Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6[edit]

Category:Users who drives an Isuzu Axiom[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) 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who drives an Isuzu Axiom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category made by indefinitely blocked user Real96 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I doubt anyone but him actually drives one of these. Nardman1 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this user who started this template was indefinitely blocked the same day he created this. AniMate 02:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Del per nom's research. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:28, 9 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:Terrorists by nationality[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.. Hemlock Martinis 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Category:Terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

Category:Terrorists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective_inclusion_criterion. Terrorist by nationality is entirely subjective. -- Cat chi? 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Category:Terrorists per request -- Cat chi? 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Baristarim 23:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These people need to be grouped together, just like any other occupational group. AshbyJnr 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convince me that this is an occupation. Vegaswikian 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suicide bombing is really a one time/day only experience. That surely cant be a job. :) -- Cat chi? 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all subjective category.--Jersey Devil 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all The Category:Terrorists contains the WP definition of terrorist which can used for any article being placed in these categories. Elimination of the categories will not make the terrorists go away, but it will sure help keep them undercover. Terrorists are well known in current affairs and need to be identified as such. Hmains 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? The what? You can still mention who considers who a terrorist on there respective articles. Wikipedia is not Interpol. -- Cat chi? 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the articles are true and the contents of the aticles acceptable for WP, why not categories? In all cases in WP, categories have the purpose of grouping similar articles together. Why make exceptions here? Hmains 02:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this is not about a belief or intent, it is about people categorized by their criminal action as seen by the criminal category to which this category belongs. Hmains 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option. from Wikipedia:Categorization. Thats why. -- Cat chi? 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can have a category for people who have been convicted as terrorists in a court, that would be a perfectly valid, objective criterion which I doubt anyone would oppose. Also, in articles we can (and should) write that "such and such considers ... a terrorist", and that is perfectly fine and NPOV. A single category, or indeed any reasonable number of categories, cannot convey this properly. At best we'd need something like "People who are considered terrorists by someone", and then sure enough, we'll end with Bush, Saddam, Mao Ze Dong and God knows who else there very soon. -- int19h 13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all - please, there is no need to be PC about this. This is a very useful category. One might argue that it's too subjective, but a perusal of the subjects shows no such problems. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Al-quida delcared George W. Bush a terrorist. Should he be in that category? -- Cat chi? 09:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the so far mentioned ones aren't controversial. George Bush would be in that category controversially. By your reasoning, we should include Christians under the category Category:Judaism because it claims to be the "true Judaism". Sorry, PC won't work here. Patstuarttalk·edits 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be non-controversial to you and me (that he isn't classified as terrorist) but I am sure lots of people in the middle east - especially in Iraq might disagree. I know nothing about Christianity - Judaism dispute so I can't comment there. -- Cat chi? 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as always. If these categories survive, I propose a two-month ban on nominations of these categories for deletion. We can't keep having no consensus result of the same debate every two weeks.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per nom SatuSuro 09:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, WP:JUSTAVOTE. Can we get a reason? Patstuarttalk·edits 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as essential primary defining categories, as per all the previous discussions on these categories. Piccadilly 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as necessary subdivision of Category:Terrorists Note that Terrorists by nationality is a natural subdividing scheme for Category:Terrorists. The questions of subjectivity in the definition of what is or isn't a terrorist need to be dealt with at that parent category's level, not in this subdivision. Note that Category:Terrorists has gone through multiple cfd reviews and is still here. So until such time as that category is actually removed, this by-nationality subdivision is needed. Dugwiki 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is deleted that one will also go. I am sorry, I did not scan every artile of the usage of terrorist related categories and missed that one. -- Cat chi? 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dugwiki. Terrorists by nationality isn't any more subjective than Category:Terrorists, and since that's still around (and not included in this nomination), no reason to delete by nationality categories. Mairi 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, the entire category is too subjective, and any addition to it is inherently POV. This naturally applies to all subcats. Also note that there is an ongoing dispute on some inclusions in the category, so its present content is certainly not uncontroversial. What we need instead is something like "People convicted of terrorism", and possibly "People recognized as terrorists by one or more states". Just like we got rid of the "War criminals" category in favour of "People convicted of war crimes". -- int19h 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all the previous discussions. Only a small fraction of terrorists are ever convicted. I don't believe Osama bin Laden has been convicted for example, and he probably never will be. Honbicot 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but what other objective criterion can we use for a category? -- int19h 06:50, 13 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:Organisations in Gloucestershire[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:Organisations in Gloucestershire to Category:Organisations based in Gloucestershire. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Gloucestershire to Category:Organisations based in Gloucestershire
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, same reasons as item below, and to match Category:Organisations based in England. Hawkestone 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:39, 6 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:Organisations in Hampshire[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:Organisations in Hampshire into Category:Organisations based in Hampshire. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations in Hampshire to Category:Organisations based in Hampshire
