Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

Category:Fictional ninjas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been misspelled. It should be Fictional ninja (sorry I forgot to sign it)--JadziaLover 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned nomination, but I agree. "Ninja" is one of those Japanese language terms that has one form for both singular and plural. This should be Category:Fictional ninja. -Sean Curtin 23:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree CyberSkull 07:47, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I don't object, but please double-check this google search for 'Ninjas' and fix the lot of them. R adiant _>|< 09:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Celebrities who have appeared on the Simpsons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rediculously trivial and unneeded. This takes up space that could be used better in several articles. -- LGagnon 20:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Information best kept as a list; a category accomplishes nothing but clutter on the included articles. Postdlf 23:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, should be a list. - SimonP 00:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Informative, but listify and add name of episode for each celeb. R adiant _>|< 08:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
~~Listify as per Radiant~~ Hiding 10:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Since a list exists, Delete. Hiding 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And anyway, there's already an extensive list at List of celebrities on The Simpsons. -- Dominus 13:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deletify, since a list already exists. --Kbdank71 18:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant. Buffyg 08:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have put a lot of effort adding people to this category. Also, although this info is also available in a list, how are you supposed to know that a celebrity has been in the Simpsons just by looking at their article without this category?
- You could add it to the article... Maybe even add a link to the list. --Kbdank71 18:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - True, but then all of my work would be lost...more than 100 celebrities...
    - You do realize this is just for the category? We're not doing anything with the articles themselves? --Kbdank71 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is already a list. A category isn't needed. --Der Sporkmeister 14:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The list is sufficient. RedWolf 03:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Video game characters and others

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 17:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also: Category:Video game magazines, Category:Video game music, Category:Video game retailers, and Category:Video game websites

Rename to Category:Computer and video game characters, Category:Computer and video game magazines, Category:Computer and video game music, Category:Computer and video game retailers, and Category:Computer and video game websites respectively, as per consistency with other categories in Category:Computer and video games. The categories do cover both computer and video games and is regarded as the standard on Wikipedia. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 20:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Support, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. This standard was decided upon last year, except no one has gotten around to doing this. K1Bond007 21:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Support. – Quoth 02:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, categories should be specific. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 16:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Slike2 07:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Greatest American Nominee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contest/survey nominees. Perhaps the contest is significant enough to have the winners in a cat, but just the nominees? Gamaliel 16:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Technically, there would be only one greatest American, and that wouldn't make for a very good category. --Kbdank71 17:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, this is a useful list, and we have articles about similar shows in other countries. NoSeptember ^(talk) 17:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well if it is a duplicate... NoSeptember ^(talk) 19:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, and I'd delete the ones for the other countries as well. I think this is basically advertising for the show. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, This category has already been deleted before with an overwelming consensus, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 19. I do not believe something like this needs a category. A list would be more appropriate. K1Bond007 17:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, use list form. --BaronLarf 18:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I forgot this was already voted on and deleted. BTW, a list already exists for this. --Kbdank71 19:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, frivolous use of categories. -- Viajero | Talk 19:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. IIRC, we deleted "Greatest Canadians" a while back. -Willmcw 20:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per reasons from original vote. Postdlf 07:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, list at best. Buffyg 08:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this category has received much media attention. Do not delete for now. See if people still care for this after the award has been given. --TheAznSensation 05:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Oceanian languages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already covered by Category:Languages of Oceania Conrad Leviston 16:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. — Sebastian (talk) 20:16, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and others

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, Category:U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Category:U.S. Dept. of Education, Category:U.S. Dept. of Energy, Category:U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Category:U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Category:U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Category:U.S. Dept. of Justice, Category:U.S. Dept. of Labor, Category:U.S. Dept. of State, Category:U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Category:U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Category:U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Category:U.S. Dept. of the Treasury

These category names use abbreviations, but the names of the related articles do not (e.g. United States Department of Agriculture). Suggest renaming for consistency. R adiant _>|< 12:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rename to "United States Department of Foo". --BaronLarf 13:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Rename as per BL. --Kbdank71 15:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(I think) I initially created all of these, and I used abbreviations out of a concern for overly-long category names. I have no problem with renaming, though "U.S." and "Dept." are clear and easy abbreviations to deal with. Postdlf 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "U.S. Dept." is an unambiguous abbreviation, so we can allow an exception to the rule. Category names take up prime space (in most skins) at the top of articles which we should not squander gratuitously. — Sebastian (talk) 20:15, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Books by title

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 16:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same reasons as Category:Operas by title below. The previous CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Books by title) is ambiguous; although some voters only voted to delete the subcategories, others (myself included) voted to delete the main category as well. -Sean Curtin 07:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete as overcategorization. Radiant_>|< 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
What will happen to the books in this category? Will they be moved to a new category (maybe the parent) or will the collection be dispersed? --DrG 13:55, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Those books are generally already in a useful category, such as Jane Austen novels, or Science fiction. R adiant _>|< 14:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Generally, yes. But in reality many books will be lost. Where will those go, the ones without other categories?--DrG 05:50, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Delete. --Kbdank71 15:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. We already have categories by genre, year, author, etc, and "title" is simply not a rational categorization scheme (i.e., books that start with the letter "B" have no greater relationship to each other than books that have red covers). Postdlf 16:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. --BaronLarf 18:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP a valid categorization scheme, since many people organize their own books in such a manner, and it is a way people do search for books. 132.205.45.148 20:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you're searching by title, you'd want either List of books, or the handy search box on the left of your screen. This is overcategorization. R adiant _>|< 08:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is NO rule or policy against this "overcategorization". You are just saying that YOU don't need this category. There are so many people who are not as intelligent as you are, who don't know wiki as well as you do, who can't do clever google searches, they are the ones that need this category. They are the ones who feel great joy just seeing a category filled with books. Why can't we be more user friendly? Why can we have Category: 1485 books, but not books by title? Who are we building the encyclopedia for? --DrG 05:50, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

- - Actually there is, see Wikipedia:Categorization. Nor does it require google, you can use the search box on Wikipedia (on the left of your screen, it should say 'search'). R adiant _>|< 07:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing in this document on overcategorization. If anything it supports the creation of this category. --DrG 13:56, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Actually, it does say, right up at the top, "Not useful: Category:Musicians whose first name starts with M", which is very similar to "Musicians by name", which is very similar to "Books by title". It's just not useful. --Kbdank71 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with Postdlf. — Sebastian (talk) 20:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete for the same reasons as Operas by title, only much stronger here. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep this is the standard at the Library of Congress. --DrG 05:24, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the library of congress :) R adiant _>|< 07:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly know that. The point is that this is the most commonly accepted way of categorizing books in the world. --DrG 13:43, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

No, it's the most commonly accepted way of listing books in the world. Compare Wikt:categorize vs. wikt:list. R adiant _>|< 14:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Next time you are in the library, check out the card catalog. --DrG 15:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Next time you are in the library, check out the encyclopedia. Note its difference from a card catalog. --Kbdank71 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the title of the articles. I'm talking about the categories they belong to, how the articles are searched for, how the articles are indexed, how the categories are browsed. The Library of congress uses 4 categories for every book. Each book is entered into each catagory, but the book itself is not changed. There is one category for titles, one for authors/creators, one for subject, and one for keywords. If you go to that category, you see all the books sorted by that index: title, author's last name, subject, or keyword. Books by title is the most common. --DrG 16:29, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that book's articles can by listed under a maximum of four categories? Of course not. Because this is Wikipedia, not the Library of Congress. I'm not seeing the reasoning for a category by title. I guarantee I can find a book using the search feature of Wikipedia faster than you can using a card catalog. Seriously, what's the problem with search? --Kbdank71 17:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete as overcategorisation. Buffyg 08:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Operas by title

