Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Jerry Bruckheimer films

Category:Jerry Bruckheimer films
It is not relevant to classify quotes by the producers of the films in which they appear. Movie quotes are not attributable to production management personnel. Such information is appropriate at Wikipedia, and is accessible by linking to their article on a film, but at wikiquote it is clutter that has no bearing on the quotes. — Ningauble 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with rationale as laid out by . Grouping films by writer might be a valid categorization. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. page creator's crossed the line too many times with his persistent placement of inappropriate cats despite so many reverts and even a slight change of IP-and refuses to explain why he's doing it. This is just a case of trying to get away with violations of WQ policy.
 * I am not aware of any policy regarding such categories, which is why I brought it here for discussion. ~ Ningauble 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I actually am leaning toward a Keep vote, as I know that we currently allow some grouping of films by Director (who are also not the true source of quotes). I think that we do this because this is a natural way that users might search for films. In this case, Jerry Bruckheimer is actually a pretty well known producer who is known for a certain style of film (action films). I haven't fully made up my mind, but as I said, I am leaning toward a Keep vote. That is not to say that I would support this for every such person, just for the handful of well known producers out there (e.g. J. J. Abrams, Judd Apatow, Tim Burton to name a few) that their films are definitely tied to - as an example, although Cloverfield is not directed by J. J. Abrams, it is clearly associated with him. And just try to think of The Nightmare Before Christmas, without also thinking of Tim Burton - who produced, but did not direct it. In the end I don't think it's that big a deal to have a few of these extra categories if they help users (within reason). ~ UDScott 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case consideration would likely lead to all-inclusiveness, else it would lead to contentiousness. I would not want to have a community discussion and vote on half the items at Special:Wantedcategories, which were recently added to film articles. Some articles appear to have been categorized under production companies whose only involvement was as a financial backer or a distributor. Some individual articles are categorized under several film industry entities, the taxonomy of which could get quite encyclopedic.
 * The chief problem I see is clutter – not something to lose any sleep over. My preference for deletion is not a strong one, but I brought it to a vote because an edit war broke out and a decision needed to be made. ~ Ningauble 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that most of these other categories related to studios or distributors are a waste, but I don't think your response really deals with my comment. In the end, it appears that this category will be deleted, and that's OK with me. But if it had stayed, I would have been fine too. I just don't think it is that big a deal to have a few extra categories if it helps users find things. ~ UDScott 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. We should categorize by author, not by other categories of people who happen to be involved. BD2412 T 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: By that rationale, does that mean you would vote to delete the categories of films by director as well (e.g. Category:Alfred Hitchcock films)? ~ UDScott 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen direction in action; a hands on director will frequently instruct the actors to modify the lines in a certain way to suit visual aspects of the scene (or at least of the filming) that the writer may not have anticipated. But then again, some directors are pay-for-players who stick right to the script to chop out the film. I'd have to ask, for a particular director, how relevant is their direction of the film likely to be to the content? BD2412 T 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrrg, I totally missed the most important fact about this. Delete I'm okay with sorting by director, but not producer. (which addresses UDScott's comment to BD2412 above) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, I really don't know how to vote for this. On the one hand, the director doesn't necessarily generate the words we're quoting... but he does have a fair amount of final say in what we eventually hear, so the director is certainly more important than someone who "happens to be involved." I think organizing by director (versus by another category; I dislike the production studio categories, personally) makes a bit of sense. Weak Keep I guess. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's fairly useful to have directors as categories, but not producers. Perhaps it is inevitable that we will see more intricate attempts at categorizing here at Wikiquote, but I think that it merely distracts our editors from improving the articles themselves. We're also seeing more tendentious categorizing: "Former Scientologists," "Jungian psychologists," "Atheists," "Agnostics," etc.  These are categories that lend themselves to wasteful disputes over who belongs and who doesn't. This emphasis on classification has its point at Wikipedia, as Ningauble has said; but I agree that it serves little purpose here. For my own part, I think that we've already crossed a line when we categorize people by religion. - InvisibleSun 01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though it may be a discussion that needs to be had elsewhere, I must say that I totally agree with InvisibleSun about the list of categorization options that I feel are inappropriate for Wikiquote. Very rarely are such facts (ie: what type of psychologist they are, etc.) relevant to the quotes themselves. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, all above make good points. &mdash; RyanCross (talk ) 06:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)