Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 14

2486:

means that I don't normally debate, therefore my energy is already focused in the right direction despite the suggestion. I do not profess to be an expert on Fantomas and my contributions have been limited to these three start class articles. I did not write these articles just to create a category. Creating articles for the sake of categories is an interesting but should we say novel concept for me. I will not elaborate further except to say that citing other users as examples to pin motives on me that I never contemplated is not exactly something that I expected from this debate. Categorising articles, even small, should not be frowned upon. I thought Knowledge welcomed any contribution irrespective of size. Finally if we follow logic this category must be kept. I thought that this was the objective of this debate.

1136:. If you delete that the bot will no longer be able to compile information on this project. I realise that the name of this category is silly, but the bot doesn't know how to handle anything with a different name. However, it does seem that the bot can work without the empty categories like Category:Stub-Class Good articles - as long as that continues to be the case, then we don't really need them. The log should still pick up any cases where GA tags get vandalized. For other categories, the projects concerned should make that call; has BozMo been informed about the CD selection proposal? 1014:, that's sort of pointless since a GA promoted to an FA is removed from GA status, but as for the others, I think they might have to do with Wikiproject ratings, at face value they do seem a bit silly, but I know for sure the Chemistry wikiproject scale tries to ignore GA class compleatly, (So a Chemistry GA might be B or A class for the Chemistry template instead of GA class) and I don't know anything about the 1.0 or CD selection people's needs, they would probably know better than I would about whether their statistics page and categories should be deleted for redundancy or not. 3362:"Fictional Americans in DC Comics" and "Fictional Americans in Marvel Comics" seem largely pointless. "Archie Comics characters" shouldn't be upmerged as it is an important subcat of Archie Comics and should not have been listed under "Fictional American comics characters", equally "United States-themed superheroes" is solid and can be policed using the list so I'd move it up to "Category:American comics characters." Equally, "American comics characters" should be a useful category but seems to be underused (as some others are in that general category) so needs work not deletion. ( 2448:

spread to the rest of the world and even today fan clubs exist in some countries. I alone contributed the three out of the four articles in the category. If someone contributes a few more this category will reach a higher population. I know the articles are interlinked but given the potential for growth, its interwiki presence etc. why not keep it and see it grow instead of deleting it and recreating it in the future since no hard minimum population criteria exist.

2419:

material in it together through a method other than categorization. Compare that to this category, which has a small amount of material which is all easily interlinked with each other through the text of the various articles. This CFD does not establish any hard and fast rule for the minimum number of articles that a category must caontain to exist. That is a big red herring. No one is accusing you of anything. That's another red herring.

1778:- as has been done when these categories periodically come up for CFD. While recording artists may tend to stay with one label longer than actors stay at studios, in each case the artist in question may work with a number of different entities, leading to category clutter. An annotated list article can include such information as the dates the artist was with the label and the material recorded there. 3044:"Inconsistant and confusing state" - Huh? how? Did you all miss that this category has the potential to include all American TV series characters? All American film characters? Essentially every American character in media will be duplicated in this single category. We're going to be duplicating entire categorisation structures with this single category. (And doesn't this violate 3338:- See the top of my talk page) - Actually, the point here is that non-amercian comcs characters are the exception, rather than the rule, when it comes to comics characters. So while it may be notable to know which characters are French or German, it's not very useful to have the American ones so categorised. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing them all listified. - 1893:- category is capturing material relating to both the fictional character and the band named for the fictional character, which isn't quite proper. Even lumping the two in the same category, the material is extensively interlinked and the albums subcat is und er the albums by artist category. This category isn't needed for navigational purposes. 1073:. "Good articles by quality" makes sense in principle, first because good articles can be A-Class, second because various WikiProjects (most notably the WP 1.0 Editorial Team) may have different views about an article's quality for their purposes. However, in that case, the categories should not be added automatically by 2790:. No need for this category. I'll leave it to the closer to choose which of the proposed categories is the correct target. I don't think it really matters much. The important thing is to delete this category. The subcategory has been nominated for deletion, so its presence may not influence the decision. 3559:

still shows them to be called the England Nationall XI team and not England C. As far as I can tell there is no source on the article to show where the name England C has come from or that it is used. Yet the page on the FA's website for the team only talks about the England National XI team. If I am

3304:

per Tim and Otto, The parent cat seems to be part of an existing structure, and poking holes in such structures leaves us in an inconsistent and confusing state. Such structures should, in general, be discussed as a whole, or not at all. However, the subcategories are clearly overcategorization.

3092:

without prejudice, per Otto & Tim & Xtifr; we should tee up the debate about all these. Unlike real people, whether nationality is a fundamental characteristic of fictional characters is entirely dependent on their creators/authors: sometimes this characteristic is never discussed or doesn't

2468:

focus his energies on writing articles about the subject instead of fighting to keep this category. I will even offer to recreate the category myself if he can convince me that he has generated enough articles to populate the category. (Also note that the new articles should be well-referenced and

2447:

As far a your point about James Bond you are right. James is a much bigger commodity and so it does have its own better populated categories. Fantomas is a smaller commodity in the english world but still is a cultural phenomenon that took Europe by storm in the 60s (and even before that as novels),

2311:

Yes but now the cat is cleaned up and all the members are closely associated with each other as they all relate to the novels and films of the central hero Fantomas. As I mentioned above many more works about Fantomas have not found their articles yet on the english Knowledge and should populate it

2092:

because they depict the adventures of the same hero. There are also many other movies and novels that are not yet included in Knowledge that also depict Fantomas' adventures which could also be included in the category. Conclusion: Take the band out. Leave the rest of the family inside the category.

3183:

While lately comics book publishers have attempted to become more international in scope, Most of the "stable" of most American comics publishers feature "American" characters. In addition, often the nationality of the character is never given, one just "presumes" that a fictional city (if named at

2485:

A few clarifications are in order here. First I thought that we were having a debate and not a fight, therefore arguing a few points pro and con should be perceived as a discussion and not a fight. Second as my contributions show the vast majority of them are in mainspace and not in talkpages. That

2203:

I just reverted two recently made changes that deleted the category Fantomas from the articles of the Fantomas novel co-authors. Now the category has 6 close family members: The two authors of the Fantomas novels, the article of the fictional hero of the novel Fantomas and the three Fantomas movies

2464:- Just for clarification, I stated that the recreation of the category "could be interpreted" as disruptive editing. If the category's contents were significantly different, then it would not actually be a recreation, although the creator would have to explain this. At this point, I suggest that 2049:

I looked at this category and I did a double take. Was I just looking at a disambiguation page? No, it was a category. A disambiguation page would serve the exact same purpose as this category. I agree that grouping of something that shares a same name isn't the point of categorization (but is the

1906:

The band took its name from the Fantômas cultural phenomenon, therefore it can be considered to be a derivative of the Fantômas culture. But even if we disagree on that just remove the band and band related subcats and leave the rest in the cat. Fantômas is a huge franchise and it deserves its own

2030:

No problem guys. Thanks for the clarification. It's no big deal. I apologise for the tardiness of the response but I was busy making my points on the other aspects of the discussion and quite frankly I didn't see your comments as I was expecting any additional replies to be at the bottom of the

2418:

First, I think you need to take a step back from this situation because you are taking this nomination very personally. That said, if you look at the material that's in the James Bond category, you'll see that it's very complex and far-reaching and it would be very difficult to link all of the

1961:- This is effectively the categorization of a late 1990's band with their namesake, which is a character from a series of French films. This is a confusing way to categorize things. The category should probably be deleted in favor of links and explanations in the various articles. (Also, 1423:

for consistency. However, American can also mean anyone from the Americas. I believe US abbots is more accurate if it is meant to apply to just individuals from the United States. However, there are a half dozen other categories in the parent cat that are named "American..."

115: 2349:- Knowledge does not really have a set size for categories, but a category for four articles is not really necessary. Why not just use links in the texts of these articles? (Also, be careful recreating the category, as that could be interpreted as disruptive editing.) 2236:

Thanks for the point. But the question arises why are James Bond authors under the James Bond category? Having said that please rest assured that I am not here to waste too much time on these rather esoteric arguments. I just want to clarify a few things.

1907:

category. This category tracks the Fantômas culture. With time other Fantômas novels, films etc. can be incorporated into the category and therefore the growth potential is there. Also don't forget we strive to make this encyclopedia truly international.

124: 2437:

I was not addressing this point to Dr. S in any way. The level of this debate is great and that of the participants even better. I feel very comfortable exchanging ideas with everyone involved. I would not have participated under any other

3517:. The presetn title does not even indicate what sport they play, but how is WP ensuring that the ambiguous sport "football" is correctly divided into its different versions - American, Austrialian-rules, Rugby, and Association (soccer) 3029:

without prejudice against a broader nomination, per Tim and Otto. Simply poking small holes in an existing structure like this leaves us in an inconsistent and confusing state. Let's discuss them all if we're going to discuss.

1965:

has nominated many categories for deletion that resemble this one. This is not an effort by Otto4711 to target French cultural information for deletion, and his actions should not be interpreted as being motivated by bigotry.)

1094:

as a contributing WikiProject like any other. Even empty categories have a use: they contain the information that the category is empty! The categories are harmless from this point of view, so the case for deletion is not clear.

3598:

thanks for that as I couldn't find anything about the change of name. It does seem odd though that the FA website has nothing. But still if the name is changing and given that they could well change it yet again on a whim, then

133: 2031:

section not in the middle. The reason I replied to Dr. S was that I did not want this to escalate further since I saw the b word, not because I thought Dr. S. was making a comment about me. Anyway, thanks again and take care.

2774:

Comment the sub-cat is already in the VC category, so it is only the single article. But the Vatican city and Holy See seem to work oddly - they VC is a sub-cat of HS, but the nobility surely belong in HS. Merge article to

938: 2336:

Granted. Is there a cutoff number of articles below which no category should exist? Because if this number exists then I am going to recreate the category once it reaches that magic number. I think we are making progress.

3017:- but only because the entire structure isn't under discussion. I'm not convinced that in the vast majority of cases the country of origin of a fictional character is so important that it requires categorization. 750:

for consistency. Every other country article isn't plural. I understand GA vs. RP concerns, but I feel that discussion should apply for the whole naming template, instead of on a category by category level.-

594:. Many of our texts are a mixture of prayers and praises which are not necessarily prayers. Example: the short (siddur) version of the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam. Is that liturgy? I support this proposal. -- 3633:

per nom, so we don't have to go through this every time the team name changes, and to allow notable players to be correctly categorized, rather than by using a team name that they never played for.

3292:

the parent cat but only because the entire structure is not under discussion. I'm not convinced that the country of origin of most comics characters is significant enough to warrant categorization.

3245:

all per nom for overcategorization. I have never thought these categories made sense. When most DC and Marvel characters are Americans, it's non-defining. Just put them under the already-existing

2975:

to be "American"? So will this potentially include every TV series character, every film character, every novel character, every video game character, etc. that are considered to be "American"? -

2433:

Hi Otto. Thanks for your assurance. No need for the clarification. I am very aware that noone accuses me of anything. I was speaking hypothetically in reference to the comment from Dr. S (quote):

2086:

However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related. For example, a category on a specific Jones family would bring together multiple related articles.

1551:- as overcategorization of actor by studio. Performers work for a variety of studios over the course of a career and categroizing by studio is impractical and leads to category clutter. 1032:

Notice that the "FA-class good articles" and "Stub-class good articles" categories were careated by the V1.0 bot. Probably, if they are deleted, the V1.0 bot will create them again...

2204:

based on the hero of the novel. The rock band and albums being distant cousins can be removed but that still leaves a vibrant family of six with many more members waiting to come in.

3469:, This team has now had three names; the England Semi-Pro team; the National Game XI, and now England C. The proposed name is more descriptive and more adequately covers all three. 106: 111: 1602:

per nom. No objections to listification if someone wants to take the time, but I certainly don't think it should be a necessary prerequisite to deletion. I do, however, have

970:

and I suggest that the nominator lets them know what's under proposal before this goes any further. Also, this is the wrong forum for deleting a page (the final suggestion).

42: 37: 180: 102: 2257:

is now nominated for deletion. Note that many other similar categories (especially for writers who have worked on comic books and TV series) have also been deleted. See

1090:

However, I suspect that these categories are here for the convenience of processing information for WP 1.0, and that these categories exist simply because WP 1.0 regards

261: 2185:

Thanks Dr. S. Point made, accepted and action follows. I am taking the band out of the cat. All remaining articles are now directly linked to Fantomas. Is this ok now?

120: 564: 2394:

I hate to argue the point ad-infinitum but I think we should give French culture a chance to grow more naturally and organically within the english environment.

2153:

but were otherwise unrelated (such as a band named James Bond), then it would be inappropriate categorization by name. However, almost all of the articles in

129: 2387:

The Fantomas category is by definition small because French culture is under-represented in english Knowledge but we do not want to give it a chance to grow.

2014:

is not motivated by xenophobia, mainly for the benefit of other people reading this discussion. My comments were not intended to be an accusation against

1943:- Maybe I should have phrased it more delicately. It was meant as a figure of speech not as a notice of violation of Knowledge policy on your part. Sorry. 2971:- What a broad category! Besides the concerns listed in the similar comics-related categories below, we now have every example of a fictional character 3217: 997:

is used by the v1.0 bot which requires a specific form for the category name. "CD-selection GAs" used to be a subset of GAs, maybe that has changed.

2407:

As a consequence of the four article rule de facto imposed here, any category with a population less or equal to four articles must now be deleted.

1151: 2384:

There is no minimum number for articles for a category to exist yet we arbitrarily set it at four (4) so that we can delete the Fantomas category.

450: 21: 1753: 1236: 1070: 1998:- Dr.K. you and I are good. Dr S was, I assume, just trying to address the arguments presented and there's nothing personal in his comments. 300: 192: 1066: 2105:

To help illustrate this further I restate the policy by substituting the word Fantômas for Jones and leaving out terms that do not apply:

265: 3393: 3533: 3285: 3185: 3176: 3147: 17: 3514: 1533: 1525: 331: 3443: 3249:

if you care about their nationality. When they're already categorized as DC and Marvel characters, this is redundant. We don't have

3213: 1227: 1188: 3451: 3171: 3161: 1982:

I guess the clarification above about my intentions and the subsequent deletion of the contentious sentence were not clear enough.

1516: 3510: 3250: 1757: 883: 875: 3434: 3166: 2820: 3481: 3002: 2107:

However, a category may be useful if the objects are directly related. For example, a category on a specific Fantômas family

381: 2291:- The other-language versions of Knowledge are not necessarily held to the same standards as the English-language version. 900: 3065: 979:

I know about the page deletion, but if I didn't note that, I'd forget about it. =) I'll leave a note on the GA talk page.

389: 1724: 1078: 879: 3246: 2968: 2258: 1372: 1244: 908: 724: 581: 549: 372: 2066:. A category is not a disambiguation page. The ones that actually are related can be otherwise linked through article. 1133: 1044: 959: 942: 927: 891: 2216:- The general consensus has been not to categorize authors by their works. This has become very messy in the past. 1011: 994: 963: 931: 923: 871: 1732: 1715: 1676: 674: 3637: 3619: 3576: 3548: 3501: 3488: 3473: 3425: 3366: 3354: 3342: 3326: 3314: 3296: 3276: 3257: 3237: 3224: 3155: 3097: 3084: 3072: 3052: 3039: 3021: 3009: 2993: 2979: 2962: 2908: 2852: 2794: 2782: 2769: 2753: 2739: 2675: 2618: 2606: 2593: 2545: 2490: 2477: 2469:

lengthy articles, not a series of stubs that are created just to justify having the category. I have already seen

2452: 2423: 2411: 2398: 2353: 2341: 2328: 2316: 2295: 2283: 2265: 2250: 2241: 2220: 2208: 2189: 2177: 2137: 2113: 2097: 2070: 2054: 2035: 2022: 2002: 1986: 1970: 1947: 1931: 1915: 1897: 1849: 1794: 1782: 1768: 1708: 1651: 1639: 1627: 1615: 1594: 1582: 1570: 1555: 1507: 1452: 1440: 1428: 1415: 1402: 1380: 1363: 1354: 1296: 1282: 1220: 1163: 1140: 1119: 1110: 1051: 1038: 1027: 1018: 1003: 983: 974: 949: 857: 802: 790: 774: 754: 740: 728: 704: 656: 598: 585: 553: 482: 424: 407: 363: 305: 281: 252: 197: 171: 159: 146: 90: 500: 3652: 3409: 3382: 3136: 3112: 2946: 2922: 2836: 2809: 2659: 2633: 2529: 2505: 2254: 2157:

appear to be directly related to the character or the stories that feature him. Besides which, the analogy with

1867: 1833: 1809: 1692: 1666: 1491: 1467: 1338: 1311: 1204: 1178: 1159: 841: 817: 665: 640: 613: 466: 439: 347: 320: 296: 236: 212: 188: 74: 3651: