Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 19

< April 18	April 20 >

April 19[edit]

Category:Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep for now, without prejudice to revisiting in the near future. --Xdamr^talk 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundent given half these articles are up for deletion, and it is argued that most people named are notable beyond event. Jimmi Hugh 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although not per nom. The items in the category are such that the category is not needed for navigational purposes. The articles (on the event, the shooter and a number of the victims) are extensively interlinked with each other and the main article on the shootings. A number of categories exist for school shootings, murder victims of various stripes and so forth so no article that survives AFD will be orphaned in the absence of this category. Otto4711 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the category keeps the numerous articles together in one easy to find category. Just like the Category:Columbine High School massacre. In addition, the article's nominator is new to Wikipedia and knows little about the rules. EnviroGranny 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not try to guess the length of time i have been posting. I simply have a new account because i was bored of the number of people who asked my opinion about deletion etc. on the old one, which ia now redundent (Not a sockpuppet). I understand the rules perfectly. Categories group articles with common topics. They are not for the purpose of linking a group of articles that is already intrinsically linked because of purely common interest. --Jimmi Hugh 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what rule exactly has been broken by this nomination? The fact that a category exists for Columbine has no bearing on whether this category should exist. The articles in this category can easily be found by following the links in any one of the articles in the category. Otto4711 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles should be linked via references within the articles themselves, rather than via a category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Comment - This is a category about a current event. It might be worth waiting a couple of months for the Wikipedia articles on the subject to stabilize. I imagine that this category might be populated by a few articles specifically about the shooting in a month or two. Dr. Submillimeter 07:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this category relates to a fairly recent event and many associated articles are in flux. Most probably the population issue might be resolved with some hindsight. --Soman 08:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the outcome of the article deletions My guess is most or all of these articles will probably be deleted. If that happens, then the category is not needed. However, I notice that if the articles are in fact kept then the category might be needed because there are various articles included which are directly related subarticles to the main article and which don't have a good parent category otherwise. Notably List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre and Virginia Tech massacre timeline would seem to not have good categories other than this one if both of those articles are kept. (The victims don't specifically need this category, though, since they can all be categorized under Category:Murder victims.) So keep this category in place temporarily for now until final determinations are made on the subarticles involved. Dugwiki 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now we should wait until this is no longer a current event and see how many articles are left. Say in a month? 132.205.44.134 16:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --wpktsfs 23:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should Category:Columbine High School massacre be up for deletion? 132.205.44.134 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, that is a slightly different case. Some of those articles do not necesarily directly link from the main article (films related to event etc. In this case all the category topics are directly linked and none of them can be found any easier with the category. --Jimmi Hugh 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The category currently serves the purpose of organizing articles related to this shooting. The articles themselves are currently in a state of flux, but this is actually a reason to keep the category rather than delete it. After a couple of months, this category can be used not only to browse related articles but also to check on all of the articles and clean them up as is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar to cat Kent state massacre. What is the hurry RaveenS 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for the moment. This is one for the history books. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this keeps all the associated articles in one place and thus serves a worthwhile purpose. — Jonathan Bowen 01:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per other statements in support of retaining this category. Even years from now, this is something that can't be forgotten... Ranma9617 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the articles in this category are in AFD. I think a decision about the category is premature when we don`t know if we are going to have most of the article in the category.While I can`t !vote, I think we shoud wait at least until the AFDs are closed, and any deletion reviews that follow, before re-opening this Cfd.--24.20.69.240 07:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Columbine category. Lugnuts 10:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Much as I hate the thought of this category, it's helpful for navigating the related topics quickly while this is a current event. To me, the fact that articles in the category are in AfD only illustrates the fact that this category is a useful way to find them to nominate them for deletion as they will keep popping up. Doczilla 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the constituent articles wind up being deleted. --BigDT (416) 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Q0 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations. This event is significant enough to warrant its own category, but not all of the articles there are worth keeping. --AEMoreira042281 22:07, 25 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Pretenders to the throne of Rwanda[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one man who claims the throne, and he is the former king. There are not enough possible members to justify a category. Picaroon 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of by-throne scheme of parent This appears to be a case where the parent category, Category:Pretenders, has an existing subdivision scheme which divides all pretenders by the specific throne which they claim. Given that scheme it appears necessary to keep this category even though it only has one article. Note that completing subdivisions of categories is an exception that allows for one-article categories, such as one album artist categories under Category:Albums by artist. Dugwiki 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. For reference, the exception is set out here. Bencherlite 00:49, 21 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:People buried in unmarked graves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The connection between these people too coincidental to justify placing them all in the same category. Brandon97 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as triviation. Mangoe 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question it does seem like a tenuous connection, but I can see that it could be of interest. ON balance, I think I'm inclined towards a delete, but can anyone explain why this category is more or less trivial than, for example, Category:People buried in Kensal Green Cemetery? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kensal Green Cemetery category is only slightly more plausible, as it is a particular famous place. On the other hand, since it is duplicative of a list on the main article, I'm going to address it and others tonight. Mangoe 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete the categories for cemetery's too, as the connection between people buried in the same cemetery is coincidental (excluding cemeteries which serve as national pantheons). Nathanian 12:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where and how your corpse is buried is not a distinguishing feature in your life. Also, this category is excessively broad and would have billions of members. Doczilla 17:38, 21 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People in positions of authority[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vague and overbroad criterion for inclusion. Anyone who has any power over another could be said to be in a "position of authority" making the category virtually boundless. Otto4711 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sub-cats include "children" and "spouses" of national leaders, and "UN officials"! Johnbod 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category is overly broad and could encompass a huge fraction of the peopel in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Broad, vague, and of minimal usefulness. Abberley2 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague. Dugwiki 16:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as far too vague. This could reasonably be taken to include just about anyone from a school prefect to the secretary of the village bowls club to the assistant deputy team leader of a MacDonalds shift crew, through to a Field Marshal of Galactic Emperor. In other words, just about everyone who has ever achieved any degree of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. My nephew has authority over his puppy. Doczilla 07:10, 21 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hollywood families P[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 14:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - in line with many recent deletions of eponymous family categories. The material in these categories is easily interlinked so there is no need for the categories as navigational hubs. In some instances the categories gather people with different family names and categories do inadequate jobs in explaining the family relationships. Should someone wish to write an article on one of the families it can be housed in the Hollywood families category or other appropriate category. Otto4711 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per precedents. Doczilla 07:10, 21 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Corrs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with any number of similar family categories, the material here is easily interlinked through the various articles within it. No need for the category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. The only people who are going to know The Corrs are most likely to know the members, so therefore no need for the category. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC).}}[reply]
Keep as a band category rather than as a family category, and a natural parent to the three subcats. Tim! 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The natural parents to the sub-categories are Category:Musicians by band, Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist. Note deletions of categories for ZZ Top and Alanis Morissette in which the "natural parent" argument was advanced and rejected. Otto4711 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note a variety of deletions for musical artists from April 8 for additional precedent. Otto4711 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A, it's not a family, and B, even if it were, it contains more than three entries, and is by definition useful. Moreover, the current anti-family-categories crusade is somewhat offputting. Why is it problematic to have family categories? --TheEditrix2 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific number of articles by which categories become useful by definition. The reason unnecessary family categories (or any unnecessary categories) are problematic is because their existence diverts resources from maintaining other categories. Otto4711 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Categories like this are useful, helping link related articles and helping avoid articles repeating topic already covered elsewhere. Have editors nothing better to do then debate this ? As a courtesy the editor who started category should be consulted before starting debate. Djln --Djln 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the existence of the category prevent, for example, inclusion of the names of the various Corr family members in the articles of each other, and why would you want to keep that information from being in each of the articles? How does this category do the job of grouping these articles together better than the main article on the group and the articles themselves? Otto4711 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All categories throughout Wikipedia group together related articles. What is so different about this one ? Djln --Djln 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This should be treated like any other musical band or singer template. It just happens that all of its members are from one family. --AEMoreira042281 22:09, 25 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus football competitions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus football competitions to Category:Turkish Cypriot football competitions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The name Turkish Cypriot is neutral opposite to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Since all the other national competitions use names such as Italian, Greek, English instead of Italy, Greece, England KRBN 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC).--User:KRBN 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the current name fits the convention of Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The proposed new name also changes the meaning; it could be applied to competitions outside Cyprus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this is a reason that it may apply to a competition out of Cyprus, then with the same reason, Greek football competitions could be outside Greece, Italian, English the same. I can't understand about why about Turkish Cypriots must be used different name. It is more NPOV. Yes, it is a subcategory of Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, however English are a subcategory of England, I can't understand why name T/Cypriot can not be related with the so called TRNC.