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 all. — ξxplicit 03:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These are also clearly ambiguous, unless you want to find both Tasmania and Tamil Nadu listed in Category:Southern states. Even within the US, "Southern states" has two meanings: regional and historical-political. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 22 December 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There may be some distinction between the two of these, but they have the same main article, and I do not see any other "Xian-American" and "Americans of X descent" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We have a lot more of these double categories, and they are in distinct category trees. And the simple reason is because they are not the same thing. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment If a merger is to take place it should be a reverse merge. A lot of work was done on sorting out these dual nationality categories some time back, but possibly excluding American ones as too difficult. The problem is that a Taiwanese American could also be a Taiwanese of American descent. No view on the merits of merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. Preferable to use naming that is more understandable to all Mayumashu (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. Not the same. There being only one article (right now) isn't an issue; even if the article confused the two, that would simply be an argument for improving the article. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Both have the same main article, and the same important same parent categories. There is no separate category tree here. The naming convention found in the chief parent Category:American people by ethnic or national origin is that of Category:Taiwanese Americans, the POV pushing of trying to make American articles conform to the articles of other countries, notwithstanding before and not withstanding now. Not one editor has expained the difference supposedly provided by the two categories. Hmains (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2009 (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.
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.
Do not rename - Categories of this type do not use hyphens or dashes. Badagnani (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose the rename, because the dash is definitely not the convention. Why does the main article have it? Debresser (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the (North) American guides do not say it but the grammatically the hyphen is used (properly) to form a 'compound adjective' and not nouns Mayumashu (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and Merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American West redirects to Western United States, but we still have a number of categories referencing the old name. The concepts of "the American West," the "Old West" of the United States, and the "Western United States" are all slightly different, but I take the siting of the main article at the last to be a preference for that name when discussing the geographic area, as opposed to the notional West of history and national mythology.- choster 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (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:NBA players in Chinese Basketball Association[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. — ξxplicit 03:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of basketball players by intersection of league participation. If we started down this path, the number of permutations for intersections of sportspeople in different leagues would be enormous. We've deleted categories like this before that have categorized by intersection of league or team:
Extra-strong nuclear delete all. In many sports, payers change teams on a regular basis, so the nominator is right: if we go down this path we will end up with millions of intersection categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are triple (or worse) intersections. They sound as if they are being used as bullet points on articles, rather than as a navigation aid, which is the purpsoe of categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to clarify in each case the nature of theory concerned. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Renames as all of the parent articles match the titles of the corresponding existing category. Alansohn (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as much upmerging as possible. Rename the rest. If this were not about an author as important as Shakespeare, we would be treating this as a fringe theory, but it has intellectual respectibility. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep names unless there is ambiguity (e.g. with a similarly named scientific theory, or whtever) and upmerge the two 1-article categories, but leave the 3-article category separate (kinda marginal, but three seems enough to me). No reason for a long-winded category name unless ambiguity forces it. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 07:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for the extra clarity needed for category names. Neutral on merges. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, Upmerge Neville, Marlovian, and Stratfordian as too small. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and upmerge - there is too much scope for confusion with some of these titles as they are, and if some are changed then the others should be too in order to fit.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, Upmerge Neville, Marlovian, and Stratfordian, for reasons stated by GoodOlfactory, Bradjamesbrown,BrownHairedGirl. Smatprt (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. — ξxplicit 03:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The nominator neglected to tag the categories. I have just tagged them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match titles of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator and extensive precedent of FC -> F.C. nominations. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Current name (itself a recent speedy rename) is weird and hard to parse. My first thought on seeing it was "what are 'government visits' (the cops or taxman at my door?) and how many people can possibly be notable for being in charge of them?" My second thought was that it was some kind of mangled headline-ese, and it left me wondering "visits who?", like it was a sentence fragment. If the weird word order is kept, it must at least be hyphenated as a compound adjective: Category:Heads-of-government visits. But that still begs the question of what sorts of "visits" we're talking about. Stopping by Auntie Edna's house? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many visits of heads of state are not notable, and do not receive their own Wikipedia article. Do we really need this category? Debresser (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many rock bands are not notable and don't receive their own articles, but the ones that are and do are still categorized appropriately. SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 07:28, 25 December 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: "RSS aggregator" is usually the same as "news aggregator". The term "RSS aggregators" can also refer to only those news aggregators that support RSS format, but in this case these categories are mostly-overlapping because most of news readers (nearly all) support RSS. Note also that most feed readers support Atom format too, but there is no Category:Atom aggregators. Filemon (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I'd merge all this stuff as much as possible and make sure it's clear that it refers to online technology. "News aggregator" doesn't cut it; that sounds like a fancified job title for people who work at Associated Press or Reuters. And let's not open a "well, we can keep this if we make one for Atom and so on too", since that leads to crap like "Atom aggregators" which means nothing to anyone but Atom-involved people; every other kind of reader will either think of supercolliders or just draw a blank. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:08, 21 December 2009 (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.