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Created on May 31, 2005 and quickly became subject of debate on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Category:Operas_by_title. Reason for its creation, from what I can see, was so that all operas could be viewed on one page at the same time. This is better accomplished on a list, as is now found at List of operas. --BaronLarf 23:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

keep I think this is a very useful category, and do not support its deletion. I hope there is a better reason for wanting to delete it than it is "better accomplished on a list". The List of operas you mentioned does not have all the operas in the category. It is currently missing 32 operas. We have Category:Books by title; it is used in a similar manner, and it also has a list. We can have both. When that category was proposed for deletion because it was so large, the consensus was that now that the wikisoftware can handle large categories, it will not be deleted. See category talk:books by title. If the only reason that you want to delete the category is because you prefer a list, please use the list, but let us category users have the category. --DrG 01:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
I don't see the reason for it. As argued by myself and others on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, it seems to be a slippery slope. Should singers be classified as "singers by name?" Or "people by name?" It's over categorization, since every opera is already now classified by composer, genre and language. (Example: The Magic Flute is in Category:Operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Category:German-language operas, Category:Singspiel and Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In addition to Category:Operas by title.) A quick perusal of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes will show that "operas by title" is better achieved with a list.

DrG had mentioned that the reason for creating the category was so people could easily see all operas on one page. Then why not use a list, which cuts down on server use while is a much more robust tool which can also have composer's names and dates of composition added to it. It could also have redlinks to significant operas which do not yet have articles on Wikipedia. If, as DrG mentions here, the list does not have 32 operas on it (which must have been added recently since I compiled the list from the category), then the simple solution is to add the operas to the list. Which I will do now.

I went to the step of nominating this on CfD because I thought I saw consensus for it. MacGyverMagic, Radiant, User:reetep and User:Viajero all had problems of some sort with the category, with no one else speaking in favor of it, and discussed had died out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Category:Operas by title with no resolution. This nomination was my attempt to have an official decision on the matter, after outside opinion had already been sought. Cheers. --BaronLarf 03:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing all the operas at once is one good benefit. Another is ease of maintenance. The list is so easily out-dated, and harder to update. It is much easier to add to a category. Another is the formant of a category: three columns and no annotations. Server performance issues are non-issues. (The list is longer than a page of the category. There are many, many, larger categories.) This is the category that people who are new to opera will use. They won't know the composer, the language, or the genre, because they are still learning. Why prevent new learners from using categories? --DrG 04:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

A category is actually more of a drain on the servers than a list is. Lack of annotations isn't really a mark in favor of categories (annotability is one of the major reasons for using a list instead of a category). -Sean Curtin 07:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The list of operas has no annotations -- it's just a plain list. The only notation is what letter the title starts with. New opera entries are created or found all the time. This list now has to be maintained by hand -- Operas alphabetized by title. When pages are moved or are deleted even more work is required. This whole process is automated by the wikisoftware. Why can't we use that feature? The opera group already has a policy of prefering lists that are either selective (like famous operas) or complete (verdi operas). This list is neither. What is wrong with having this category? This is what categories are for -- grouping like things together. Will you support the deleting of category:folk songs also? It could also be a list, as could ANY category in wikipedia. The database may be spared doing work, but the users and editors will have to take up the slack. --DrG 08:01, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Delete. -Sean Curtin 07:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete as overcategorization. R adiant _>|< 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Over-categorisation; places load on servers; not difficult to maintain as asserted above; more than one list is acceptable (both comprehensive and selective lists which link eachother) so argument about inferior utility is misguided. reetep 12:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If operas are over-categorized, we would be better to delete other categories. Surely you can see that most users will be searching by title first. If a newcomer to opera wants to read about "Masquerade" how is he to find it using the remaining categories? How would you find it? Do you know the composer? Do you know the langauge? Do you know the genre? New learners are trapped. You want to force them visit the 180 sub-categories to find it. Libraries file every opera under two entries: title and author. That's how people think of opera first. Why must we ingore that? --DrG 14:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

He would use the 'search' option, which instantly leads to "Masquerade is an opera by Carl Nielsen.

". That's how you find things by name. And that's why we don't need categories for anything by title. R adiant _>|< 14:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The argument about over-categorisation is not about there being too many categories, but about this category being too specific, so it doesn't make sense to suggest that another category be deleted instead. May I ask you to stop, discard all other arguments, and then read the name of the category out loud? Operas by name. Isn't it ridiculous?! You may as well create another category called composers by name - surely we'd rather just have a category called composers rather than composers by name. As I see it, the real issue here is that the subcategory operas by name was created in order to be able to comply with the "rule" that an article may not reside in both a category and a subcategory of the parent category after articles were added to the very useful categories such as baroque operas.

