think that that metacategory would be good. E.g. politicians > hypocritical politicians > sexually hypocritical politicians > politicians involved in (gay sex, abortion, ...) scandals. Sai ¿?✍ 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, no ... please do not go down the path of creating Category:Hypocritical politicians and the like. That type of category would be quite POV and would amount to a borderline attack page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• note: Good Ol'factory appears to've listed this for speedy deletion. In any case, there are now additional comments in favor of keeping the category listed on its talk page. Sai ¿?✍ 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page is becoming quite funny. All the comments are being made by anonymous or single-purpose accounts and they reveal users that appear to have no idea about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete BLP violations abound and created for identity politics reasons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just like last time. This page is being canvassed by gay rights advocate Dan Savage at his blog. It's purpose is not encyclopedic but, in fact, political. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete – a non-starter. Hopelessly POV category. Occuli (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to push a political campaign. Breaches WP:NPOV, and implies that 'gay sex scandals' are somehow more notable than heterosexual ones. What century are we in? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 7 September 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.

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 to People educated at (Schoolname). Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Rename Category:Former pupils by school in the Isle of Man and its sub-categories to one of the following options to bring consistency across the board:

Nominator's rationale: The Isle of Man has just one schools category but in a different format from its parent. It's best to standardise the two before more are created. All five main variants used across the wider schools tree are options. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename using the "People educated at (Schoolname)" option, per the neighbouring UK categories and recent consensus there. Occuli (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using the "All at "Former pupils of (Schoolname)", as Isle of Man is not part of the UK so can use separate terminology and the website uses "former pupils".[1] ("Former pupils" being the local equivalent to "Alumni") Cjc13 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "People educated at (Schoolname)". The Isle of Man is closest in geography and political status to the UK, so it makes sense to use the same format that has been used for the UK schools. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "People educated at (Schoolname)". The school also has an "Alumni Office" [2]. Other schools on the Isle of Man include Castle Rushen High School whose website uses "students" for its current charges [3] as does Queen Elizabeth II High School [4] and St Ninian's High School, Douglas [5]. With such a mix of terms in use it looks best to use the "People educated at" solution that sidesteps the problem as on the UK schools. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of "students" does not make "pupils" incorrect. These schools use both terms so either term would be correct on that basis. Cjc13 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In matters such as this, there is not necessarily a "correct" or "incorrect" format, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's just a matter of choosing a consistent form by consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 11 September 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.

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 to People educated at (Schoolname). Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Rename Category:Former pupils by school in Barbados and its sub-categories to one of the following options to bring consistency across the board:

