Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:Mircea Eliade[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mircea Eliade does not seem like he is famous enough to have his own category. Moreover, the six articles in this category could all easily be interconnected through the text rather than a category structure. As the articles are currently written, they all link back to Mircea Eliade anyway. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's actually quite notable in his field of the philosophy of religion—standard undergrad reading in the U.S. at least. And there are other categories for philosophers to group their concepts and other related articles; see, e.g., Category:Gottfried Leibniz. Postdlf 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The field in which he is quite notable is very narrow. In the broader picture he is not very notable at all. Piccadilly 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most individuals should not have their own eponymous category since all the significantly related links can easily be found in their main article. (Also imagine having 200 million categories, one per notable person). Dugwiki 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A substantial number of directly connected articles are necessary to justify an eponymous category. Notability of the subject aside (with which I agree), there are too few articles to justify this category. --Xdamr^talk 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I am not a fan of his work, Eliade has written a series of influential works, both in Romania and abroad (people forget that he was initially a novelist and short story writer). He was a prolific writer, and many to most of his works could/should/will have distinct articles (as you may see in the parent article, a large part of these are redlinks as it is). It also happens that there are several contributors working on these topics, and the category already has 6 articles (it could easily have double that number). Furthermore, at least one article included is an abstract one, and refers to a concept in Eliade's thought. Dahn 09:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:MSNBC personalities[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers (e.g. Pat Buchanan, who is listed here but also regularly appeared on CNN). This categories (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Also note the multiple discussions on 2007 February 2, 2007 February 3, and 2007 February 4 discussions on related categories. Dr. Submillimeter 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, we should categorize people by what they have done ("talk show host", "news anchor"), not by who paid them to do it. Postdlf 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to finish the changes started over the last few days. Vegaswikian 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Coemgenus 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/redirect. Maybe we should make a category American TV personalities (or something else) and include all these people there? There is a category "American radio personalities". Biophys 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Category:American television personalities. Otto4711 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state[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. the wub "?!" 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state to Category:American Major League Baseball players by state of birth

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, including all subcategories for states. A player's "home state" often does not match his state of birth. For example, Roger Clemens is generally regarded as being "from" Texas, even though he lived in Ohio for the first 15 years of his life. All the existing state subcategories appear to classify players by their states of birth.

Alternative proposal: Keep the nominated category, as well as all the existing state subcategories. Create the "state of birth" category as a separate master category, and create new categories of "Major League Baseball players born in (Foo)" underneath it. Dale Arnett 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there has been consensus that being a native of a place is not always a defining characteristic for a person. This category by its name presents an even weaker case. While some may want to know this information, I'm not sure that another category is the way to do this. If this is really encyclopedic information, then Listify. Vegaswikian 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at present name or delete. As per Vegaswikian the move would make things worse. Piccadilly 15:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "people from" and the flexibility it provides over "native to" Mayumashu 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A persons "home state" is the state they were born in. Moving this category would really do no good, because it would be the same thing as it is currently. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually do we have a source for the definition of home state? A quick look was not productive. The best I found was the country where a company is currently based in from the EU. Looking at that usage of state in global terms, it's use in this category is ambiguous since not all players are from the US. How do those get classified? Vegaswikian 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American anti-communists[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) 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this category is part of a larger scheme (see Category:Anti-communists), its use is very silly. Virtually any U.S. politician who supported the United States during the Cold War, any U.S. democracy advocate, or any U.S. soldier who has fought communist forces could be considered anti-communist. George H. W. Bush, the President of Overcategorization, is in this category, as well as many other famous U.S. politicians. Given that the category effectively has overly-broad inclusion criteria, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lumping anarchists in with LBJ, Ronald Reagan, Hollywood executives of the 1950s, and a bunch of other people who are anti-communist for any of a million reasons is not helpful. This is negative categorization & I think it's a bad idea. --lquilter 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category that defies specific definition. Doczilla 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category should be for people who actively and specifically opposed communism as opposed to doing so by default, and by and large it is used correctly. It would be ridiculous and misleading to exclude Americans from the overall category. Piccadilly 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category appears to be part of a larger scheme of dividing anti-communist articles by nationality. Since obviously some anti-communists are from the United States, it makes sense to include this category in that broader scheme. Dugwiki 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This element of a larger scheme should not be deleted in isolation (and probably not at all). Osomec 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorisation by an opinion, anti-communism is defined only vaguely and is used too broadly, unmaintainable in current WP. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Pavel Vozenilek above.Biophys 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. US teaches other nations democracy while it is absent in the US.Vlad fedorov 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anti-communist is simply too vague and potentially expansive to be of much use as a category. The whole treatment of 'categorisation by opinion' needs to be looked at, however I think that this sort of 'negative categorisation by opinion' is flawed.