--User:KRBN 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per BrownHairedGirl. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The debate is whether or not to rename the cat, not delete it ChrisTheDude 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination is only a suggestion to rename. The discussion is about the status of the category and deleting it is a totally reasonable outcome if that is the way the consensus ends up. Vegaswikian 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as BrownHairedGirl. Sorry but this proposal just comes across as nit-picking. You also seem to have been changing a number of categories removing mention of "Turkish" so that they then re-direct to categories that are just "Cyprus".♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:48, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Complex systems[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Complex systems theory. --Xdamr^talk 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Complex systems to Category:Complex systems (science)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - I previously nominated this for deletion on 13 April 2007, mainly because it was being used to categorize anything that could be described as "complex" and a "system" by the average Wikipedia user (such as "role-playing game systems"). This actually seemed to categorize things by name rather than categorize things that were related to each other. Following the nomination, several people familiar with the scientific field of complex systems explained that the field deserved a category and cleaned out the category. However, the category is still at risk for being used to list anything that could be described as "complex" and a "system", and it would be good to have the category focus speficially on the field of complex systems itself rather than gathering together everything that could be called a system (like the deleted Category:Systems, which was deleted following a 12 April 2007 discussion; see User:Jpbowen/Back up - Category Systems). After a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics, a couple of people suggested renaming this as Complex systems (science), which I now recommend as the new name for this category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no need to disambiguate this category as there is nothing to disambiguate it from. We wouldn't seriously consider writing "Physics (science)" instead of just Physics; why is this different? If the problem is uneducated users, then educate them: put some text on the category page briefly describing the rationale for including topics in the category. I see this as making the topic name look uglier without adding any actual value. —David Eppstein 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The average Wikipedia user's approach to categorization is similar to jamming a square peg through a round hole. If an article vaguely appears to fit this category, then a user will attempt to put it into the category. Instructions in the category can be and will be ignored (or even changed). Renaming the category will be more effective at preventing problems with misuse. Dr. Submillimeter 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To a layperson, "complex system" is something to tag Air traffic control system with. A slight clarification is just good sense. Mangoe 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for clarity, and salt Category:Complex systems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — as per David Eppstein. Why just "science"? Complex systems cuts across engineering, economics, etc., too, being interdisciplinary. — Jonathan Bowen 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — as per David Eppstein. It will be a bad day for science if outsiders are going to dictate which name scientists give to there discipline - Mdd 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The name was suggested by people familiar with the field at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Dr. Submillimeter 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I can't find much support for renaming there - Mdd 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment — mathematics is only one aspect of this interdisclinary field and mathematicians will have a particular view of the subject. Have you approached any engineers, for example? — Jonathan Bowen 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this need to be deleted, renamed or simply cleaned up? I think that a cleanup is what is called for here at this point. Depending on what remains, deletion might still be justified. Vegaswikian 05:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The category already went through clean-up. This is just an effort to rename the category to avoid problems in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rename. Perhaps Category:Complex systems theory ? Looking up "complex systems theory" on Google returns 52,000 hits (albeit compared with 10,000,000 for "complex systems"). The immediate super-cat is already called Category:Systems theory -- Jheald 07:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This would be perfectly reasonable. Dr. Submillimeter 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - agree that this is a bettter choice. Mangoe 10:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It sounds reasonable, but it isn't. Mdd 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Why should Wikipedia be changing the name when the generally accepted name is available and in use already? You could argue that Category:Stars category is confusing because it might be mistaken by the general public for film stars. So should we change that to Category:Stars (astronomy) to avoid confusion? I think not. — Jonathan Bowen 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Category:Stars has not been abused to include other meanings of the word "star". However, categories on systems have been used in the past to list everything that could be called a "system"; see, for example, this link, which is a copy of what Category:Systems looked like before it was deleted. The rename is needed to avoid that problem. Dr. Submillimeter 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The associated main article for the category is called Complex system. Category names should virtually always match the name of their main article, so oppose the rename (unless you the main article were renamed "Complex system (science) ). Dugwiki 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We could solve that by renaming the parent article (which I think isn't a bad idea anyway, but I would still prefer "Complex systems theory"). Mangoe 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Changing the name of a relatively new an unkown scientific discipline remains a tricky business. The scientific community won't like it, because complex systems is there paradigm. And you don't serve the public. The new category should mention something like:

There is a new scientfic discipline with calls theirselves complex systems and is here called complex systems theory because the Wikipedia communicty wants to stipulate that there is a difference between the object complex systems and the study in real life called complex systems and here called complex systems theory...