Nominator's rationale: Barbados currently has only two schools categories but in different formats and it's best to standardise them before too many more are created. Of the five main variants used across the wider schools tree, Barbados currently uses two ("Former pupils of" and "People educated at"). Three others are heavily used elsewhere ("Alumni of", "Former students of" and "...alumni"). I've put up all five possibilities here, including the parent category. We should as standard whichever of these is best for Barbados. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "All at "People educated at (Schoolname)" for consistency in the absence of any clearer pointers. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "All at "People educated at (Schoolname)" per Timrollpickering. I am in favour of using throughout either 'Foo alumni' (as in the US ones), 'Alumni of foo' (a few countries), or 'People educated at Foo', and using exactly one format for each country. (Nothing including 'former', no mention of pupils, no mention of students.) Occuli (talk) 15:01, 9 September 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial designs of the Museum of Modern Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Similar to the discussion now taking place about motorcycles and the Guggenheim show, here we have an even more extreme example of where I believe WP:OC#PERF is, in a sense, being applied to objects. These industrial designs are not "of" MoMA in any sense other than they are or can be included in List of works in Museum of Modern Art Department of Architecture and Design. Museums around the world may exhibit industrial or everyday objects. These aren't unique to MoMA like the contents of the sibling Category:Paintings of the Museum of Modern Art: instead, the nominated category includes common products like Carousel slide projector. If every such object included in an exhibit somewhere was to be so categorized, the result would be utter chaos. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify per nom. This was raised at the British Museum GLAM project last year, in respect of prints, & it was agreed it was not appropriate to categorize multiple manufactured objects in many collections to each one, unless there was a very particular connection. I note some aviation museums categorize airplanes by a redirect of a serial number, a dubious practice imo, for much the same reasons. There might be exceptions for individually famous objects, prototypes, rare/unique survivals of locomotives or early planes etc, but none of these seem to fit that definition. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is disagreement over whether mass produced objects can be "art" or whether they belong in a "proper" museum or not. Institutions like the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, and the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum take the broad minded approach that mass produced products are as worthy as a traditional painting or sculpture. Conservative cultural critics dispute this. Both sides have quite valid points; neither is a fringe view. Therefore, Wikipedia should not discriminate in favor of one side by giving a special status to unique museum objects, and give a second class status to non-unique objects. Neutrality requires an even handed approach to this social, cultural and aesthetic disagreement. If the curator of a major institution has put something in their collection, Wikipedia editors should not second guess them based on what they like or don't like, or their own personal theories about what is "true art" or a "worthy" museum piece. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not at all the issue. No-one disputes that Rembrandt's Hundred Guilder Print is a major work of art, but we don't put in the "collection" categories of the many museums that own a copy (including the Smithsonian I expect), still less (re the other nom) categories relating to temporary exhibitions that have showed one. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MoMA's collection is permanent. Are you talking about The Art of the Motorcycle now? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

're the other nom' is a clue, I think. Occuli (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Johnbod, essentially for the same reasons I nominated the motorcycle show category. These types of categories should only be applied to items that are unique to the museums. Otherwise it's overcategorization of a generic item to an overly specific site and we can just list them in the list articles, as nominator says. I agree that massive overcategorizations and category clutter could result if we fully expanded this type of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of major museums in the world is finite, and growing smaller with the economy the way it is. Predicting "massive" overcategorization without supporting data is unpersuasive. Especially since Wikipedia already has robust notability criteria that prevent minor/fringe/non-notable institutions from spawning categories based on their collections. There just aren't that many Museums of Modern Art or Guggenheims in the world. If only there were. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a subjective judgment call as to what a "major" museum is. And why should the category system be limited to what any one claims is a "major" museum collection? Why not have a collections category for every notable museum? That would be "evenhanded" and neutral. Well, there are thousands of notable museums which have articles in WP. So if each one of those has a category for items in its collection, that's thousands and thousands of categories added to more articles, and non-unique items could receive dozens of category assignments. Limiting it to major museum collections is an obvious solution, but once that approach is adopted (and it seems to be the one that exists now), we begin to see further problems of applying subjective criteria. So either way of doing it with categories has problems, in my opinion, unless we are only categorizing items by museum when the item is unique. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing subjective opinions on museums and on art is why professional critics exist. Identifying quality sources and citing them faithfully is what we do at Wikipedia -- and we do it far better than trying to reach consensus on philosophy 101 questions like "what is art?"