Xdamr^talk 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV will cause arguments, unnecessary and really isn't nearly everyone anti-communists? It would be hard to define and select people who are and aren't. - Mike Beckham 11:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Osomec. Olborne 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As long as the larger scheme of Category:Anti-communists continues to exist in its present form, this category seems to be necessary. Although arguably any U.S. politician active in a certain era could be labeled "anti-communist," there is a subset whose political careers were largely defined by their opposition to Communism. To the extent that this category can be reserved for those politicians (e.g., Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, Karl E. Mundt,) and non-politicians (e.g., J. Edgar Hoover, Dan Smoot, Robert W. Welch Jr.) whose careers are strongly defined by their anti-communism , the category could continue to make sense. However, it almost appears that an effort has been made to trivialize the category (a WP:POINT issue?) by including people who were anti-communist because they were in a time and place in which everyone declared themselves to be anti-communist, as well as people who were critics of (for example) the Soviet Union, but were not necessarily opposed to communism as an ideology. Accordingly, I removed Emma Goldman from the category. I think many of the other politicians, religious leaders, military leaders, and probably some of the writers listed there also should be removed.--orlady 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Barack Obama[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. Mairi 06:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barack Obama - A category to link only 3 articles (one of which I'm not sure is needed-the single sentence that makes up Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is already well covered in Barack Obama) seems like serious overkill, or at least WAY premature--there's know way to know if it will ever grow. 71.231.107.188 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation should circumstances warrant. Otto4711 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most individuals should not have their own eponymous category since almost all the significant links related to that person are already found in the main article or a sub-article. (Also imagine the situation of having hundreds of thousands of categories, one per notable person.) Dugwiki 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 06:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Biophys 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A substantial number of directly connected articles are needed for an eponymous category to escape the charge of overcategorisation. Three are far too few. If more relevant articles are created over the next months then this category may be justified—but not yet.

Xdamr^talk 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman Catholic musicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. This was a January 19 nomination that had 11 delete votes and 9 keep votes. Since no one apparently wanted to close this as 'no consensus' I'm relisting. When you vote, consider the following from the category:

A category of musicians who perform Roman Catholic music or who have used their celebrity to promote Catholic causes.
Note: Musicians whose articles don't even mention Catholicism should be removed.