How can you claim it is too specific if it has over a 100 members. The "by name" or "by title" is just to help the users. Operas are sorted and index by title, composer, and langauge. No one complains about "by composer". If I changed the name to "Unindexed operas" would that help? I just used the "by title" name because that is what books on opera use. It is what most people are familiar with outside of wiki. --DrG 15:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

How about the following categorisation scheme: a category operas which is a comprehensive alphabetical list; then all other subcategories (which I view as useful) remain. I am aware of the "rule" that says an article shouldn't be a member of both a category and a further subcategory, but this is in fact a guideline - not a rule. I can't imagine that anyone would object to this double-categorisation in this particular case given the obvious and immediate utility gained from it. reetep 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally! I would love that, and that's what I wanted all along, but you can't stop people from coming in and deleting all the operas out of that category, always citing that membership "rule", always thinking they are helping. It happends all the time. That's why the "by title" category was added. So people would stop deleting. Ideally, if the wikisoftware was better, Category:operas would have no sub-categories, but it would have view options: "By title", "By composer", "By year", "By langauge". This would just change how the operas are sorted and indexed. Until then, we make do with what we have available. --DrG 15:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Glad you agree with me DrG; great news. How many other people think that this would be the ideal? It's always struck me as completely counterintuitive that members of a subcategory aren't listed in the parent category automatically by the software. Would one not naturally expect an opera added to the category baroque operas to appear in the category operas? It is an opera after all. I too think that the wiki software is inadequate (in my opinion that's the cause of disputes like this) but I'm not sure being able to 'view by x' as DrG suggests is the answer. I'm no expert but it sounds to me like that either involves slow server-side database queries or evil client side javascript. I think the best thing to do is to push for a change to the wikisoftware so that members of subcategories are automatically added to the parent category. Arguments against this will include categories at the top of the tree being unbrowsable due to the large number of members, but then again that's the whole point of having subcategories. reetep 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Ah, but we have such a comprehensive alphabetical list. It's called list of operas. R adiant _>|< 14:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't a comprehensive list. It is missing 23 operas, and includes 12 non-operas. --DrG 15:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

