Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 13 September 15 >

September 14[edit]

Category:Morecambe and Wise[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Morecambe and Wise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization of performances based on cast. Otto4711 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd !vote to delete it. I don't see anything in there that requires an eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty in there: books by, books about, films by, films, plays and documentaries about, etc etc. Also per Category:Monty Python precedent. No way can these all be described as "performances based on cast"! Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Books by..." should be in an author cat. "Films by..." should not be categorized eponymously at all. "Foos about..." categories are problematic at best and we don't resolve them by creating eponymous categories for the subjects. Category:Monty Python a) is several orders of magnitude larger and more complex and b) has never been nominated for deletion so its existence doesn't serve as precedent. Category:Mitchell and Webb serves as a much better precedent and you raised these same arguments in support of it. The category was nonetheless deleted after those who argued that it too was just like the Python categories were unable to substantiate the argument. Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh really, we never categorize books by their subject then? You also forget that most of the "performances" were also written in large part by them, so it is not merely "by performance". I fail to see why the fact that MP has never been nominated for deletion means it is no precedent - should I nominate it and create one then? You have a certain amount of nerve citing as a precedent Mitchell & Webb, which was closed as inconclusive (You as nom +1, 2 keeps) and then renominated by you, and closed as Delete despite your nom getting NO other support, except of course Kdbank as closer. I don't think I saw that one myself. Let's hope this debate gets a better turnout. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I say "never"? Don't think I did, because obviously we have a structure for books by subject. What I'm saying, which is the same thing I said about Mitchell and Webb, is that creating an eponymous category to sidestep an existing consensus is not a good idea. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument, because the existence of one category does not mean that another category should exist. You've been here long enough to know that. Much of what was in Mitchell and Webb was also written by them and that was not deemed reason enough to keep the category. You had your shot with Mitchell and Webb, you were unable to prove your case despite clear instructions from the closer of the CFD as to what you needed to do to prevent its deletion and you failed to do so. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I haven't seen carlos around for a while, and it would be most improper for kdbank to close this one, let's see if there is an "existing concensus". I had never seen the M&W category before it was nominated & failed to understand either of kdbank's closes, and I accept no responsibility to have done anything at all with that category as you seem to be suggesting. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Otto's prejudice against eponymous catgories is becoming tiresome. (Mitchell and Web are relative newcomers and at present there is not that much material, unlike Morecambe and Wise. I also perceive a US-centric bias here.) Occuli (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, thanks for the assumption of good faith regarding the reasons I made the nomination. Given that I have supported eponymous categories in the past and even created some when they were appropriate and not just categorization for the sake of it, your accusation of prejudice is nonsensical. Given that I have nominated far more US-based eponymous categories for deletion than any other country, your assertion of nationalistic bias is equally nonsensical. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "IT" in this case being either the fact of the nomination or the nominator, is a piss-poor reason for keeping anything. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an instance where of lists, categories and navboxes a navbox may be the solution rather than a category? Do people tend to use Category:Morecambe and Wise as a search term rather than Morecambe and Wise? Hiding T 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good list would give more information; I don't think a navbox appropriate here. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a navbox not be appropriate? It can include a line for the two principals, one for associates, one for programmes, one for books by, one for books about and one for miscelaneous related entries. That plus the extensive interlinking through the lead articles and the various subsidiaries would suffice. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started bulding the template here. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would support a navbox but not a category; navboxes should be used far more sparingly in my view, and only if a comparable category is in place - they don't fit into trees, and only give a limited extra amount of information, if any. Some of these articles are compilations etc which don't really need a navbox. Having a navbox is a good argument that there should be a category, in my view, and no argument that the category should be deleted. Lists are different. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • they don't fit into trees, and only give a limited extra amount of information, if any. As opposed to the no extra information provided by categories? And only having navboxes if a category already exists is contrary to WP:CLN. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which bit? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its entirety and in its spirit. Since lists, cats and navboxes function independently but synergistically, blindly tying the existence of one to the existence of another is in the long term completely untenable. There are times when one functions better than another, and in this case a navbox, which can sort its items into groupings without creating either a series of small subcategories or a series of performer by performance subcategories in violation of current consensus, works better than a category which, since it is grouping films, TV shows, etc. by performer, inappropriately sidesteps current consensus. This sort of division aids people who are interested in reading about, for instance, M&W TV programs because it's far easier to look at the template and figure out which of these very similarly named articles is for TV shows without having to guess or creating the consensus-violating Category:Morecambe and Wise television series. It also shows at a glance that there is a film article waiting to be written, something a category can never do. Listification is a poor choice because it will result either in the vaguely-named List of things associated with Morecambe and Wise or a series of tiny lists of three or four items that are likely never to develop beyond stubs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! My reading of it does not support that at all. And a list could have chronological sequences, and a few words describing on each item, to sort out the rather confusing re-issues, re-autobiographies etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod. Tim! (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: from WP:CAT "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists and navigation boxes) help readers find articles, even if they don't know that they exist or what they are called." A reader able to remember the name of one of M&W's films but not another cane use the category. They do not stress the server. As a sidenote, I object to Otto4711's pre-emptive removal of articles from this category before a decision is made; that's just disruptive and POV. --Rodhullandemu 17:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I have reverted those I spotted (less 1). The category now has 31 articles, for the record. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object all you want. I didn't remove anything that was not inappropriately categorized. There is overwhelming and rock solid consensus that we do not categorize performances on the basis of who performed in them, so regardless of whether this unnecessary category is kept the films and TV shows will come out. So your example of a reader using the category to find the films is invalid, because the film articles won't be there. They will, however, be in the navbox that I am building, along with every other article currently in the category along with a redlink for the missing film article, something that even if the films were in the category would be invisible to the reader since we can't categorize redlinks. Of the 31 articles in the category, at least 17 of them are inappropriately categorized (and about half of those are tagged for notability concerns) and will be unfindable through the category. Seems rather foolish to base an argument for keeping a category on its utility for finding things that it won't contain. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unimpressed by an argument based on a personal opinion rather than a consensus as to what is appropriate to be in such a category. There is clearly a difference of opinion on that point. My point remains that an less sophisticated reader may well seek to find further information by examining a category if the information they seek isn't linked from the article they are reading, and this deletion would rob them of that opportunity. I re-iterate that in technical terms, categories are cheap and are not worth the trouble they cause, such as here. There is no sensible method of achieving what you are seeking throughout the whole encyclopedia and I further suggest that effort wasted on jejune debates such as this is wasteful of human resources when, as you argue, there are notability concerns which can be addressed by either WP:SOFIXIT, deletion or merging. We are here to supply navigable content. As for your navbox, please continue with it, and it if can sensibly replace functions provided by categories, so be it. Until then, and our readers can sensibly find what they're looking for- whatever the context- I remain unconvinced. Perhaps I will live to see it happen, but I doubt it. --Rodhullandemu 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say that my argument is based on personal opinion. It is fact that we do not categorize performances by the people who perform them. This has been thrashed out over several large CFD debates and the consensus has been in place for well over a year. Thus, the articles on their TV shows, the articles on their joint films, the articles on sketches and the article on the one's solo film are all categorized here in violation of that consensus. It is fact that the category can't demonstrate the hole in coverage of their films. What category function are you suggesting isn't, in this instance and in light of performer by performance consensus, surpassed by the template? The less-sophisticated reader is going to hit the template, which not only includes everything in this category but advises what the general subject of the article is by dividing into into segments such as "television" and "films", before hitting the category list.
  • As for causing trouble in debates, who was it again who accused someone else of disrupting the project? Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving aside the personal angle, please, again from WP:CAT : "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists and navigation boxes) help readers find articles, even if they don't know that they exist or what they are called." That's a reason for them to exist. They do no harm. They do not stress the servers. There is no way a consistent approach can be achieved across the project and purity, although desirable, is also impractical. Fighting in tiny corners for something that is not worthy of a fight is unproductive, IMO. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOHARM is not a particularly compelling argument. I understand the purpose of categories, so there is no need to quote it again. Note that WP:CAT is simply an explanation of what categories are and how to use them. It does not mandate any given category, so "keep because we have categories" isn't a great argument either. If it were, we would not have a mechanism in place for deleting categories at all. WP:OCAT is a guideline which offers guidance as to when not to use categories. Category:Morecambe and Wise films and Category:Morecambe and Wise television programmes would be deleted as overcategorization. Categorizing their films and programmes directly under their names is an end-run around consensus. I don't expect that we will find every such instance of overcategorization within the project, but when I find one I'm going to attempt to do something about it. I note that you have not answered my question about what functions of a category are not matched or superceded by the template, so I hope you will answer it and also answer me this: If this isn't worth fighting about, why are you fighting about it? Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the template is completed and currently placed on the lead article and the individual biographies. I will do the rest shortly. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fighting that much; I'm putting my opinion, which may or may not be accepted by the closing Admin. I'm fine with that. To me, this is a bagatelle which seems an unnecessary diversion to my central purpose here, which is to produce a usable and defensible encyclopedia, and to be honest, minor tedious and trivial debates like this about form and structure don't help that purpose. I came here knowing full well that my time on earth was limited and with the realisation that although my health would limit what I could do in very real terms, I would do the best I could. Perhaps you're lucky in those terms, and I spread myself too thinly- fighting vandalism takes up about 12 hours per day of my time here, but I can only do it while I'm here, and I perceive this debate as an unnecessary diversion. In the long term, it matters not a whit to me, because they ain't going to put it on my gravestone. Go with the template, it will be useful, but in real terms, no much more than an existing category which arguably could have continued to fulfil its purpose without interference. --Rodhullandemu 23:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree that categorising performance by performer is normally ruled out now, but duos of performers working together in the long term should provide satisfactory categories (as with music groups). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep enough material for a category, and one of the suitable cases for it. DGG (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lakeshore cities and towns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "settlements in/on foo". Kbdank71 14:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because of the arbitrary distinction between citites and towns, this modest hierarchy is difficult to deal with. See also umbrella nominations below which suggest that we should have a consistent treatment of these types of hierarchies. Whether the term Lakeshore or Lakeside is to be preferred may also be an issue. __meco (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why not bite the bullet now and simply go with the generic 'settlement'? Does anyone care what type of settlements they are? I would suggest that countries only roll up into the generic settlements category. Sub cats could be settlements or finer based on local conventions in the country. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find Settlements (or even Communitites) to be perfectly acceptable vis-à-vis my proposal. If all hierarchies would start there, then they could disperse to the level of resolution needed for descending hierarchies. __meco (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communities can be very ambiguous in this type of usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why? Is "Settlements" less problematic? __meco (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communities can mean a unified body of individuals or an organization. Clearly this could be based in settlements so that type of usage would be very confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it is likely that the use of Communities in these category titles could cause confusion. The juxtaposition of the word with geographical classes clearly precludes the interpretation "a unified body of individuals" and organization I also find too far-fetched to possibly become a source of ambiguity. __meco (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "settlements" to include all classes of incorporated municipalities (which may be legally termed cities, villages, etc.) and unincorporated communities. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I point to similar discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_13#Categories for 'place' in the UK are slowly getting into a mess and below, where there is talk of using communities. Again, this might be an instance where we need to do some joined up thinking and settle the issue across all categories where this is applicable. Again I suggest cfd is not the venue, since a consensus will have to be reached a centralised discussion is better. Thrash the issue out once, find a rough consensus, write it up and act accordingly. Doing it piecemeal is just not going to work in the long term. Hiding T 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that an encompassing discussion is needed on this matter. The problem as I see it is the lack of an obvious venue which would be noticed by all editors who might want to have a say in such a debate. We should be including both the Categories WikiProject (if it is active) and all the geographical WikiProjects which are concerned by a sweeping change to this hierarchy. Perhaps a general notice, the kind which is sometimes used to announce major changes and board elections and such would be appropriate. __meco (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2008