  • Merge in line with the convention that organisations are categorised by where they are based, not to all places where they operate. Hawkestone 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:40, 6 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:Prisoners currently under death sentence[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:Prisoners currently under death sentence to Category:Prisoners sentenced to death. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners currently under death sentence to Category:Prisoners sentenced to death
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:Theta Delta Chi brothers[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) 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theta Delta Chi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Another fraternity category for deletion as non-defining, per numerous precedents. Haddiscoe 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We already decided not to use this categorization scheme. I can cut and paste my previous comments if necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 09:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:38, 9 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:Hawaiian culture[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:Hawaiian culture to Category:Hawaii culture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hawaiian culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to match the other subcategories of Category:American culture by state. Lesnail 16:04, 6 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:Racehorse births by year[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Racehorse births by year to Category:Racehorse births by century
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, since indeed this is not a category of births by year, but instead by century. Lesnail 15:50, 6 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:Famous street furniture[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. Hemlock Martinis 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous street furniture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is not NPOV – Ilse@ 15:24, 6 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:Roald Dahl[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. Vegaswikian 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roald Dahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete -- Except in very rare cases, categories for individual people are not a good idea. I don't think this is one of those rare cases. Roald Dahl is not any more notable than hundreds of other writers. Lesnail 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OCAT. -- Samuel Wantman 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need for a category for the name article plus subcats that are already part of other, better category trees. Otto4711 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful supercat for the two subcats within it. And those subcats are useful as well. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither subcat would be orphaned if this category were deleted. Books by author subcats usually don't get put in an eponymous category for the author. These categories add little or no utility. -- Samuel Wantman 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the two subcats can be linked from the Roald Dahl article without need for a separate category. --lquilter 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lesnail and Sam. Captain panda 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - an eponymous and highly popular English writer, who popularity travels outside the UK occasionally but still rates in the top ten English children's writers within the UK some 20+ years after his death. More popular today on UK book sales charts than many other well known globalised English writers, and an essential piece of reading for every junior school kid. Rgds, - Trident13
  • His popularity or how well known he may be is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is substantial material related to the subject which can not be easily interlinked through the main article and each other. In this case, there is nothing in the ctageory which is not extensively interlinked with the other articles in the category so the eponymous category serves no purpose as a navigational hub. Otto4711 05:50, 13 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:UEFA Euro 2008 player[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) 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UEFA Euro 2008 player (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category would be extremely useful from May 2008 onwards; at this point in time, however it should be empty and therefore redundant.

Given that squads for the finals are not confirmed until over a year from now, assuming any player will play breaches WP:Crystal. Current regular players for the two countries that have actually qualified, hosts Austria and Switzerland, have been added to the category, neglecting the possibility that future loss of form or injury may jeopardise their selection.

While the category itself passes WP:Crystal, it will not have any valid contents until May 2008 and so would qualify for speedy deletion. It would of course be re-created in a years time when squad lists are announced. Caledonian Place 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - until the rosters are set there is no objective criteria for inclusion. --After Midnight 0001 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is indeed a crystal ball category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But not because of the crystal ball argument, which is made in error, as the category is being used for players who have appeared in the qualifying stage of UEFA Euro 2008, which is just as much part of the competition as the finals. However, imo all by tournament categories are unnecessary category clutter. ReeseM 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this moment the category contains players of Austria and Switzerland, the hosts and only current qualifiers, and so thus only contains players who have not played in the qualifying stage. Also the precedent in Category:UEFA European Football Championship players is to list in the category only those players who played at the finals, not in the qualifying stage. Caledonian Place 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tooga 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed at this time. -- Mattythewhite 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above & WP:CRYSTAL. Qwghlm 15:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As everyone else, way too soon to be doing this, even if it had been left blank. But then adding some Austrian and Swiss players who might not even appear in Euro 2008 because of injuries, and/or not even being picked by their national squad, just seems totaly pointless. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Matthew_hk tc 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bad idea. When "recreated" in June 2008 it should bear a proper name. Punkmorten 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Asics talk Editor review! 14:19, 10 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.

Lists of Celebrities (Chinese Zodiac) and subcategories[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Celebrities (Chinese Zodiac) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Horse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Monkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Ox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Pig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Rabbit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Rat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Rooster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Sheep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Snake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Born in the Year of the Tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How is this a bad idea? Let me count the ways:

  • Entirely redundant to the Category:Births by year hierarchy.
  • The Chinese zodiac is entirely unrelated to nearly all of the people who've been categorized so far.
  • Each subcategory purports to be populated by fully a twelfth of the "celebrity" articles on Wikipedia.
  • Whether a person qualifies as being a celebrity is largely a matter of interpretation.
  • As the subcategories don't make the celebrity requirement explicit in their titles, before very long at all editors will start placing them on all people articles.
  • And they're miscapitalized. —Cryptic 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and discussion of May 22nd. -- Prove It (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because:
  • I created this category (and subcategories) because it has been suggested in the Talk pages of the Chinese Zodiac signs to remove the Celebrity lists in these articles entirely and replace them with links to the categories. This is partly because the Celebrity lists in there got longer and longer, and because IP's added their favourite porn stars every five minutes. Categorizing it would combat vandalism on these parts.
  • The categories aren't supposed to consist of ALL people born under the Year of ThisNThat, it's just a representation to give the reader some examples.
  • Whether a Chinese or other Zodiac sign is fitting on a certain person or not is entirely subjective. It's just the fact you were born under that sign.
  • Miscapitalized? Oops, sorry. Well, renaming them would be in order if we keep them.
  • If you got a better idea how to organize this some other way, please tell me.
  • I've adapted the celebrity list out of the Dog article so far, but I won't continue as long as this is contested. Teshik 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Another case of category bloat that adds next to nothing in the context of the article's subject. We don't have Category:Librans or Category:Pisceans for the same reason. Caknuck 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Despite the small offset between the Chinese and Western calendars, this is generally redundant with the Category:Births by year hierarchy. It also seems inappropriate to use any astrological system for classifying people (unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the astrological system has some impact on the people in the categories). Note that it is not alway appropriate to convert lists into categories. Also, the discussion at Talk:Dog (zodiac) received hardly any feedback from anyone; no one agreed with creating categories for these people. Finally, note that, despite the creator's intentions, the category will be used for ALL people born under the given zodiacal sign. Each category will eventually contain 1/12 of all people in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (after 2 edit conflicts) - per WP:OCAT and per nom. Also, not only are the subcategories not capitalized correctly, the parent is misnamed, since this is not a collection of Lists, it should have been something like "Celebrity births by Chinese Zodiac" or similar. --After Midnight 0001 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is basically redundant, not a useful form of categorization, and no less susceptible to vandalism than the lists were. Someone reading Herbert Hoover might perhaps want to see a category of other people born in the same year, but they are extremely unlikely to want a category of other people born in the year of the dog ever. Relistify--at least with a list you can see on your watchlist when people add vandalism. Lesnail 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No astrology-based categories for people, please.--Mike Selinker 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all. This is trivia and is unencyclopedic. It makes a farce of categorization. Listify if you must; although I prefer never to see this again in any form. Majoreditor 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not defining on any rational analysis. Haddiscoe 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them. Agreeing with everything said above, and most of these people don't believe in this Zodiac so it is very misleading to categorize them in this way. Most importantly, though, it's simply overcategorization, as this is a non-defining aspect of people. — coelacan — 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion (Celebrities Zodiac)[edit]
Since I'm the only one who wants to have these articles, I admit my defeat ;-) . Delete them.
And since hardly anyone seems to like the idea of Celeb List in the articles itself either, I invite you to get rid of those lists themselves, if you think they're not needed (but discuss it over there first). To be honest, I'd rather have those lists gone entirely, to cut down on vandalism maintenance. But as Dr. Submillimeter noted, the discussion threads are not really active. (12 zodiac signs, 12 totally different discussion threads, hardly read by anyone) Teshik 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion, Teshik. I have begun centralized deletion discussion at Talk:Rat (zodiac)#Let's remove all the celebrities lists. — coelacan — 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this would be a defining characteristic for East Asians only... the same way that in Japan, blood type would be a defining characteristic. 70.55.90.106 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is not a primary defining characteristic anywhere, and nor is blood group. Some people may have superstitious beliefs that they are defining, but those beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia built on reason. Piccadilly 09:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's actually not quite redundant of births by year because births by year uses Western calendar, not Chinese, among other reasons ... but we ought not categorize by astrological signs because these are not (objectively) defining characteristics. --lquilter 20:45, 8 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:Brit Awards[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. Vegaswikian 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brit Awards to Category:BRIT Awards
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, BRIT is an acronym for the British Record Industry Trust as the main BRIT Awards page states. Every other instance includes BRIT as a capitalized word. This could also be confused with the shortened form of "British". Timclare (talk) (sign here) 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brit Award winners to Category:BRIT Award winners
