Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 26



Musicians from Los Angeles

 * 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: No consensus to rename as nominated; also no consensus to drop "California" from current name. Obviously, someone could just create the Greater LA categories and prune off the relevant articles in the LA,CA categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:


 * Category:Musicians from Los Angeles, California to Category:Musicians from the Greater Los Angeles Area
 * Category:Rappers from Los Angeles, California to Category:Rappers from the Greater Los Angeles Area
 * Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles, California to Category:Musical groups from the Greater Los Angeles Area
 * Nominator's rationale: "Greater Los Angeles Area" expands the reach of this category beyond the city of LA itself; a lot of musicians aren't necessarily from the city itself but rather from surrounding areas like Santa Monica, Orange County, etc. Same goes with its child categories, "Rappers from Los Angeles, California" and "Musical groups from Los Angeles, California" Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- and remove the errant membership. That's like saying we should have Category:Musicians from the Greater New York Area, because so many live nearby and commute....
 * Question - what about the category:San Francisco Bay Area musicians? And no, there's no such thing as the "Greater New York Area". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the US Government thinks there is a Greater New York Area. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to "... from Los Angeles" (dropping ", California") Wikipedia guidelines establish that Los Angeles appears sans state, and all corresponding categories should reflect the title of the pare article per Wikipedia consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per Alansohn, as LA now stands alone within, yet without, California. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Clearly this reflects how the category is being used and makes the most sense.  Oppose a rename to remove California since it is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove outliers. There are enough musicians here specifically from LA. Obviously, I also oppose removing the "California."--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2009 (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:Academics of the Hochschule für "Musik Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden -> Category:Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Academics of the Hochschule für "Musik Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden to be renamed to Category:Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden or similar
 * Nominator's rationale: mispositioned quotes Ian Cairns (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per the article Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber" (although this omits Dresden, so perhaps the category name should follow suit). Occuli (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2009 (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:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism

 * 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: No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * german jews who emigrated to the united states to escape nazism


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete: Such a proliferation of intersecting categories: intersection by location(s), religious adherence, etc. Narrow category is example of overcategorization. Gilliam (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:Jewish emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States as this includes the content of the category without stating 'why'. It is certainly a recognized cohort of people. Hmains (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Hmains' suggestion, as nominator. - Gilliam (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- there's nothing unusual about Jews emigrating from Germany, or anywhere else to escape Nazism. Every time I come across this, such as Henry Kissinger, I'm flabbergasted by the over-categorization. If kept, at least remove all its parent categories from its members!
 * Really? I had no idea.  See my comment below, with a sampling of citations, for a distinctly contrary view.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Just as there doesn't have to be a "French" way to do anything, there need not be a "Jewish" way to do anything for there to be a category. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Heritage. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as this one are clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order....

Per Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:
 * Terminology must be neutral....
 * Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
 * Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.   This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category.

This category has certainly been one that has attracted scholarly and academic and non-trivial attention, such as "Jewish Emigration from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule; The Emigration of Jewish Academics and Professionals from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule", "In Search of Refuge: Jews and US Consuls in Nazi Germany 1933-1941", by Bat-Ami Zucker, "American Protestantism's Response to Germany's Jews and Refugees: 1933-1941", by William E. Nawyn, "Jewish immigrants of the Nazi period in the USA", by Herbert Arthur Strauss, Steven W. Siegel, "Lives Lost, Lives Found: Baltimore’s German Jewish Refugees, 1933-1945," "The Reception of Refugee Scholars from Nazi Germany in America: Philanthropy and Social Change in Higher Education", by Marjorie Lamberti, "Generation Exodus: The Fate of Young Jewish Refugees from Nazi Germany", by Walter Laqueur, "No Haven for the Oppressed; United States Policy Toward Jewish Refugees, 1938-1945," by Saul S. Friedman "German Jewish Refugees, 1933-1939", "The Forced Emigration of German Jews", THE GERMAN AND JEWISH INTELLECTUAL ÉMIGRÉ COLLECTION, and "US Government Policy", by Stewart,.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because I do not agree with the nominator that this is an overly narrow intersection. More precisely, I find it an important intersection, from an historical point of view. My recent visit to the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem has shown a lot of material that seems to indicate the same. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess that this a "Narrow category [that] is [an] example of overcategorization", only because Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime were so darn effective in killing those who might have emigrated, though the failure of the American (and other) governments to admit these emigrees only adds insult to murder. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Debresser and rename per Hmains. And, could William Allen Simpson please consider rephrasing his argument that "there's nothing unusual about Jews emigrating from Germany, or anywhere else to escape Nazism"?  This statement seems insensitive to the grim facts of history; I'm sure that's not what was intended, but I'm not sure what was actually meant.  Anyway, for the few who managed to escape, it tends to be one of the identifying facts of their lives.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Arxiloxos' point is true of people who marry, divorce, have kids, survive a nasty car wreck, get arrested, and many other things that are not categorized. Yes, this is notable, but a list would be far more useful as it could tell us when they emigrated and to where. Here, it's OCAT and nearly all its components including emigration and Jewish status are already amply categorized; and we can likely find other people claiming their parallels: Category:Armenians who left Anatolia to escape the Armenian Genocide, Category:Russian Jews who left Russia to avoid pogroms, Category:Palestinians who left the Holy Land to escape Israel, Category:Iranians who left Iran to escape the Islamic Republic, Category:Native Americans who left the United States to avoid extermination, Category:British loyalists who left the thirteen colonies to avoid the traitorous government being devised by Washington, Adams and Jefferson and any other event that caused migrations of people. While the Holocaust was absolutely a horrid and defining moment in history and in the lives of those who escaped it, no doubt those who left under other circumstances would think that of themselves as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite all the poorly chosen counterexamples, all you've offered is WP:WAX. It is truly disappointing that there isn't any justification offered for deletion under any guideline or policy and an argument that consists largely of insisting that every other set of refugees will want their own category and that the slippery slope can only be prevented by deletion of this category. The claim that "a list would be far more useful" is absolutely true, but completely invalid as a justification for deletion. Basically, categories suck. They can't include sources, include redlinks, be sorted, be divided into subsections, have additional explanations such as dates and other details, among many other deficiencies, which is true of this category and every other category that exists in Wikipedia. Would you care to address whether this category is capturing a defining characteristic and why a category cannot exist here in parallel with a list, rather than essentially stating WP:IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is typical reaction of Carlossuarez46, who regularly opposes the existence of legitimate ethnic categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The Jewsih holocaust was a notably horrific event. A large number of Jewish intellectuals etc emigrated from Germny in advance of it.  It is easy to find analogies that make this reductio ad absurdam, but that does not make the present case an illegitimate category.  Jews who emigrated on account of progroms may well derve a category; so might Hugenot immigrants to Britain after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.  United Empire Loyalists (poorly described above) likewise.  However such categories should only be allowed in cases of large scale migration.  How many notable native Americans left the USA?  No doubt some moving into unconquered (but later conquered) areas, but I doubt it would be enough for a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2009 (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:Cathedrals

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. (Also, category was not tagged with a CfD template.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest renaming Category:Cathedrals to Category:Historic Cathedrals
 * Nominator's rationale: There exists a Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals which is confusing. Which category does a cathedral go in? There should be a Category:Historic Cathedrals for all those cathedrals that have historic or cultural significance -- Catholic, Anglican or otherwise -- and then separate categories for individual denominations' cathedrals, i.e. Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals or Category:Anglican Cathedrals. Some with undoubtedly go into multiple categories, think St. Peter's at the Vatican, but the categories would then have meaning, one for its cultural significance and one for its religious. Alternatively, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals could be dropped in favor of Category:Cathedrals but then you would end up with a number of cathedrals listed particularly from smaller denominations and dioceses that were not historically or culturally significant. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you thinking that only some Wikipedia cathedrals are Historic? If so then what would be the parent category for Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals? -- Just create a new category if it is really needed and leave Category:Cathedrals alone.
 * Are you thinking that all Wikipedia cathedrals are Historic? If so then why don't we rename Category:Churches to Category:Historic churches and Category:Aqueducts to Category:Historic aqueducts also? How does it help? --User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 08:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is Category:Cathedrals, subcat schemes Category:Cathedrals by denomination, Category:Cathedrals by country, all exemplary. No need to change a thing. Occuli (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it looks fine as it is. Historic would not be adequate in any case as some are there for their architectural significance rather than historical. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - a pointless & subjective distinction. Where would the unhistoric cathedrals go? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per all other "keepers". Debresser (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a rather well-defined and obvious parent for all cathedrals, including the subparent Category:Cathedrals by denomination. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitmate parent category, which quite properly contains few articles, merely being a container for subcategories. Modern cathedrals are likely to be notable, so that the proposal to exclude them from the category is illogical.  One in theory might have a Historic Cathedrals category, but this raises a POV issues as to how old a Catehdral has to be to be "historic".  We do not distinguish usually political bio-categories into "present" and "past", nor should we with Cathedrals.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (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:Number-one singles in Ireland

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in Ireland to Category:Irish Singles Chart number-one singles
 * Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that "number one singles" categories should specify the name of the chart. Note that Category:Number-one singles in the United Kingdom was just renamed to Category:UK Singles Chart number-one singles and other country categories were similarly renamed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Naming conventions. —  Σ xplicit  20:16, 26 June 2009 (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:Culturally significant graffiti

 * 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Culturally significant graffiti to Category:Graffiti
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Subjective and POV. Who decides what is "culturally significant"? People who are graffiti academics would no doubt tell us that all graffiti is culturally significant, whereas my grandpa would advocate white paint and the death penalty in every case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per GO. I see what is meant - places with a particular significance where fans etc come & leave graffiti. Berlin Wall and Abbey Road Studios (if they didn't keep repainting the wall) could be added, along with the Parthenon, Great Sphinx etc etc. But it is not suitable for a category. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said—I should have given the creator more credit for the intent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to parent category. Subjective and arbitrary inclusion criteria, POV title.- Gilliam (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (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:Parodies of Wikipedia

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * parodies of wikipedia


 * Nominator's rationale: No hope of expansion, ever. Seriously, what other parodies of Wikipedia exist? Is ED really a parody of Wikipedia? Blatant WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 2nd nom: was nominated on 2009 May 16; closed as "keep". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per the fact that Ten Pound Hammer nominated it just last month, it was kept, and not one of his otters has had the courtesy to mention this. (TPH should keep a list of his noms - repeat noms have happened many times.) Occuli (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A rather well-defined and defining category. This is not the first time that TPH has renominated a category without any apparent recollection of nominating the same category before. This could be an early sign of some form of memory loss, but is more likely a symptom of nominating so many categories that one can't possibly remember all the categories put up for CfD or remembering exactly what happened to them the last time around. One of the first steps prior to nomination must be to see if there is any prior history of earlier discussions of the exact same category, which might well help avoid needless discussions like this one. Alansohn (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten Pound can speak for himself I suppose, but I'm guessing there is much simpler explanation (it also has the added benefit of being consistent with AGF): the closer in the last discussion forgot to append a template to the category talk page after the discussion was closed, which is where the information about previous nominations is usually referenced. (I've just corrected this oversight, BTW.) Because of this, I think it's appropriate to give Ten Pound a bit of a break in this regard ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep WP:CCC, but unlikely to have done so in such a short amount a time without something being mentioned about that in the nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2009 (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:Blondie cartoonists

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Blondie cartoonists to Category:American comic strip cartoonists
 * Nominator's rationale: Yes, there have been several cartoonists working on Blondie. No, I don't think there's a pressing need for them to have their own category. There're only 9, and one's up for AFD. Many other cartoons have had as many, or more, names attached. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge as there are no other 'by publication' subcats in Category:Comic strip cartoonists. Occuli (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge - a type of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Occuli. But I wouldn't oppose 'by publication' subcats in Category:Comic strip cartoonists if there are going to be more of them. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All but one of these articles (for Jim Raymond) define the individual in the lead paragraph as having been a cartoonist who has worked on Blondie. Per the "if it's mentioned in the lead, it's defining" rule I recently saw best defined at the Kyle Broflovski article, this shared trait is defining and an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any number of things are mentioned in the leads of articles that are not used as the basis for categories. Marriages, divorces, children, income, many occupations and, most relevant to this discussion, creative projects on which the article's subject worked. Consensus has been clear and consistent for years that categorizing people on the basis of their involvement in creative works is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's the difference between the two of us. I see a clear defining characteristic and how the category system would be an effective way to allow readers to navigate across these articles for different cartoonists who share a distinct common characteristic. You see a "rule" and seek to enforce it, regardless of the disruption it causes. I am unswayed by your insistence that Wikipedia will somehow be improved by the deletion of this (and other similar) categories by the blind imposition of a much-abused "rule". There are many other comic strips with multiple artists that could -- and should -- have categories created for them, and the insistence that deletion is required because no other such categories exist is purely circular logic, which will result in the kneejerk deletion of any future category created in this structure. Alansohn (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it's really a question of looking at the overall structure and function of the category system and understanding that "rules" (by which I assume that you mean "consensus" seeing as how that's the model by which we operate) should be applied clearly and consistently. I am unswayed by your hand-waving about "disruption" and "abuse" that does not address the consensus that we have painstakingly developed over the course of some four years and which, in your usual dismissal of the work and thought put into that consensus by innumerable editors in your zeal to denigrate a process that you routinely dismiss as a "game". I could just as easily hand-wave about your "mentioned in the lead" rule by claiming that categorizing on that basis is "disruptive" and "abusive", but pointing out that you're wrong about the existence of any such "rule" in the first place suffices. The same reasoning behind the vast numbers of deleted performer by performance categories applies here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In many, many cases, consensus has changed, and it can happen even here at CfD. Prior consensus is something worth looking at, but in this case it can be safely discarded. The "performer by performance" "rule" is one which would be useful and even justifiable for not including categories for all television programs, movies or plays that an actor has appeared in. The problem is this small kernel of potential usefulness has been used and abused beyond any shred of common sense in situations where the sole purpose seems to be to find some reason, any reason, to delete a category. In the rather problematic Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17, you went so far as to insist that a category for a defining means of pitching had to be deleted as a "variant of performer by performance overcategorization", a position that was roundly rejected by the consensus of the community as a whole at DRV. Unfortunately, all sight is lost here of the role of categories in grouping by a defining characteristic, and the clear benefit of this category as an aid to navigation is lost in the inappropriate application of a rule that just doesn't fit and that only serves to further disrupt navigation. There is a place for WP:OCAT, but this ain't it. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus certainly can change and there are certainly instances in which consensus has changed. However, you have provided no evidence at all that this consensus has changed. One overturned CFD does not mean that the entire OCAT consensus has been undone, nor do I see any indication in the DRV for the knuckleballers category that the community had rejected the underlying principle of performer-by-performance OCAT. Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a place for OCAT, but the persistent abuse of a potentially useful policy to rationalize deletion of anything any one editor just doesn't like is a big part of the problem. This is a clear defining characteristic and navigation using the category system is an effective means to access these articles. The sad fact is that we hear nothing about navigation and lots about the mindless application of a "rule" that is overused and does not apply here. As usual, Wikipedia is worse off, but rules must be enforced, consequences and common sense be damned. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, you do not own the concession on what does and doesn't constitute either "abuse" or "common sense". "Anything one editor doesn't like" is both a failure to assume good faith on the part of nominating editors and yet another willful disregarding of consensus. Nothing at WP:OCAT, including performer by performance, developed as the result of the personal likes or dislikes of a single editor. Rather, they reflect principles of consensus developed through years of discussion at CFD and the OCAT talk page (and probably other venues as well of which I'm unaware). This continual "editors don't like stuff so they abuse the system" chatter at CFD (and DRV) is a particularly tiresome aspect of your efforts to score points against the way CFD operates as a whole. Otto4711 (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the strong defining characteristic and connection between the cartoonists and the comic strip Blondie, deletion of the category is simply disruptive. The consensus that created WP:OCAT was limited to categories for actors in television and movies, as discussed rather clearly at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization/Archive_1. Unfortunately, over time, the need to find potentially valid fig leaves to justify deletion has led to deletion creep, in which it is routinely abused to mean any category that connects anybody to anything they do, a la your rather bizarre insistence that Category:Knuckleball pitchers must be deleted under policy as performer by performance, an argument that was roundly rejected by the community as a whole at DRV. It would be helpful to hear from you if this category here is defining or not and how Wikipedia navigation is improved by deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, you have not explained why this category is an exception to performer by performance other than your distaste for the guideline and the CFD process in general. Since the knuckleballers DRV addressed the specific application of the guideline to one category rather than serving as a referendum of the guideline as a whole, your repeatedly invoking it as some sort of talisman against the guideline as a whole would be mystifying if it weren't so blatantly transparent. Otto4711 (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've shown from Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization/Archive_1, OCAT relates to actors by film or series, a perfectly reasonable consensus when an individual actor can appear in hundreds of different films or television series. It has nothing to do with a defining connection between cartoonists and their single most defining comic strip. The community consensus at the DRV for Category:Knuckleball pitchers only further demonstrates that the community will not tolerate "performer by performance" being repeatedly waved as a talisman used to justify deleting anything and everything one editor doesn't like. The question is why does it apply here? How are Wikipedia editors better off by deleting a means of navigation through a clearly defining characteristic? Alansohn (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * <--- OCAT relates to actors by film or series. Nonsense. WP:OCAT clearly applies to far more than actors by film or TV series, as a simple reading of the guideline makes obvious. Nothing in the guideline limits OCAT to acting performances, as it specifically notes that "performers" include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc. Based on the sheer number of categories deleted as performer by performance that are not related to a film or a TV series, including a number of categories for writers and illustrators by media franchise, indicates that "the community" is far more "tolerant" of how performer by performance is being applied than this puffery based on a single overturned discussion might lead someone less attuned to puffery to believe. Hundreds of editors have contributed to developing the current consensus. You know this, yet you continue to spin the same phony "everything's getting deleted because a single editor doesn't like stuff" line of BS. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. "actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers" are all individuals who can appear in hundreds or thousands of different individual "performances by performer", entirely in keeping with the consensus that created WP:OCAT. Many actors appear in hundreds of movies or series, pornographic actors in thousands. Comedians perform hundreds of shows, dancers appear in hundreds of performances. Models appear in hundreds of magazine photo shoots, orators make hundreds upon hundreds of speeches and singers can perform thousands of times. I might well agree with you again if each individual daily strip had an article, which could be stretched to be a "performance". Where there is a well-defined and defining connection between a cartoonist and a single comic strip, where such artists are clearly not involved in hundreds of different strips, WP:OCAT has absolutely no relevance. I do appreciate that you believe that OCAT justifies deletion of any and all categories that have anybody doing anything (such as drawing a comic strip or throwing a baseball), but the claim that any contradictory opinion is "BS" is just more of your rather blatant incivility. P.S. I couldn't ask you to list all of the "Hundreds of editors [who] have contributed to developing the current consensus", but let's see just an even hundred. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the unfounded incivility accusation, I had wondered when this last refuge of the scoundrel would rear its ugly head in this discussion. I suppose you ought to be congratulated for restraining yourself for as long as you did. And, I'll let you spend your time sifting through all of the various CFDs for editors' names. Maybe as you review them for names you'll also review them for content and context and come to understand that your "one editor doesn't like it" line of nonsense is, well, nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2009 (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.