  • I agree that the more complex and over-reaching discussions could be brought to the Village pump. As Hiding helpfully notes, we're facing a similar problem elsewhere. Kbthompson (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to replace types of settlements with 'settlements' This follows the name used in the naming conventions so it is not likely to receive any serious opposition when used for the high level categories. Lower level sub categories can adopt variations if really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

River cities and towns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "settlements in/on foo". Kbdank71 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because of the arbitrary distinction between citites and towns, this relatively modest hierarchy is difficult to deal with. See also umbrella nomination below. __meco (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename for Oregon. In Oregon, there is no arbitrary distinction between cities and towns, as we have no official designation for "town" (see Category:Towns in Oregon), and I have populated Category:Cities on the Columbia River with only incorporated cities. Changing it to include "towns", which we call "unincorporated communities", and would also make the category unnecessarily large and less useful. I'd suggest all the categories only include incorporated cities. But because most people are confused about what the definition of "town" is, and it varies from state to state and province to province, if these must be renamed, I'd suggest Category:Settlements on Foo for all, to match Category:Settlements in Oregon, etc. Katr67 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/change nom per Katr. "Cities and towns" would not include "villages," "hamlets," etc. "Settlements" is a better blanket term. -Pete (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/adjust. At least re the Fraser, but my objections likely carry over to the St. Lawrence and other rivers named; I guess I could go with "Settlements" instead of communities; the reason I created Category:Communities on the Fraser River was because things were going into Category:Cities on the Fraser River that weren't cities. In addition to hamelts, villages, towns etc ("village" and "town" being legal designations in BC) there are various Indian Reserves and riverside localities of only a few residents - "town" is entirely inappropriate as much as "city" is. I instinctively went for "communities" (coming from more than one of them) rather than "settlements" which sounds stilted within local usage, although Category:Unincorporated settlements in British Columbia does exist. I come from communities, not "settlements", and I know the people in places like Spuzzum and Dog Creek would feel more comfortable with the one than the other, not that Wiki rules/guideliness necessairly pay attention to local flavour/preferences; if need be, given the humber of different kinds of communities on the various rivers, that separate subcats for "cities", "towns" "villages" and other designations might be the way to go, with an overall Communities/Settlements category binding them all togehter. BTW on a related matter see Category talk:Unincorporated settlements in British Columbia re uninhabited localities and uninhabited localities; a "locality" in BC gazetteer notes is less than a community in their ranking system.....PS I used "Communities" rather than "Settlements" because of the use of Communities in the regional district subcats, e.g. Category:Communities in Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, British Columbia (which should ahve "the" before "Squamish-Lillooet" and doesn't need the "British Columbia"Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my response in the above nomination of Lakeshore cities and towns I find Settlements/Communities perfectly acceptable as a starting point for all category hierarchies. Then finer distinctions could be appended, not substituted, as seen fit. __meco (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "settlements" to include all classes of incorporated municipalities (which may be legally termed cities, villages, etc.) and unincorporated communities. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to replace types of settlements with 'settlements' This follows the name used in the naming conventions so it is not likely to receive any serious opposition when used for the high level categories. Lower level sub categories can adopt variations if really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Settlements" would be acceptable. However different counties use the term "city" and "town" in differnet ways. Care needs to be taken not to have a "one size fits all" approach, which is liable to cause unnecessary and gratuitous offence in certain countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Coastal and port cities and towns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "settlements in foo". Kbdank71 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 3#Category:Port cities.