Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 19

713:- I understand the difference well. These scholars are not primarily translators. These are persons who study these ancient Biblical languages toward the end of ellucidating the Biblical text. Not every Biblical scholar does this. Some specialize in other forms of "Biblical criticism" such as redaction criticism, textual criticism, historical criticism, etc. You, Dr. S., undoubtedly understand the intracacies of astronomers and their sub-specialties. I know something about THESE scholars, using their work on a regular basis in my field of expertise. The category description was correct. Thanks. 2459:. Categorizing creative people by their productions and creations is an incestuous use of the categorization system. The article about the show or a list should already have the links found in these categories, if not, the list can be added. The articles about the person should also have links to these shows. Categorizing like this just adds clutter without adding utility. Lists can add information that categories cannot. I see little advantage to having a category, and a large downside. -- 4658:. I think, with the exception of encyclopedia-topic-grouping-cats that we must have, we should always try our hardest to treat categories as proper sets. Part of doing that is keeping in mind that set membership is transitive. While putting something like "Keith Richards albums" within "Rolling Stones albums" may only seem like a small inaccuracy, the effect can be compounded and lead to much larger problems when there are many levels of categorization below it. 2292:- Crewpeople work on multiple projects over the course of their careers. Using categories to list all of their projects is infeasible, as the category links would soon become too lengthy to read easily or use for navigation. The information can be listed both in the individuals' articles and in the articles on the shows. The categories themselves should be deleted. 3935:. I say this primarily because, as noted, one member of this category doesn't technically belong and, as far as Knowledge (XXG) coverage, each special probably doesn't merit an individual article anyway - they could probably be merged to one article on Carpenters television specials if they were created. As it is, only one stub for one special exists anyway. 3479:- sounds too redundant and seems useless to warrant its own category. How do we even know that a unmasked character's face has never truly been seen by the ones that created the character? They probably must've seen/created the characters actual face at one point and decided to cover it, so it doesn't make any sense that such a category should exist. 4538:), and I can not find any other categories of this kind. The cat might be slightly useful, but I do not like the precedent. I think it is probably best to split its contents in four and delete. The four targets could be linked from the band's album cat, if needed. If there's consensus for the split, the closer can ping me and I'll do the work. 2471:: Since it appears that the Directors, writers and producers categories will be deleted, at least one category for crew is needed for organization. Especially with The Simpsons, where there are about 100 writers, directors and producers who have pages almost solely because of their show involvement. -- 681:

It seems that because of the uniqueness of Biblical linguistics, one must be a scholar in several languages, rather than just one. For example, Hebrew and Aramaic are both a must for Old Testament linguistics. Greek and Latin seem to go together for New Testament. However, Hebrew and Greek seem to

633:

Dr. S has it right: Biblical languages include Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. The persons (so far) included in this cat all are or were scholars of these Biblical languages, whether one language (e.g. New Testament Greek), or multiple Biblical languages (perhaps Greek and Hebrew and Latin, etc.). Of

3404:

I'm a little doubtful of this as a category, but I might support it as a list article. I think one could reasonably argue that the intentional hiding of a character's face in a television series is a notable, unusual feature which directly affects plots and dialog involving them. And I could also

2278:

categories. The same rationale for deletion applies, in that crew members (which on Knowledge (XXG) seems to mean mostly producers, writers and directors) are likely to work on a number of projects in the course of their careers. Categories for producers, writers and directors by series also appear

1005:

The parent category strikes me as problematic and I'm not sure what to do about it. It seeks to capture three sorts of game show contestants: those who become notable for doing well; those who become notable in connection with a game show scandal; and those who are notable for reasons unrelated to

1014:

as a "game show contestant." But I'm not sure how to go about fixing the category or if it can be fixed or if it should just be deleted. The two sub-cats suffer the same problems of categorizing many of its members by trivial characteristic. If kept, however, they sould be renamed to "Contestants

1134:

I think a reasonable criteria here would be to require that the biographical Knowledge (XXG) article include a significant notable verifiable mention of the game show. That would help ensure that the contestent's apparence(s) on the show is, in fact, notable and probably worth list or category

2415:

The thing is that the category system isn't really designed to be a full functioning cross-indexing database. I agree that it might be interesting or useful for some readers to be able to look up what projects two specific directors might have collectively worked on, but that goes beyond the

569:

per nom; per Dr. S, this is a seriously ill-conceived category, confusing the concepts of "linguist" and "translator". It also makes the mistake of assuming that those who translate Greek and Roman can be usefully conflated with those who translate Hebrew and Aramaic; these are very different

2305:

I've got a feeling that 1) some of these need the member subjects properly listified in the show articles, and 2) some of the member articles will need to be moved to the appropriate "Profession" cats (ie "Television writers", "Television directors", "Television producers", "Gaffers", "Folly

725:

PW, Dr S is right: whatever your other use of this work, you have misunderstood the terminology here, and I note the complete absence in any of your replies to any external references which would justify the use of the term "liguist" here. "Linguistic criciticism", as defined in

3563:

We need to merge these two categories as, although they have a technically different meaning, some authors use one and some use the other quite indiscriminately, meaning that articles in this subject area may be found in either of these two categories. I raised this issue on

1006:

appearing on a game show. It's the third criterion that bohers me. By definition those people who are otherwise notable are not going to be notable for their game show appearances, and indeed many of the included celebrities are so categorized for such things as being on

4245:

which contains all funding bodies broken down by country and a host of other ways of slicing and dicing. I intend to concentrate on the Australian side of the tree which I have already created a subcat for, and I will create other subcats as I see the best way forward.