I would suggest that in this second discussion that the closing administrator ignore all of the 'I like it' votes. The nomination, based on the discussions is for 'over categorization re: intersection by religion'. Vegaswikian 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to suggest that contributors should ignore the description quoted above. A category should contain all the articles that fit its name, and not those which meet a set of criteria which are too long to be included in the name because they way Wikipedia is produced means that one can have no confidence whatsoever that any such qualifications will be observed over the long term. As for the category itself, religion is of minimal relevance to the work of most musicians who happen to be Roman Catholics. Osomec 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this simply isn't a categorically meaningful relationship. I agree with Osomec that the description is irrelevant, because people always go by the literal name of the category. In this case, the name invites the inclusion of every musician who has ever lived who has happened to be Roman Catholic, regardless of whether that was actually relevant to their musical career. It is not titled "Musicians whose Roman Catholic faith was important to their music." Even among those for whom it is a significant intersection, the category's lack of historical specificity will cause it to equivocate very different relationships. A modern musician who consciously decides to focus his music on his Roman Catholic faith is in a very different position from a Medieval composer who could not have done otherwise. Without focusing on those for whom it is meaningful, and giving context and explanation to that meaning, it becomes mere trivia. Postdlf 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's a logical subset of Category:Christian musicians and is well over a year old with minimal abuse. Music can be directly inspired by religion in the same way writing is. Therefore if it makes sense to delete this than Category:Roman Catholic writers should also be deleted as not all the writers in it had Catholicism as a literary influence. There's also the significance to the culture of Catholics or most any religion/culture. Therefore deleting this also makes as little sense as deleting Category:Jewish musicians or Category:Muslim musicians.--T. Anthony 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. The existence of other categories doesn't mean this one should exist. You may, in fact, be inadvertently making the point that they need to be deleted too. Let's get through this one first on its own merit according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Doczilla 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That states "For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their sexual orientation. While 'LGBT literature' is a specific genre and useful categorisation, 'LGBT quantum physics' is not." Okay are you saying "Roman Catholic music" does not exist? Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." So you think Catholic musicians is not a distinct cultural topic? True some people will be placed inaccurately, but that will also be true of Category:LGBT writers which is essentially called acceptable in the Overcategorization guidelines.--T. Anthony 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one do think that an individual's sexuality is much more likely to be reflected in their writing than an individual's religion is to be reflected in their music. Each of these intersections need to be considered on their own merits, because some are more meaningful than others. Keeping one does not imply that any others should be kept, even if it seems like a similar intersection. There may be religions for which everyone who self-identifies with that faith only makes music about that faith, and there may be occupations for which everyone who practices it cannot help but infuse it with whatever their faith is. This does not apply to Roman Catholicism and being a musician. Postdlf 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to the opinion that sexuality will be reflected in writing more than religion will be in music, but it's just your opinion. It's not something you've demonstrated or proved. I could give you counter-examples as easily as you can cite counter-examples here. In any event exact matching is not necessary. What matters is whether "Roman Catholic musicians" is "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic." I say it is, but I also say this is not simply my opinion. Catholic musicians are a subject of cultural study. There's also the United Catholic Music and Videa Association which gives out "Unity awards." If you want this to be retooled to limit to church musicians that's a different matter.--T. Anthony 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category that is limited to church musicians would be a completely different category, with which I have no problem. Postdlf 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll create it. It would at least be somewhere to put List of Roman Catholic Church musicians if this gets deleted. Although I think that kind of specifity would only be necessary because so many Wikipedians are, frankly, either sophomoric teenagers or too literal minded to live in the real world. (Partly tongue in cheek. I really do dislike much about Wikipedia and wonder why I haven't left)--T. Anthony 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla Albatross2147 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Christian musicians should be deleted too as Christianity plays little role in the musical life of many "Christian" musicians. Piccadilly 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what is desired is a deletion of Category:Musicians by religion and its subcats it might be more honest to do that. I'd oppose that too, but using this is as a test case seems more than a bit irritating. (This was done with scientists by religion too, the Catholic one was deleted first to "test the waters" I suppose)--T. Anthony 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if restricted to