Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 11

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buddhist films to Category:Films about Buddhism
• Propose renaming Category:Hinduism in films to Category:Films about Hinduism
• Propose renaming Category:Muslim films to Category:Films about Islam
• Propose renaming Category:Christian films to Category:Films about Christianity
• Propose renaming Category:Catholic films to Category:Films about the Roman Catholic Church Category:Films about Roman Catholicism

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the contents and the "documentary" sub-categories. The present name implies that the contents are made by proponents of the religions, which is not always the case. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although "Catholicism" would be shorter, the last one follows the head category Category:Roman Catholic Church, and I am not aware of any of the members relating to Eastern Catholicism rather than RCC. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, except possibly the last could be Category:Films about Roman Catholicism. I can see either form working.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Films about Roman Catholicism is better, thank you. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2012 (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.

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: result. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Native American film to Category:Films about Native Americans

Nominator's rationale: Split to new category. The present category should hold the existing sub-cats for actors & film festivals, but the rest should be moved to a new sub-cat named to match Category:Books about Native Americans. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. If their are films where the artistic production was entirely done by Native Americans, they might work in the former category. However this would require not only the writer, producer and director all being Native American, but reliable sources telling us this is the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jewish films to Category:Films about Jews and Judaism

Nominator's rationale: Rename, prompted by the discussion about the documentary sub-cat (see below). There is a well-established hierarchy under Category:Jews and Judaism, with Category:Books about Jews and Judaism. The discussion about the documentaries focussed on a suitable name which would exclude a biopic about particular Jews unless the film was also about Jewish culture/history, so it may well be helpful to set up sub-cats for Category:Films about Jewish culture and Category:Films about Jewish history. However, if those were in place, it might be permissible and useful to also categorise biopics about individual Jews, e.g. 39 Pounds of Love which is not currently categorised as a Jewish film but was a winner at the Atlanta Jewish Film Festival. In this case there would be no problem with the wide scope of the name that I have proposed. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Films generally are categorized by their subject, not by the ethnicity/religion of their creators. This is esepcially true since we then ask "how many Jews need to make a film to make it a Jewish film? Does it count as a Jewish film if it is totally made by Jews but has no clearly Jewish subject? Do we put Superman into Category:Jewish comic strips because the two men who created Superman were both Jews?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Documentary films about Jews and Judaism noting consistency with the above nomination. Revisit if unsatisfactory. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish documentary films to Category:Documentary films about Jews and Judaism

Nominator's rationale: Following the consensus decision at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_18#Category:African_American_documentaries, I believe we'd be wise to rename this one accordingly -- using Category:Books about Jews and Judaism as a perfectly viable model, and per parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. (esp. in that the film need not be a biographical doc about a Jewish person). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename but not per nom; rename to Category:Documentary films about Judaism to match the rest of the cat in which it sits. Documentary films about 'Jews' doesn't really fit in the main category tree, which is films about religion. A film about some entertainer who happened to be jewish thus wouldn't seem to fit well in this category. I'm not sure if we should classify every film that happens to have a jew as the star as a 'documentary film about jews' - instead focus this category on films about judaism. perhaps we could have a different cat for documentary films about jews? tricky... we have Category:Documentary_films_about_African_Americans, so there is precedent. --KarlB (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Category:Documentary films about Judaism would fit easily with the others in Category:Documentary films about religion, and then we could if necessary create sub- or related cats like Category:Documentary films about Jewish history, I suppose. There's been some disputes over this over the years, but it's generally accepted now there is a need for categories about the Jewish people that are not limited to Judaism itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just think if I'm looking for something to learn about the religion, I'd rather not troll through documentaries about singers who were Jewish. to me it makes sense to separate these out, and have some criteria for what makes it a 'documentary about jews' (e.g. would a documentary about woody allen fit? if so where? --KarlB (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that would be a bona fide subcat, especially with the African American one as precedent. Again, ethnic people categories can be tricky. So let's see what the consensus says: it's a good idea to broaden the discussion as you are suggesting, I think, so everyone is clear on what the fuller implications might be, were this to be repurposed as a more narrow "... about Judaism" cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment I think one category could cover films about Jewish culture and the other could cover Judaism, since they are overlapping but different nonetheless. I suppose some films will be placed in both categories. Or, if it becomes too fine a line, then we keep as one category, called Category:Documentary films about Judaism and Jewish culture --KarlB (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the current name makes it unclear whether the creator or the subject is Jewish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment after the rename a film about Einstein should not be included, unless the film makes some mention of the fact that he was Jewish, and probably more than a passing reference. It should not be enough that the film is about a Jew, it should have to make it so that those who see the film know that the film is about a Jew.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per original nomination; see above discussion about the head category, which ideally would remain consistent with this one. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2012 (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.

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: Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created List of Canadian Football League players with 1,000 rushing yards in a season.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose listifying and deleting Category:CFL 1000 yard rushers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete. This category sets an arbitrary cut-off for inclusion and as such would be better suited as a list. (Indeed, the creator of the category had the category in Category:Canadian Football League lists, so the intent may have been to create a list.) We have listified similar sports achievement categories even when the arbitrary cut-off is a commonly cited achievement to indicate excellence or an exclusive "club" of achievers: 3000 hit club, Quarterbacks with 35,000 passing yards, 600 home runs club, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning. The other list you mention are ones for lifetimes achievements. The category under discussion is for once (or in some cases several) in a CFL football career occurrences. Indeed, you could call this the "CFL 1000 yard club", would that make it sound better? Much like this category: Category:Triple Gold Club. Otherwise, forming a list would be somewhat pointless, as the reader would have to search out the list (lacking any other in article indication) to see that the subject of the article had rushed for 1000 yards in a season, and would not have the immediately handy one link comparison to other players that had also done so. I guess I should vote KEEP, if I'm allowed, and I really do suggest calling it a "CFL 1000 yard club" or "... for rushers" as you will find that is often what it is called, indeed, in the 2007 CFL Record Book. It certainly isn't arbitrary in the pure sense, tho I will admit that the only thing better than rushing for 999 yards is 1000, and that is, of course, only one extra yard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawarene (talk • contribs) 05:03, 11 May 2012‎

• Listify and delete per nominator and per WP:OC#ARBITRARY and per precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 1000 yards in a season isn't arbitrary. In football, 1000 yards is considered a barometer for a successful season for running backs. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little more context, see Dave Hampton#Professional career and you will see that he first gained NFL notoriety for having rushed for the milestone 1000 yards in a season, then losing yards and the achievement on the next play, then his season ended! Hey, he still rushed for 995 yards, but it wasn't 1000. And he thankfully later gained 1000 yards in a season, living down this little football faux pas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawarene (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 May 2012‎

Please remember to sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Signatures if you are unsure how to do this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example you cite illustrates precisely why this category is arbitrary. There is a negligible difference between a player gaining 995 yards and gaining 1000, but this category imposes a distinction between the two based solely on the fact that one number is round and the other is not. The fact that it is claimed to be widely cited does not make it any less arbitrary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I disagree. It evidentally isn't arbitrary to the whole professional football world. I hope you trust me when I say I could produce, literally, thousands on online and wiki references to this milestone and players who have achieved it.

Six of one, half dozen of another. You say tomato, I say tomato. My 1000 yard season is your 999+1. Now to attempt a signatureOttawarene (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1000 yards rushing in a season is a generally accepted benchmark per List of NFL teams with multiple 1000 yard rushers. It's as much a personal benchmark as, say, Category:National Hockey League players with 50 goal seasons, though the nominator has cited many equally defining categories that have not been kept. My preference would be to listify, therefore. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What! There is a category for 50 goal scores in the NHL! Geez, conceptually they are exactly the same thing. Just change CFL for NHL and 1000 yards for 50 goals ... So, is that category going to get deleted too? You want to talk about arbitrary, I don't understand wikipedia.

Actually selecting a number as a category criteria is what is considered arbitrary. A category is one means of navigation for related things. In this case, as show at List of NFL teams with multiple 1000 yard rushers, using a list may well be the best way to present this information. The fact that Category:National Hockey League players with 50 goal seasons exists is not a major player since other stuff exists is not a great argument and that could also be nominated for the same reason as this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Do what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawarene (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 May 2012‎

• Delete. In general, we do not create categories around single-season numerical accomplishments in sports, no matter how noteworthy. I have nominated the other such categories in these three nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete this might be a major accomplishment, but it is still an arbitrary cut off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if it's a major accomplishment, then the cutoff isn't arbitrary.Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not within the "in-world" of the CFL, but it is one that is inherently or objectively arbitrary, which I believe is what is meant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What "arbitrary" means. There is some confusion here as to what is meant by "arbitrary." It is not a synonym for "unimportant." It means "based on a value judgment." With most player categories, there is no value judgment: this player played this position, the player is from here, the player won this award. With a number of yards, there is an inherent value judgment that that specific number of yards matters to someone. That is, it's arbitrary. In general, that's not what our categories do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2012 (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.