Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 20 April 22 >

April 21[edit]

Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States[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 all to "Metropolitan areas of" form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Metropolitan areas in Foo, per conventions of Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename all to "metropolitan areas of Foo". This is a misleading nomination. Prove It knows perfectly well that there is not a convention of using "in" because he has himself nominated the 40 or so categories that presently use "of" for renaming in the 22 April section, and I have opposed that attempt to change the convention on the basis of a more detailed analysis of conventions than he has presented. The number of categories that use "in" (the alleged convention) is currently precisely zero. Osomec 01:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minnesota and North Dakota both use the in form, the only two which are technically correct, since they are man made. -- Prove It (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "metropolitan areas of foo" per Osomec. -Sean Curtin 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "metropolitan areas of foo" per Osomec. A metropolitan area is not a "man made object". Haddiscoe 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. These seem to be almost entirely supercategories. They thus duplicate the list found in Table of United States primary census statistical areas, which is sortable by state. Mangoe 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "metropolitan areas of Foo". AshbyJnr 08:51, 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 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:Sports executives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports executives to Category:Sports executives and administrators
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is fine for major U.S. sports, but not so good for most of the rest of the sporting world, where much sports administration has always been done on a voluntary or part time basis, including at the very top level, eg prominent people who have been chairmen of national sporting bodies in the UK and elsewhere on an unpaid or part time basis. Subcategories like Category:Cricket administrators and Category:English football chairmen and investors include many people who never held a full-time executive position in sport in their life. By renaming this category we can make it what it is probably intended to be - the category for people who run sport - without straining the meaning of its name. Osomec 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2008 elections in the United States[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 (26 April discussion appears to be strongly in favour of adopting this standard naming for the US). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2008 elections in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:United States elections, 2008, convention of Category:Elections in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 22:17, 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:Music conservatories[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 Category:Music conservatories to Category:Music schools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music conservatories to Category:Music schools
  • Merge. This category states itself to be for music schools which happen to include the word conservatory or conservatoire in their names. There is no reason why the presence or otherwise of these words should have any influence on categorisation, as they aren't a useful guide to the standing of the institution or to anything else. Dozens of institutions without those words in the name are conservatories/toires just as much as these ones are. We got along fine without this confusing semi-duplication for three years. Honbicot 19:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Conservatoire and conservatories list these as defining post secondary institutions. If that is correct, then does it make more sense to rename to add 'Universities and colleges' to the name and/or to modify the introduction to include that as a criteria? Vegaswikian 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A music school is a music school; a music conservatory is a music conservatory. Please devote your energies toward improving Wikipedia in a constructive manner, not by attempting to dismantle clearly useful and thoughtfully created categories, thanks. Badagnani 21:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A music school is a conservatory and a conservatory is a music school. The Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music are two of the leading conservatoires in the world. There are various options when naming these places, and the option chosen has no impact of the nature of the institution. Most music schools are tertiary institutions, and if any should be broken out it is the specialist music schools for under 18s, which are far rarer. Osomec 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is categorisation by name, and it is misconceived as has been explained by others. Choalbaton 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and preferably rename to Category:Music schools and conservatories. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and consider renaming both the parent and the subcategories per Grutness in a separate discussion. Sumahoy 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, unless someone can come up with a reliably-sourced exlanation of a distinction between a music school and a music conservatory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per Grutness Johnbod 23:50, 27 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:Cultures in the standard cross cultural sample[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 (tagged for {{listify}}). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultures in the standard cross cultural sample (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Standard cross-cultural sample is an interesting article, however I do not see a reason to arbitrarily recategorize practically every ethnicity. I propose a delete since the category does not seem to have any purpose aside from being redundant. I would recommend a list. -- Cat chi? 