Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 5



Category:Little House on the Prairie places

 * 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: Listify. Valid arguments and no opposing arguments. Will add to the listifying page. Someone needs to do the work of listifying, or find someone willing to do this work. Please note the extensive material on the category talk page. I also had to come up with a name for the list: List of places in Little House on the Prairie. Please remember to include such suggestions in the nomination. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Little House on the Prairie places

Per longstanding consensus, places are not categorised by an appearance in a work of fiction.

However, these places could be placed in a list, as places noted in the fictionalised accounts of the Little House series. - jc37 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Listify - as nominator. - jc37 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Listify - this seems a very sound convention as otherwise eg New York would be in innumerable categories. Occuli (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James Bond music

 * 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: upmerge as nominated with "see alsos" in album and song subcategories for cross-reference. The only substantive rationale for keeping the category that has been presented is that it could be a subcategory of Category:Film scores and thus allow navigation via that tree, but as Otto outlines well, the category does not properly belong as a subcategory of Category:Film scores. Since that's the case, there is no real justification for the extra layer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:James Bond music to Category:James Bond
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge - nominated once previously, closed no consensus. This is an unnecessary layer of categorization between the lead Bond category and the song and album subcats. It holds only the article James Bond music and there is no reason why that article can't reside directly in the parent cat. This category serves as a barrier to navigation, as someone wanting to get from Category:James Bond to, say, Die Another Day (song) has to click through this intermediate layer for no good reason. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would find this waterproofing comfortable if I was only interested in investigating James Bond music, which is more or less a genre by itself. It certainly doesn't mess up anything and I sense that it could be useful in future categorizing schemes. __meco (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in exploring James Bond music, aren't you likely to start at James Bond music which contains multiple links to everything in both categories? WP:USEFUL is, as usual, not a compelling argument. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closer - please relist for further discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:James Bond - The parent cat isn't overlarge, and the subcats are already subcatted elsewhere (the sole benefits of this being a subcat). And with one member, this category becomes a hindrance to navigation than an aid. - jc37 02:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful as a subcat of . - Fayenatic (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The corresponding subcat is already there. - jc37 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - having the two subcategories of James Bond "albums" and "songs" moved up to the main category will confuse people in the James Bond category who are looking for James Bond music. James Bond music should be in the parent cat, as Otto says, (as well as being in the subcategory) and that will provide one-click navigation for most people. Those wanting to access the group of articles as a whole can click on the category. Also, having this group of articles under this category means they can be placed as a whole in appropriate locations, rather than having to categorise two subcats each time a new parent category is found for the "James Bond music" category. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have a terribly low opinion of people if you think that having songs and albums subcats in the main Bond category will be confusing. What exactly is going to confuse someone looking for Bond music by having the cats for them in the main category? Otto4711 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that "songs" would be under "S" and "albums" would be under "A". Someone could easily click on albums, looking for the songs, and then have to look around a bit more before realising that there was another category for the songs. That's all I meant. Nothing about having a low opinion of people. I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth or into my head. If the albums and songs were kept "together" by piping them under "M" for music, that might be OK, but my point is that they naturally group together as "music", so it is natural to have a category for music. It is also entirely possible that the music category came first, and that articles were split into the two subcategories. Indeed, I see I was right. The "music" category was created in 2005, while the "song" and "album" categories were created in 2006. Surely it would make more sense to remerge upwards to put them all in the "music" category. But then you lose the ability to put the "songs" and "albums" in different parent categories for one relationship, and in the same parent category (James Bond music) for another relationship. This is actually an important point, about the order in which the categories were created, so if you could, do you think you could reply without expressing your opinion of my opinion of others, and instead focus on what I've said? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did focus on what you said the first time, and now I'll focus on your expanded explanation. The concern is easily solved with a simple "see also" note in each category directing people to the other. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable. I do that a lot as well. I'll check back in a few days and see if someone has done that - or maybe you would like to do that now? I wish more people did this kind of "soft linking", rather than direct categorisation that sometimes makes things rather convoluted. Still, if the number of James Bond subcategories grew very large, grouping some of them together to make it easier to browse the "James Bond" category is something I favour. The point at which a category becomes too full varies from person to person, though. I do note, from looking at the edit history of the albums category that people disagreed over whether it should be in the "film soundtracks" category. But then that was over a year ago! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross-linked. Otto4711 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the "unnecessary layer" that is presented as the primary justification for deletion serves a rather clear purpose: Category:James Bond songs has a parent of Category:Theme music; Category:James Bond albums has the parent Category:Film soundtracks; and the category in question, Category:James Bond music, rolls up into Category:Film scores. If the world solely revolved around James Bond, merging the categories might help navigation. For people looking for theme music, film soundtracks or film scores, each of these categories is a strong aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that Category:James Bond music is miscategorized under the film scores category. The albums category ought to go there directly since they are the albums that contain the scores. Maintaining the music category with the idea being to place it in the film scores category again places an unnecessary layer of categorization between parent and child. WHy should someone have to click through "music" to get to "albums" from "scores"? Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Each of the subcategories has a relevant parent other than James Bond. I could not possibly agree more that ease of navigation and finding the information that readers are looking for is the paramount goal of categories, and that ease of finding the information by the average user navigating through the category structure should be one of the most important criteria in making decisions regarding categories overriding almost all other considerations. But having the extra layer in this particular case allows readers to find these categories from different parents at the extremely small cost of taking someone through one extra category in a limited number of cases. Alansohn (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As already noted, film scores is not an appropriate parent for James Bond music because half of its contents, the individual songs, are not film scores. So placing the albums subcat, which does contain the film scores, directly in the film scores category would more precisely categorize them and again eliminate an unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Otto here. When categorising a category, you have to be aware of what is inside it, not just the name of the category. In effect, you should remember that you are categorising what is inside the category, not the title of the category. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carcharoth. Kuralyov (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Carcharoth has indicated that s/he is satisfied by the cross-linking of the two categories through see also notes. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:James Bond per otto and carcharoth, using "see also" hatnotes in the song/album subcats. --Kbdank71 20:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Action film actors

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * action film actors


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - listed once previously, closed no consensus but the discussion was, I think, muddied by joining it with discussions for Western film actors. This is an overly-broad manner of categorization. Actors can and do appear in a variety of genres over the course of a career and categorizing them on the basis of genre of performance is in the long term untenable. This is little different from the various categories that have been created for people who have portrayed comic book characters, all of which are routinely deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. "overly-broad manner of categorization" and impossible to maintain. __meco (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this inflexible category. I'm not sure if it helps navigation as actors are not that often identified by the genres of the films they're in. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete besides the comments above, it also seems somewhat close to WP:OC. - jc37 02:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NAB Hall of Fame

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * nab hall of fame


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - is insufficiently prestigious for categorization. The sort of award that those who receive tend to accumulate in large numbers. If kept, rename to Category:National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame inductees (or members if preferred) to match other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All we have being pushed as a rationalization for deletion is the nominator's unsupported assertion that the award is "insufficiently prestigious", accompanied by a claim that individuals win large numbers of these awards. I'm not sure if we're looking at the same category, but this is for an honor that recognizes two individuals per year, one from television and one from radio. By comparison, the Nobel Prize and Academy Awards are handed out like candy, making this a rather prestigious award. Given that this is a strong defining characteristic for the individuals so recognized and given that there is not a single policy justification offered for deletion, I strongly support retention of this category. I do agree that "NAB" is not sufficiently recognizable and that the title should be changed per Otto, though I would capitalize "Fame". Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed capitalization, which is what I had originally intended. The notion that the Nobel Prizes, which recognize the top achievement in several fields of human endeavour, are "handed out like candy" is certainly a novel one. What we are talking about here is a trade organization handing out a couple of awards to people who have had long careers in radio or TV. One good rule of thumb that used to be at WP:OC but may no longer be unfortunately, is "would the award recipient, in being introduced to a general audience, be introduced as a winner of this award?" I feel certain that most if not all Nobel Prize winners have their Nobel mentioned in their introductions, whereas I have grave doubts that the people in this category tend to be introduced as "NAB HoF inductee". Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What has been foisted upon us at WP:OCAT based on the consensus of three editors is that an award must somehow be comparable to the Nobel Prize or Academy Award. The Nobel Prize folks hand out five awards (six, if you include Economics) each year and often recognize multiple recipients for each award. There are several dozen Academy Awards handed out each year (even if you ignore some of the more obscure awards, like "The Academy Award for Technical Achievement in Production of Films About Cabinetmakers in Medieval Romania Starting with the Letter "Q"). Two individuals are recognized each year by induction into the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame, which seems to be even more selective than either award that has been arbitrarily set as the bar for award categories. This sounds to me like a sufficiently prestigious defining characteristic for achievement in radio and television, and is most certainly not one that recipients "accumulate in large numbers". Given that the sole arguments for deletion appear to be based on mischaracterizations of the recognition and that there is not any policy argument for deletion, I stand unswayed in supporting retention of this category. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, what is being "foisted off" – as you so charitably describe the hard work of your fellow editors – at OCAT is an attempt to express the consensus that has formed against categorizing people by every pissant little award that every piddling group decides to hand out. Unless you're suggesting that only three editors have ever expressed an opinion in favor of deleting a minor award category, something easily disproven with even a few moments' work. I believe that the Academy discontinued all of its awards for technical achievement for cabinetry-related films quite some time ago, but even if they were still being awarded, it is quite likely that the recipients would still, in being introduced to a general audience, be introduced as Academy Award winners. The same likely does not hold true for the inductees to this trade association hall. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a source describing the National Association of Broadcasters as a "piddling group" that hands out a "pissant little award", I will be more than willing to reconsider my position. I have demonstrated that this is a highly selective award, even more selective than the awards presented as our supposed gold standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea. Why don't you, since youbear the burden of proof as the defender of the category, find sources that indicate that this award is considered prestigious? Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what source I could find that would meet your requirements of being "sufficiently prestigious". What I have rather conclusively demonstrated is that this is a highly selective award granted for achievement in the field of broadcasting, and that it is not the "sort of award that those who receive tend to accumulate in large numbers" as with Academy Awards and the occasional multiple Nobel laureate, but rather one that has recognized two -- and only two -- persons per year. Can you point to any Wikipedia guideline or policy that would require its deletion? Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How strange then that none of the three articles in the category I looked at bother to mention the award at all: Roy Acuff, Lucille Ball (which lists a long string of similar honours) and Ted Husing. If there are any articles which neglect to mention their subject receiving a Nobel Prize, do let us know! Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of playing your little "what requires this be deleted?" game because you've been on the losing side of enough rounds of that game that you ought to know by now that that's not the game being played. People do not in fact "tend to accumulate" Academy Awards as it is extremely rare for anyone to have more than one, and in those instances of multiple Oscar winners (Edith Head for example) they only appear once per Oscar category since Oscar winners are not categorized by year. The Nobel comparison is equally silly; does anyone other than Linus Pauling even have more than one Nobel? As for what sort of sources would I find acceptable, oh I don't know, how about some independent reliable ones that include such words as "the television and radio industry consider being inducted into the NAB HoF to be one of the most prestigious honors that can be bestowed on a person in the field"? And, "selective" is in no way the same as "prestigious". There are any number of "Palookaville Chamber of Commerce Man of the Year"-type awards that, in presenting only one award per year, are even more selective than this. Are you suggesting that every such award get its own Wikipedia category based on "selectivity"? Nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, Marie Curie also has two Nobels in different fields. She and Pauling are the only two people who have "accumulated" more than one. Otto4711 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting about John Bardeen (Physics 1956 and 1972) and Frederick Sanger (Chemistry 1958 and 1980). And don't get me started on how the International Red Cross has been tossed the Peace Prize on three separate occasions. As far a I know, the National Association of Broadcasters has never honored the same person twice. The National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame admits two people per year, while those Nobel folks just handed three (!) people the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for two completely different discoveries, and that's only one of five (or six) prizes they'll give out this year. They seem to give those medals pretty willy-nilly compared to the far more selective folks at the NAB. Alansohn (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we were of course talking about accumulating Nobels in different categories, so of course none of your counter-examples have anything to do with anything because they would all only appear in one category and thus not accumulate Nobel category clutter. And you've conveniently ignored yet again the fact that "selective" is not the same thing as "prestigious." But if you honestly think that the NAB is in any possible way equivalent to the Nobels then you're clearly too far gone to bother with further. Otto4711 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it was you who insisted that this category must be deleted because it is for that "sort of award that those who receive tend to accumulate in large numbers." I think I have shown that it is not, unlike the Nobel Prize and Academy Awards. It is an extremely selective award honoring those individuals for the top achievement in the fields of television and radio in the United States. I know that you just don't like it, but why should it be deleted? If what you meant all along is that people who are recognized by induction into the National Broadcasters Hall of Fame ALSO receive other awards, isn't that true of Nobel Prize and Academy Award recipients, as well. Don't make me list all of the "pissant little awards" that Pauling, Curie, Bardeen and Sanger have received. And the Red Cross must have closets-full of "pissant little awards". Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Oh good lord, is that what this is about? Your lack of reading comprehension? No, I did not say that people who are inducted into the NAB HoF accumulate multiple inductions into the HoF. Yes, I did say that people who are inducted into the NAB HoF tend to accumulate many awards and honors that are similar to being inducted into the NAB HoF. And as for the closets full of pissant little awards that Pauling, et. al. have received, that rather proves my point. Of the closets full of awards and honors that Pauling has received, he is in six awards categories, including the two Nobel categories and one for one of the highest civilian decoration[s] of the United States. The other three are perhaps questionable under OCAT but the point still stands that his awards categories tend to be limited to the most prestigious of his awards. Curie is in exactly two awards-specific categories (along with Nobel-by-nationality cats). Bardeen is in three, all described as the highest or one of the highest awarded in the field. Sanger is in seven, including a number of British royal orders. The International Red Cross is in no awards categories currently (although I will shortly add them to the Peace Prize category). So please, go ahead, list off all of the awards that these people have won. In fact, list them in article space. Those lists will beautifully illustrate my point and would be valuable additions to the encyclopedia, much like the rest of Category:Lists of awards by award-winner. And again, all you need do is provide some sources that indicate that the radio and television industry outside the NAB itself consider this to be a particularly prestigious award and I'll withdraw my objections. Instead of these endless permutations of "it's selective" (which still does not mean "prestigious") or whatever, find the sources. Just a few little ol' sources. Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame contains an excellent list, with the added benefit of year of award. Occuli (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Occuli. Clearly the list is better suited in this case and the category is not necessary.  Also this follows previously related discussion consensus decisions. I fail see in the discussions above a case for reversing previous consensus.  Some of that discussion centers around the unsuitability of the Nobel's as a kind of indicator.  Well, ask a thousand people what a Nobel award is.  Then ask the same people what the NAB Hall of Fame is.  I suspect there will be a big difference in recognition. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.