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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2009 (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.
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. — ξxplicit 03:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The "150 years or older" criteria for this category is arbitrary and is also not obvious from the category name, which implies no particular cut-off. If left undefined, that category would also be inappropriate as it would be vague and imprecise. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:43, 21 December 2009 (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.
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 as a opinion category and not a defining characteristic. There was one suggestion to "counter" the opinion with a rename, but the vast consensus did not agree with that idea. . Kbdank71 21:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "defining caracteristic" of the people listed. "Defining characteristic" as you seem to use it is not a pre-requisite for a category's existence or for insertion in a category. The category is in no danger of overpopulation. All of the people in the category have been verifiably and prominently publicly vocal (verbally and/or in writing) about their support of Oxfordian theory. This is not the same as being a cat lover or a Star Trek fan or an Iraq liberation opposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it any different than grouping people who have been vocally opposed to the Iraq War, for instance? It's no different—just a different issue to have an opinion about.
Re: "defining", see here. "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic." This is information which could quite easily be left out of the biographies of those included. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that paragraph weeds out only trivial information like tastes in food, favorite holiday destination, number of tattoos, age at death, baldness, having unpublished works. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained how this is different than categorizing by any other voiced opinion, many of which have been deleted in the past. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of those deleted categories would each comprise tens of thousands Wikipedia articles (just like a category on baldheaded men). Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how does one determine that those are "overly trivial" and that this one isn't? It seems like a fairly subjective exercise you are carrying out. Every time I ask you to explain how this category is different, you don't. Or are we just going to rely on WP:OTHERCRAP? I'd be very interested to hear why this is defining for Sigmund Freud, Antonin Scalia, et al. Cause I don't think it is, and whether or not you've heard of it, that's generally the standard that is required for keeping a category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP inclusionability when challenged is currently determined by consensus. Your other questions have been asked and answered. And to repeat, all of the people in the category have been verifiably and prominently publicly vocal (verbally and/or in writing) about their support of Oxfordian theory. You're welcome to verify this. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Inclusionability" is not the issue here, nor is the sourcing for the fact. No one is arguing that the information can't be included in the articles, but this is a different issue that involves categorization. My question relates to categorization and how this can be said to be defining, and it has not been answered; I'll assume it is not answered because it cannot be. Your arguments thus far have been great justifications to include this information in a list, but don't provide a justification for using it as a basis for categorizaiton. Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In that the Oxfordian theory is often mislabeled as an extreme fringe theory with no notable adherents, I believe keeping this category is helpful in providing correct information to the contrary.Smatprt (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different than other categories that have been deleted based on the idea that it's overcategorization to categorize according to belief or opinion? Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above "keep" clinches it for me. If the best rationales that can be offered for keeping this are "I can't or won't say why, in concrete terms, this opinion is somehow special" and "keep it because it's our job to push a position about how downtrodden this viewpoint is, that's an important mission", then let's please nuke this ASAP. Yes, I'm exaggerating for effect, but the underlying concerns are real. It isn't WP's job to provide some subjectively-defined level of balance of viewpoint when that balance is not itself evidenced outside WP in our pool of reliable sources to cite. I.e., our balance derives entirely from the outside world, and should not be adjusted pro or con on a case-by-case basis. That, and Good Ol'factory's question has not been answered. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on CANVASSING (nominator): It appears to me that this CFD has been the subject of inappropriate canvassing by User:Softlavender, the category creator. See, e.g., this edit. "... [G]iven your inclusionist sentiments..." suggests that the user has been targeting users for notification who she thinks will likely make comments favouring keeping the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a whole bundle of reasons, including:
per WP:OC#OPINION, we don't categorise by opinion, except in cases where the reason for a persons notability is their activism in promoting that opinion
It is very hard to set inclusion thresholds for opinion categories without falling foul of either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Just where does someone's opinion on this proposition have to fall on the spectrum between "this idea is the gospel truth" and "this idea is almost entirely a matter of completely and utterly certifiably insane drivel, but very occasionally its adherents do seem to make some small point which might on a good day have some tenuous connection with reality"?