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a defining characteristic of the cultures. Honbicot 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. This sample includes too many cultures. The category has limited usefulness. And per Honbicot, this does not define any of these cultures. Doczilla 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this category, and I also began the Standard cross-cultural sample article. Among the subsequent contributors to that article has been Douglas R. White, one of the two creators of the SCCS, and he has linked to the Wikipedia article on his SCCS resource page. The Wikipedia article is therefore a recognized resource for learning about the SCCS, and I added the category to help students browse through the constituent cultures. But I agree with the comments: the category really has nothing to do with the cultures, it is of use only for those interested in the SCCS. For some cultures that attract a lot of interest (such as Kurdish people or Turkish people) very few readers would find the category useful, but for other, more obscure, cultures (such as the Kwoma) a high proportion of the readers would be interested in the SCCS. Cool Cat recommends replacing the category with a list, and actually I already created one--a template within the Standard cross-cultural sample article--so if the category is deleted there really is no need to replace it with a list. --Anthon.Eff 16:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining overcategorization per both nom and the creator's comments. Clearly a well-intentioned mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Xtifr tälk 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify - In general, categorization by scientific sample is probably a bad idea, as many different scientific samples of anything (cultural groups, galaxies, etc) have been created. Some popular individual items in any field would be overloaded with categories. However, converting this into a list is highly appropriate, as the list would have some significance. Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 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 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:Assamese 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 delete. This was a difficult debate to call: there is a 2-1 majority in favour of deletion, and good arguments for deletion. There are persuasive arguments to keep the category as an area where definitions are being developed, but on balance there seems to be agreement that more work would be needed before this category could have a sufficiently stable definition to be useable as a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlike other ethnic categorizations like Bengalis, Gujratis, Tamils etc. of India, Assamese is neither a linguistic nor an ethnic category. It is rather a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religious political category[1]. In many cases, the categorization is confusing and controvercial. For example, for centuries, Bodos were considered integral part of Assamese. However, for political reasons, in recent days, many Bodos distanced themselves from rest of Assamese. The definition of Assamese people is still in fluid state and is being hotly debated[2]. Till the definition is finalized, the category is strongly recommended to delete. -Bikram98 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ People of Assam
  2. ^ Assamese people
    • Comment I note the articles have been recently written, so have not yet stood the test of time to see if any of their statements are controversial. I also note that there is an Assamese language, which apparently has official status, possibly making Assamese a linguistic category, contrary to the statement above. I don't know the facts here, but sense there may be more than one side to this story - how do we get the other side?A Musing 14:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assamese is an official language of Assam, India and there is no argument about it. However, the problem is about defining "who is an Assamese?" or "who are the Assamese people?" Apart from the people whose mother tonge is Assamese, many other groups claim to be Assamese, by virtue of their long residence in the state of Assam. Again, many people reciding in Assam do not speak Assamese as their first language and do not like to be called Assamese. -Bikram98 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - my impression is the confusion doesn't come from there being no good definition of Assamese, but instead from there being several good definitions. It looks like it is valid as linguistic classification or a geographic one, but that there is a question as to whether it is appropriately viewed as an ethnic category. The conflict between, for example, geographic, linguistic and ethnic uses of a term isn't a good argument for not using the term, but instead for defining what the use is that is being applied. Certainly, we wouldn't throw out "French" as a classification simply because it can be a linguistic, geographic or ethnic one (or because a German living in France might prefer not to be thought of as "French"). Given that the category is valid on a couple of levels, I'd keep it, and look to have those interested work out the definitional issues. Also, given how recently this had been up, I'd like to see real effort to work through those and make this useful before it comes up again. A Musing 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at the example cited below. Debojit Saha, who speaks Sylheti language calls himself an Assamese. Obviously Assamese people cannot be a linguistic category. Chaipau 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this category was just CFDed less than a month ago. I see no reason to revisit this again so soon in the face of there being no compelling new evidence presented by the nomination. Otto4711 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the previous CFD, not enough supporting evidence was provided for deletion. This time, we are equipped with new evidences as stated in my statements above. Please refer to the references provided above and the external links found in those articles. I repeat our reason for deletion again, the definition of Assamese people is not finalized [1] yet and therefore creates conflicts[2] [3] -Bikram98 18:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - The Category:Assamese people is not a useful category for Wikipedia purposes, mainly because it cannot be defined. For example, it might look like a linguistic category though it is not. Here is Debojit Saha calling himself Assamese.