I have the same discussion at this moment in Holland about History of science:the study and the object of study. In the situation that the object of study and the study in real life have the same name, Wikipedians have a problem choosing titles. It happens all the time. Normally we leave this to the experts. We give them benefit of their expertise. The problem with these formal therms like systems and complex systems however is, that everybody can think he is an expert on this subject. Nice going - Mdd 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Complex systems theory. I think this is a better choice. My comment above was based on looking at the contents of the category and wondering why some entries were in there. This name would pretty much deal with my concerns. Vegaswikian 00:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To much thinking, why don't we lissen to experts in this field. See: [1]. - Mdd 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not consistent. The obligatory Google produces 50,000 results, and plenty of them are academic departments or other similar authorities. For example, from the website of Stephen Wolfram we have "Complex Systems Theory" (paper title from 1988). Mangoe 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny... In the abstract of this 20 years old articles Wolfram says nowadays:

Some approaches to the study of complex systems are outlined. They are encompassed by an emerging field of science concerned with the general analysis of complexity.

This example only confirms my impression, that complex systems is the term (most) scientist in the field use, to name there field of study. - Mdd 21:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Complex systems theory. Although I do not have a strong view, I originally suggested Category:Complex systems (science) as a less-than-ideal alternative to the unsatisfactory name Category:Complex systems studies. The new proposal Category:Complex systems theory is much better, and overcomes some of the objections and reservations made above. In my view, it is as harmless as the distinction between Dynamical systems and Dynamical systems theory: the word theory can be tagged onto many fields (e.g. relativity) without altering the meaning. Complex systems theory may not be the most common name for the field, but it is at least in use and unambiguous. Geometry guy 11:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Complex systems theory. I was quite happy with the old name, but this seems a good solution. --Salix alba (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Directly from Stephen Wolfram, see [2], there is also the alternative of Category:Study of complex systems. - Mdd 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Again, using Physics as an example: its category is not named "Physics theory" (that would be more properly theoretical Physics, and is a proper subset of Physics), it is not named "Study of physics", it is not named "Study of physics theory program related activities", it is just "Physics". What is wrong with keeping the same simplicity of naming for complex systems? What do all those extra words accomplish? —David Eppstein 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer: Their seems to be a mayor concern by Dr. Submillimeter & co about misinterpretation. That their are only 14 articles in this category (now) and all doing just fine their, doesn't seem to matter. - Mdd 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem with the current name is that, even if it is the name that some people in the field use to describethe field of research, it is not a field of study that the general public is familiar with. This is why the analogy with physics is inappropriate. Most people have heard of physics as a field of study (even if they do not understand physics) and would think of the science of physics when they read the term "physics". In contrast, relatively few people have heard of complex systems research, and few people would think of "a system that is complex" rather than the field of research when they read "complex systems". This is why the category needs to be renamed to something other than Category:Complex systems. (Also note that the category was cleaned following the last nomination for deletion but that the category, with its current name, will still be prone to being cluttered with things unrelated to the field of research.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think this will be a huge problem in practice since I don't think the number of articles deposited here will be very large (it hasn't been in the past). WIth the launch of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems project, I think more action will be taken in the future anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 15:33, 26 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:PETA supporters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-defining characteristic and likely to cause category clutter if used extensively. There's already a List of notable supporters of PETA (although that list is also of dubious value but hey, one at a time...) Pascal.Tesson 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is redundant with the existing List of notable supporters of PETA, without making any judgment on the value of the article in question, and the list is one of but only two items in the category. Looks like an example of over-categorization.--Ramdrake 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the one entry into the list. Mangoe 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete categories are not like myspace favorites. Categories are there to categorize the most important aspects of individuals, not group them together based on the interests or superficial attributes. -Andrew c 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both in line with the various categories for activists and supporters and because in the absence of this category List of notable supporters of PETA would be orphaned. Otto4711 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the article List of notable supporters of PETA can instead be categorized under Category:Animal rights movement. That would solve the orphaned article issue. Dugwiki 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable characteristic. This sort of category is most likely to be applied to celebrities, whose "support" for causes is often transitory and/or insincere (PETA is the classic case, with some of their anti-fur models happy to take fur company cash a few years later), and/or self-serving. Abberley2 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with most organizations, it's better to stick to the list for membership and support. Per my reply to Otto above, upmerge both articles in this category to Category:Animal rights movement. Dugwiki 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for redundancy. --TheEditrix2 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 17:33, 21 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Armenian-British people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Armenian-British people to Category:British people of Armenian descent