5072:- The current version of the category name gives the impression that the games were developed during the Kamakura or Tokugawa Shogunates. The proposed name would make it clear that the description is for the games' setting and not the developers or the players. 3794:. As of recent we have comedy-drama, which is a clear distinct form of comedy that is more 4 dimensional then situation-comedy. That's a bit more of a television-genre approach, i'm not really sure if it applies to films as well, but it's something to consider. 1135:

inclusions. If a celebrity's article makes no significant mention of a game show, then that game show shouldn't be used for categorization. This criteria would hopefully weed out the one-time non-notable guest appearances celebrities make on these game shows.

1148:

for the categories with the category description being explicitly limited to contestants who are notable for appearing on a game show. That effectively eliminates the Vannas and the Kirstie Alleys. The country-specific ones do need to be renamed grammatically.

1091:

I agree that the third criterion is problematic. But there are people for which being a game show contestant is a defining characteristic. I could support keeping the cat with limitation to the other two criteria and enforcement. But how about categories like

1069:

American citizenship is a defining quality. A game you've played isn't likely to be. Many thousands of people have been game show contestants. I've been a game show contestant. It's not one my defining features, I should hope. Vanna White was a contestant on

1029:

The third criterion bothers me as well. There are people who are notable because they appeared on a game shows, and these are the only people that should be included. I think the category can be fixed by just limiting inclusion to those people. --

3911: 1562:

right now is in "Canadian immigrants to the U.S." and "Canadian Americans" categories, when it'd make better sense to list "Canadian emigrants" and "Canadian Americans" on his page to denote where he is from, and where he is now. In

5323:

redundant as there is already a well-established 2000s American television series category and indeed one for every decade, and unless I missed something all the articles populating this category already fall under that one.

746:". It is not, of course, a straightforwrd matter of translation, but the tools it uses are derived from translation rather than from linguistics. I have reverted your restoration of the inaccurate description removed by Dr S. 1567:, we have pretty much agreed that there should be two types of usercats: "Wikipedians from xxx" and "Wikipedians in xxx". If we allow intersections between these two, we'd have an exponentially large number of categories. 2392:

Unlike the actors-by-series categories, the interdisciplinary nature of other aspects of production make these categories especially usefull. They can be used to check on who has worked with whom, among other things.

3771:(which isn't quite the same thing, but similar), so categories for capturing blended-genre films aren't unheard of. I'm not going to rend my garments should the category be deleted but there is some small precedent. 700:

does not appear to understand the difference between linguist (someone who studies languages) and translator (someone who translates from one language to another). I am deleting the incorrect category description.

3585:

I don't see any harm in either merging the categories or keeping them separate. Having to refine editors' choice of category is not unusual, and not a reason for a merge. When we discussed the category structure in

1010:(the category for which contestants I've put up for deletion). Which makes them essentially guest star appearances, which we don't categorize by. This opens the door to categorizing every "mystery guest" from 4607:

I really disagree with the last part of both of your suggestions. "The Cars albums" is a well-deifned set, and an Ocasek album is not a Cars album, so it's not logically correct to put one anywhere within

2318:. lol, this one is gonna even be harder to work away, because it needs verification of proper profession categories, and sorting if not present. CfD's backlog is gonna get bigger and bigger this way :D 537:- First, this is a strange way to categorize linguists (people who study language). It almost seems that linguists would instead study languages according to the branch that they fall in (e.g. the 1109:

Better. Still problematic, though. How do we define "top prize"? A scandal category would be useful if carefully verified by external sources as situations widely considered to have been scandals.

3587: 752:: the work described in the article positions him as a translator, not a linguist. I have removed that one, because EEV doesn't fit the category even within your own rather strange definition. -- 549:

is the study of language itself; these people may have worked on the translation or interpretation of the Bible, but that is not the same as studying the languages themselves (e.g. studying the

634:

course, if you have a better, more defining name, we might wish to rename. But to categorize scholars of Biblical languages is a helpful, useful category of scholars and academics. Thanks.