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, BRIT is an acronym for the British Record Industry Trust as the main BRIT Awards page states. Every other instance includes BRIT as a capitalized word. This could also be confused with the shortened form of "British". Timclare (talk) (sign here) 13:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both The Beeb calls them Brit Awards, as do Amazon and many other sources. If it is not clear which version to use, normal capitalization rules should be followed. In this case, that means Brit Awards. As for confusion with a shortened form of British: well, that is obviously intended by the name's creators. Also, the Brit awards go by the longer name of Britannia Music Awards [1][2]. --rimshotstalk 16:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - the BRIT Awards use all caps and we should go by what the actual awards use. Otto4711 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines specifically say Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. The only exception is where the capitalized form is common usage. Outside the official Brit Awards site, there is hardly anyone who calls them BRIT Awards. --rimshotstalk 12:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is not a question of the trademark owner "encouraging special treatment." This is a case of an acronym, which is properly capitalized. Otto4711 13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I tried to point out was that it is not as clearly an acronym as one might think. It is more properly an abbreviation refashioned as an acronym, a backronym if you will. Looks like the vote is headed the other way now, though. I cannot say that it really bothers me, BRIT Awards is awkward but certainly not incorrect. --rimshotstalk 11:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's an acronym, even if not always treated as such. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's an acronym. Rgds, - Trident13
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:Characters in the Worm Ouroboros[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. Vegaswikian 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters in the Worm Ouroboros to Category:The Worm Ouroboros characters
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Simpler category name. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:30, 6 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:Films Depicting Non-Fictional US Presidents[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. David Kernow (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films Depicting Non-Fictional US Presidents to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Aside from routine capitalization work, "United States" could probably be expanded, and there's got to be a better way to phrase this. And what about scope? (Currently one film in which a real president seems to only play a peripheral role is already included.) Unint 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the categorization of films by character, which would appear to lead to category clutter. (Imagine an endless stream of similar categories: Films depicting non-fictional reporters, films depicting non-fictional businessmen, films depicting non-fictional actors, films depicting Santa Claus, etc) Moreover, non-fictional presidents are depicted so frequently and in so many different time periods (between the American Revolution and the present) that this category does not seem like it would bring together related films. For example, both 1776 (musical) and The Pink Panther Strikes Again could both be placed in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Keep. I'll probably be in the minority here but I think this is an interesting category for study, considering the profile of the subject matter at hand. As for the rename possibilities: Films depicting Presidents of the United States./United States' Presidents...hmm--Keefer4 | Talk 10:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this category is hopelessly broad; taken literally, it would include not just biopics on presidents, but any film in which a depiction of a real president played a peripheral role, or even (conceivably) any film in which a president's voice was heard on the radio in the background. Alternatively, rename to something along the lines of "Biographical films about non-fictional Presidents of the United States". Walton Vivat Regina! 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter . Haddiscoe 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and also how large a role would be needed to "depict"? --After Midnight 0001 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. S Lesnail 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per S. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should have a category which says [[Category:Films depicting non-fictional characters]]. Real96 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat chi? 18:09, 7 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 with diabetes[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. David Kernow (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with diabetes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A different nomination for this category, after Herostratus's recent close "with no prejudice against an immediate renomination to Delete". This was previously "Category:Diabetics" and the renaming was sensible, but I believe it is more sensible to simply delete. A plurality of !voters agreed last time, but there were three proposals on the table. Let's see if there's a consensus to delete, now. Rationale: This is not a defining way to categorize people. It's on the level with "people who have had heart attacks". Some medical conditions are particularly notable. Wilford Brimley's eccentric pronounciation aside, diabetes is not a defining aspect of what makes a person notable. As Dr. Submillimeter said before, "If people want a category for diabetes activists, then a Category:Diabetes activists would be appropriate." I believe this category is WP:OCAT. I am not proposing the subcategory for deletion; Category:Deaths from diabetes is also a subcategory of Category:Deaths by type of illness and so would not be orphaned, and I've made it a subcategory of Category:Diabetes already too. But this category, for people who simply have diabetes, is non-defining categorization and we should delete. — coelacan — 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Also, as I stated before, people are not notable for having diseases but are instead notable for other activities. Therefore, categorization by disease is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Therefore, also delete Category:HIV-positive people, although I haven't studied any possible previous CFDs on that one, if any.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC criterion 1 (non-defining or trivial characteristic). Diabetes isn't generally what makes a person notable, or a defining theme of their life. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Having certain very rare diseases may make someone notable in itself, but having diabetes is not notable, nor is it a defining characteristic. Lesnail 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having argued long ago in one CfD to delete this altogether, then settled for renaming during another CfD, I must support this nomination per above. The three-way argument (delete-rename-keep) kept it from getting deleted the first time when the the non-keep votes split to create no consensus. Doczilla 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat chi? 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. DBZROCKS 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, all categories of people by "disease", "condition", and "surgery" ought to go. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and as per Carlossuarez46 most disease categories should go. Half of them are for trendy pseudo-diseases anyway. Piccadilly 09:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --rimshotstalk 16:10, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_6&oldid=1079797735"