If we allow this category to stand, then we will be setting a precedent for squillions of other categories of the various theories advanced by those who refuse to believe that a poor boy from a small town could write such great literature that 400 years later he is still England's only great playwright
Plenty of the articles included in this category, such as John Gielgud and Jeremy Irons, do not even mention the so-called oxfordian theory, let alone offer reliable sources for their subject's alleged adherence to it. That's always a hazard with opinion categories: they encourage this sort of I-heard-somewhere-that-she-said-X sort of speculative categorisation
If this category is to be kept (and I really hope it won't be), then rename it to something which makes clarifies its meaning to ordinary mortals who haven't immersed themselves in the jargon of Shakespeare-authorship-conspiracy-theories. Something like Category:Supporters of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship would do, but the current category name is desperately ambiguous: it could refer to all manner of things: people from the city of Oxford, graduates of an Oxford college, the 19th-century Oxford Movement, or the 20th-century Oxford Group, etc etc --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Graduates of Oxford are never called Oxfordians, they are called Oxonians. Neither are members of the Oxford Movement or the Oxford Group called Oxfordians. Oxfordian refers to only one of two things: a geological stage, or a proponent of the Oxfordian authorship of the Shakespeare works. Also, this is not a forum for questioning pages within a category: The forum for that is each particular article's Talk page. This discussion is about the category, not about pages within the category. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right about the terminology, but you miss my point: wikipedia is written for a general audience, not a specialised one. Those of us not intimately familiar with minor variations in ambiguous terminology are unlikely to be aware of the precise distinctions in usage of jargon, which is why category names should be clear to the general reader. Unless you can produce some references to reliable sources to show that the claimed distinction is widely understood, then we have to treat it as jargon in need of clarification.
As to the presence of particular miscategorised articles, I raised that point here to demonstrate the ways in which opinion categories can be and are misused, with potential BLP consequences. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will Wikipedia do? ;-) Oxfordian. That said, Oxfordian, Baconian, Stratfordian, anti-Stratfordian, are common words in Shakespeare studies (I'll just give one sample link: [1]); and the only other usage of the term I found when doing a careful and thorough search of Google (including Books, News, etc.) before creating the category was and is the geological stage. All of that said, if a category is confusingly named, it can be renamed (although the re-names are clunkier). If a category is inappropriately populated, it can be winnowed via discussions on the Talk pages of challenged categorees (is that a word?). I don't think there's any real BLP problem here, as nothing libelous is involved. Since there's no place for citations in a category, I'm happy to create a duplicate List complete with citations, and add it to the category. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
) ... but apart from WP
NOT-a-reliable-source, the existence of a WP dab page doesn't answer the question much.
And I'm afraid that the point about those terms being "common words in Shakespeare studies" merely reinforces my point about jargon: wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for those immersed in any particular discipline.
I think that a list is a great idea, because the list can include plenty of references, whereas a category entry is always unreferenced. Then when the list is done, place it in Category:Oxfordian theory, and there is no more need for Category:Oxfordians: the relatively small number of people who have made a significant scholarly contribution to the development of the theory can be placed in Category:Oxfordian theory, while he "supporters" such as Freud can stay in the list.
I do think that there is a BLP issue, because categorisation is a binary choice: there's no nuance or qualification, just in or out. A list can happily record the nuanced realities of most people's opinions, describing the exact degree of someone's support for the theory, but a category can't do that. Given the passion with which some people hold opinions on matters such as this (and [potential significance for the careers of actors), it could be most unwelcome for someone who has hedged their bets with a carefully equivocal or jesuitical statement to find themselves labelled as a proponent of a a particular theory. A list is simply a better tool for a job like this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BHG on each and every point. There might be a salvageable core of scholars of the theory (for whom it might well be defining), under some more accessible name (eg J. Thomas Looney). NB There is also Category:Oxfordian theory, which contains a few more people. Occuli (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without taking a position for or against this proposal, since I am not familiar enough with the relevant wiki protocols to have an informed one, I would like to interject one comment in response to the violent and ignorant language that has characterized some comments here, which is unfortunately typical of those who know little or nothing about the issues involved. If this category is created, you may all have to in the future consider including Dr. Graham Holderness, one of England's leading Shakespearan scholars, in the designation: http://shake-speares-bible.com/2009/12/18/cummings-a-chronological-time-bomb-under-shakespeare/. Cheers, --BenJonson (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thank you ever so much so politely for characterising those who disagree with you as "ignorant". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brown girl. YOu are right to call me out on this. Actually, a lot of the discussion, most of it, is on point. Let me be more specific: "Just where does someone's opinion on this proposition have to fall on the spectrum between "this idea is the gospel truth" and "this idea is almost entirely a matter of completely and utterly certifiably insane drivel, but very occasionally its adherents do seem to make some small point which might on a good day have some tenuous connection with reality?If we allow this category to stand, then we will be setting a precedent for squillions of other categories of the various theories advanced by those who refuse to believe that a poor boy from a small town could write such great literature that 400 years later he is still England's only great playwright." This is ignorant prejudice. Sorry to be blunt, but it is. The writer knows nothing about the subject. He's just emoting in public. Sorry if my response was unspecific--69.138.76.191 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you again for the friendly comment. I'd be a little more concerned about the "ignorant prejudice" jibe if you actually made some attempt to answer the crucial question where on the spectrum someone's opinion has to fall to be included in the category ... but rather than trying to address the central question, you seem to prefer just to label me. I hope it makes you feel better, but I have no idea how it helps anyone else. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with BrownHairedGirl's points, and the existing Category:Oxfordian theory should be sufficient for those with specific grounded, verifiable contributions to this position (in particular Looney). AllyD (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Consider Rename While the current name can be confusing, the category does capture a defining characteristic. Any necessary pruning will address issues of possible borderline cases. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Alanasohn, please explain this. Just how is an alleged belief in this theory a defining characteristic of Orson Welles and Derek Jacobi, both of were in this category at the time you wrote that? Or of William Farina, whose contribution to the field seems to be one book out all his output? Or the US Supreme Court judges in the list below? Or of the film-maker Roland Emmerich, who made a film on the subject? If Emmerich had made a film on Hitler, would that mean that Nazism was a defining characteristic of the man? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this was necessary raises yet another issue, if this category were to be kept—someone would have to patrol its contents, because obviously articles are being added when there is not yet a supporting statement in the applicable article, let alone a reliable source for it. Cart/horse, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freud, after basing much on Hamlet/Shakespeare's dead son, did indeed do an about-face after reading Looney's book. (Clark, Freud: The Man and the Cause p362). But the point remains - is this worthy of mention on the Freud page? And if not, how can it be a defining characteristic? AllyD (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAT by opinion, as well explained above by numerous comments. Those urging keep have not presented any substantive or relevant argument. There could be a reasonable argument that something like "Oxfordian scholars" is defining, if its wording can clearly and properly target those who are academic proponents of this authorship theory. But the category as is invites the inclusion of anyone who merely agrees with the theory, and it's ridiculous to think that merely agreeing with this theory is defining of a subject, i.e. one of the most significant facts about them, i.e. one of the things they are known for, etc. Opinions are cheap to have. Everyone has many of them on many different subjects and they don't necessarily take any real investment in a person's life to assert. Which is why we limit categories to what people have actually done, not just what they have said or thought. No one has explained why this category either is not just an opinion category or why it should be treated any differently. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete (or possibly upmerge to "Oxfordian theory". Serious scholars propounding the theory can be categorised in "Oxfordian theory" (which I hope will be renamed). If a user keeps adding people at random on the basis of a NN POV held by them, and where holding that belief is a NN aspect of theri life, then adminstrative action should be taken against the culpit. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment (I "delete" !voted, above): Any scholars notable for having Oxfordian views can be categorized in the Oxfordian theory category (see separate CfD above this one). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 07:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Advocates of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. The usual successful counter to the personal belief or opinion deletion argument is "Activists for...", but since we are talking about literary history, a more laid-back "advocates" will do it. This sets a higher standard than just "supporters" - they must have written or often spoken publically about the issue. Enoch Powell made a tv film on WS authorship, but I can't remember who he fancied instead of WS. In fact the category has now been trimmed down - which should not have been done during the debate - to leave only those who are unmistakably advocates, including some who are mainly or only notable for being "Oxfordians". I am always extra-reluctant to delete a category that is the prime defining category for a large percentage of the occupants, which is the case now. BHG's removals have entirely negated, indeed reversed, the arguments in the nom, so making many of the supports above invalid, as they relate to what was in effect an entirely different category. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Johnbod, WP:BLPCAT is very clear that for living people to be included in a category, a reference is needed, and the articles I removed all lacked any indication at all in the article text that the subject had every expressed any thought at all on the subject. Not all of the articles were about living people, but without a reliable source for their inclusion it would have been quite wrong to have left them in the category. AFAIK there is no mechanism for attaching a {{fact}} tag to a an article's category list. Anyway, the removal was done in good faith only for referencing, not to alter the nature of the category ... and it was done completely openly, with a full list posted here. Any chnage to the balance of the actegory waas an unintended side-effect. Anyway, we now seem to have identified three groups of people who might have been included in this category as it stood: scholars of the theory, advocates of the theory, and supporters of the theory. There seems to be a general (tho not complete) agreement that the "supporters" do not need a category, and I see no problem with putting the scholars in the parent category on the theory itself. That just leaves the advocates, for whom you suggest this theory should be recast .... and two questions about them: 1. How many of them are there? Are there really enough of them to need a category? 2. Is the advocacy enough of a defining characteristic of these people to justify a category? I'd have my doubts about ticking a yes box to that question for Freud or Enoch Powell. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But neither are in the category (if Oxford was anyway Powell's pick). All the current people could at a pinch be called scholars, but I think advocates is more accurate. I personally think the distinct category useful, in distinguishing them from Elizabethan courtiers etc, and at 9, not too small. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If their adherence to this theory was an important aspect of their lives/work, then they can just as easily (and more pertinently) be incorporated into the theories categories as mentioned above. If it wasn't/isn't then it isn't worth categorising in the first place.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I was previously a simple "keep", but after absorbing this lengthy discussion I believe Johnbod has proposed the best solution and reasoning, so I now support renaming the category to Advocates of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and limiting it to researchers, scholars and noted individuals who have "written or often spoken publically about the issue". I also agree that 9 is not too small for a category such as this, and believe that number will probably grow (a bit) once the category parameters are better defined. Smatprt (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. — ξxplicit 03:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I thought this was about people named Kimberley until I saw the 3rd category. I'd call that fairly ambiguous. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third one could be too - the liver, duodenum and pancreas are all 'structures", after all :) (Rename per nom, BTW). Grutness...wha? 09:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - clearly a geographically challenged issue - the hits at http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ would suggest the term is not even adequately disambiguated in Australian usage - let alone africa - the fact that Kimberley region in Australia probably has a northern cape which would suggest it really should be South Africa identified - now who was making that cup of tea? SatuSuro 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Kimberley" makes me think of Kimberlite first. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Bass (sound). Bass is ambiguous—meanings include fish, places, beer, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per obvious ambiguity problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to avoid ambiguity. (If you have too much of this bass you may forget about that bass). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - with thanks to the above editor - for mention of the Australian Tasmanian version as well SatuSuro 13:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Article is at Ardabil Province. Going by the titles of the subcats, however, a rename of both to Ardabīl Province may be more accurate. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per original nom (no funky character). It's reader-hateful to use non-English characters in category names, since we cannot redir to them from the diacritic-free spellings the way we can for articles at name with diacritics in them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ardabil Province (although there are category redirects which do much the same as article ones, apart from an extra click). I was under the impression that the anti-diacritics battle had been lost (see eg Category:Footballers in Turkey by club). Occuli (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted at CfD 31/12/2009. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)