[1] He says: "It gives me immense pride to be an Assamese. No matter where I stay, my heart is always in Assam, 'mur moromor ghar...' .” The "Assamese" people seem to have no problem with that, and neither does he. The same goes with Seema Biswas. She too has called herself Assamese. So the "Assamese" and "Bengali" categories should not be taken as mutually exclusive. It is not an ethnic category either. It would be best to use Category:People from Assam instead. Chaipau 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 07:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What options are there to classify people from Assam? There are several issues: ethnicity, language, and regional categories. Are there alternatives that can take place of this category? Thanks. --Ragib 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One option is suggested and being implemented by Chaipau, i.e., use Category:People from Assam instead. Alternatively, define Assamese people as a political category, synonymous to People from Assam or People of Assam. Include anybody from the state of Assam or associated with it and their recent descendents living abroad irrespective of caste, ethnicity, linguistic affinity or religion. In this case, sombody can be Assamese-Bengali, Assamese-Nepali, Assamese-Bihari, Assamese-Muslim, Assamese-Brahmin and so on. (Just like the Bengalis living in Assam, I personally know many Nepali, Bihari and Rajasthani people living in Assam for generations, speaking Assamese more fluently then other languages, feeling proud to be called Assamese) Assamese-Bodo, Assamese-Mishing, Assamese-Ahom etc are obvibous and no need of the Assamese-prefix. I am not suggesting to create all these categories, rather to include all of them within a single umbrella called - "Assamese people". -Bikram98 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ragib, to categorize people from Assam, use Category:People from Assam. Chaipau 21:42, 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 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:Karate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep the two categories as they are. Bencherlite 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Karate to Category:Okinawan karate
  • Merge, The karate category is currently mixed with both Okinawan styles and Japanese styles. These have separate histories and lineages, and each deserves its own category. I would like to see the "Karate" category merged with the "Okinawan karate" category, a creation of a new "Japanese karate" category, and then moving the few Japanese karate related articles into the new category. The "Karate" category has mostly Okinawan styles, so I think this is the most appropriate migration. Then, a new "Karate" category would contain both the "Okinawan karate" and "Japanese karate" categories. Scott Alter 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This proposal seems overly complicated and unnecessary. Why not just create Category:Japanese karate and sort the articles into the subcategories as may be appropriate? Also, how similar are Japanese and Okinawan karate? Should both be listed under Category:Karate together? Dr. Submillimeter 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would have proposed a rename from Category:Karate to Category:Okinawan karate, but I already created the Okinawan karate category a few days ago. The reason for the merge would be to move about 100 articles to their appropriate category of Okinawan karate without editing each individual article. Only a few articles would initially be in the Japanese karate category, so these will have to be sorted out of the category. Both Okinawan and Japanese karate have a common Okinawan ancestry, but have diverged in the past century (which is mentioned in Karate). The martial arts category hierarchy is organized by origin, but karate is not and should be for proper classification. Currently, all karate is assumed to be Japanese, which is not true. If anything, it should be assumed to be Okinawan because tat is where karate started. The Karate category is too broad to include every type of karate worldwide. Additionally, there are other types of karate, which would be in their own category (such as strictly American styles, which would be in an "American karate" category - also a subcategory of "Karate"). Scott Alter 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too few Wikipedia contributors will understand the difference to apply this correctly. While the nominator's logic truly makes sense, I just don't think this will work. Doczilla 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If a contributor to a karate article does not have enough knowledge to understand this difference, then they should not be contributing (or at least assigning categories). Every martial arts article begins with this is a/an Okinawan/Japanese/Korean/Chinese/etc style. The difference being, simply, the origin of the style...not too difficult in my opinion. And keep in mind, all other martial arts are already separated by origin. --Scott Alter 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That was my thinking. The overall Karate article would remain, but could be edited to better reflect its history. Also, the history of karate by country origin could be further elaborated in separate articles, if there would be enough content. --Scott Alter 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it looks like when all is said and done, both Category:Karate and Category:Okinawan karate will still exist; and, the only reason for making the proposal here is to automate the recat of the current articles? That can be requested at WP:BOTREQ and not here. Neier 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose - The proposal is simply too complicated and unneccesary. These articles will eventually need to be sorted by hand anyway, so I suggest keeping Category:Karate and moving these articles into Category:Okinawan karate if appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 12:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Creating too-narrow categories that apply only to a few articles defeats the very purpose of having categories. Aditya Kabir 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alumni by university[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 Category:Alumni by university to Category:Alumni by university or college. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni by university to Category:Alumni by universities and colleges
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Colleges and universities have different meanings in different countries. The new name is proposed by the same argument as Category:Universities and colleges by country. This would be more comprehensive and less confusing for editors and readers coming from different country backgrounds. Aditya Kabir 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If renamed, I would sugged Category:Alumni by university or college Bluap 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, too, would serve the purpose. Aditya Kabir 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, try not to discuss your aesthetic inclinations here. Aditya Kabir 10:42, 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 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:Greek statesmen[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek statesmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete "Statesman" is a non-neutral term for a politician one admires or wishes to flatter. There is no need to merge as both articles are already in other suitable categories. Honbicot 17:27, 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.