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because of the arbitrary distinction between citites and towns, this relatively modest hierarchy is difficult to deal with and it becomes hard to integrate the Ports structure into the Coastal structure. __meco (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename for Oregon. In Oregon, there is no arbitrary distinction between cities and towns, as we have no official designation for "town" (see Category:Towns in Oregon), and I have populated Category:Coastal cities in Oregon and Category:Port cities in Oregon with only incorporated cities. Changing the coastal cities category to include "towns", which we call "unincorporated communities", would also make the category unnecessarily large and less useful. If these must be renamed, I'd suggest Category:Coastal settlements in Foo for all, and for Oregon, leave the port cities category alone, as we have no unincorporated communities with ports. Katr67 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my response in the above two umbrella nominations I find Settlements/Communities perfectly acceptable as a starting point for all category hierarchies. Then finer distinctions could be appended, not substituted, as seen fit. __meco (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "settlements" to include all classes of incorporated municipalities (which may be legally termed cities, villages, etc.) and unincorporated communities. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to replace types of settlements with 'settlements' This follows the name used in the naming conventions so it is not likely to receive any serious opposition when used for the high level categories. Lower level sub categories can adopt variations if really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rename" in quotes because the cities cat would/should still be a subcat. There is no "arbitrary distnction" in Canada between cities and towns, which are formal designations as are also district municipalities and villages and "other", including Indian Reserve communities which do not have a municipal designation. Also "ports" should still be a subcat, or parallel hierarchy, because a "port" is a particular kind of coastal settlement, although ultimately anywhere with a dock/marina is a port; many tiny localities are historic ports for old mines etc also. I suppose it's nearly a given that nearly any coastal settlement is a port but there is a distinction.Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Port cities are already subordinate to Ports and harbours. The second need not be a settlement. Should these then be termed Port settlements then? __meco (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/reply If a hierarchy Category:Ports and harbours (in country/jurisdiction "X") exists, it can still be a parallel hierarchy and needn't be integrated within a Category:Coastal settlements. As you note, not all harbours are settlements - I can think of half-a-dozen maritime placenames in BC which are designated "Harbour" (capital-H) for a body/arm of water....e.g. Gold Harbour in the Queen Charlottes, which although also a placename of a settlement is also the placename of the body of water it's located on; there are various examples on the BC Coast of designated "Harbour" placenames which are really just handy anchorages/sheltered waters and were never ports in the usual sense. Also note that Port of Vancouver would have the Ports category, while the city article would have the "settlements/cities" cat; i.e. formally-designated ports with infrastructure/organization are somewhat different from places that function as ports (e.g. Blunden Harbour, Alert Bay, albeit on a small scale - not big container docks and railheads like Vancouver or Seattle/Tacoma, for example. Even little Hartley Bay is a port in the strict sense of the term, also Namu and Butecdale.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Settlements" would be acceptable. However different counties use the term "city" and "town" in differnet ways. Care needs to be taken not to have a "one size fits all" approach, which is liable to cause unnecessary and gratuitous offence in certain countries. In view of meco's comments, more thought needs to be given to the "port" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films by technology subcategories[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. These categories seem to represent overcategorization by a relatively trivial detail, and cause category clutter. The type of film or compression method used, while undoubtedly an important artistic choice, is not thought of at all by the vast majority of viewers. I feel a set of lists would deal with the topic equally well.

I was also considering these three categories, but I think they should probably be kept because the technology is significant to the experience of general viewers. I offer them for discussion anyways:

--Eliyak T·C 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Generally speaking, I would agree with the basic thrust of this argument. However, I think that films in Category:Camcorder films are probably sufficiently distinct from commercial films to warrant a separate category. More importantly, I would give serious consideration to merging all of the categories for various types of widescreen films into a single category to be called (what else) Category:Widescreen films, since such films are noticeably different to the general viewer. Cgingold (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, I agree with much of the argument here. However I would regard Category:Films shot in PixelVision as something quite distinct, where the nature of the film is driven by the technological choice. In the early 90s I recall going to an evening of films at the Irish Film Institute which were presented specifically because they were PixelVision; I would argue that this category should survive. AllyD (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this comment, I would support keeping that category as well. Cgingold (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Category:Films shot in PixelVision, :*Category:Black and white films, Category:Films shot in Technicolor, Category:IMAX films per previous comments.