But it does have an "edit this page" link. --Kbdank71 15:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just updated the list 2 days ago; the 23 operas DrG refers to above were new articles that he just created. Which is great, of course, but if someone doesn't add them to the list, they won't be there. (Seems somewhat WP:POINT-like to me.) Just like if someone doesn't include a link to a category, it won't be in there. Having said that, I've just updated the list, and it should now (again) be complete. --Baron Larf 11:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Kbdank71 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete for above reasons. Postdlf 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Although DrG's argument applies if someone searches for "Mass Kerr Aid". — Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete as arguments above. Not useful. Pavel Vozenilek 17:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone says the category is not useful, but that's not true. It is probably used more than all the others. I do a lot of work on operas and access that category 15 times a day. Are you using any opera categories? Find this opera: "The Bridge of Sighs" and don't use the category! --DrG 05:21, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here DrG. There is no such opera in wikipedia and this was very easy to determine using google. I recognise that the wikipedia search facility is very poor, which is why I used google; I acknowledge that there are a lot of wikipedia users who aren't necessarily knowledgeable enough to make such a google search; I recognise that until wikipedia improves its search (or until the average user learns to use google better) that some enhanced means of navigation is necessary. However, I don't think that creating a category of operas by name is the answer. See my comment in the discussion below my vote for what I do believe is the answer. reetep 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have just proved my point. You acknowledge that wikipedia has trouble answering these questions. You expect people to be experts with google. I had used google for years, before I knew about these options. Are you expecting new users to know about them? We have simple, easy to implement, solutions that we can provide for novice users to help them. But for some reason, we don't want to. We prefer to make them struggle because we are so afraid we might have a category that offends some esoteric ideas of the prime form of a database. It makes me sad. --DrG 14:29, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I know you must feel frustrated (and somewhat antagonised) by the opposition you face, but I don't think it's anyone's intention to deliberately handicap wikipedia. I - like you - would like wikipedia to be as useful as possible and that's why I oppose this particular category. In my opinion, the category is illogical and it's absurd. It will put off intelligent people who have both something to gain from - and something to contribute to - wikipedia. For my part, this is not about defending any ideal about database organisation as you suggest; it's about usability and respect for wikipedia. This is not to say that wikipedia should necessarily model itself on any other encyclopaedia, but I think it's useful to step back and ask 'would this happen in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or Encarta?' We all know it wouln't - they would have operas in the operas category and that would be that. In answer to your question: no I don't expect the average user to be able to use google to its full potential and yes I too would like wikipedia to be as accessible to my grandma as to a computer geek. I agree a new solution has to be found but I don't agree with botch jobs that improve the usability in the short-medium term but which put potential users off in the long term. reetep 16:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete as overcategorisation. Buffyg 08:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but only if all the operas are moved back to Category:Operas, otherwise keep. This category brings to a head the problems with our current schemes for categories. I hope everyone can read the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. We are all wasting tons of time categorizing and recategorizing and arguing because we don't have a commonly held view of how categories should be set up. If this category is removed (and the Operas are not recategorized in Category:Operas), then Operas will only be found in "by genre", "by language" or "by composer" subcategories. If I want to browse through operas, I want to do it in one place. But that is not to say that I might also want to browse through the subcategories. Personally, I think we should be able to have both, and the response has been that instead of a category for all the operas, we should have a list. It seems that we have come full circle with this discussion. Categories were originally proposed as a better way to do things than making lists, people are now arguing that we should have a list instead of a category! The root of the problem with categories is that some people see them as a way to index or classify articles, and this has led to the rule about not having duplication in sub and super-categories. Others think that categories are primarily a way to navigate through Wikipedia and articles should be in whatever category should be useful, after all, the natural place to look for an opera is in the category called operas. I've been trying to forge a compromise on this topic that would ease off on the no duplication rule. I hope you will take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you have echoed my feelings and frustrations. There are two kinds of people of wikipedia.: those who find an article and marvel at what categories it is in, and those who find a category and marvel at what articles are in it. The first group is all concerned about proper names, sub-category rules, and overcategorization. They want the categories displayed on the bottom of the page to be perfect: intelligent classes, non-redundant, meaningful. All great goals. They are masters at using search engines. The second group wants ease of navigation and an overall picture of the category. They don't like search engines; they love browsing in categories, just exploring wikipedia. They want the category page is look helpful and interesting, and like surfing through wikipedia to be fun. Redundant is ok, if it helps navigate. Samuel Wantman is right about having no common view. That's why these discussions are so painful and time consuming, why the two group are always at conflict. I'm a group two person. I go to category: operas and I am excited that you can browse through operas in multiple ways. I get to pick. It's easy and fun and interesting and save time. Group one of course is angry. They look at the article Tosca and think how stupid to have an opera in "operas by title." That's redundant, all operas have titles. I can see I am fighting a losing battle. But I think that's because group one folks love discussing and controling categories, and group twos are more often readers not editors. --DrG 04:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Deconstructionists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents already covered by Category:Deconstruction. No prior discussion of branching category to be found in Category talk:Deconstruction, nor does existing category appear overpopulated. Criteria have been offered on existing page. Buffyg 23:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and move philosopher listings down from Category:Deconstruction. The category is certainly not redundant, rather it represents a logical and important subdivision of the overall "Deconstruction" topic. Most importantly, it provides for cross-linking with Category:Philosophers by tradition. The current inclusion of the mother category in Cat:PBT is ontologically wrong, since Cat:Deconstruction contains lots of material that doesn't pertain to individual philosophers. -- Visviva 04:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If that's ontologically wrong, please consider that not everyone associated with deconstruction is therefore a "deconstructionist" and that, for that matter, none of those who would be moved from one category to the other would refer to themselves as such (as far as I'm aware, not have described themselves thus). I have similar reservations about claiming those who were in Category:Postmodernism should be classed in Category:Postmodernists, which implies a different level of association (I'd have a great deal of trouble claiming that Cixous, for example, is a postmodernist, even if people draw on her work to adduce general characteristics of postmodernism — I don't find myself energised to argue about whether that is facile). This is not to say that there aren't ways of addressing your ontological concerns, but the creation of a new category that is a misnomer and has its own ontological problems does not appear to be a step in the right direction. Buffyg 09:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, either the "Philosophers by tradition" structure is applicable to deconstruction, in which case there should be a "Philosophers" category under "Deconstruction" that can link to it... or it is not, in which case the PBT tag should be removed from Category:Deconstruction. What if we renamed Category:Deconstructionists to Category:Philosophers associated with deconstruction? -- Visviva 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, the cat on deconstruction is small enough already that if all practitioners were moved out, both would become rather useless. R adiant _>|< 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Radiant! --Kbdank71 15:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Philosophers by geography