appropriate articles Keep, but it should be restricted specifically to musicians whose Roman Catholic religion is notably mentioned in their article as playing a significant role in their musical career. An example of a possible article would be a classical Roman Catholic composer who specifically did musical work for the Roman Catholic church. Or a notable Roman Catholic choir member. A bad example would be a singer who happens to be Roman Catholic but whose music has nothing to do with their religion. Dugwiki 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments above: "keep if restricted" is really an incoherent request, as you're either supporting a different category that has that relationship spelled out in the title, or wrongly assuming that whatever description we type out for the category will somehow control who gets included rather than the actual wording of the category title. "Roman Catholic musicians" will inevitably include anyone who happens to be Roman Catholic "but whose music has nothing to do with their religion." Postdlf 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way deletion generally works you're not allowed to create anything stricter afterward. I've considered creating Category:Actors in Christian entertainment after Category:Christian actors was deleted, but I've not dared to because I know it'd be speedy deleted because of the discussion. In any event categories can in fact be monitored and restricted.--T. Anthony 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just ask yourself if the proposed category would be subject to the same complaints raised over the deleted one. Postdlf 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Probably not the same complaints, I don't think, Instead other reasons would likely arise and it'd be deleted for those. So I'd be wasting my time. At the moment religion/anything is not seemingly like a good thing to work on. I kind of knew that months ago and quit on doing anything relating to religion, but I still had some attachment to a few lists or categories. Probably best that that was purged.--T. Anthony 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (Changing). If the musicians music is directly affected by their religion, then it would be okay to categorize them by this way. However, any people whose religion does not affect their music, that are in this category, should be removed from the cat. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable and misleading. Current implementation of categories in MediaWiki does not allow to define enforceable restrictions on them. Pavel Vozenilek 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted would I be allowed to create a restricted category?--T. Anthony 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe if the title of the category clearly identified the criteria for listing and it does not become a catchall category. But there is no way anyone can say this would be OK. If you create it and someone nominates it here, there is noway to predict the result of that discussion. Vegaswikian 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Olborne 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP! As a Catholic myself, I suspect bigotry in the nomination for deletion. That's a problem I see with WiKKKipedia. Did you nominate Muslim or Jewish musician categories for deletion? No. I think the nominator is anti-Catholic, and I oppose the nomination. I'm praying for him, though, that he see the light. Tom Danson 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For most of the people in this category, their religion has little to do with their music. Grouping them together is inappropriate. (After accusations of both being disruptive and being anti-Catholic in the last vote, I was going to abstain. However, given that this vote is close and given that I have been accused of favoritism towards Catholics here, I see no reason to abstain.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The accusation of bigotry is less than convincing. Olborne 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People referred to as Cult Leaders[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Keep, does this count as a repost? See January 26th discussion. At least this is an attempt to address concerns raised earlier. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We do not want categories labeled with "people referred to as". These are weasel words that may be used to hide ad hominem attacks. Imagine how many U.S. Republicans would land in both "people referred to as freedom fighters" and "people referred to as terrorists" (simultaneously). Dr. Submillimeter 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would include everyone from the Pope to Ralph Nader. References are quite cheap to make. Postdlf 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Called by whom"? Even if you have a published account of someone calling someone else a cult leader, that could be nothing more than one person's opinion, or worse an unfounded personal attack. Also, note that the category only has one article, so odds are there is another category that you can use to categorize that person. Maybe take a look at David Koresh and the categories his article is placed in instead? Dugwiki 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is very clearly a recreation. Osomec 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this recreation. See also WP:WTA#Cult.2C_sect. Doczilla 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another POV category. This category is POV and OR. I could call my mother a cult leader. There could never be a clear set of criteria that would include certain people. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not wholly convinced that it is a re-creation, nevertheless it is equally objectionable. Per Dr. Submillimeter weasel words are as undesirable in categories as they are in the articlespace. The defamatory potential of a category like this is substantial. As Postdlf notes, references for this sort of thing are easy to come by; essentially this is simply a vehicle for expressing personal opinion, violating WP:OR in the process.