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, None of the people in the category are Armenian but are of Armenian descent. Also, a rename would put the category in line with others like Category:British people of Chinese descent and Category:British people of Canadian descent. Philip Stevens 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Whilst I see the logic of this rename, having looked at the two articles in this category, the new name would not be in line with its other parent category Category:People of Armenian descent, where "Armenian-Foo" people is the most frequent (albeit not sole) expression. Furthermore, Category:British people by ethnic or national origin and, even more so, Category:English people by ethnic or national descent and why is it "descent" here, but "origin" elsewhere?! are a right jumble of sub-category names and no consensus sub-category name exists at present. Maybe a batch of sub-categories need to be considered to work out the best naming approach, with input from whichever WikiProject covers this? Bencherlite 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hyphenisation is only common because Americans are so fond of it. It is not normal in the UK, and the policy on variants of English states that British English is used in British contexts. Honbicot 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bencherlite's reasons seems a bit strange. Hera1187 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 08:43, 24 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain to Category:British people of Irish descent

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This would put the category in line with others like Category:British people of Chinese descent and Category:British people of Canadian descent. Philip Stevens 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename because it changes the meaning of the category in ways which may be unacceptable to those so identified, by attaching the word "British" to them. Given the lengthy conflicts between and within Ireland and Britain, this is a sensitive area. There are some people who would welcome the "British" label, but others would deplore it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per Philip Stevens. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per BHG. Since Irish people obtain no extra benefits by getting a British passport very many never do, including many in Northern Ireland whose families have always lived there. Many insist on being regarded as Irish not British. Johnbod 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some definitions of the term "British" include Northern Ireland - "Great Britain" makes it clear that this is not the case and only applies to the mainland. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. Abberley2 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Oppose. People living in GB are not neccesarily British, especially those of Irish descent. people who want to change the now properly named cat into this, are either trolling or oblivious to Irish British relations. Billtheking 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Billtheking, looks like a unique situation not lendingitself to standardization that we alike Taprobanus 20:12, 23 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Alumni by university in the Philippines[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Alumni by university or college in the Philippines. --Xdamr^talk 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Alumni by university or college in the Philippines, to match Category:Universities and colleges in the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:49, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Buildings in Hampstead[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Camden. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Camden, or at least Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Hampstead. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - Several of Hampstead's most famous ones are already in the Campden category & not in this one. Johnbod 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Not enough articles for now to justify splitting out Hampstead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with the little category content, there's no need for seperate page and the information could be simply put in the Hampstead page. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Hampstead has a lot of notable buildings. Half a dozen of those in the Camden category are in Hampstead, and I can think of another dozen with articles off the top of my head, but I'm still not sure that this category is necessary, as categorisation by London borough is perhaps sharp enough. Nathanian 12:54, 21 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Action role-playing games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Action role-playing games to Category:Action role-playing video games and Category:Free, open source role-playing games to Category:Free, open source role-playing video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename as per recent RPG -> RPVG renames; see Tactical role-playing games for recent precedent. Percy Snoodle 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Looking over the list, it appears that you're right. Those are all video games, which can be distinguished from other non-video RPG. Doczilla 16:04, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:People from Brazil[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Brazilian people. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Brazilian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convention of Cat:People by nationality says merge, and there is no reason to break from convention, so merge it is. Picaroon 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge AshbyJnr 08:44, 24 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:M-Class Stars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Type-M stars, convention of Category:Stars by spectral type. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The one article in this category (Betelgeuse) is already in two subdirectories of Category:Type-M stars. (I do not know why; I do not work on articles about stars.) Moving Betelgeuse to Category:Type-M stars is unnecessary; the category could be deleted outright. Dr. Submillimeter 14:04, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Bands named after someone who isn't in the band[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by name, these bands really have nothing in common. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another triviation category. Mangoe 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The bands may have little in common otherwise. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Doczilla 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jethro Tull is omitted, and this insult must not go unpunished! -- Dominus 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, as stated many times above. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The topic of band names is in and of itself interesting to many people, regardless of what type of music the band plays. When a band gives itself the name of a person, there is an expectation that someone in the band has that name ("Which one's Pink"?). The commonality of these bands is that they all made the interesting choice to go against that expectation. And I added Jethro Tull. :-) SnappingTurtle 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One man's trivia is another man's quest. This is a terrific category! --TheEditrix2 17:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category system should not be used for quirky trivial, as it needs to be well focused if the number of categories is to be kept low enough for the list of categories at the bottom of the page to be easy to use. AshbyJnr 08:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one man's quest is another man's trivia. >Radiant< 12:33, 24 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:People who have renounced Judaism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 12:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category goes against WP:NEO and WP:OR. This category wishes to contain people who have "renounced" Judaism, but all it has so far is mostly a mish-mash of names about people who never renounced Judaism as such because they were so far removed from the practice of any meaningful Judaism in the first place, they had very little to actually "renounce" as they easily "became" something else in their own minds. One cannot "renounce" what one never seriously or knowledgeably espoused in the first place, and so many of the people in this category are simply secularized and assimilated individuals who went on to accept other faiths or beliefs. Another problem here that this category opens itself up to is why not include every last person who was born Jewish and became an atheist or agnostic? Theoretically every Jew who ever joined a communist party should fit into this category as communists are atheists and "renounce" everything related to religion. Finally see the Who is a Jew? article for discussions that Judaism asserts that while a Jew can "renounce" his Jewish faith, according to Judaism he nevertheless still remains a Jew ethnically or "nationally", so all these people are still Jews, even according to Judaism, inspite of the fact that they "renounced" Judaism. No use simplifying this quandary! (Furthermore, what about the people in Category:Messianic Jews who believe that they are still Jews and practice "Judaism" and have not renounced it even as they embrace belief in Jesus and even Chrsitianity?) There is no way that this categeory will ever know OBJECTIVELY and TRUTHFULLY who does or does not "renounce" Judaism. How about the famous Marranos (and Anusim) in Spain who did indeed "renounce" Judaism in public, even becoming baptised, yet never meant it and continued to adhere to Judaism in secret even upon pain of death during the Spanish Inquisition? Crypto-Judaism in action! Perhaps this may legitimately end up as a subject related to "hypocrisy", you never know? Too many contradictions and conundrums here that will never go away and can only get worse! IZAK 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about Michael Solomon Alexander, an orthodox Jew who became a bishop? It would be easy to add other former orthodox Jews, such as Christian David Ginsburg. Having said that, I won't vote keep as I think it's not a useful category.--Holdenhurst 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Izak makes a good point, there is no clear line between someone who is just assimilated and someone who actively renounces Judaism. Most non-religious Jews fall in between, having had some Jewish exposure but never a full religious upbringing. I would be interested in seeing if this category can be saved with a solid definition. Jon513 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been people who switched from Judaism to some other religion. To have Category:Converts to Judaism, but no recognition of apostasy from Judaism could seem POV. However this name is so horrid it might be best to start over. Or at least to think of an adequate rename.--T. Anthony 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could have [[Category:Converts from Judaism]], for people who have formally converted to another religion. That would not cover people who avowedly became atheists.--Runcorn 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IZAK makes an excellent case. The current category is ambiguous and incorrect as it appears to include ethnic Jews who've never embraced Judaism in the first place. To be accurate with what the category is intended to describe, the title would need to be something like Category:Jews Who Embraced and Later Renounced Judaism. Most of the articles in the current category would not belong to this latter category, however, so it would be better to delete the current category and create a newer more accurately titled one, though objectively, any attempt to categorize this seems problematic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think renounced Judaism implies that the person believed Judaism, not that they were just Jewish, to begin with and then switched to something else. If no rename can be done to make a category be used that way I'd favor delete also.--T. Anthony 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Delete. And I likewise renounce -- denounce -- all similarly named religion categories. Mere conversion from one faith or denomination to another doesn't qualify as renouncing. Moreover, renouncing comes altogether too close to DEnouncing, and surely it's not useful to have a category that consists of nothing more than a list of anti-Semites, anti-Catholics, anti-Mormons, or anti-Muslims. --TheEditrix2 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed! Well put TheEditrix2. IZAK
Comment There are cases of Jews converting to Christianity but saying that they are still Jewish, such as Cardinal Lustiger.--Runcorn 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is meant to refer to Judaism, not "identifying as Jewish." Although the name is not good. --TheEditrix2 is right that this seems to imply something more like rejection or denunciation than simply converting from Judaism to something. No other "former" category uses the word "renounce." If we're going by the formula used elsewhere something like Category:Former adherents of Judaism or Category:Converts from Judaism would be better.--T. Anthony 01:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Very POV pushing.--Sefringle 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you would say the same about all of the other religions at the main Category:People by former religion, or are you singling out this one? --Wassermann 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is for all intents and purposes a repeat of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 28#Category:Former Jews. Category:Former Jews was nominated for deletion on March 28 and the consensus was not to delete, but rather to rename to Category:People who have renounced Judaism on April 3. It is simply inappropriate to re-nominate it for deletion so quickly. If you disagree with the decision, contact Radiant! or take it to WP:DRV. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that an earlier outcome to rename a category should not be taken as precedent for a debate on whether to delete it. >Radiant< 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The defenition is so disputed as to its meaning this category will always be disputed. --Java7837 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- again, this cat. was recently voted upon and the result was to rename the cat. to its current name, and that is where it currently stands; one cannot delete this category without deleting ALL of the other categories found at Category:People by former religion. It would make no sense to single out this category dealing with former Jews (those that "have renounced Judaism") for a 'special deletion' while allowing all of the aforementioned categories to remain. Also, isn't there a policy mandating a waiting period or something between category nominations for either deletion or renaming? Otherwise it seems that unwanted/controversial categories are simply nominated over and over again (often by the same people) until the desired deletion is finally achieved. I think that their goal is to try to make these deletions occur under the radar, hoping that no one will take notice for a week and by that time it is long gone. But for the millionth time, it would make absolutely no sense to delete this category whilst allowing all of the other "people by former religion" categories to remain. It seems that "no consensus" has been reached here and that more time is needed for discussion on how to deal with (i.e., rename) this category. --Wassermann 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of this. The reason I didn't vote keep is that the name is so non-standard with the others that I think it might be coming out harsher sounding to Judaism than the others due to their perspective faiths. Also it's not true that it's being deleted while all other "former religion" categories were kept. If you'll check back Category:Former Hindus and Category:Former Christians were deleted. The first because of uncertainty Hindus have "former members" and the second because of uncertainty about who's a Christian or who left.--T. Anthony 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meaningless category. Doright 06:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject to abuse. These negative categories are unhelpful. Positive categories such as "Converts to Scientology" are better. --Blue Tie 11:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Runcorn. There seem to be categories for "former XYZ" for all the other major religions at Category:People_by_former_religion so it would seem unreasonable not to also have one for Judaism. I assume that it was not named "Former Jews" for exactly the reason IZAK suggests that even if someone converts to another religion or becomes Atheist, one is still regarded as Jewish by Jewish law whereas this does not apply to the other religions (I suppose to make it equal all the other categories could be changed to People who have renounced Christianity etc.). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't renounce Judaism.--Poetlister 13:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if you say you do not believe one word of the Old Testament or any other writings related to Judaism and you do not believe in anything supernatural or the benefit of obsessive rituals you have not renounced Judaism? Surely you CAN renounce your previous belief in or practice of a religion, whether or not other people do or do not believe you are still a member of that religion is up to them. I really do not see why if there are categories for Former Catholics, Former Mormons, Former Muslims etc. why there should not be at least some kind of equivalent category for Judaism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be one of those who's confusing "Judaism" with being Jewish. See the article Yetzia bish'eila, which states "is the Israeli term for leaving a religion, usually Judaism, to lead a secular life-style." Also read cherem and The Judaism section of the apostasy article. Still I don't like the name of this article so something mote like Category:Jewish apostates or Category:Cherem or just Category:Former adherents of Judaism would be better.--T. Anthony 03:36, 28 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Latter-day Saint musicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 11:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename to Category:Performers of Latter-day Saint music - See related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 16. This category is being used to include both people who perform Latter-day Saint music (e.g. Mormon Tabernacle Choir) and people who are Latter-day Saints but whose music is not necessarily religious (e.g. The Osmonds). Categorizing people based on their career and religion is inappropriate if religion is not influential in their careers. I suggest either deletion or renaming to indicate that the category's use should be restricted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename per nom. If everyone listed performs Latter-day Saint music, rename. However, if a sufficient number are simply Mormons who are also musicians, delete per WP:Overcategorization. Doczilla 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Doczilla 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or if you must delete then create Category:Performers of Latter-day Saint music--T. Anthony 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Establish subcategories, if necessary, but the well-named supercategory should remain. --TheEditrix2 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How would subcategories help? This does not make sense. Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't this the target for some merges from over categorized non notable intersections? If so, adding those sub categories back in would not seem logical. Vegaswikian 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering we don't have an article on Latter-day Saint music, delete. >Radiant< 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many valid topics that do not have articles. We don't have an article on Zhuang music either, but the Zhuang are a large ethnic group that clearly have their own music judging by Music of Guangxi.--T. Anthony 03:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the suggested category is vague and, if/when it is created, the contents will partly be correctly categorized and partly be oh-so-incorrectly categorized. The albums I have listened to by The 5 Browns, for example, are merely arrangements of classical music like Flight of the Bumblebee and Rhapsody in Blue; Stonecircle, similarly, has never to my knowledge done anything other than Celtic music. I am unfamiliar with the CfD process, but I hope that this will somehow be taken into account (see this Google search for quick eamples if need be). --Iamunknown 00:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The category can be cleaned up after renaming. Dr. Submillimeter 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per anthony above -SESmith 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and do NOT rename I do not think the rename makes sense and to me THAT looks like Overcategorization. For example, I could easily see a category of "Jewish Comedians", but I would not particularly like a category of "Comedians who tell Jewish Jokes". In the same way, a category of "Jewish Musicians" works, but a category of "Musicians who perform Jewish Music" does not work (for one reason.. any musician could play a song written by a Jewish composer and automatically then be included). On the other hand, I think that categorizing performers by religion is interesting. For example, I can imagine wanting to see a category of Zoroastrian Actors. --Blue Tie 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the equivalent "X musicians" categories (such as Category:Muslim musicians) were renamed as "Performers of X music" (such as Category:Performers of Islamic music) in the decisions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 16. The new categories are easier to understand. Also note that several guidelines (suc as Wikipedia:Overcategorization and Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality indicate that religion should not be used to categorize people in a specific career if religion does not influence the career. (I also considered it to be personally offensive when someone created categories dividing astronomers by religion.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:26, 26 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Main namespace templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless super-mega-overbroad; only has one template in it, but if this had been noticed and used by a lot of people it would have thousands and thousands of templates in it, for no reason. Recat the one template where ever it best goes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:38, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Linley family[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in line with the many recent deletions of family categories. There is no need for this category as a navigational hub as the four articles within it are all interlinked. Otto4711 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to fill it out a bit more with other members of the family - it's a work in progress, and this seemed an easier navigation than forever having to go through Thomas Linley the elder to get between siblings - but looks like the consensus is well and truly against me. Hohum. Neddyseagoon - talk 07:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not all Linleys are in that particular family. Doczilla 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I only meant 'Linley family' as in 'Linley musical dynasty' and as a subcat of Category:Musical families - see the additions I've made, now it's up to 8 - full enough, surely? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, even with eight they can still be interlinked through each other (links don't have to be only through Thomas the elder's article). Otto4711 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give the category a chance. Four articles and more to come makes it a useful category. Interlinking more than three articles becomes unwieldy. It's the reason we HAVE categories. --TheEditrix2 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no magic threshold number of articles that suddenly confers utility on categories. Look at the article for Thomas Linley the elder and you'll see that linking far more than three articles is not the slightest bit unwieldly and shows the way in which the people are related, something a category can't handle. Any notable person with a notable relative or even multiple notable relatives can easily include a section on the family that links the family members together, or can link the family members as they appear elsewhere in the article. Additionally, a notable family is ripe for having an actual article written about it and placed in the "musical families" category. Otto4711 14:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, interlinking more than three articles is not particularly unwieldy. >Radiant< 12:35, 24 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Giant animals[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely broad topic, category presently includes an arbitrary assemblage of real and mythological animals. Questionable utility, and if complete would probably include hundreds of otherwise unrelated articles. Also, no critera are provided for what counts as "giant". Dinoguy2 03:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see the use or purpose of grouping Elasmotherium, a 20-foot long extinct mammal; Giant Condor, a character in a Godzilla movie; Altamaha-ha, a cryptid from Georgia; and Thunderbird (mythology), a spirit being present in the belief systems of a number of American Indian tribes. And some of those aren't even "giant" (the Beast of Gévaudan, for example, was about the size of a cow, which may be large for a wolf-like creature, but...) --Miskwito 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I created the category and I don't think I can be impartial, but I wanted to say that I've dropped a note to the project people in hopes of getting more input. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above. Mythological creatures aren't technically animals, but here they are. Is a giant squid a giant animal, or simply a large squid? Do extinct animals count? Do we automatically include all dinosaurs? It's quite pointless. IPSOS (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartaleck remark: Many dinosaurs were quite small actually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undefinable intersection, with undefined terms, even. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The combination of real and fictional animals and the use of the subjective term "giant" makes this a dysfunctional category. However, I look forward to seeing all of these animals fight each other in the sequel to Destroy All Monsters. Dr. Submillimeter 07:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Any definition would be arbitrary. Doczilla 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category 'giant animals' is not very specific. It might include dinosaurs and any number of other extinct animals, fictional creatures, cryptozoological creatures, or mythical creatures. There are already categories for these kinds of animals. --Gazzster 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (comment relocated from "new nominations" section Otto4711 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete - too broada range. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Rename and repurpose for Megafauna. 132.205.44.134 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Given all the strange stuff in this category, starting over from scratch may be more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A category for megafauna is almost as problematic. Though the article appears to be restricted to extant and recently extinct megafauna, it never lists this criterion in the definition, so the category would be open to a proliferation of extinct animals over 5 tons. Second, the article itself is already basically a list, so a category with the same content would be redundant. Dinoguy2 08:39, 20 April 2007 (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 section.