Video game musicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all to Category:Video game musicians. While there are more deletion votes than upmerge votes, deletion would orphan dozens of articles, so a merge into the parent is needed.--Mike Selinker 12:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bemani artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Final Fantasy musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Nintendo musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as improper creator by project categorization, similar to the many categories for actors/directors/producers/etc. by series categories we've deleted. Otto4711 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I'm a little confused: what's wrong with using categories to sort musicians? Or do people feel that video game music does not deserve to be categorized? — Deckiller 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with categorizing musicians. However, consensus is strong that we do not want to categorize people on the basis of the projects on which they work or appear, because people can work on any number of projects in the course of a career and establishing categories for every project leads to unmanageable category clutter and reduce the functionality of the categories for those so categorized. Those who compose music for video games are properly categorized under Category:Video game music composers and the individual games or companies for which they compose should be noted in the individual composers' articles. Otto4711 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yamaha artists[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yamaha artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is a category for people who endorse Yamaha brand instruments. Categorizing people on the basis of commercial endorsement is trivial overcategorization. Otto4711 16:01, 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:Hammond organ players[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 listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hammond organ players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Either delete (categorizing musicians by the brand name of their instruments is overcategorization) or rename to Category:Electronic organists . Otto4711 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:Organists and its subcats are children of the keyboardists category. I can see some utility in breaking down keyboardists by type of keyboard. If someone told me "I'm a keyboardist" I wouldn't think they played the organ. Otto4711 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see no organizational utility in separating electronic organists from traditional pipe organists? We separate other musicians by type of instrument and genre and "electronic organ" seems like a different enough "genre" from "pipe organ" that the sub-cat is warranted. Otto4711 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of this discussion has been posted to the WP PipeOrgan project discussion page. Bencherlite 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we request some time to think about this at WP:PipeOrgan and work out whether the category is useful in any form or other? Btw, Category:Keyboardists is far to general. –MDCollins (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, per general WP:MUSICIANS standards, I would suggest that merging to Category:Organists (where they will hopefully be diffused to subcategories later) would be the best bet. For now. The PipeOrgan project might have some say, but they confess on their talk page to a lack of expertise with non-classical organists. I don't think Category:Electric organists is a good idea, because we don't have "Electric" as a subcategory for any other instrument, not even guitar. Plus, we're already talking about a subcategory of keyboardist. And really, the whole Organist tree should be deeper, and once you get down to (e.g.) Category:American jazz organist or Category:Belgian classical organist, I don't think you really need to then subdivide that again into electronic vs. pipe organs. (And that last, by the way, is why I don't recommend keeping this category.)