Xdamr^talk 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Futurists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Futurologists, consistent with Category:Futurology, avoiding neologism and ambiguity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Futurists to Category:Futurist consultants

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Based on the article futurist, it looks like this category could contain consultants who work on futurology. However, it also seems to broadly sweep up any science-fiction writer who has ever written about the future. For consultants, this category describes a defining characteristic, but for science-fiction writers, it is not defining to be called "futurist". The proposed name change may make the category more useful. Deletion may also be an option. Dr. Submillimeter 18:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Futurologists or (second choice) as per noml. I thought a Futurist was a member of an early 20th century art movement. Cloachland 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See Futurism. I think "futurist" could also refer to the 20th century art movement. The term could refer to many things. Dr. Submillimeter 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At present Category:Futurism deals with people, manifestos, and things associated with that art movement.--T. Anthony 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename looks like clarification is needed on those art movement categories. >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate this category and the various related articles. There are several different kinds of futurists around (including in this category). It would be an insult to call someone like Freeman Dyson a "Futurist consultant."--orlady 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CJOH 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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CJOH is the Ottawa affiliate of CTV. We do not want to categorize people by whether they worked for specific network affiliates, especially since they may later work with other network affiliates or companies. Dr. Submillimeter 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as the first independent TV station in Canada, CJOH was a breading ground for talent that populated many position in North America. Only the CBC network contributed more. It is unique in this regard.cmacd 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New or Split categories Would it be more appropriate to create the Ottawa news reporters and/or Ottawa news anchors categories?--JForget 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be very different categories that have nothing to do with whether this is kept or deleted, so create away. Could you please clarify what you want done with this one? Postdlf 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do like JForget sugested. --Deenoe 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are many categories associated with people working for businesses and companies (TV stations included), and CJOH should be no exception. -- azumanga 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Many other TV network categories have also been nominated for deletion, mainly because people work with multiple broadcasters over the course of their careers. See the discussion on Category:MSNBC personalities above or related discussion at 2007 February 2, 2007 February 3, and 2007 February 4. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories for major networks have some merit, but categories for local affliates are over the top.

Piccadilly 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMENT - ""local affilate"" is charitably an understatement. All Televison in Canada was under the control of the CBC from the start of Canadian TV in 1952 till 1961. At that time, CJOH started in Ottawa, CFTO started in Toronto and CFCF-TV started in Montreal. The three stations all had to Import, poach and develop talent in order to run, and they rapidly agreed to share programing, which was the start of what eventualy become CTV.

In the process many firsts occured. cmacd 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; we shouldn't categorize people by employer. Postdlf 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan[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. the wub "?!" 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ku Klux Klan members, current / former. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this was intended to document that someone had left the Klan, probably renounced it... As labelling a living person a "Ku Klux Klan member" implies that they still are, this may be libelous if they no longer are. Just a thought... Postdlf 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article says, verified and neutrally, that they were once a member of the Klan but now renounce it AND the category introduction says that includes current, former and decesed members, then there is absolutely no risk of libel, right? --GunnarRene 22:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing the category on the bottom of an article to a non-Wikipedian, however, could imply to some that the person is still a member. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my concern, as category introductions don't show up in articles: just the unexplained name of the category. Postdlf 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and note in the category description for Klan members that the category includes both former and current. Otto4711 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this cat for members that renounced their membership and the other cat for those that are active members or died as members. I agree with Postdlf's comment, especially in regard to WP:BLP. As for Otto's concern, that is a simple matter of editing. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge As per the nom, categories normally aren't supposed to distinguish between "current" and "former" members. (I don't remember off hand which guideline talks about that though.) However, I can understand if other editors want to possibly make an exception in this case due to the distinct difference in public perception between being a "current KKK member" and a "former KKK member". Dugwiki 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I come to this as an outsider - I haven't touched articles on this topic until the category merging. I was surprised that the Ku Klux Klan members category didn't include ex members. The categories of member of Senate and Congress, for example include many people who were not in office when they died. Arnold is in the category Professional bodybuilders and American film actors although he now works as the governor of California. I don't think it's necessary or accurate to have an "ex-clan" category. After all, it would not be accurate in regards to people who quitely leave the Klan vs. those who publicly "turn" on the clan. Wouldn't it be better to put Johnny Lee Clary, for example in both Category:Ku Klux Klan members and Category:African Americans' rights activists. --GunnarRene 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We would certainly have WP:BLP problems if people were added to the Klan member category without sourcing, but if the article says that they were once a member, then they should be categorized with those who died while still a member. --GunnarRene 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I'm misreading the nom, but I don't see an offered reason for merge? Also, since it's not linked, I assume this is a straight merge (and not a merge of both to Category:Ku Klux Klan members, current / former)? Never mind categorization issues, this will result in false categories on each page as text. Any reader who saw someone with "KKK members" in the footer of an article would quite naturally assume that they are in fact members. The distinction between member and ex-member is massively important and verifiable. SnowFire 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a general preference to include both current and former members in all categories of this type, since otherwise the information can quickly be outdated. Sorry if I was unclear. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I can see why that'd normally be policy... but this case may be the exception that proves the rule. It's helped that while "former liberals" is a very fuzzy distinction (when, exactly, did someone stop being one?), most notable people who leave the Klan have to do so rather publically complete with lots of disavowals. This makes separating current from former a lot easier. (Aside of course from all the misinterpretation of category name issues mentioned elsewhere.) SnowFire 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested comments here from some folks that may be able to help clear up to what degree libel would be a factor in having renounced members of the Klan in the "Klan members" cat. I have kept the request neutral and made it clear that I did not care if the editors agreed with my opinion or not. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The category isn't explained in the article which it is placed. So, unless it is stated in the article that the subject of the article is a former member, people might think that person is still in the KKK. However, if it is stated in the article, then this category would be redundant. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can change that to a merge, because people, espicially living, should NEVER be categorized without support in the article and reliable sources. --GunnarRene 09:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) updated my comment. argh. --GunnarRene 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We do not disambiguate historic and current members in any other category. User:Dimadick