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was see each category listing below --Kbdank71 16:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Including Category:European philosophers, Category:American philosophers, Category:North asian philosophers, Category:South asian philosophers, Category:African philosophers, Category:Eastern philosophers and Category:Australian philosophers

I'm not an advocate of entrenching geo-philosophy, which tends to support a number of rather non-philosophical characterisations in the first instance, but I'm more accepting when it fits into another existing schema of some generality (like professions by nationality), which does not indicate that there is something particularly unique about geographical divisions of philosophy that can be better conveyed by using continents as an intermediate grouping. I'm putting all related categories up for deletion in support of the previous order. Buffyg 02:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I can see no clear criteria for some of these geographical divisions (all of which have been enumerated below), all of which have little to do with philosophical traditions. I am including them in the same deletion request. Buffyg 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A philosopher is not only part of a philosophical tradition, but is also part of the cultural heritage of his or her homeland. These categories may not be of interest to most professional philosophers (although I know of some who would disagree), but they are certainly relevant to those who hail from the countries or regions in question. Categorizing philosophers by region is much less problematic than categorizing philosophy by region. The mere fact that it is commonly done is a strong indication that such categories can provide user value. Note: There are some capitalization issues with the category names, which should be addressed if they are kept. -- Visviva 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I've not suggested abolishing "philosophers by nationality" (troublesome as the notion is) but deleting the intermediate regional hierarchy of nationalities (which is currently utterly irrational by geographic standards, creating an "North Asia" category to contain Russia and Slovenia, has a "South Asia" category that contains Japan, and has an "Eastern" category that contains Confuscius), which would seem to require additional justification that seems vexed at best from the start. Why should philosophy uniquely should have this hierarchy when it appears to follow any philosophical (and, for the moment, geographic) logic? Buffyg 08:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Some of these categories are certainly less rational than others. However, I think that in principle a set continent/region-level categories can add (a small amount of) user value. For that reason, I continue to vote keep on the mother category Category:Philosophers by geography. But see itemized votes below. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objection: the information people get isn't really anything more than a geography lession. There is no value I can discern as far as ease of navigation when there's no evidence that nationalities are too numerous to navigate in this case. Buffyg 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. People can get the same information from Category:Philosophers by nationality, and there are too many philosophers from any given continent to actually list them all in a single category. -- Beland 07:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As per above, this in an intermediate hierarchy, populated by subcategories but not articles. What I don't sense is an excess of nationality categories that requires this intermediation or additional attributes that might be ascribed to categories of this level of association. Buffyg 08:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, go by nation rather than continent. R adiant _>|< 08:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep With the two exceptions indicated in my votes below, these are categories used in books, journals, and University courses (in fact I've occasionally seen "South asian" used, but it's much less common; if anyone has strong views on it, I could be persuaded to change my vote). I can see no harm in the categories, and potential use for readers. I might add that, at least in the case of Category:African philosophers, Buffyg is wrong to claim that they're "populated by subcategories but not articles". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'd argue that thare no additional attributes that can be made against these intermediate categories other than geography, which adds no value. There is no unity of "European philosophy" vis-a-vis "American philosophy" vis-a-vis "Australian philosophy" or "North asian [sic] philosophy" vis-a-vis "South asian [sic] philosophy" as numerous philosophical traditions cross these borders, so there's no additional description to be offered for these categories. In fact, there's no attempt being made here to pass these off as traditions, which is what you seem to be saying. Textbooks and university courses are hardly canonical guides at this level of description, as one cannot immediately distinguish between provisional categories used for pedagogical expediency in a particular context (like drawing up a syllabus for a semester's or quarter's introductory instruction) and more rigourous distinctions about subject matter (e.g. whether the distinction between continental and analytic philosophy continues to have much more than polemical value or the period in which one can speak about the meaningful unity of an analytic tradition — I try to limit my use of these terms to rigourous application, but my concern here is not to indulgence further sloppiness rather than to roll back uses that may be questionable but have not yet been put up for discussion under terms that bring any clarity to matters).

At best, additional geographical distinctions may appear to simplify browsing, but that doesn't appear to be a problem in need of a solution (and if it is a solution, why is it not applied to where the problem is apparent or otherwise generalised?). If you want to talk about "geographical" terms that have meaning for philosophy, about the only distinction that seems to obtain is a general division between "Eastern" and "Western," although it may be hard to impute a general unity to at least the former (hence a distinction might be attempted between "South Asian," which is probably an attempt to avoid the vexed term "Indian," and other Asian philosophies with Confucian influences). Buffyg 09:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - But this isn't true. African philosophy is the strongest example, but there are genuine differences between the ways in which philosophy is approached and done in different areas. There are also, of course, differences within regions, and influences between them, but that doesn't affect the general point. Anyone involved in philosophy will recognise the style of North American philosophy, much more influenced by the Pragmatists than philosophers in other regions, as opposed to Australia, with its very much more hardline materialism, and Europe, with "Continental philosophy" on the one hand and British philosophy on the other (a distinction, incidentally, that holds despite the supposed fragmentation of Anglo-American philosophy — a fragmentation that's always been there, in fact). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The African case can be far more muddled depending on how rigourously you want to examine it: what does one make of Alexandrian Hellenism or the respect paid to Augustine of Hippo by European philosophers? If geography is a simple criteria, would these not be included? How does adduce a reasonable set of attributes shared between these and contemporary philosophers in Africa? In the course of skimming over all the complexities necessarily entailed by such a case you've managed to confuse dominant and approximately contemporary tendencies (of the last century or so) with rigourously defined identities of larger historical scope that are useful for understanding what these traditions might mean — one should hesitate to entertain even what argument you've made after a leap from subordinating intraregional differences which "of course" exist (if they exist "of course," wouldn't they deserve more than perfunctory analysis of how it is that philosophy does or does not get around?) to saying that the "general point" of geographical identities (in this case something vaguely like continents, a rather orthagonal criteria even to that of national traditions) is particularly illuminating to understanding several millenia of the history of philosophy.