If Wikipedia were to categorize all the objects in every major museum on Earth, it would be magnificent. It might never be complete, but the obvious place to start is at the very top, with the MoMA, the Smithsonian. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but we typically do not have categories to reflect the subjective views of critics. They are overwhelmingly dealt with in the list article format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be magnificent. The categories would keep growing and growing, and the articles will have a longer and longer list at the end of categories, which become so saturated that it becomes wordy and useless.Curb Chain (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree it would be bad if applied to non-unique items, which was my original point about potential massive category clutter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is simply not a defining characteristic of Gotham (typeface) or anything else: if it were, it would be mentioned in the article. Occuli (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Gotham (typeface) is incomplete. It's not a Featured Article, or even a Good Article. Not that being a FA is a guarantee that the article is complete. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A category has to follow from an essential fact underpinning the article, not from an external list. Occuli (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre notion. There are thousands of perfectly valid categories that contain articles that are woefully incomplete, badly written, or grossly misleading. That's isn't a reason to delete the category. If anything, an editor browsing Category:Industrial designs of the Museum of Modern Art might notice that some of the articles need to be improved, and might decide they're worth improving precisely because they were considered worth collecting by the MoMA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles would be improved by mentioning MoMA - it is a matter tangential to a typeface, or a Macintosh, or a VW Beetle. This is just a random and very motley collection. Occuli (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Because you don't like the MoMA industrial design collection. Many critics dislike it. Many others consider it a mark of great distinction. Hence the need for neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does "mark of great distinction" = defining? No, usually not. This is evident from the guideline, since WP:OC explicitly mentions that awards and distinctions and the like are not to be categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "defining characteristic" business stinks. There is no consensus on what "defining characteristic" means. Until "defining characteristic" itself has a good definition, perhaps it shouldn't be used as an all-purpose bludgeon. I say a mark of great distinction is plenty good enough to keep a category. And being added to the permanent collection of the MoMA is not an "award". That's like saying the Air and Space Museum "awarded" the Beechcraft King Air a place in their permanent collection. Nonsensical. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no all-purpose of one-size-fits-all definition that has consensus, but there certainly is a long history of consensus decisions being reached that certain specific things are or are not defining for a topic. One reason you might see it as an "all-purpose bludgeon" is because is most category discussions, there is broad consensus that it is the issue that matters. Thus, it's often the focus of the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a definition contradicts the claim that a consensus exists. It looks like a catch-22 to me. I'm told it's not a "defining characteristic". I provide citations showing it is a defining characteristic. Then I'm told those citations don't prove it's a defining characterisic. So I ask, "What citation would show it is a defining characteristic?" No answer: I know it when I see it maybe? There is a vast amount of commentary on the MoMA (and The Art of the Motorcycle) from major critics, and I think citations can be found to meet the "defining characteristic" standard. Yet every time I provide I citation, it gets rejected by somebody who claims that it's not it -- in their humble opinion. Lacking a definition, it's an impossible standard to meet, and an easy canard for an editor who just doesn't like a category. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus exists that it's not—it's not. If a consensus exists that it is—it is. Decisions go either way on this issue all the time, so I wouldn't call it an impossible standard to meet. It's possible you're just hold a minority view. It's far from a perfect system we're working under, but everyone does their best. But I think there must still be the "CFD-is-broken" ginger group out there somewhere that may still be looking for members; the lack of universal definition for "defining" was their main bugaboo, as I recall ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have 100% support from those in WikiProject Motorcycling who !voted. So I don't feel like a pariah. And I don't think CfD is broken. I do think that anyone who says "not a defining characteristic" has a burden to explain themselves, because it's not Wikipedia shorthand for a policy or guideline that has consensus behind it. Anyone is free to express that opinion, but the closing admin should only give it as much weight as the individual offers in the form of rational arguments and citations. It's not self-evident and so it cries out for supporting proof and argument. The only thing that's "broken" is the faulty assumption that you can say "not a defining characteristic" and expect the discussion to end there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has assumed that. The extended nature of discussions that have occurred with you makes that evident. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category contains random entries that have nothing to do with each other, except for that fact they appeared in the Museum of Modern Art.Curb Chain (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a partisan judgement on the quality of the Museum of Modern Art's collection. Once again, taking sides against the MoMA's aesthetic choices is a violation of WP:NPOV. If this were a fringe institution, it would make sense. But we're taking about one of the world's most important museums. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is not true.
2. This does not address my argument.
3. This museum is not one of the world's motmost important museum.Curb Chain (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Museum of Modern Art, in New York City, is known throughout the world for its matchless overview of art from 1880 to the present" World Book Online InfoFinder. World Book, 2011. Web. 8 Sept. 2011.
• "The MOMA assembled the greatest collection of modern at, 1880 to the present, in the world." The art museum as educator: a collection of studies as guides to practice and policy. Council on Museums and Education in the Visual Arts. Barbara Y. Newsom, Adele Z. Silver. University of California Press, 1978. 9780520032484
• "…the museum that houses the world's premier collection of modern art." Reimagining MoMA Perfect harmony of drama, understatement November 21, 2004. By Blair Kamin, Tribune architecture critic. Chicago Tribune.
• "MoMA is regarded as having perhaps the world's greatest permanent collection of Modern and contemporary art." The Nation; Long Wait for a MoMA Moment; Thousands line up for the eagerly anticipated reopening of the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan after a three-year renovation. Nov 21, 2004. Thomas S. Mulligan Los Angeles Times. A.24

