Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

[edit]

Johannesburg subcategories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Johannesburg subcategories do not follow the conventions for the relevant subject areas:

Rename all CalJW 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(There are also some which do follow the conventions now, but I just created them myself. CalJW 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Maine state highways to Category:Maine State Routes

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin: Yes, I know there was a consensus to rename, but there was no consensus as to what to rename to. For the record, Maine's own website has a listing for the "state highway system", but not the "state route system". --Kbdank71 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the category in line with the articles within it and capitalize since Maine State Route is a proper noun according to the MDOT. Gateman1997 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a proper noun and it will bring it in compliance with proposed NC. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename as per nom. Bhoeble 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Not a proper noun; not "almost always capitalized"; thus, contrary to the naming conventions for categories (and for everything else). No consensus to make this an exception to these rules, and indeed significant opposition, here. This phrase gets all of 52 google hits with any capitalisation, and most of the sites capitalising it are, surprise-surprise, wikipedia mirrors. Remainder are generally using in contexts like "Maine State Routes 11 and 100", i.e. as shorthand references to specific routes, which do have those as proper names, not as a generic category. As far as I can find, Maine DOT doesn't use this phrase at all, setting aside whether it's an authority on correct capitalisation or good English language style. Alai 22:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're not in consensus here. I reference the other categories such as Category:Iowa State Highways for example. "Maine State Route" is a proper noun because it is a specific type of state route/ highway. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to wait until the end of the vote before commenting on consensus. I plan to take the Iowa example to renaming presently. I won't comment on your assertion (without evidence) here, as I've done so in many other places, including as linked above. Alai 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you'd better take the 10 or so cats, the 20 or so lists, etc. there too. (not really) Highway systems are capitalized. Please understand this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to do so. I say this about Iowa in particular, since as you know, Iowa's own DoT uses "Iowa state routes". If every time you repeated your bald statement without anything to back it up counted as a separate vote, certainly we'd have a strong consensus for your position. Mercifully that's not how it works. Alai 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's called reasoning. Iowa State Highways are part of a specific system. Therefore it is a proper noubn. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Gateman1997 01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If assuming I accept your reasoning then I'd like to withdraw this request and change the request to Cat:Maine State Route System.Gateman1997 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians to Category:Millennial Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been nominated before, back in October 2005. However, reading the archives of these discussions, here and here, it would seem that (a) one of the discussions was never actually closed, and (b) virtually everybody wanted to either delete or rename. So even if we can't agree which to do, let's at least get rid of one of them. Hence I propose we Rename. Gurch 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete as (possibly localised) slang. Carina22 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename it is not "slang" or localized. This generation does not have an official name yet, but this is one of the most common. If this one gets deleted then any other generation should be deleted "Generation X", etc. --Vizcarra 21:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dora the Explorer characters

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a list at the top and one actual entry. The one entry is actually for the same titled show, not the character. Of the list of characters at the top, only two are blue linked, and both of these turn out to be redirects right back to the show's article. Suggest the category be deleted for now, but be allowed to be recreated in the future if we end up having separate articles for several of the show's characters. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Deleted now. Not sure why it was speedied or deleted outright without allowing for normal CFR time to pass. - TexasAndroid 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rugs to Category:Rugs and carpets

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged back in early January, but does not appear to have been listed. Listing now. - TexasAndroid 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, it was here (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_4#Category:Rugs_to_Category:Rugs_and_carpets) and the consensus was to merge. I don't know what happened afterwards and why the first category still exists though. - Bobet 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Prosecutors to Category:District attorneys

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged back in early December, but does not appear to have been listed here. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename At a cursory check they are all or nearly all American, but any who aren't will need to be moved out. Carina22 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - prosecutor is an office in Australia - for example the Director of Public Prosecutions. We do not have District Attorneys. Renaming would be a US-centric action. While we have not written up any notable prosecutors, does not mean that we won't. Not sure how i works in other nations, especially Commonwelath countries. Category District Attorneys already exists.--A Y Arktos 10:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Keeping would be a U.S. centric action as it gives America a monopoly on the term. It can serve as the U.S. subcategory if articles are written for other countries. But the UK Director of Public Prosecutions would just be classified as a lawyer rather than a prosecutor and it may be the same in Australia. Choalbaton 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Spouses of British Prime Ministers to Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy and in line with standard designations for UK national political offices. Herostratus 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:DOS to Category:Disk operating systems

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category describes operating-system components called disk operating systems. Leaving it with it's abbreviation DOS will cause confusion with people looking for information on the DOS family of operating systems, for which there is already a category:Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles Ae-a 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Talk pages

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to categorize talk pages Ze miguel 09:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Visitor attractions in Hyderabad to Category:Visitor attractions in Hyderabad, India

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a major city of this name in Pakistan. The other subcategories for the Indian city have the qualification at the end. Merchbow 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Affiliated to Visveswaraiah Technological University to Category:Affiliates of Visveswaraiah Technological University

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor presentational improvement. Rename. Merchbow 07:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States historians to Category:Historians of the United States

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for historians whose subject matter is the United States. Moving the name futher away from the form used for occupation by nationality categories like Category:American historians will hopefully reduce the potential for confusion. There is also the option of giving it a long completely unambiguous name but I can't think of one that would fit both living and dead historians, but isn't excessively long. Rename Sumahoy 07:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose Comment (edit: original intent) I don't know that this achieves the goal. Folks will commonly not know the difference between American historians and Historians of the United States. First response is to see both as occupation by nationality categories meaning historians of American naionality. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simply worded alternate...things like Historians of United States history or American history historians are horrible. Writers and scientists by focus are Subject historians format. Unless we can come up with a better alternative, this rename doesn't really make the impact intended. Josh 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed It is a lot better than doing nothing. People will become familiar with the use of "American" for occupational categories now it is used across the board, so the difference here is quite noticeable. The change will also reduce the risk of miscategorisation. CalJW 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Josh. "Historians of the United States" sounds like it indicates historians who are themselves "of the United States" (i.e., American). "United States historians" actually sounds better to me, because it might denote scholars of "United States history". —Caesura(t) 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. When people were looking for an alternative to "American Xers" they used "united States Xers" not "Xers of the United States", which suggests that the former is more widely associated with nationality, which is the way I see it. Bhoeble 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. At the moment it just sounds like a duplicate. Choalbaton 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. state capitols to Category:State capitols in the United States

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more U.S. abbreviation to dispose of as per policy. Rename. Sumahoy 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tourist Places around Bangalore to Category:Visitor attractions in Bangalore

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't match the names of similar categories, eg. Category:Visitor attractions in Mumbai. Breaches guidance on capitalisation. Rename Merchbow 06:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Publishers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "publisher" is applied to both companies and people. We have a mixture of categories for companies and categories for people, and while a few of the names already include "(people)" many do not make it clear what the category is for.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mexican musical groups by city

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded overcategorization; The main category, Category:Mexican musical groups, is not pupulated enough to even have subcategories, and even if it was, this is still too much. ---> Sagitario 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mexican musical groups by genre

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded overcategorization; The main category, Category:Mexican musical groups, is not pupulated enough to even have subcategories, and even if it was, this is still too much. ---> Sagitario 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mexican musical groups by time period

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded overcategorization; The main category, Category:Mexican musical groups, is not pupulated enough to even have subcategories, and even if it was, this is still too much. ---> Sagitario 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian official residences to Category:Official residences in Canada

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the Australian high commissioners residence in Canberra into this, and then realised that the name is ambiguous. The proposed form leaves no doubt the category is based on the location of the building and most similar categories already use it. Merchbow 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American publishers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to category:American publishers (people) --Kbdank71 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wagnerites

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable in most cases and insignificant. There is a section on the Richard Wagner page called "Wagner's influence and legacy". This information belongs there. Most of the articles that populate this category are of people with little connection to the music world. That they might like Wagner is trivia. Theres no Category:Oasis fans or Category:Miles Davis fans either. D.M. (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are, I think, mistaken. This category is not about "fans of Wagner". Wagnerism was a movement which brought together a range of individuals in a cultural ideology with political implications. Wagner was, of course, not just a composer but a theorist and ideologist. Shaw believed Wagnerian ideas would help construct a socialist culture. Hitler believed he was a prophet of Nazism. Almost all the figures listed here are people who were part of the Wagnerian movement in one form or another, as musicians who promoted Wagner and Wagnerism, or or as creative writers and cultural commentators who incorporated it into their ideas. A few stray "mere fans" have found their way in, but they can be removed. All the relevant names are entirely verifiable. Paul B 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ··gracefool |☺ 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. CalJW 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain of course. It is simply untrue that the names on this list have no connection with the music world. Every single one of them that is there at the time of writing, has a definite such connection, either as notable performers of, supporters of, or writers on Wagner. It is wrong to compare Wagnerites to Oasis or Miles Davis fans because 'Wagnerism' was, and is, a definite mocvement associated with Wanger's ideas and music. Those listed are therefore of interest and relevance to musicologists, musical historians and opera lovers. That they are of no interest to those proposing to delete the category is neither here nor there.--Smerus 06:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are the ones who make the decision and insulting us won't help you. Cover it in the article. Sumahoy 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I apologise if I have said anything which you have taken as insulting - I try always to be polite - but your response is a bit confusing to me - please explain to me, and to other voters, who we are, and exactly what I should cover in which article --Smerus 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the few cases where a category for fans or followers of a particular musician is warranted. Wagner has fascinated a very interesting crowd, which is well-documented in this category containing people whose Wagnerism is widely known, e.g. Ludwig II of Bavaria, Thomas Mann and Adolf Hitler. Totally verifiable in most of the category's entries. Kusma (討論) 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And not an appropriate defining characteristic in cases such as Bernard Levin and Michael Portillo, though their love of Wagner is well known. Thus I have no confidence in the category and consider it to be a source of category clutter. CalJW 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CalJW, you seem to be changing your ground. If your objections are limited to only some of the people in the category, and you accept that there are 'appropriate defining characterisitics' for Wagnerites, you should direct your editing to the contents, not to elimination of the category itself. --Smerus 07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think "no confidence" (read as "no confidence in that it will be maintained properly in the future") and "category clutter" are a clear condemnation. Categories which will require constant vigilance should only be kept if they are important. This category is not important in my opinion. CalJW 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for this clarification. As regards 'no confidence' I will just point out that the category has hardly been up for a week, so one might allow a reasonable period of time before coming to a conclusion on this. --Smerus 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wagnerism was a major cultural movement in the period of roughly 1860-1950, with the establishment of numerous Wagner societies and the publication of a very large number of books on Wagner at one period (more than anyone other than Jesus and Napoleon, claims Magee). The implications of Wagner's work were explored in literature and were articulated as part of socio-political ideologies. Wagnerism is undoubtedly a notable phenomenon. Paul B 10:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify, per the above. May be interesting, but the characteristic is not obvious from the people themselves. Radiant_>|< 11:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, what does "obvious from the people themselves" mean? It will not be obvious to contributors who have no interest in Wagnerism, but I assure you that it's pretty clear to people who do. Any list of names will seem arbitrary to someone who is unaware of what links them together. Paul B 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that doesn't make it an appropriate use of the category system. People should be in categories based on who they are or what they do, not what they are interested in. CalJW 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that there is a clear distinction between what people are and what they are interested in. People in this category should be here if their "interest" in Wagner became part of their belief-system. Paul B 16:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wagnerism was a political and idealogical movement. People who were/are just fans of Wagner's music and not followers of his ideas should be removed. Arniep 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not about music alone as noted above, but the movement. 'Fans' of his music alone should be removed. Doc 13:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ill-defined category. It will always include too dissimilar entries, people associated with Wagner in totally different ways: singers who performed his music, fans, conductors he worked with, authors who may have been influenced by his works decades after his death, etc. To say that Wagnerism was a real movement doesn't help at all, I think, because it's a very vague thing as well - ranging from a kind of political idealism to a personality cult. Making a list has the same problems. Instead it would be better to expand the influence and legacy section into a separate article on the influence of Wagner, or add some of the names to Wagnerism, because then it's at least possible to indicate why, how, in what ways these people should be considered Wagnerites. David Sneek 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, David Sneek! On these grounds one would put up for deletion, for example, Category:Marxists ....Any category can become 'degraded' by the addition of inappropriate content. If you want to find out in what ways these people are Wagnerites, look at the articles. If the articles don't convince you these people should be classified as 'Wagnerites' - get editing! - isn't that what Wikipedia is about? --Smerus 09:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, Smerus. Category:Marxists uses a clear-cut definition - "...people who have publicly identified themselves as Marxist..." - which is lacking for Category:Wagnerites, which speaks of a notable "attachment". And my point is that in the case of Wagnerism such a definition does not exist, because the word may refer to anything from fandom to an aesthetic sensibility or a political Weltanschauung. David Sneek 11:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (p.s.: I wouldn't object if the definition was "...people who have publicly identified themselves as Wagnerite...", but that would almost completely empty the category.)[reply]
I still advise caution, DS. I have just looked at Category:Marxists and have found a ragbag which makes Category:Wagnerites look conspicuouosly rigorous by comparison. Apart from the fact that it includes Karl Marx himself, I find the following: Stephen Jay Gould whose article reveals that he explicitly denied he was a Marxist; Ward Churchill who has written on Marxism, amnogst other topics, but has not 'publicly identified' as a Marxist; European Radicals in Sri Lanka, some of whom may have been Marxists, but no evidence is given as to how many, or who; H. Bruce Franklin who from his article seems to be clearly a Maoist, not a Marxist; Jacques Camatte whose article says he explicitly renounced Marxism; Lewis Gordon whose article does not give any indication that he is a Marxist, still less that he has 'publicly identified himself' as one....doubtless there are other debatable people in the cateogry, these are just the few I hsve examined. 'Public identification' is not the criterion for 'Wagnerites', and I see you don't actually dispute the 'notable attachment' of those who are listed there.
If this argument centres, as it seems to, on rigor of attributing people to categories, then it goes to the heart of debate about categories themselves. Clearly categories need to be edited/policed in the same way that articles need to be edited/policed. But the fact that (as in this case) some people seem to have a distaste or contempt for the category should not be, by itself, a criterion for its removal. Nor is the fact that it may be abused by having inappopriate people included - as is the case with , e.g. Category:Marxism. The terms for the category have been stated. It is clearly a relevant category for some. I, like many who have voted here, am keen to see that it is not abused. It remains to me unclear what is to be gained, in WP terms, by deleting it.--Smerus 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_25&oldid=1215267932"