  • Comment - my suggested rename was to Electronic organists, not "Electric," if that makes any difference in your opinion. Otto4711 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify along the lines of List of Moog synthesizer users and delete and / or upmerge into Category:Keyboardists, not Category:Organists, so that the members can be appropriately sub-categorized thereafter per genre/nationality per WP:MUSICIANS guidelines, as keyboardists rather than organists. The closing admin might also want to look at the PipeOrgan Project discussion on and around this point here. Bencherlite 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, after further discussion with the Pipe Organ project, I have temporarily listified the category at User:Xtifr/List of Hammond organ players. The problem is that merging to Cat:Organist or Cat:Keyboardist would only be a temporary measure, and the articles would have to be diffused to subcategories later. Now that I have a list, I can (and will) go through it and categorize these articles properly if this category is deleted. And if there's a concensus to listify, I can simply move my temporary list into mainspace. Therefore, I am changing my recommendation to Listify and delete. Xtifr tälk 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, listify and delete –MDCollins (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also agreed, delete and listify. >Radiant< 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, completing the four-part harmony, also agreed, previous contribution amended to match. Bencherlite 14:29, 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 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:Heresy[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. Consider Bishop Warburton's view: "Orthodoxy, My Lord", said Bishop Warburton in a whisper, "orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man's doxy." Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heresy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, pure POV trap. starts edit wars. Category tags don't leave much room for the usual clarifications about who considers the subject heretical, why they consider the subject heretical, etc. but some editors insist that some religions are heretical and need the Heresy tag, seem to consider its removal or absence an endorsement of the religion's orthodoxy, and impose impossible standards on those wishing to remove the tag. Jacob Haller 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Heretical to what? It can be easily renamed for instant clarification and strict NPOV, but I'm not sure the articles would belong to a single new category. Anon166 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that this category has problems. However, something can be salvaged if it was split up by religion: Category:Catholic heresies etc. Is this worthwhile? Sam Blacketer 17:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see appropriate replacement categories (e.g. Doctrines condemned at Nicaea and Constantinople, Doctrines Condemned at Chalcedon, etc.). I'm willing to hold off deletion while people discuss replacement categories and until people create them. But the last time this came up for discussion, people proposed similar changes and nothing happened. The mere possiblity of creating new NPOV categories should not protect POV categories indefinitely. Jacob Haller 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category that would remain subjective no matter how you play with it. Doczilla 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category suffers from severe POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 17:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Block - This category is a recreation, and since several other-language versions of this category exist, it may be recreated again by someone copying from one of the other languages. Hence, blocking is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 09:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have somewhat mixed feeling on this. I mean I think it should be deleted, as it's POV or can become so way too easily, but there is a historical logic to it. There are groups like Collyridianism and Passagianism that are pretty much only known in things that called them heresies. I don't know if we should make something like "heterodox early Christianity" or just abandon the idea as unmanageable.--T. Anthony 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a reason that we can't name the category something like "Christian doctrines in opposition to catholicism" or something like that. It would cover historical facts, avoid POV and still remain broad enough to include all those articles. Aditya Kabir 14:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that in theory that would be every Christian denomination that is not Catholic. At the very least it would be virtually every Restorationist Christian and all non-trinitarian forms of Christianity.--T. Anthony 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As before, delete. From my comment to the previous CfD, which I initiated: "This category cannot be made NPOV. It is naturally defined by the POV of the Roman Catholic Church. Delete entirely." There's no problem with having an article on heresy, but a category will always categorize according to a particular POV. It's even more problematic than Category:Terrorists, as there does not appear to be an objective definition of heresy which does not ultimately depend upon the POV of a particular religious sect. -- SwissCelt 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this category will always be categorized according to a particular POV. I misstated when I wrote, "...a category will always categorize according to a particular POV." -- SwissCelt 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to imply that Roman Catholicism is the one true religion. --Infrangible 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I might agree. The idea of heresies exists in Islam and Judaism too, but this seems to be dealing only with what Catholicism deems heresy. As I said I basically go delete with a few reservations.--T. Anthony 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there is obviously a problem with the pejorative connotation of "heresy", completely deleting this is a POV edit. Probably about half of the articles need some identification as "heresy" in some sense; their subjects are mostly important for being rejected by pretty much everyone. Those that deal with gnosticism can be untagged, and there also seems to be a bunch of articles where it isn't clear why they are tagged. Mangoe 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This runs into a problem with a gray area that will lead to various debates on whether to include someone (or some group) as a heretic based on how many people called that person a heretic. Can someone be included if 90% of all people called him a heretic? What about 80%? 50%? Dr. Submillimeter 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Who gets to define certain religions as heretical (which implies false) and certain ones as orthodox (which means true)? If two traditions condemn each other as heresies (it often works that way), we can say who condemns whom and why in the article text, thus providing useful information and maintaining neutral POV. Or we can tag both as heretics, until the category includes every religious view, and the category means nothing. Or we can tag some as heretics, until the category reflects editorial biases. Jacob Haller 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What do the heresy-tagged religious traditions have in common? Is it enough to justify the category (and the POV issues, and the edit wars)? Jacob Haller 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (eventually rework). Every history of a major religion deals with heresy. In heresy WP article, there's an Oxford definition for "heresy". There's even a Christian heresy article which deals with specificity of Christianity. Notable contemporay scholars (i.e. historians of religion) like Mircea Eliade deal with heresies. To pretend they do not exist, or they somehow would promote an unsolvable maze of relativity (and consequently POV) is both a POV and a OR. I have yet to see a scholarly written history of Christianity lacking content on heresies before I can agree with such a proposal. Daizus 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Category:Doctrines and practices branded as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. Heresy is a very important concept in the history of christianity, and its application to particular issues has been the subject of important controversies. We have already deleted Category:Heretics, so this category should not be applied to individuals. I share a lot of the concerns expressed by other editors, but I think that a renaming would clarify the scope ... and category text should clarify that the concept should be used for internal disputes and not splatted over every other branch of Christianity--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I'm fine with the existence of the article, but not the category. Unless renamed (e.g. as per BrownHairedGirl's proposal) inclusion in the category states that these are heresies in fact instead of heresies according to specific traditions. To sum up my concerns:
    1. Can we cover the issues in the individual articles? Yes. We can say who condemned whom, why, when, etc.
    2. Can we cover the issues with the Category: Heresy tag? No. We can't include the same basic facts.
    3. Can we maintain neutral point of view? Not with the current title/scope. Yes if we rename the category considered heretical by X. Including categories considered heretical by X and Y does not require similar categories for considered heretical by every A or B.
    4. How similar are the entries in the category? Does inclusion tell us anything important? Will deletion require repetitive coverage in each article? Not very. The category is too varied for that. The Cathars were largely dualists with their own sacraments and perfecti. The Sabellians, Arians, Monophysites, etc. were anti-dualists, with similar sacraments to the majority of Christianity (certainly baptism and communion, as well as marriage, ordination, last rites, etc.) and sometimes-overlapping organizations with the majority of Christianity (with deacons, presbyters and bishops). Jacob Haller 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use an article instead to explain what the various forms of heresy are and how they are defined by the Catholic church. >Radiant< 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agreed very much. As Radiant proposes - keep the artcile and delete the category. The category Christianity can accommodate these heresies fine. Aditya Kabir 16:54, 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 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:Spokane films[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spokane films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Either delete as overcategorization (city by films set or shot there seems excessive) or split into categories set in and shot in either Spokane or, if the city level is deemed overcategorization, set in and shot in Washington. Otto4711 14:35, 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:Australian celebrities[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To broad a category to be of any use. -- Longhair\talk 12:37, 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:American Psychological Association[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Psychological Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:American Psychological Association members, category is for members. -- Prove It (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It can be presumed that nearly any notable American psychologist is a member. As it is, this is another one-member category. Mangoe 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wikipedia list will always be out of date and incomplete to the actual list, which may or may not be public information. No attempts should be made to mirror their own list. Anon166 18:04, 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:Critics of religions[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Critics of Objectivism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Critics of religions or philosophies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 13#Category:Critics of Islam. --T. Anthony 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete all as as hopelessly vague per previous CFDs. Anyone other than a slavish adherent to orthodoxy is by definition a "critic" when they discuss anything to do with religion, which is why other "critics of" categories have been deleted. There is also a danger of these categories being used as "attack" categories, by which people who criticise one aspect of a religion get labelled as "critics of X", as if they deplored the entire faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not in fact the case with the critics of Scientology category. It's for people notable for that fact in itself. Your deletion reason is invalid as it has little or nothing to do with the actual facts of the category and what it's for - David Gerard 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl Nathanian 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per her objection's invalidity - David Gerard 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vague, broad, subjective category per BHG. Doczilla 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per her objection's invalidity - David Gerard 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If we have categories for adherents to religions, it makes no sense to decategorize those who criticize the same religions. Do we call Category:Catholics "hopelessly vague" and seek to delete it because some Catholics are lapsed? Or do we handle it the way we handle any other category where some cases are clear and others not-so-clear? -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going by consistency. Deleting "Critics of Islam", twice I think, and keeping "Critics of varied New religions" could be seen as a kind of bias. It would not be a bias I find personally offensive, but it'd be hard not to see it as a bias as the phrasing is exactly the same.