In any case, we're talking about whether geography is a reasonable overlay for organising nationalities that are not overwhelmingly numerous rather than philosophical traditions, which is what you are explicitly making subcategories of categories which are currently utterly inconsistent geographic units. The ideas you're advocating have no clear need for the muddle already at hand. If you'd like to argue elsewhere that geography should also be a subcategory of tradition or should mediate categories of tradition, please present the schema, but it's hard to imagine that you'd want it based on the mess we're now in. Buffyg 20:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete all, as long as "by Nationality" is being kept. --Kbdank71 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No doubt. Buffyg 16:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep—no reason this can't be used as a parent category to alternately organize the nationality-specific philosopher subcats, so that people would have the option of searching by country or by region... So long as they are never applied directly to articles in lieu of the nationality subcats, and so long as it is complementary to Category:Philosophers by nationality, rather than a replacement. Postdlf 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except that there's no overpopulation problem in the list of nationalities that makes it difficult to navigate. If there is an automation available to offer this navigational aid where it is necessary, that's fine, but in the current case this look suspiciously like overcategorisation. Buffyg 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't this be compared to Category:Philosophers by era vs. Category:Philosophers by century? The two provide subtly different kinds of information. This can be useful in both cases. For example, a Wikipedian/user might ask herself, "Hey, I wonder how our coverage of Latin American philosophers is." The PBG structure gives one-click access to that information. Not a big benefit, granted, but a real one. It will be even more useful if someone gets around to creating the 20 or 30 additional philosophers-by-nationality cats that could be created. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This logic has spurred the inclusion of Category:Philosophers by century in the deletion list. Wasn't me, but I have voted for that suggestion. Buffyg 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete this category and move the categories below into the Philsophers category. Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and make sure to distinguish between geographical and national categories. This and Category:Philosophers by nationality should prominently link to one another. -Sean Curtin 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, as I've said below, a valid way to search for philosophers and geophilosophical traditions. --Zzymurgy 09:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:European philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful structure, especially if PBN is expanded.
Keep, per above Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but make sure it's not redundant with any national subcategories. -Sean Curtin 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 16:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Keep'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but move contents from Category:U.S. philosophers directly into this. "American" is the nationality of people from the United States. It is an incredibly minor usage for the adjective "American", when applied to people, to mean anything else, not only in English but also regarding the cognates of "American" in other languages. Postdlf 16:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If that is your position, please formally propose a merge. Buffyg 20:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Idiosyncratic, although technically correct, use of "American." Category:U.S. philosophers is a perfectly reasonable name for the US category. However, if the PBG tree is kept, it might be useful to replace this with Category:North American philosophers and Category:Latin American philosophers. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Visviva. R adiant _>|< 08:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete it should be divided into North American and South American(or preferable Latin American) categories. Falphin 15:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:U.S. philosophers. Delete one or the other. I agree with Visviva's suggestions for geographical categories in the Americas. -Sean Curtin 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep or rename U.S. philosophers or United States philosophers, whichever is more fitting with other similar categorization schemes. -Seth Mahoney 00:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As it stands, it is confusing. Jonathunder 22:07, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:North asian philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not sure about the others but this one definitely should go. Since when has Slovenia been in North Asia? - SimonP 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most of North Asia is Russia, is it not? East Asian philosophers I could support. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete pointless division Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:South asian philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 16:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete (but see general comment above). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There might be a place for a South Asian philosophers cat, as our coverage continues to improve, but even then it will need to be renamed and refactored. Might as well rebuild from scratch. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep , I imagine it will grow into a useful category Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Confused. How is North Asain "pointless", but South Asain "useful"? --Kbdank71 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - South Asia(India,Nepal,Cambodia,Vietnam,Laos, Tibet, etc) has had loads of philosophers. While North Asia compromises;Siberia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan, and thats about it of which there are very few philosophers. Mongolia, and Siberia would fit into East Asia, while we should have a Middle East group which would include Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan because of its similarties. I just don't see apoint to North Asian. Falphin 19:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Still confusing. Having loads of them and making useful distinctions between them are entirely different problems. One immediate question is what commonalities they would have and in what historical periods did common traditions develop. And for that matter, wouldn't one expect Japan, for example, which has produced a reasonable lot of philosophers, to qualify as a North Asian country? What I don't yet discern is a coherent set of criteria that would make reading through and maintaing the category reasonably clear. Buffyg 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Japans philosophy is generally similar to East Asian IMHO and its geographically part of East Asia not North Asia according to wikipedia. [1], [2]. Falphin 00:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        The choice implicit here is between North and South Asian. Having argument about geography and then attempting to impose philosophical sense on top of that is imposing an interminable and insoluble additional problem on top of others, which is why I tend to think that there is more confusion than value is combining orthogonal criteria to create categories. Buffyg 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I'm not convinced that grouping by continent is useful, but grouping by an arbitrary subdivision thereof such as it's bottom half, is something I certainly consider not useful. R adiant _>|< 07:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -Sean Curtin 21:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep (renamed as category:South Asian philosophers) unless there is a category for grouping Indian, Pakistani, Nepali, Bhutani, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi philosophers, and philosophers of the region predate the establishment of these modern States. — Insta ntnood 15:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but correct to upper case. Jonathunder 22:41, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:African philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful structure for a neglected area. Somewhat idiosyncratic: currently contains a large number of individual articles, only one subcat. Thus even the general arguments against PBG don't seem to apply here. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - agree with Visviva. Jonathunder 22:43, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Eastern philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Widely used term. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per above Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep for philosophers of Eastern philosophy, regardless of the color of their skin and where they happen to live. — Sebastian (talk) 03:57, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Keep. -Seth Mahoney 00:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Australian philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Australia is, of course, both a nation and a continent. -- Visviva 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and add a link to the Bruces sketch :) R adiant _>|< 08:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep its a country. I don't know of any other philosophers from elswhere in Oceania so the title is appropriate. Falphin 16:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -Seth Mahoney 00:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a completely valid method of searching for notable philosophers, even if Australian philosophy is considered not unique (although I believe it is.) --Zzymurgy 08:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.