Etc. You don't have to agree with these experts, but WP:NPOV means taking them seriously and giving them their due. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about the quality of this museum. In 2., I stated that you did nonot address my argument. My argument is that this category lists items of unrelated and disparate nature. Once again, you cited stuff, which is great for a notability argument, but not for a category argument.Curb Chain (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Considering MoMA's historic and central place in the recognition of industrial design for its artistic quality; the phrase "in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art" is de facto a badge of what is really the ***world's most important*** industrial design award, and should be evaluated on that basis.--Pharos (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note to closing admin: Pharos (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, they say themselves "The design collection comprises thousands of objects, ranging from appliances, furniture, and tableware to tools, textiles, sports cars—even a helicopter" [6]. They have 28,000 objects in that dept, though by no means all are manufactured products. That's just too wide. I don't think we categorize by any design awards anyway, do we? If this category was kept, it would be hard to refuse any other museum's collection. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Apple Design Award winners or Category:National Toy Hall of Fame inductees. Or, another example of mass produced, non-unique objects: Category:Books by award. There are thousands of book articles here, but naturally, they're broken down by sub-category, and sub-sub-category, making them manageable. If we did have 28,000 articles to go with the whole MoMA collection, we would have no choice but to categorize them somehow, and we would certainly break them into subcategories to make them manageable.

The argument that a category shouldn't exist because it has a lot of members is utterly backwards: the very fact that there is a large number of articles is precisely why the categorization tool is useful. Would we rather have a list with 28,000 lines? Who could use such a list? It's also rather moot -- since we don't have any where near 28,000 articles for this category, then what is the urgent problem being solved now? If some day the category did hold "too many" articles and sub-categorizing them was impossible for some reason (I have no idea what that reason could be) then nominate it for deletion again. Not because it hypothetically could have too many articles, but because it does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the potential proliferation of categories being applied to single articles that is also a concern, not merely the potential proliferation of articles in single categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos, that's just your opinion, and I agree with Johnbod that any other museum has as much credibility.Curb Chain (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly say that, & wouldn't want to in a broad sense, but we can't restrict a type of category only to "top" museums. Also, MOMA is not quite the leader it seems to think here, as the V&A in London has been collecting design since it was founded in the mid-19th century, indeed was largely founded to do so. The Kunstgewerbe Museum in Berlin is I think similar, and so on. MOMA only leads the pack in the US, & no doubt there are some arguments about that. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, such categories are arbitrary and use subjective inclusion criteria.Curb Chain (talk) 12:26, 13 September 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mixtape albums by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: See below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 6 September 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mixtape albums by artist nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: See below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 6 September 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mixtape albums by date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This scheme doesn't require diffusion. If this is deleted, the subcategories (at least one of which is empty) can be speedily deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Can you explain why it doesn't require diffusion? The only reason these categories are underpopulated is because most instances of such albums are misclassified as compilations, and the few I have fixed have been removed from said categories without explanation. Just the FabricLive albums gives you about 60 such pages.Gnu andrew (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Because there are only 228 entries (right now.) That's the whole point of diffusion: it's only mandated by huge category schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Yeah, I guess I see this as a *potential* huge category scheme. But they can go for now.

• Delete. Agree with rationale of nominator. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:48, 9 September 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying to Category:Suicides of persons who were cyber-bullied

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to remove the assertion of cause-and-effect between the bullying and the suicide, which has been questioned by some recent reliable sources, and has implications for WP:BDP. Per discussion at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi#Category name. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - rationale is reasonable. LadyofShalott 03:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename We well never know for certain if the dead person killed themself due to their cyberbulling, as the dead don't talk.Curb Chain (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – People seem unduly patient with this impossible category. Category:Suicides due to bullying is not much better. There is no need for categories to be so specific - and there is also confusion about whether this is a people category or for articles about suicide. Tyler Clementi was a student who committed suicide by jumping off somewhere in NY - this yields Category:College students who committed suicide, Category:Suicides by jumping from a height, Category:Suicides in New York ... already too many and too specific. (The standard one would be Category:Suicides by nationality, which is missing.) Occuli (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal is not to delete, but to rename. There is no confusion: the category is used for articles about suicides (events), not for biography pages. If you want to delete some of the other categories, such as by location or method of suicide, you can make those nominations separately. But you have not made a case that this category is more in need of deletion than the others, just a matter of convenience based on the existing discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFF. In reality, this category (more so than the others you mention) actually deals with a theme that relates one article to another, making a coherent category, based on a phenomenon that is, itself, notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is complete confusion as these are all subcats of Category:Suicides, a category of people (ie autobiogs): "Suicides are people who committed suicide". Now if you wish to take Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying out of Category:Suicides and into Category:Suicide (ie articles related to suicide), and rename it to something like Category:Suicide related to cyber-bullying then that would seem wholly reasonable. Occuli (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see what you mean now! That's a very good point, about the parent categories of persons versus events. I agree with you about that. The pages in the category, in this case at least, are entirely pages about suicide events, not bio pages about persons who committed suicides. (As a grammatical note, the word "suicides" can refer to suicide events in the plural, not only to persons who committed suicide.) The proposed rename is Category:Suicides of persons who were cyber-bullied. I would entirely agree with moving it (actually, the parent category of bullying suicides generally, not limited to cyber) out of Category:Suicides and into Category:Suicide. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete impossible to verify. Did someone kill himself/herself because of the cyber bullying alone? or what the basis of the bullying was? or the lack of remediation or response by authority? or for any number of other reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the reason for the rename. Your argument does not address the proposed new name. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been thinking about why some editors might be concerned about deleting instead of renaming the category, and something occurred to me that might be worth clarifying. The pages in the category are not there as a result of WP:OR. There is abundant reliable sourcing arguing that the suicides resulted, at least in large part, from the cyber-bullying. Editors are not trying to read the minds of the dead. The reason for the rename is that there are some recent sources that argue that the direct cause-and-effect between the cyber-bullying and the suicide cannot be proven to the point of ruling out some additional possible motivations. Therefore, there is a local consensus not to word the category as "due to". It does not follow from that that we should delete the category entirely, so long as the sources and not editor opinions back it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons already provided. The proposed rename is also a no go since it is far from clear that this is defining. So if someone who was cyber bullied has other problems that caused them to commit suicide, then they go into this category? What the proposed target needs to be is something like Category:Suicides of persons who were cyber-bullied and that cyber bulling was the primary cause of their suicide or some such. Too many options there and it is more then a triple intersection which is normally cause for deletion. This probably needs to be a list where the sources can be cited and how the bulling was a factor can be explained in more detail. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this isn't a category for what you are fancifully describing. It is a category for suicide events where the sources, multiple reliable sources, say that it was a suicide that followed cyber-bullying. If the sources indicated that it was just a suicide that might have been due to any number of things, then there wouldn't be any articles, because the event wouldn't pass WP:N. Wikipedia does not include pages for every time someone commits suicide. There is, according to multiple reliable sources, a genuine phenomenon of persons who commit suicide following cyber-bullying. I challenge you to point to a page in the category that fits the description you give, without ignoring what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. If you feel that the discussion is heading in the direction of deleting instead of a rename, I would ask you to re-list the discussion for wider participation. I believe very strongly that there are issues here of sourcing for the arguments that have been given, and deletion of a single category, without review of parent and related categories as well, will create an illogical situation: do we move pages from this category to Category:Suicides due to bullying, and so forth? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've read through this discussion a couple of times over the past few days. I can't say that I'm terribly happy with the proliferation of the various "suicide" categories—it all seems a bit much. I think we should categorize suicides by where they happened and perhaps by nationality of the person. But I don't think we should categorize suicides by profession of the victim, method used, or possible contributing causes: all of these would be overcategorization, in my opinion. I do think maybe just including these in Category:Cyber-bullying would be OK, though—the category doesn't seem overpopulated, in any case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I can certainly see where the consensus is heading, and it seems to me that what is really needed is an examination of all the sub-categories of Category:Suicides. Just changing the cyber-bullying area because of my original nomination doesn't really seem to me to be getting to the problem that editors are concerned with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I still believe rather strongly that a careful review of the sources will indicate that the rename that I originally proposed is correct. However, I have to accept that my arguments have not been convincing. Assuming that the consensus ends up in favor of deleting, I'll offer to do the following. I'll remove all pages from Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying and Category:Suicides due to bullying, so that the two empty categories could then be easily deleted. For all of the pages that get removed, I'll place them, instead, in either Category:College students who committed suicide or Category:High school students who committed suicide, as appropriate, and in either Category:School bullying or Category:Victims of cyber-bullying, as appropriate. Issues that other editors have about other suicide-related categories will be left for someone else to deal with. If that's the consensus, please just let me know, and I'll do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 14 September 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.

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 to (Schoolname) alumni. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Rename Category:Former pupils by secondary school in Pakistan and its sub-categories to one of the following options to bring consistency across the board:

(I've deliberately left the "Fooians" and "Old Fooians" categories out of this nomination as there are additional issues with them that are best handled separately)

Nominator's rationale: The schools categories for Pakistan are in a bit of a mess with several formats in use and they need standardising before too many more are created. Of the five main variants used across the wider schools tree, Pakistan currently uses two for individual categories three ("Alumni of" and "...alumni") and a third for the parent category ("Former pupils of"). Two others are heavily used elsewhere ("Former students of" and "People educated at"). I've put up all five possibilities here, including the parent category. We should use as standard whichever of these is best for Pakistan. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all using "(Schoolname) alumni" (as in Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan). This simply harmonises the existing names, within Category:Alumni by secondary school. Occuli (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "(Schoolname) alumni". All the individual (non-Fooians) categories use "alumni" and this is in line with the order in Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 9 September 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.

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: Renamed to People educated at (Schoolname). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Rename Category:Alumni by secondary school in Ireland and its sub-categories to one of the following options to bring consistency across the board:

(I've deliberately left the "Old Fooians" categories out of this nomination as there are additional issues with them that are best handled separately)

Nominator's rationale: The schools categories for Ireland (the state) are in a mess with multiple formats in use and they need standardising before too many more are created. Of the five main variants used across the wider schools tree, Ireland currently uses three ("Alumni of", "Former pupils of" and "People educated at") plus a unique variant ("Past pupils of"). Two others are heavily used elsewhere ("Former students of" and "...alumni"). I've put up all six possibilities here, including the parent category. We should use as standard whichever of these is best for Ireland. For the record the Northern Ireland categories all use "People educated at" apart from a few "Old Fooians" exceptions. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to use "People educated at (Schoolname)" per precedent in many recent cfds. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to use "People educated at (Schoolname)". As an Alumnus is defined as "a graduate of a school, college, or university.", then those who failed to graduate would be excluded. Past pupils would likewise outrule current pupils. "People educated" could include both the above so as the wider name it is preferable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to "People educated at (Schoolname)" per Laurel Lodged. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 12 September 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.

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: Speedy rename to "Transportation" C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following options:

Rationalle: Each country should be consistant in terms of ENGVAR usage, except where regional ENGVAR issues exist. Preference to option 2, as the Philippines isn't an English speaking country, so we should probably go with the general Wikipedia words. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1. The Philippines was a U.S. colony until the 1940s, so in English-language writing I think it generally uses American English. The relevant government department uses "transportation" in its name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The main article is at Transportation in the Philippines. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per option 1 'Transportation' due to US history in the Phillipines and American English used and taught there. Hmains (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename' per option 1 to match the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 7 September 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.

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti–Iraq War activists to Category:Anti-Iraq War activists

Nominator's rationale: WP:DASH. This is a hyphenated word; I have no idea how an endash got stuck in here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. An en dash is used here because WP:DASH says to use one "instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix to a compound that includes a space", as with "ex–prime minister Thatcher" or "pre–World War II aircraft". This is an example of that: "Iraq War" is a compound that includes a space, thus we need the en dash. Using a hyphen would mean the war is anti-Iraq. Using an en dash means the activists are against the Iraq War. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Ah. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 6 September 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.

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 to Category:Lists of musicians by birthday. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Celebrity birthdays to something

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to group birthdays for music portal-related bio articles only. The use of "Celebrity" isn't clear as to the category's scope. Everyone who has a bio article in Wikipedia must by definition be notable; there's got to be a better name for this category. I know nothing about Portal:Music, I'm afraid, so I'm hoping you all can suggest a better name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see such a category for scientists.Curb Chain (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But surely WP:OTHERCRAP discourages us from deleting just because something else exists or doesn't. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble creating these lists for every single day of the year, for musicians. I'd hate to see it vanish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, I've flagged this discussion at the Music portal's talk page, though to seems to be a rather dormant discussion page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of musicians by birthday or somesuch. (I liked Category:Something.) Occuli (talk) 01:15, 7 September 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.

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by Norman Smith to Category:albums produced by Norman Smith (producer)

Nominator's rationale: per Norman Smith —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 6 September 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catfight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be grouping all articles and categories that involve some aspect of a woman fighting another woman: e.g., Category:Women's boxing. I can't say that I think this is an appropriate categorization. Just because two women compete in a "combat sport" doesn't make it a "catfight". From those who like this type of sexual fetish, maybe all of these are the type of thing they enjoy, but that's certainly not the central or defining perspective of these topics that we need to use as the basis for categorization. On the other hand, maybe this is an appropriate categorization for Foxy boxing and Ultimate Surrender? I'm not sure if that's enough to justify the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see how this category can be expanded. Also, where is the category for male erotic wrestling and boxing?Curb Chain (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see how this category can be expanded. Catfighting is the new genre of entertainment - (develops), pornographic studios creating new brands also about catfighting, many pornstars go to this business, see Ultimate Surrender, Nude Fight Club and some other + tens small studios. Subtropical-man (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note to closing admin: Subtropical-man (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 September 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.

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Men in Black (film series) to Category:Men in Black (series)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is grouping Men in Black media that are not part of the film series, such as comics and video games. Men in Black (series) appears to be the broader article name which I propose matching this name to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 6 September 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.

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:RoboCop to Category:RoboCop (franchise)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are articles called RoboCop (for the movie); RoboCop (franchise) (for the entire cross-platform franchise); and RoboCop (character) (for the character in the franchise). I believe this article is primarily grouping things to do with the franchise as a whole and is not limited to articles about the film or the character. Therefore, I think it should be named to match the article about the franchise. (This is a borderline C2D speedy, but I was in some doubt as to the appropriateness of using speedy, so I bring it here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 6 September 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.