--T. Anthony 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd had any idea that "Critics of Islam" was going to be deleted, I would have voiced an immediate and strong Keep there as well, for the reasons stated above. A category is not "hopelessly vague" just because some cases will be debatable, and there's an obvious bias issue in allowing those of one POV to be categorized and disallowing it for those of an opposing POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking in terms of hopelessly vague or the like. I'm just bringing this up because of the one deletion. I'm not voting myself. Still I do have a small problem with these categories. This may not be their intent, but they might end up as a kind of "hit list" for overly intense Scientologists or Objectivists or what have you. This might actually be worse than in the case of the Islam one as many of the critics of newer movements are still living. You might be giving Babaists, etc a place to focus their anger and inviting vandalism. However I'm not certain of that idea, it's just a theory.--T. Anthony 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the others, but in the case of Scientology the critics are in fact a significant part of the story. There are people who are notable specifically as critics of Scientology, e.g. Cyril Vosper or David Touretzky. Also, the terminology "critics of Scientology" is used both by Scientologists and critics to refer to the same group of people - David Gerard 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. - Per User:Antaeus Feldspar's excellent points above. Also, the inclusionary criteria can be set very strongly, to adhere to say specific mention in at least one or two reputable secondary sources. Smee 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - "consistency" is not a deletion reason. Why do these categories exist? The Critics of Scientology one exists because the critics play a strong part in the story of Scientology, particularly since 1995. Also, the intersection between former Scientologists and critics of Scientology are of strong interest in the field. - David Gerard 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Gerard. AshbyJnr 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per David Gerard. -- LGagnon 13:15, 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 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:NWA Missouri Heavyweight Champion professional wrestlers[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NWA Missouri Heavyweight Champion professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category is for wrestlers who have held a minor regional belt. The NWA has dozens of member organizations and all of them have their own heavyweight title. No reason for a category for one (especially since ALL world titles are lumped into one category. i.e. the NWA Title/WWE Title/WCW Title). TJ Spyke 08:06, 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:Regent Broadcasting stations[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 Category:Regent Broadcasting stations to Category:Regent Communications radio stations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Regent Broadcasting stations to Category:Regent Communications radio stations
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because (a) the name of the company is "Regent Communications" and not "Regent Broadcasting" and (b) use "radio stations" instead of "stations" for consistency (albeit it small) with the other categories in the mother category. JPG-GR 08:04, 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:Districts in Japan[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple districts in Japan with categories:

Category:Haibara District, Shizuoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hidaka district, Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Minamikoma District, Yamanashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Agatsuma District, Gunma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Towns and Villages in Agatsuma District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aida District, Okayama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Unnecessary level of categorization. Most districts contain fewer than ten towns or villages. No prefecture has such an overwhelming number of towns or villages that the current categories by prefecture are not sufficient. Neier 05:13, 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:Lymphology[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 (and populate). Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lymphology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category refers to esoteric biomedical field and contains only one stub and no full articles. RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:49, 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 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:Rock Star Legends That Have Attended Texan International Schools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rock Star Legends That Have Attended Texan International Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as subjective and overly narrow. -- Prove It (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: even if serious category, which I doubt, hopeless over-categorization. Bencherlite 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only entry is a school and it seems ill-formed. Upon further examination this looks like graffiti. Therefore Speedy Delete Mangoe 02:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this graffiti. Doczilla 07:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as trivial and subjective, but not a speedy, because I don't see any applicable criteria in WP:CSD, and in partcular "graffiti" does not appear to be a speedy criterion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete per nom. And, also very strong POV. Aditya Kabir 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Birds of the Solomon Islands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: reverse merge Category:Birds of Solomon Islands to Category:Birds of the Solomon Islands.--Mike Selinker 13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found two categories of the same thing. Birds of the Solomon Islands and Birds of Solomon Islands. Moved all pages to the larger category (Birds of Solomon Islands). Now other category needs to be deleted. Dixonsej

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference debate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Talk:Jyoti Prasad Agarwala
  3. ^ Category_talk:Assamese_people
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_21&oldid=1138387561"