42: 37: 5053: 136: 4145:

Hi, the ambiguity was intentional as I was going to populate it with funding bodies of all sorts. I dont mind if it is prefixed with "Research", but then that leaves a gaping hole for a

650:

Why not simply categorise then under Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc then? 'Biblical languages' is simply too ill-defined. If they are Biblical scholars then they can also be categorised

1162: 392:

are things that were named after they were created or events that were named after they took place. This category gathers together articles with titles that are retronyms, including

4846:. The proposed merger will populate the parent cat with albums released solely under the name "Sammy Hagar", per this convention, and leave the Waboritas cat as both a sibling (in 4655:

Yeah, and I think the Rolling Stones cat is very wrong too, and I propose changing it. Incidentally, I just realized that I undid one of your edits of this type a few days ago

5286:

covers just the decade — which I'd guess was this cat's intention — and has a few subcats for television series produced in the decade separated by country of origin (e.g.

3565: 3622:. All of these categories appear to contain articles or even categories that don't belong, but on the whole, the distinction is useful. There are a number of articles in 3790:) is not a subset. A drama also indicates a performance with character development and has a much more ancient origin. In the earlier years, much of the comedy, was 3639:

of the articles are actually in the wrong category. Pragmatically, it means that users won't find the article they're looking for, unless we merge these categories.

4612:. That is why I suggest only a "see also"-type link between the cats, if anything. Another alternative that wouldn't bother as much is to put Ocasek albums inside 2704:, Not a useful category. Categories exist for the award winners we don't need an additional category for the people who appear to receive their award or to watch. 4412: 3635:

Of course you are technically correct, but in practice people confuse and mis-use the terms and so having two separate categories causes many problems - I think

5036: 2954: 2933: 570:

language groups, and many people study the bible by using either the "classical" langages or the semitic ones, but not neccessarily both - e.g. the article on

1721:. Also agree with Dr. Submillimeter that this Merge does not take into account the other dozen or so "Foo-ian immigrants to the United States" categories.-- 3913:, but we currently only have an article about one of them. The cat's other member is a weekly program that really doesn't fall within the cat's scope. 843:

I may be wrong. I may misunderstand the work a linguist does. Please accept my sincere appology for any disruption this misunderstanding has caused.

21: 5287: 1593: 3309:. This seems to be categorization by a non-defining or trivial aspect. It certainly does not bring together articles on related characters (both 3258: 1543: 5169:

Lame category - are we documenting every TV show from the years 2000-2099? 2000-2999? The description makes no sense. If not deleted, renamed to

3910:

We need to either fix the capitalization or merge the whole cat to its (brand new) parent. The Carpenters apparently recorded 5 one-off specials

3590:, I said it seemed reasonable to have separate categories, but it really just depends on whether there are enough articles to make it worth it. 3623: 3615: 3611: 3569: 3560: 3556: 3250: 2874:, so it probably can't be speedied. Nevertheless, given that the list already exists, per previous discussions the category should be deleted. 17: 4230:, to clear up any ambiguity about what these bodies are funding. Should make a private/public split easier too when/if it becomes necessary. 3824: 3685: 761: 583: 3461:. So probably we should simply merge this article into that one (in fact, I bet most of the entries probably already appear on both lists.) 2683: 4119: 2675: 734:: it is a term used within biblical scholarship to describe a process which is secular contexts would probably be called either a type of ' 4411:

It seems that the proposal was rejected because consensus was to blank these pages instead. However, so far the blanking hasn't happened.

3568:

a few days ago and nobody has objected to the merge. The name (i.e. the broader and more inclusive one) for the merged category should be

3241: 1718: 1714: 5312: 4415:

is a proposal to start up this sort of blanking again, and I don't think this category should be deleted until either there's consensus

4015: 3480: 1606: 1356: 909: 4146: 4053:, It appears that people are mistakenly categorizing things as Unsolved Problems when they are really lists of unsolved problems then. 1610: 1589: 1526: 748:

I am also disappointed to see that despite this CFD, you are adding the category to articles where it clearly does not belong, such as

5023:

to make it clear it's about games set then rather than created then. (Category proposed in nomination has a slight typo, by the way.)

4631: 4289: 2666: 2496: 2253: 1973: 1965: 1402: 1381: 952: 944: 4547: 4484: 4365: 2279:

to be on the way out. Unsure about the utility of listifying since these "crew" categories include people from multiple disciplines.

979: 4874: 4373: 2245: 2175: 2070: 2035: 1794: 987: 4887: 4843: 4730: 4123: 2416:

functional intent of the categories in Knowledge (XXG). You can, though, do that sort of cross-index searching at www.imdb.com .

2183: 2140: 2078: 2043: 507: 404:. These subjects clearly are not related except through their names, so gathering them together in a category serves no purpose. 2148: 515: 3900: 3896: 3051: 1956: 935: 4356: 1243: 970: 782:

I invite/encourage persons who are involved in this discussion to see the cat for new and clearer inclusion language. Thanks.

4801: 3149: 2809: 2236: 2166: 2061: 2026: 5020: 4986: 4965: 3306: 3047: 2131: 1450: 1406: 1251: 545:). Second, the specific articles in this category do not mention anything specific about these people studying linguistics. 498: 5396: 3690: 3334: 2607: 2105: 2000: 900: 105: 5143: 2817: 1522: 5151: 4806: 3619: 1751: 1234: 5364: