Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nominee (film)

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 18:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===[[:Category:Best Supporting Actor........ ==

Headline text

==
Oscar Nominee (film)]], Category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film)===

Related to #Various Oscar categories (redux), below, I favor deleting at least some (if not most) of the Academy Award categories. Reading the renaming discussion below there is some confusion about whether there are two or four categories per award. For the awards where the winner is a person (acting, directing, ...) there are four: a category for the winners, a category for the non-winning nominees, a category for the movies in which winners appeared (or directed or whatever), and a category for movies in which nominees appeared. IMO, the categories for movies in which winners or nominees appeared are not of sufficient widespread interest to warrant existence as categories. This information is readily available from the articles about these awards which have lists which can be cross referenced and sorted however the user would like. IMO, the categories for non-winning nominees are similarly not of sufficient widespread interest to warrant existence as categories (again, this information is readily available from the articles about the individual awards). Rather than use categories to convey this bit of information in the articles about these movies and nominees, I'd prefer some mention in the text of the article (perhaps in a standard "awards" section) with a wikilink to the article about the award. Conveying this information via categories strikes me as a complete misuse of the categorization feature. In particular, from WP:CG, If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there?, implies the text of an article about a movie with an award winner should mention the award winner (in fact, if there is simply an unadorned category there's no particular way to know which of perhaps several actors/actresses won or was nominated). Similarly, an article about an actor/actress tagged in a category "nominee for x" does not (by itself) let the reader know which movie the award was for. If the consensus is to delete these two categories, I'll nominate some others. -- Rick Block 17:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — no consensus => move to unresolved

• 1 Delete: Rick Block (as comment)
• 1 Keep: Cburnett
• 1 Move: Bryan (as comment)

Comment I've never once advocated the deletion of either a list or category in favor of the other. I think both have their merits and both have their places. Lists allow you to add more information (e.g., List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes) and link non-existant articles. Categories let you directly link the articles together (e.g., Category:Star Trek: Enterprise episodes). I'll always advocate the use of both (ok, I can't think of an example where I wouldn't). Cburnett 20:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notes:

1. This issue was also discussed in the previous CFD attempt. Zzyzx11 20:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. This issue is not about renaming these categories, but deleting them. Although this is in some sense a generic issue, please try to stay focused on the specific suggestion which is to delete the two categories for movies which have cast a non-winning nominee for best supporting actress or best supporting actor. -- Rick Block 23:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. The second CFD is done below #Various Oscar categories (redux) Cburnett 17:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. For an example of differently sorted lists, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees and List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films) (compare to Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor). -- Rick Block 05:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

• Keep some points to be made:
  • It seems like these categories are gonna be the next Gay Nigger Association of America by consistently being on CFD.
  • People win awards BECAUSE of the films they are in and that makes them worthy of having a category.
  • If the article doesn't say who won (or nominated) the award then that's the fault of the article (and all it takes is looking at the category since I put the winner in a comment for *precisely* this reason)
  • After categorizing them, my intention is to put an awards heading on articles. Being apart of a category (with the comments in the article) will make this 20 times easier to do. Which is faster? Looking at the category listing or searching nearly 3 dozen listings.
  • What Rick is really arguing for is the removal of categories in favor of lists, something I completely disagree with (the specific purpose of said categories aside).
• Cburnett 17:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment These categories have previously been on CFD for renaming not deletion, and I'm arguing the information conveyed by these specific categories (movie casting nominee for non-winning best supporting actor/actress) is better suited for a list. -- Rick Block 19:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment And IMO they all still need renaming, too. The last time around I proposed new names that turned out to be unpopular, but that doesn't mean the current ones are good by default. Bryan 00:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Although voting on this item has officially expired (7 days), I don't think one vote to keep and one implied vote to delete (by listing here) can be construed as a consensus either way. Is there any particular reason no one is indicating a preference on this item? -- Rick Block 02:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I know why I'm not ... the length of the introduction implies that this is a really complex issue and my interest level on this topic is not high enough to plod through the amount of material required to reach an impartial judgement on the matter. Courtland 21:30, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)