  • Weak keep - Category:Camcorder films and Category:Films shot digitally for reasons similar to the technological differences suggested for Technicolor and PixelVision. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Any of you guys work with film? It's pretty nice to be able to find lists of films that were made a specific way when you are working in film or learning about it. I used the 16mm links today to learn about and watch several films. How these films were shot is important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehtom (talk • contribs) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, the type of film used to produce a movie is a very signicant aspect of its production, and I would argue it's a defining feature. Audiences may not always be aware of this, but filmmakers, film historians, and critics certainly are. The type of film stock obviously affects how the film looks, and because the film stock dictates the camera to be used, which all have historically brought their own limitations to the production of the film—what kinds of shots could be taken. This New York Times review of the DVD release of the film How the West Was Won spends more time describing the impact of the use of Cinerama in the film than describing the story: "With its three strips of 35-millimeter film projected side by side with a slight overlap on a gigantic, curved screen, Cinerama offered six times the resolution...of the standard film of 1952, when it was first used commercially...The Cinerama camera — an 800-pound behemoth that resembled a steel-girded jukebox — could move forward and backward with ease and elegance, resulting in some of the most impressive moments in the film...But it couldn’t pan from side to side without creating registration problems, and close-ups were all but impossible to achieve with the system’s short 27-millimeter lenses." Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Seconded by Schweiwikist (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC), I added the ToddAO cat, and just got notified of this discussion. Wikipedia ought not to be assumed to be used by only so-called "viewers" who consider the technology "trivial". One of the most successful films of all time, R&H's "Oklahoma!", as well as "Carousel", were actually shot twice, one of the two formats being ToddAO. If this is trivial, then a list would be just as trivial. If I'm reading about a film shot in ToddAO, and wish to find out what other films were shot that way, the list should be just a click away. That's what cats are for. If the info is only in a list, I would have to hunt for a link to that list, which might not be linked to within the article. Now I know those cat boxes can get big, but the WWW is like that. Schweiwikist (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - These 13 subcats are linked to from the Film Portal. See Portal:Film/Categories. Do the film portal "minders" know about this discussion?
  • Question: As I said above, I quite agree that widescreen films are very distinct from those with a more standard aspect ration. What's not clear to me is whether the different sorts of widescreen film are sufficiently distinct from one another to warrant separate categories. Cgingold (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aspect ratio isn't the only, or even the main, difference between different kinds of film stock and formats. In many cases, the aspect ratio of a film as it is displayed in the theatre is simply the result of matting/masking the image with black bars rather than an inherent quality of the film. Each article on the different film stocks and processes (such as Cinerama, Cinemascope, VistaVision, etc.) highlights the technical benefits and limitations unique to each which affected image quality, budget and processing time, and what kinds of shots were possible, all in different ways ("Technicolor became known and celebrated for its hyper-realistic, saturated levels of color"; ). Grouping "widescreen" films together would disregard these differences. Further, as the industry moved from the 1.37:1 Academy ratio to widescreen ratios (of which there are different ones) around 1952, simply lumping all "widescreen" films together will mostly just create a dumping ground for nearly all post-1952 films. Given that nearly all films would only be categorized by one kind of film format, the category clutter is minimal, so there is no good reason not to categorize films by something as defining as the technology by which they were produced. Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - These are useful and informative categories, meaningful and helpful I see no leigitmate reason to delete them. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf, Rehtom, and Schweiwikist; the categories seem to be appropriate, useful, and well-defined. A list would be harder to maintain as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Radio frequency antenna types[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Radio frequency antenna types to Category:Antennas
Nominator's rationale: Merge, not particularly different from parent category. Adamantios (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep - This category has 75 articles in it, each about a particular type of antenna. Category:Antennas has 84 articles, most of which deal with various issues or pieces of equipment related to antennas (albeit there are a few about antenna types which should be cleared out). Merging these two categories is unthinkable. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This is no good reason presented for a merger. There are many different types of antennas and grouping them as sub categories is reasonable and logical. I don't have time to research this now, but this set of antenna renames was discussed in the past. At least I think I remember seeing this before. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse there are many different types of antennas, but, as it is, there is no reasonable grouping. We have Antennas - Antennas (radio) - Radio frequency antenna types. My original intention, as expressed here, was to have one parent category Antennas (radio) (or even Antenna (radio)), under that Polarization and maybe Antenna (types). Or something like that anyway. Adamantios (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah a solution presents itself. So based on the two discussions I think this may sum this up. With the exception of the one odd ball that was identified below, merge all of the articles from Category:Antennas to Category:Radio frequency antenna types or Category:Antennas (radio) (not sure about the relationship of those two yet). Then organize the articles in a logical manner into some number of sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are heading to the right direction. Thanks to everyone involved in this process. Adamantios (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Category:Radio frequency antenna types should not be merged with anything. It contains different antennas. Categories Category:Antennas (radio) and Category:Antennas should probably be merged, and should contain only antenna terms and parts, rather than actual antennas. --ssd (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough suitable a brand new video sharing site rial for a category DGG (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Antennas (radio)[edit]

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: relisted on Sep 22. Kbdank71 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Antennas (radio) to Category:Antennas
Nominator's rationale: Merge, not particularly different from parent category. Adamantios (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - I agree that there's no discernible difference between these two categories, but the preferred name is Category:Antennas (radio), which is consistent with the main article and eliminates possible linguistic confusion with the biological variety. (I also note that Category:Antennas (radio) was renamed from Category:Radio frequency antennas last year, but there's no link or date given for that CFD, so I don't know what the reasoning was on that. Perhaps simply to match the main article.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – antennas seems to include TV, radar, mobile phone etc which seem to me (no expert) to be distinct from radio. Occuli (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Occuli, that confirms what I suspected was the reason for the rename. As for the different kinds of antennas -- actually, all of them (including TV) are Radio frequency antennas (the original name of the category. As far as I'm aware, the only real difference is what use they're put to. I'm hoping that Vegaswikian will join the discussion and perhaps enlighten us as to what he had in mind when he created Category:Antennas. Cgingold (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a while, but I believe the issue was that not all antennas are radio frequency. Given that, then it makes sense for Category:Antennas to be the parent. I'll try and do some more digging in a few days. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did get a chance to look at Category:Antennas. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of junk in there. Leaving the sub cat makes cleanup of the parent a whole lot easier. Maybe Category:Antennas needs to be a container category only? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment under Category:Radio frequency antenna types. Adamantios (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are non-RF antennas, such as optical antennas [1] , or gravity wave antennas [2] 70.51.9.124 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. Optical antennas are the same as radio antennas. Technically, light is a radio wave that just happens to be in the visible part of the spectrum. --ssd (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a little misleading. The real issue is that radio and light waves occupy very distinct parts of the "electromagnetic spectrum", and thus require radically different antennas. Cgingold (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for this very interesting reply, Anon. -- I certainly didn't consider either of those possibilities. My immediate thought was, "do we have any articles about such antennas?" I got 0 hits for "gravity wave antenna" on Wikipedia, but I did get 1 hit for "optical antenna": it's mentioned briefly in the article Nanoantenna, which amazingly enough hadn't been placed in Category:Antennas (I immediately added it). That being the case, I suppose we don't have any real choice but to keep that as the parent cat. However, I just skimmed through that article list again, and as far as I can see, every single one of them (except for the new one) belongs in Category:Antennas (radio). If I'm right about that, it means that Category:Antennas will be left with one article and one sub-category as its entire contents. Again, I don't really see any other options here, but perhaps there's something I haven't thought of. Cgingold (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't thought of Antennas (arthropods), or even Antennas (alien creatures). Just trying to be funny... Adamantios (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I did mention "the biological variety" above. :) But what I really meant was, perhaps there's some other way to handle the category scheme that I haven't thought of. Cgingold (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and clean up: I don't care which way this merge goes (but category:Antennas (radio) would make more sense); also, anything that is actually an antenna should be moved into the types subcategory. --ssd (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the simpler name: A quick glance will show that most the articles in the parenthesised cat are also in the simpler one, and there's no consistency to the exceptions. Neither category has a huge number of entries. Yes, if someone wants to put some living, non radiation antennae and antennae of hypothetical extraterrestrial critters into the antenna cat with the metallic and other artificial ones, nothing wrong with that. We just don't need two or three categories for all the kinds of antennas, nor a longer name than "antennas" for the common category. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comic book alternate universes[edit]

Category:Comic book alternate futures[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 20 - jc37 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_14&oldid=1074801433"