Generally, "we" don't. But there are exceptions to every guideline, especially when WP:BLP is in play. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Arabic phrases[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 into Category:Arabic words and phrases. Mairi 06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabic phrases into Category:Arabic words and phrases

Merge - per recent rename of the parent categories to incorporate the "and phrases" terminology, sub-cat is redundant. Otto4711 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto4711. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Phi Beta Kappa members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For those people who do not know, Phi Beta Kappa is a United States academic honor society for undergraduate students. For many of the people listed in this category (such as George H. W. Bush and Peyton Manning), the honor is only one of many general achievement awards that they have received. Moreover, membership in the honor society has little to do with these people's later achievements (such as managing the United States or managing the Indianapolis Colts offense). This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per nom. This is just clutter, as no one is notable because of this. Postdlf 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nom and Postdlf. Otto4711 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note that there are several similar categories to delete. Cloachland 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically falls under the reasoning of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners, which recommends that award winners use list articles instead of categories. Dugwiki 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I beg to differ with several of you. Phi Beta Kappa is still an important honor, achieved/received by only a very few in American education. It is extremely significant and identifies notable people in an important way. I have trouble believing this is any less important than members of social fraternities, yet we have cats for all of those!?! Indeed, from a notablity standpoint, Phi Beta Kappa is tons more important than your average Greek letter fraternity!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the oldest, and perhaps most prestigious, honor society in the United States, membership in PBK is in and of itself a notable acheivement; much more so than any particular sports team movie film, or award (like the Oscars or the Grammys). The catgeory is both appropriate and informative. -- Avi 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused The list in the article Phi Beta Kappa Society has many more entries than the category. Surely we don't need both a list and a category!--orlady 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the category is better than the list, so we should categorize everyone in the list and then remove the list. -- Avi 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Neoconservatives[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the term "neoconservative" is extremely controversial and the category in question is primarily being used on Wikipedia as a political statement instead of as an impossibly objective categorization. Perhaps those who self-identify as neoconservatives would qualify for the cat, but even that seems like a stretch. It is one thing to call someone a "conservative," as that is a far more objective and verifiable description, but neoconservative is an undeniably loaded (and thus unacceptable) term. DLand ^TALK 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, far more POV and used as a perjorative than "conservative," which was itself judged too vague and POV to function as a category. See recent CFD for Category:American conservatives. Political philosophy is something to explain and source in article text, not something to blandly state in a category name as if it were a precise and objectively factual classification. Postdlf 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete controversial, subjective category. Doczilla 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of the term is highly debated and the conservatives category was deleted.--T. Anthony 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category is POV, and since the conservatives category was deleted, this one should have the same fate. —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the key figures to Category:Neoconservatism. The conservative label is far more ambiguous that the much smaller compact group of neoconservatives. While some think the term neoconservative is controversial, most are self-admitted neoconservatives and many have written prominent books on the movement. All labels can be used pejoratively, thus that shouldn't be a reason. But there are replacement categories that are more succinct, so it may be best to move towards those. I have saved a copy of the current members of the list for now, so that won't be lost. DLand's belief that the term neoconservative is loaded is offbase, he should read the article on Neoconservatism. (Oh and I've had few edits outside of this topic area, blah blah blah, I have a dynamic IP and I don't use a formal account.) --70.48.70.2 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are other categories that similarly describe individual ideologies:

How far do we want to go with regards to deleting categories relating to individual ideologies? This is a serious question, because the arguments being used to delete this category apply equally to the categories listed above and dozens more. (Oh and I've had few edits outside of this topic area, blah blah blah, I have a dynamic IP and I don't use a formal account.) --70.48.70.2 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to [:Category:Self-identified Neoconservatives]]. Plenty of people have said they are neo-conservatives, which should avoid the problems with the pejorative use of the term to mean "any conservative I don't like". Argyriou (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether someone says they are a neoconservative doesn't necessarily mean that they are one in a meaningful sense any more than someone who claims to be a moderate. Self-identification is too slippery and too self serving, and will probably depend entirely on who the audience was at the time the statement was made. "Self-identified neoconservatives" will then just be a proxy for "people who at any time found it politically advantageous to self-identify as a neoconservative." Postdlf 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because of a) neoconservatism's lack of solid definition, and b) the use of the neoconservative label as a political slur, any inclusion into the category would have to be well-sourced or based on a person's self-designation. Also, the category is essentially black-or-white, allowing no room for former neocons (e.g. Fukuyama). Becuse of this, applying the category "neoconservatives" is essentially tendentious and based on either speculation or POV-pushing. Since neoconservatives are essentially quite few in number, those seeking to know who the major neoconservatives are will be better served by simply reading the neoconservatism article, whereas the category is of limited usefulness at best (misleading or libelous at worst).—Perceval 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment neoconservatism doesn't lack a solid definition any more than any other designation (remember we are not dealing with the realm of axiomatic mathematics.) It shouldn't be considered libelous to be a neoconservative, it is a real political movement and while some may not like it, it isn't in the realm of accusing someone falsely of being a plagiarist or a bigot. Also the issue with "former neoconservatives" is no different than with other designations like "doctors" or "politics" whose designatees retire or are politically defeated. All the issues you bring up are applicable to other categories such as Category:Anti-Semitic_people, which it has been decided to keep in Wikipedia and which serves as a clear precedent for keeping this category. (Oh and I've had few edits outside of this topic area, blah blah blah, I have a dynamic IP and I don't use a formal account.) --70.48.70.2 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is difficult to define people from this specific category, unlike anti-war activists, for example. Biophys 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there should perhaps be a category for those who are "new" conservatives, as in they were once politically liberal. The rest can be merged. --Shamir1 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A very useful fairly-narrow category, unlike 'conservatives'. Making sure that anyone labeled a neoconservative is RS V non-partisan sourced eliminates potential problems. - FaAfA 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Diabetics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diabetics by nationality

Category:Fictional diabetics

Category:American diabetics

Category:Argentine diabetics

Category:Australian diabetics

Category:Austrian diabetics

Category:British diabetics

Category:Cambodian diabetics

Category:Canadian diabetics

Category:Egyptian diabetics

Category:English diabetics

Category:Ethiopian diabetics

Category:Filipino diabetics

Category:French diabetics

Category:Italian diabetics

Category:Nauruan diabetics

Category:Scottish diabetics

Category:Somali diabetics

Category:South African diabetics

Category:Vietnamese diabetics

An earlier request to rename these did not meet with consensus. However, at the end of that debate, several people suggested these should be deleted as not a defining characteristic. Hence this renomination. >Radiant< 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Most people are not notable because they have diabetes. Instead, they are notable for their other accomplishments (acting, playing baseball, etc.). Dr. Submillimeter 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous discussion over possible rename. "Diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate and medically inaccurate. Category:Diabetics and its subcategories because "diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate. Even though you'll hear some professionals misuse the term, they should know better. People are not their diseases. Medically this category’s name is not the most accurate. Everyday conversation should not determine how a medical category is named. If we cannot agree on a rename, we need to delete this unfair categorization just like we delete lists by hair color, height, allergies, etc. People are not their diseases. Everyday conversation should not determine how a medical category is named. If we cannot agree on a rename, we need to delete this unfair categorization just like we delete lists by hair color, height, allergies, etc. Doczilla 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Er... huh? I mean, I support deletion too and agree that categorizing by most ailments like allergies is ridiculous. However, I don't see what the category's name has to do with the price of tea in China. You think it's misnamed; fine, but as they say, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... SnowFire 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No justification has been attempted for singling this set of categories out from the many categories for diseases. Cloachland 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most other disease categories tend to bear at least somewhat on relevance (though surely some could also be deleted). Schizoprenia or epilepsy are relevant to many people's notability. Diabetes, gout, or male pattern baldness? Doubtful those are defining characteristics. SnowFire 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although I'm hardly married to the category tree. I don't see any justification for singling out this one disease amongst others so categorized. As for the notion that these should be deleted because "diabetic is an adjective," pretty much every dictionary agrees that it can be used as a noun just fine. Whether or not "diabetic" is the 100% proper term that medical professionals ought to be using, the simple fact is that if someone says "I'm a diabetic." no one is going to respond "a diabetic what?" Common sense and ease of use should tell us that using the noun form of "diabetics" in category names is acceptable. Otto4711 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if appropriate articles exist I partially agree with Dr. Submillimeter above that such a large portion of the population has diabetes that it's not normally a characteristic worth categorizing. However, that being said, it might be that there are some people for whom having diabetes is significantly included in their article. I can't think of any off-hand, but given the scope of potential people I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility. If there are people on Wikipedia who are actually notable, at least in part, for having diabetes, then the category should be kept for those people. If, however, there are no such articles, then the categories should simply be deleted as having no appropriate articles. Dugwiki 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An example of an article in which diabetes was, at least to some degree, important is Adam Morrison. When he first appeared on the U.S. sports radar as a basketball player at Gonzaga University, he was more notable as being a type 1 diabetic than as a basketball star. In fact, his condition was the subject of a successful DYK nomination. (Full disclosure: I was the original creator of the article, and the DYK nominator.) However, by the time he left Gonzaga for the NBA, his diabetes was clearly secondary to his playing skill, although it was still an important aspect of his life. — Dale Arnett 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment: Previous nom was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 27#Category:Diabetics. Also, previous nom mentioned a previous CfD that did not delete these categories; does anyone have a link to that? Anyway, diabetes is not a defining characteristic. In 99% of circumstances, you should never need to know someone has diabetes to interact with them, and their condition should only very, very rarely interact with their notability, which should be for other achievements. SnowFire 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, in those rare cases where the person's diabetes is a significant topic of interest, as in possibly Dale Arnett's example above, a Diabetics category would seem appropriate. So yes, most people wouldn't qualify, but if some people qualify then using a category for those individuals is probably ok. Dugwiki 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basing a category on what disease a person has is not the way to categorize. Unless that person died of it, or a significant time in their life came from having diabetes. —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Vague and too broad categories are impossible to maintain. Pavel Vozenilek 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? Vague? How are these categories vague? Either someone is a diabetic or s/he isn't. Otto4711 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - strongly. Such categories may be very helpful for someone who study epidemiology of diabetes or hereditary diseases among famous (notable) people. You must ask opinion of biologists before deleting this. Biophys 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Open air preachers[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, recreation. >Radiant< 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as repost of Preachers, see discussion of April 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:08, 7 February 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:Historic cinemas in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Cinemas in the United Kingdom. Mairi 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic cinemas in the United Kingdom into Category:Cinemas in the United Kingdom

Merge, Several of these are still standing, so it is a POV category based on someones idea of signficance. Pinoakcourt 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - "Historic" is a point-of-view word that should be avoided. Categorization using an alternative name may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Cloachland 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble with the non-historic Cinemas of the United Kingdom category is that it makes no distinction between entries linked with cinema heritage and a new UCI complex. Such a distinction would be a useful categorisation for cinemas with some distinction, architectural merit or significance. "United Kingdom" is a POV term if you're a Nationalist - shouldn't we refer to the North Atlantic Archipelago?
Merge "United Kingdom" is not a POV term, it is the official name as recognised by every state in the world, including the Republic of Ireland. Not using it in Wikipedia would show that the encylopedia was in the hands of fringe diehard Brit-haters. Also a new UCI complex should not have an article. No category should have a name that asserts that it contains the more important members of a group because that is a POV judgement - one which should be made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Piccadilly 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This category is extremely POV and OR. I could go to one of these cinemas, like it enough, and call it historical. Just like all the other "historic" and other POV title CfDs that have been on here lately. —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 'Historic' is a POV/OR judgement, implying some sort of special significance. It is also a meaningless term, with no indication on what basis this judgement was arrived at.

Xdamr^talk 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Segregationists[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. For the purposes of listifying, if any editor wishes, the category contents at this time can be seen in this edit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "American segregationists". >Radiant< 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm sure that some group called "segregationists" existed somewhere else at some time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. A category with an explicitly US ambit. --Xdamr^talk 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete This category, as with all categories grouping people by "support" for an idea or institution is highly problematic and subject to POV and OR problems. As a category, there is no nuance; J. William Fulbright was a segregationist in a different way from Orval Faubus, who is also to be distinguished from the likes of J. B. Stoner. People like Robert Byrd and John C. Stennis are included despite that they moderated or changed their position over time. A list is clearly in order. Randy Weaver's inclusion is mysterious and illustrates a further weakness of scope; I think it's safe to say he rejects the authority of the U.S. government and seeks racial separatism, not merely racial segregation. Category:Southern Manifesto is at least sourceable; "Segregationists" is more like "Pro-choice politicians" or "Critics of George W. Bush," the likes of which we've mostly eliminated.-choster 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category attempts to impose black and white distinctions on a range of opinions that come in many shades of grey. Piccadilly 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Choster. By attempting to classify a particular belief or opinion, this can only equivocate. Postdlf 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename per nom. Generally these people self-identified as segregationists and pursued political policies and/or violence to enforce their beliefs--often to the exclusion of all other goals. Hmains 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One could rename them as "self-identified segregationists", but this is too complicated and also subject of POV disputes. Biophys 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Quakerism in the United Kingdom[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. Mairi 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is unhelpful, and likely to remain so; currently it only contains 1 article and 1 subcategory, and is unlikely to grow dramatically. The WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is in the process of discussing a few new categories that would more effectively handle what this category could be used for (like categories for Quaker organizations). Further, from my review of the Naming conventions this category does not match the typical conventions used around nationality. Ahc 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be more conventional for nationality ones? I know it may not grow, but it (and other 'by nationality' ones) could be run in parallel with the organisations, individuals etc ones. I principally created it as a denominational subcat for Category:Christianity in the United Kingdom by denomination, rather than principally a subcat of Category:Quakerism, in any case. I feel Quakerism should be represented there, which might not best be done by having an international cat like Quakerism as the subcat of a national one (Christianity by denomination in the UK). So, tentatively, Keep, unless the consensus goes the other way.Neddyseagoon - talk 09:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to WP:WRSOF on the best way to organize these categories; however, I did find several additional articles that would fit, and would not be surprised if there were others.-choster 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been filled out now. Tim! 10:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a helpful category. Biophys 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Guerilla asso[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 SPEEDY DELETE, nonsense. Both entries were otherwise categorized, with this serving no apparent function. Postdlf 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inexplicable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Kurotsuchi mayuri 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. --Xdamr^talk 14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Girls with Guns[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Keep, I'm not totally convinced that this is really a genre, despite what other people have to say about it. If you want to keep it, please suggest a good place for it. I've parked it under Category:Action anime for the moment, but that's not a very good fit. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism and not a distinct genre. The category's description: "Action genre featuring at least one main action actress" is not even tailored to the name, as not all female action leads use guns (e.g., Uma Thurman as "Beatrix Kiddo" in Kill Bill). At best, this is a colloquialism that is inappropriate to use for a category title. Judging from what pops up when you google the phrase, I think it's more of a fetish. Postdlf 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Postdlf Kurotsuchi mayuri 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as observed by Postdlf, this is a non-distinct neologism. (Although the nomination—"Delete, or Keep"—rather raised a smile :) ). --Xdamr^talk 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. Osomec 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry about it but delete. With all due respect to the genre (for it does exist), I don't see a possibility of it being covered by Wikipedia in the next, say, four or five years. For those interested in the GWG genre, there are other sources that are not as strict to their content as this place is. --Koveras ^☭ 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:FTV Girl[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. Mairi 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we once had a problem with Models by company, we don't want to create Porn stars by company. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hardly the career-defining equivalent of Playboy Playmate. Postdlf 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a category created to promote a website. Valrith 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Places named for Presidents of the United States 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, recreation of previously deleted Cities named for Presidents of the United States. True, not exactly the same, but "Places..." was proposed as a rename in that CFD and deletion was chosen instead. But I'm listing here just to make sure that people agree this was covered. Regardless, these just link similarly named subjects that are otherwise dissimilar (even less similar than in the CFD'd "Cities" category), almost like a re-ambiguator. Postdlf 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Categories like these generally contain articles on places that have little in common with each other aside from their names. Since these are essentially recreations, they should all be speedy deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you mean Madison Avenue in Manhattan has nothing in common with Madison Parish, Louisiana? Shocking... ; ) Postdlf 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy if recreated, otherwise still delete them. May be worth a list article if properly referenced, not sure about that though. Otto4711 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. ~ Bigr Tex 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Radio stations in Syracuse[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Syracuse to Category:Radio stations in Syracuse, New York

Rename, ambiguous. Postdlf 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Syracuse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per standard naming conventions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per conventional form to remove ambiguity. --Xdamr^talk 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Some people might not know where Syracuse is, so for the sake of ambiguity. —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American space travelers[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 the single member (Anousheh Ansari) into Category:Space tourists. the wub "?!" 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Space tourists or Category:American astronauts, as needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many people in "space tourists," but should we subdivide that by nationality anyway? Otherwise, we might end up with some people in that who may not have another nationality-occupation category applicable. Postdlf 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a few "Space tourists" ... I wouldn't bother dividing them until there are a hundred or so. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Now that I've looked around Category:Space I have a headache. Anousheh Ansari belongs in Category:Space tourists, but there should be an obvious way to get from Category:Astronauts to Category:Space tourists without having to traverse up the tree to Category:Space and back down. ~ Bigr Tex 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a few years, there should be regular flights into space. So the number of people eligible to belong in this category will show a significant increase. I'm not sure that Category:Space tourists would be worth having at that time. If there is any consensus around that point, then why keep the category now? Vegaswikian 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:DumDum Boys members[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current DumDum Boys members
Category:Former DumDum Boys members

Merge both into Category:DumDum Boys members, current / former. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; categories shouldn't distinguish between past and present status. Postdlf 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Kurotsuchi mayuri 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why should a single band with five members and one ex-member have a whole f*ing category, especially when all six people are listed and linked up near the top of the article? And delete Category:A-ha while you're at it. Argyriou (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Australian denominations[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 duplicate of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Australian denominations. Mairi 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created a separate category for each Australian coin. They should be in Category:Australian coins. And I should add that this is a nomination from a couple of days ago that never got a discussion (I hope I'm fixing it correctly). Ingrid 01:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I'm sorry, but isn't this a duplicate request of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Australian denominations? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the original nomination had messed up discussion links, {{cfm}} umbrella tags can be tricky to get right. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please direct this discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4#Australian denominations. Dr. Submillimeter 09:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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