Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14[edit]

Category:The AN designation system[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The AN designation system to Category:Joint Electronics Type Designation System
Nominator's rationale: There are hundreds of pre-existing articles that need to be categorized under this designation system, but the existing category name is an unofficial obsolete one. Previously nominated for speedy renaming, but that failed; I don't know why.70.251.251.175 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the speedy discussion, it failed since it was not a valid speedy candidate. It did not meet any of the required conditions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, taking a fresh look at it, I see that there were six criteria. I don't remember seeing those when I made the nomination. I had a really tough time navigating the naming nomination process starting from the CfD page. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom -- according to the main article AN (army-navy) was a previous name for the system, thus obsolete rather than unofficial. The category is at present a small one, but perhaps the nominator can start categorising them. Thisn can be begun at once, using the existing name, as these will be moved wholesale to the new one by the closing Admin, assuming the nom is accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolete, yes, probably. The current name is as specified in the request. Since the articles that are in the category are still current, I feel the current name is more appropriate. My main concern is properly contextualizing these articles. As for the existing category name, it would probably be better off deleted than renamed. I'd move the three current articles to the new system category, so the renamed old category would be empty, but usable; that's a lousy situation to start with, but add to that that the exact naming of the obsolete system is questionable, and I think the appropriate thing to do is just to delete mention of the old system until naming issues are settled elsewhere. I have no stake in that discussion at all. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category is small but used to have tens to hundreds of entries that were relevant. Unfortunately, most of them were links to redirect pages. I do plan to add back the targeted articles, but feel it won't really be worth my time unless this name change goes forward, so I'm waiting for the name change to begin work. 70.251.251.175 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 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.

LGBT people by political orientation[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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Included in this group nom are:
Up until very recently (a week ago), the only two categories in this tree were "LGBT anarchists" and "Gay neo-Nazis". The rest of them were created in response to a question at Category talk:LGBT people by political orientation that was made by an indef-blocked user - who was blocked for their homophobic remarks and actions. I have no doubt these cats were made in good faith, but I argue that they are not encyclopedic and don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. (see this discussion re: their creation.
For one thing, the community decided to delete the two categories Category:LGBT Democrats (United States) and Category:LGBT Republicans (United States) back in September - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23#Category:LGBT Democrats (United States). The main argument then (and now) is that Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories says "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." None of these categories qualifies as a group-subject category, and any intersection of sexuality and/or gender identity with a particular political party can best be dealt with in a section of that party's article.
  • Delete as nominator. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator. There's really not much more to say than: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, out of preference for keeping individuals categorized into separate LGBT and poltical party categories. Well intentioned I'm sure, but I don't see where segregating (insert poltical party here) into their own enclave/ghetto serves the political party categories well, and vice-versa -- do not see where segregating LGBT people who happen to be (insert political party here) into their own enclave/ghetto serves the LGBT category well. If we were to carry this to its extreme conclusion, we would have categories like "LGBT libertarian vegetarian pro-cannabis twenty-year-olds" etc. a Libertarian is no less Libertarian for being LGBT, and an LGBT person is no less LGBT for being Libertarian. (my 2 cents) Outsider80 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I created most of them, but this was largely due to an error in judgment among other things.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as being trivial intersections. Being LGBT does not have a relationship with other political beliefs, except incidentally. I could be convinced of the Neo-nazis one (as gay members of a anti-gay groups are strange and somewhat interesting), but categories should not need to convince people, this is what articles are for.Yobmod (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the one I considered a Homosexuality and Neo-Nazism article, but I'm not sure I'd be good at writing it.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:43, 16 February 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:Cracking[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cracking to Category:Software cracking
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed name is clearer and it would also match the main article Software cracking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - cracking can refer to other processes, including technichal ones, like cracking of crude oil.Yobmod (talk) 11:34, 16 February 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:British people of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity[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. Kbdank71 15:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British people of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a case of overcategorisation per WP:OC#CATGRS. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems problematic at first glance, but I'd like to see a substantive discussion before I reach any conclusions. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I was struggling to find the notification template message. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a triple intersection - We have Booian people of fooian descent. Recent CFDs have suggested that categories such as "mixed race people" should be deleted. Mixed race people will sometimes have two or three categories of this kind. Having checked several of the pople categorised they seem to be British people of Latin American descent, but are usually categorised as of fooian descent (foo - here - being a single Latin American country). Note in Britain "Latin American" is the usual general term for Mexico and all countries to the south. "Latino" is only used in the context of people in USA. Any not already categorised as belonging to a particular Latin American country should be placed in Category:British people of Latin American descent, a category that should be used only for (1) those whose origins are uncertain (until sorted) and (2) People with two or more different Latin American ethnicities. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Peterkingiron's thorough analysis. Should Category:People of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity be added to this nomination? It has many of the same problems, primarily that it is a category for "mixed descent". –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:47, 14 February 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:Markets in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Retail markets in the United States as this would appear to have been purged of anything financial. Recommend nominating Cat:Markets and subcats for splitting into Retail markets and Financial markets. Kbdank71 15:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Markets in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Multiple Split or Delete Markets is completely ambiguous. What is the common thread between a flea market, an historical landmark, a farmers market, and a seasonal wholesale market. Rather then jumping the gun here and deleting I believe that we may actually want to retain some form of this by splitting into a larger number of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- The category should be provided with a headnote defining its scope more clearly as dealing with open-air or covered markets, where retailers operate from small stalls. The historical landmark might properly appear if it has (or has had) a regular market. Farmers markets are a sort of revival of traditonal markets and might properly appear, but a tower block in Las Vegas full of jewellery shops is stretching it a bit too far. I am never clear what flea markets consist of except that they do not usually intentionally sell fleas. Highway 127 seems to be (according to ancient classification) a fair rather than a market. Fairs were originally wholesale markets held over a period of a few days once (or a few times a year), but this refers to Great Britain in the medieval and early modern period, not to USA today. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • above discussion does not take into account that this is part of a series Category:Markets by country and a category structure. Hmains (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, so whatever the consensus is here may determine how we deal with those other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 15 February 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:Miscellaneous psychiatric disorders[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: merge to Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD. Kbdank71 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Miscellaneous psychiatric disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is another "remainders" or "miscellaneous" category that groups things in a category scheme that are not otherwise categorized in other subcategories. This is an inappropriate way of categorization because there's nothing that ties the grouped articles together, apart from the fact that they are disorders that are "not otherwise specified". The articles could be upmerged to Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD. (This category is quite similar to a similar category that was deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "miscellaneous" categories should be avoided. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nom. However the abbreviations in the target need expanding. Or is this for mental disorder NOT specified by DSM and ICD (whatevet these abbreviatiosn mean)? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe they are specified by DSM and ICD. I know DSM has a "not otherwise specified" category in it, which these may be a part of. Agree that the target category could use clarification. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 15 February 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.

Permission[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. Kbdank71 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Filming location permission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Filming location permission at government sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories with unclear names, purposes and growth potential. If there are sufficient articles on various state or national film offices then categorizing them as film offices (if they aren't already) is a good idea but these two cats just don't make sense. The government sites category is especially poor because AFAIK state film offices aren't only concerned with filming at "government sites". Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 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:Star Wars filming locations[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. Kbdank71 14:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Wars filming locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - having had some portion of a film, even one as popular as a Star Wars film, is not a defining characteristic of a location. If this scheme were fully implemented, imagine the category clutter on an article like Ealing Studios (currently included here) or any other film studio article. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Undefining and extreme overcategorization. As for imagining a full implementation of this scheme, Otto is spot-on; indeed, imagine the category clutter on an article like United Kingdom, in light of the fact that this category even includes Tunisia as a filming location. Information about filming locations belongs in the main article about Star Wars or in a List of Star Wars filming locations. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both the above. This simply is not a sound basis for categorization -- much better suited to a List, if anything. Cgingold (talk) 21:23, 14 February 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:European football (soccer) players[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:European football (soccer) players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a subcategory of Football (soccer) players by nationality, which implies that European is a nationality. This is obviously not the case. It doesn't clear out "Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality" either, because all the subcategories of "Category:European football (soccer) players" are also in "Football (soccer) players by nationality". This category doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Aecis·(away) talk 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this was created solely to place the European football players by nationality categories in the Football (soccer) in Europe category tree. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be that as it may, it is completely redundant with "Football (soccer) players by nationality" and serves no purpose. Even if it should exist, it is in the wrong category tree, since European is not a nationality, and I see no reasonable alternative tree to put this in. Aecis·(away) talk 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe remove Football (soccer) players by nationality as parent. The purpose is as BF says. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing "Football (soccer) players by nationality" is just about the worst option possible. The basic structure of such categories is "<occupation> by nationality". See for instance Writers by nationality and Architects by nationality. If "European football (soccer) players" should exist at all, it can only exist as a daughter category of "Football (soccer) players by nationality". Deleting the parent while keeping the daughter is absurd. Aecis·(away) talk 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The sole purpose of this category is to place the "[Nationality] footballers" categories into the "Football (soccer) in Europe" category tree; however, the "[Nationality] footballers" categories are already in the "Football (soccer) in Europe" via the "Football in [Country]" categories. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to CCategory:Football (soccer) players by nationality King of the North East 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This would be a legitmate parent category (and an appropriate subcategory of the suggested target) if the target was purged of all European countries and renamed "Football (soccer) players by continent". Sicne there are European, Asian, African, etc. competitions having such a category might be logical. However, I am not familar with the tree in question, so no vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would only endorse such a solution if it is implemented across the board, so if we split every "<Occupation> by nationality" category by continent first. I see no reason to treat football as an exception. Aecis·(away) talk 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite aside from anything else, there are pretty serious scoping issues involved in declaring a footballer to be "European". I'd rather hoped we were doing away with contrived nationalism in the football player categories. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear meaning; 1. we don't categorize on continent generally; 2. is this anyone who hails from Europe or who plays there or is of some Aryan white race? No use can come of this category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 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:Fictional Afghans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep Yet again today I find myself in the minority. It happens. Kbdank71 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Afghans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional Danes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional Finns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional Norwegians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional Scots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish comics characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Left over from CFD 2008 September 23. My reason for this nomination is the same as my reason for supporting deletion at the September '08 CFD:

Defining the nationality of a fictional character is often problematic and/or requires original research (see esp. the comments by jc37 and Hiding [at the September '08 CFD]). Moreover, these categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works. Lists are a viable alternative, but even they should be limited to significant intersections (e.g. "Russian supervillains in American comics" may be a distinct subject of academic or popular interest, but "Thai supervillains in Colombian comics" probably is not).

  • Delete all (or very, very weak listify) as nominator. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic, it is usually fairly straightforward. There may be problems in a few cases, but there can be problems with all attributes of fictional characters, and the nationality of some real people. "These categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works" is an objection to all categorisation of fictional characters. You could run into problems deciding which lists are notable or not. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to your assertion that "establishing the nationality of a fictional character is ... usually fairly straightforward", I would like to refer you to one of the examples offered by User:Hiding in the 23 September 2008 discussion. In most cases, nationality is attributed to fictional characters based on where they are known (in the fictional universe) to have been born and/or lived.
      With regard to your other point, my comment about categorization on the basis of an in-universe characteristic is not an objection to all categorization of fictional characters, but rather an objection to most categorization of ficitional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that is, more often than not, incidental to the identity of the character (e.g. if the setting of a fictional work is France, most of the characters will (by default) be French). These are, after all, not real people, and should not be treated as such for purposes of categorization.
      Finally, with regard to lists, could you please clarify your comment about "deciding which lists are notable"? If a particular intersection (e.g. Vanuatuan supervillains in Zambian comics) is not significant, it shouldn't exist as a list or a category. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all since these are not significant intersections. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - having looked at these again, I was wrong to say that they do not represent significant intersections. I had thought that a better solution was simply to categorise all of the articles as fictional characters and by nationality, but of course that would have resulted in fictional characters appearing along side real people in nationality categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters much as it is for real people. As I have said on many previous occasions, if the author has identified the nationality or ethnicity of a character, that's sufficient basis for categorization. As to the deletion of dozens of other similar categories in the Sept. 23, 2008 CFD -- that was a complete travesty. It was a massive listing of all manner of categories -- so many that the list had to be hidden from view. I skipped right past it, never even realizing what was at stake -- and I wasn't alone. Moreover, because of the confusing array of different sorts of categories that were included, it was very poorly argued in terms of the validity of this particular type of category for nationality. Most of the arguments pertained to the sorts of issues that arise with respect to characters in comic books, but were generalized as if they applied to all fictional characters. It's worth noting that the deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned at DRV shortly thereafter. For a much more focused and better argued discussion that is directly relevant to this CFD, I strongly advise one and all to read the adjoining CFDs from October 21 for Category:Fictional Americans by state and Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity, where there was a very clear concensus for keeping all such categories. Cgingold (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned so that it could be a parent category for the various subcats; the DRV did not overturn the CFD outcome.
      As for the assertion that "nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters", could you please explain how (presumed) American nationality is defining for any of the characters listed at List of Tru Calling characters, for instance (it's the first characters article I encountered via Special:Random)? American, Afghan, French, Italian, etc. nationality is almost always absolutely incidental to the identity of characters in a fictional universe that is set in the United States, Afghanistan, France, Italy, etc., respectively. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been puzzling over and seriously pondering our very divergent views on this issue, BF, in hopes of figuring out what accounts for it. And I think I may have the answer. It dawned on me that the crucial phrase about which everything in your argument revolves is "in-universe characteristic" -- whereas I am looking at a much larger picture, the entire Wiki universe of fictional characters, whose nationality or ethnicity is a significant distinction from characters of other nationalities or ethnicities. Insisting that this characteristic be considered only within the confines of the particular "in-universe" setting created by a given author is a rather arbitrary criterion that simply ignores the larger and more fundamental purpose of such categories -- namely, assisting readers in locating articles about characters whose author-creators have specified their nationality or ethnicity. Cgingold (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you've pinpointed the issue. The reason for my approach is this: a fictional universe is what its creator wishes it to be. If she wishes there to be a nationality called "Xyafjlsdhfsuidfbwehnsdian", then presto! It's there. If she wishes to change the nationality of a character, or does so accidentally, or just assigns a nationality because she happened to be drinking Spanish wine at that particular moment, then she can do that too. In light of this fact, I do not believe that we can make comparisons of labels of nationality across fictional universes without delving heavily into original research. And I don't even want to think about the problems inherent in attempting to compare fictional universes set in different timelines, dimensions, etc. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- ethnicity of a fictional character seems as notable as that of a real person. If the author does not make the person's ethnicity clear, or it is an insignificant characteristic, there is a simple solution: do not apply the category. I assume that the category should not normally be applied to British people in Britain, described in a fictional work by a British author. However, it might still be useful as a parent for fictional British estate agents, even if the novel is about Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since your argument is essentially the same as put forward by Cgingold, I would like to direct to refer you to the same comment and question that I posted in reply to Cgingold. Could you clarify how your argument applies to the examples given there? Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nationality and other group membership of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group. Certibly some of these (Scotsmen, for example) have been very significant fictional classes. My own view is that the original CfD is n error in the first place, and another DRV would be appropriate. The AfD represented a complete ignorance of how characters are used in fiction and the role of stereotypes and stock characters. The argument used then that it could not be told without OR is just plain wrong--the novels usually say in no uncertain terms, and so does the criticism. All major characters do have such criticism. If necessary we could redefine it as fictional americans (or whatever] in fiction set elsewhere-- I instance the novels of Henry James, where the American characters in Europe play a very special role. Even for those fictions set in a single country with characters from that country, they sometimes do, nd sometimes do not, serve as representatives of the national type--but here we would need to follow the critical literature, not just naive observation. These classes serve for browsing, but also as suggestive hints for student research. DGG (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - the rationale put forward for deletion in the previous CFR (and it was a nomination for renaming a few isolated categories, not wholesale deletion of the structure) was completely spurious. One argument was that editors are too stupid to figure out that "Fooian fictional characters" means characters of Fooian nationality rather than characters published in Foo, another was that a character whose physiognomy changed also changed citizenship and that would be confusing (a particularly dumb argument) and another was that figuring out the nationality of a character was an invitation to original research. None of these arguments should have been entertained in the previous CFR and none of them should be entertained now. Characters can certainly be categorized by nationality on the basis of the published material and if a character's nationality is not established by the published material then the character should not be added to the category or should be removed. That one editor or another may be confused by a character or two is no reason to delete the entire category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of all the arguments you counter in your comment, I really brought up only in this nomination: the issue of original research. In any case, my main rationale for nominating the categories is that: (1) nationality, even when it can be established, is generally not defining for characters (see e.g. List of Tru Calling characters); (2) the nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic; (3) the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic; and (4) nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes (this is where the OR argument comes into play). –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with all cateogries, only those entries that have sourced evidence in the articles should be included. Novels often do not unambigously state nationality, nut in those cases, the character should not be in the category. A reason for cleanup, not deletion.Yobmod (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support delete. I can't see that this will end delete, but I agree with the nom that this information shouldn't be presented in the category structure. There are better ways of doing this especially so that the assertion that there exist "significant fictional classes" can be better tested. I'm not going to rebut Otto since prior use of the categories demolishes his theories on how they are used, and sionce we just generally disagree and it's better to leave it there than waste people's attentiom spans diverting this debate off on tangents. The nub of the argument is this; that fictional characters can be categorised so many ways based on primary source material, but just because they can does not mean we should, and I don;t think we should because I think it bends too many of our policies and practises past breaking point. This wasn't really what categories were implemented for. All that said, like I say, there's never going to be consensus to delete these categories, but I would really appreciate it if we could at least draw up some guidance on when these fictional categories should get created. Hiding T 17:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed just now that I've posted a reply to most of those who commented in this discussion. My intent is not to pester anyone, and the only reason I've done so is that I'm afraid I did not adequately present my rationale for deletion in the initial nomination and am having to engage in subsequent clarification. I am posting this comment to try to tie in and bring to a close everything else I've written so far.
    At the risk of repeating myself, my reasons for deletion of the categories are as follows: (1) nationality, even when it can be definitively established, is not necessarily defining for characters (and, I would say, generally isn't; see e.g. List of Tru Calling characters); (2) the nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors; (3) the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic that lies at its creators' whim and desire/ability for consistency; and (4) nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes (this is where the OR argument comes into play).
    One comment that I'm seeing used repeatedly as a justification for keeping the categories is various forms of the argument that "nationality ... of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group" (quoted from DGG's comment). While that may be true (note: I still present the case of List of Tru Calling characters, which was the example I used initially), that does not explain why that is a good criterion for categorization. The topics of stereotypes and stock characters involve complex literary and cultural themes and a category cannot hope to shed light on them. An article can, and a list with notes and explanations can, but a list of links only (which is essentially what a category is) cannot.
    Ultimately, the issue at hand in this discussion is not whether the nationality of fictional characters should be mentioned in articles (it should), or whether portrayals of certain nationalities in fiction should be discussed (they should, if they constitute significant intersections; e.g. "portrayal of Germans in Russian fiction" versus "portrayal of Uzbeks in Malian fiction"), but whether categorization is the appropriate tool for accomplishing this goal. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - all. -MacRusgail (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if these had been nationality (e.g., citizenship or where they lived) based rather than ethnic categories, there may have been some merit in keeping them, but alas the race categorizers don't stop at pigeon-holing the living and the dead, they must categorize the never-beens, too. This is an OCAT way too far. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, these are nationality categories; sorry if I confused you by mentioning ethnicity. Cgingold (talk) 09:55, 18 February 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:Characters in written fiction by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Characters in written fiction by nationality to Category:Characters in written fiction
Category:Chinese characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction
Category:French characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction
Category:German characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction
Category:Italian characters in written fiction to Category:Characters in written fiction
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of CFD 2008 September 23. My reason for this nomination is the same as my reason for supporting deletion at the September '08 CFD:

Defining the nationality of a fictional character is often problematic and/or requires original research (see esp. the comments by jc37 and Hiding [at the September '08 CFD]). Moreover, these categories group fictional characters on the basis of an in-universe characteristic that ultimately lies at the whim of the character's creator, and the creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works. Lists are a viable alternative, but even they should be limited to significant intersections (e.g. "Russian supervillains in American comics" may be a distinct subject of academic or popular interest, but "Thai supervillains in Colombian comics" probably is not).

–Black Falcon (Talk) 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical note for the closer: Categories contained in the "[Nationality] characters in written fiction" (at present, there are only three) should probably be manually removed rather than upmerged. They are all already in the Characters in written fiction category tree via Category:Characters by novel. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - Rather than repeat myself, please see my comments in the adjoining CFD (above). Cgingold (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but they may need to be merged with Fictional Chinese people; Fictional Germans; etc - see next item above this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - the rationale put forward for deletion in the previous CFR (and it was a nomination for renaming a few isolated categories, not wholesale deletion of the structure) was completely spurious. One argument was that editors are too stupid to figure out that "Fooian fictional characters" means characters of Fooian nationality rather than characters published in Foo, another was that a character whose physiognomy changed also changed citizenship and that would be confusing (a particularly dumb argument) and another was that figuring out the nationality of a character was an invitation to original research. None of these arguments should have been entertained in the previous CFR and none of them should be entertained now. Characters can certainly be categorized by nationality on the basis of the published material and if a character's nationality is not established by the published material then the character should not be added to the category or should be removed. That one editor or another may be confused by a character or two is no reason to delete the entire category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for my reasons in the accompanying CfD, and for the excellent arguments by Otto, just above, which fully cover all the points. DGG (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Rather than repeat myself, please see my comments in the adjoining CFD (above). Hiding T 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because contrary to the race/ethnic category in the adjoining CFD (above), these are nationality-based. As such, the categorization seems to make sense: an Italian character in written fiction like Romeo or Juliet is clearly doable rather than someone trying to add various people from the Godfather to the mix. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 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:Musical radio programs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Musical: of music. No? Ok, a rename would put this in line with the subcats. Kbdank71 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Musical radio programs to Category:Music radio programs
Nominator's rationale: User:Softlavender came to me with this rename. Per Softlavender the a rename looks good for "grammar, syntax, meaning, and to match its subcategories" but then I had a look at the article "The Beatles" and I see Category:1990s music groups conflicting with Category:English musical groups so I don't what the correct form is. It would also be interesting to see if there are many other conflicting category names for music/musical out there.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to other uses/misuses of the word "Musical" in categories, but when I read or hear the word "Musical," it implies to me stage or film musical; or secondarily a contraption that plays music — a music box. I really had a hard time getting my head around what "Musical radio programs" meant, because it implies something like show tunes. Not to mention, as noted, it conflicts with its subcategories, all of which use the phrase "music radio programs." Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 14 February 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:Dominican Flags templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dominican Flags templates to Category:Dominican Republic flag templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Dominican" is ambiguous in the context of flags, as it could mean "of Dominican Republic" or "of Dominica". As a template category, I'm unsure if this should be "flags templates" or "flag templates". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As for the other category, which I noticed is also tagged, I think "flag templates" is the correct form. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Someone created the target category since the time of nomination. I deleted it pending the outcome since it was under consideration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 15 February 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:GUBU[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: merge. Kbdank71 14:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:GUBU to Category:Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a silly category, really, and for all intents and purposes it is essentially a duplicate category; it's also a bit of a neologism. GUBU stands for "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented." It was an acronym invented by Conor Cruise O'Brien. The article GUBU says "both it and the phrase are still occasionally used in Irish political discourse to describe notorious scandals". So why not just use Category:Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland, the parent category? If kept, we would have to expand the abbreviation to Category:Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented, which of course would leave us with a very POV-titled category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To state the obvious, this category is GUBU. And if we were to expand the initialism, the name itself clearly would be Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. I think that about says it... Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 14 February 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:House of Moytoy[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. Kbdank71 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:House of Moytoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category corresponds to deleted article "House of Moytoy." That article (and snippets elsewhere) claimed that before the Cherokee indians developed their representative government in the early 19th century, they were governed by a royal family called the Moytoys, and that this family was partly descended from a Scottish family named Carpenter, one of whom went off to live in a cave.
Both I and User:Natty4bumpo (who has access to more material) have investigated this. We have found no historian or contemporary source to back up any of it. Indeed, historians have written a great deal about the fragmentation and rivalries among the various Cherokee towns and regions prior to 1794. The only promoters of the "House of Moytoy" appear to be amateur genealogists who are in a hurry to connect their family tree either to Indians or to some kind of nobility. More detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Moytoy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moytoy I. WillOakland (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. After reading through the AFD and other material I have to agree: this category doesn't have a leg to stand on. And I couldn't help wondering if this strange effort has been well enough documented to characterize it as a hoax, which could potentially merit an article in its own right. Obviously not on a par with the Little Tree fabrication, but if it has received media attention perhaps an article would make sense, especially as it would help dispel future efforts to perpetuate the bogus story here on Wiki. Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article about the broader subject of Indian pretenders is a possibility, but I don't think this is. WillOakland (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If there are no sources to write a decent stub for an article on this, we shouldn't have a cat either.Yobmod (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, it turns out there is one kind-of supporting source: Traveller Bird's 1971 book Tell Them They Lie. But it is at odds with nearly all scholarship, as historians have noted. WillOakland (talk) 23:11, 16 February 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:Ohr Somayach[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep Settle down, kids. It's just a category. Kbdank71 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ohr Somayach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcat. The supposed "network" the cat covers is only three institutions and two individuals, and the institution articles are probably short enough to be combined into a much better article. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smallish institutions like this just don't warrant categories of their own. I'm not even sure there's enough material to justify a navbox template, but I won't exclude the possibility. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment makes no sense because Judaism is a smallish religion with only a smallish amount of people (about 13 million) so should all Jewish and Judaic topics be expunged because they are connected to "smallish-hood"? IZAK (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh puhlease, IZAK. That has got to be one of the most patently ridiculous comments I've seen around these parts -- especially coming from somebody who has regularly supported the deletion of Jewish occupational categories. (Can you spell c-h-u-t-z-p-a-h?) You know perfectly well that I, of all people, have no such agenda. Moreover, I have used exactly the same argument with regard to any number of smallish categories, so there's nothing in the least unusual about this one. And, as always, I'm more than willing to reconsider my opinion in the light of new factual considerations -- which is precisely why I made a point of notifying you, as the creator, about this CFD. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to help me out with Yiddish and/or Hebrew translations of "No good deed goes unpunished"?? Cgingold (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Cgingold: You are only proving my position that I have no compunction in asking that truly non-notable insignificant articles and categories must go, but this is most definitely not the case here. This is a major institition in the world of Orthodox Jewish outreach, the first and still foremost leading Baal teshuva yeshiva (outside of Lubavitch) that has grown into a worldwide network of schools and programs with many teachers and a vast growing literature. And you can't squeeze all it's stuff into one article! To cut this category out when it is growing would be to remove the key pillar from Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach. Thank you for notifying me of this CfD I do appreciate it very much, but really that should have been the job of the nominator. IZAK (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a yeshiva, i.e. a college: see my comments in next discussion below this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ohr Somayach is a world-renowned baal teshuva institution with branches in several other countries. It has also spawned other learning programs. The lack of entries is simply a matter of improving the Ohr Somayach article, not a lack of institutions. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because (a) this category is an important and key sub-category of Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach. (b) The Ohr Somayach page is itself a disambiguation page that splits up into four articles at this time and this category takes the matter a lot further by connecting to rabbis and other institutions in the parent category. (c) The name "Ohr Somayach" is NOT about ONE tightly-knit institution and it would make no sense to push all the information into one article. "Ohr Somayach" has become a network of a conglomorate of very loosely affiliated Baal teshuva yeshivas (for returness to Orthodox Judaism, Kiruv (Orthodox outreach rabbis), and a variety of Jewish educational programs with names such as "JLE" ("Jewish Learning Experience") that still maintain a loose affiliation with each other. (d) Similarly there is a category for a similar institution like Category:Aish HaTorah which is on an equal footing with Category:Ohr Somayach and the larger Category:Chabad outreach that are part of the broader Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach -- so that to pull any one of these out would be like taking the front tooth out the front of an important and notable person's face for no good reason other than the nominator's ignoring Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. (e) The nominator is incorrect because there are more than three Ohr Somayachs in the world that have not been included yet such as Ohr Somayach, Montreal; Ohr Somayach, London, also known as JLE; Ohr Somayach in the USA (New York, Detroit, Miami and others in Australia and Ukraine, that have not had articles written about their activities. (f) In addition, there are/have been many famous rabbis at Ohr Somayach and it is premature to delete that Category:Rabbis of Ohr Somayach that has now been populated. The nominator is requested to withdraw this ill-advised nomination. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to identify yourself as the cat creator, and also note that this "ill-advised nomination" involves a cat that was created in 2007, and as was noted by another editor, it was a small cat, despite much more than a year being allowed for its population. your vehemence is quite misplaced. MSJapan (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to look up who created any article or category, I don't have to give advice on that. I have been on Wikipedia for over six years so this is a relativeley recent time in my terms. I am not being "vehement" I am being firm, you are perhaps mistaking a deeper knowledge of the subject with "vehemence" which is not the same thing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, veh. If "so should all Jewish and Judaic topics be expunged" doesn't qualify as "vehemence", the word must have been redefined since I last looked! LOL Cgingold (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold: Please stop quibling with me and rather focus on discussing the merits or demerits and reasons or lack of reasons of the CfD itself. Thank you kindly. IZAK (talk) 11:23, 17 February 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:Rabbis of Ohr Somayach[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rabbis of Ohr Somayach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcvatting. Only one article in the subcat. There is no way the institution itself is old enough to have enough rabbis to merit a cat. MSJapan (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is certainly taking things too far. With the possible exception of some Vatican sub-cats (which is in a class by itself), this is the only category I'm aware of for clergy by institution. Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Ohr Somayach is a yeshiva, which I understand to be a Jewish theological college, training rabbis (i.e. Jewish clergy). As such it is offering a degree-equivalent qualification. We have numerous categories of the Faculty of X University. This category is apparently an equivalent one. The article cited claims that it is one of the most important non-Hasidic ones. In principle this should be a clear keep. The problem is that the category has a population of one, who for the moment would be better in the parent. Accordingly Delete unless better populated during CFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. The category has now been adequately populated for now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a nearly 40-year-old educational institution, Ohr Somayach does have enough rabbis to merit a category. Unfortunately, no articles have yet been written about them. I agree with Peterkingiron's assessment to merge what we have into the parent category. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This defies the fact that there are at least ten famous rabbis with individual articles now who have or are serving on its various faculties, such as Rabbis Nachman Bulman, Berel Wein, Aharon Feldman, Akiva Tatz and many others. I am mystified as to how anyone could create "one article" about a diverse faculty many of whom have held a number of roles in the Haredi and Orthodox world. IZAK (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to change my vote to Keep, now that the category has been adequately populated. Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may want to strike through your delete vote above for clarity. --MPerel 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category because (a) it is an important sub-category of Category:Ohr Somayach in turn an important sub-category of Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach. (b) It is just as valid and important as Category:Rabbis of Aish HaTorah. (c) I've now populated it with at least 13 more notable rabbis articles and there are more to follow. (d) Some extremely notable Orthodox rabbis have served on Ohr Somayach's faculty such as Rabbis Nachman Bulman, Berel Wein, Aharon Feldman, Akiva Tatz and many others. (e) This is an ill-advised and hasty nomination. The category was only started on 11 February 2009! The nominator is failing to note Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built IZAK (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • NOTE see related CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14#Category:Ohr Somayach. IZAK (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. There seems to be a misconception here that we are dealing with a few old people sitting around being holy. Ohr Somayach is an institute of higher education, Judaism-related education of course, and belongs in the Category:Academics by university scheme like any other notable institution of higher learning. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yoninah. -- Avi (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per population fixage. --yonkeltron (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. --MPerel 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I think inclusion logic should be noted on the talk page of the template. Some of the rabbis listed would not be considered "OS Rabbis." Yossiea (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important institution with important staff members. Dovi (talk) 14:15, 20 February 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:WikiProject Films categories[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. Kbdank71 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Films categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only contains film stub categories, and as such is redundant to Category:Film stubs. WP:FILM already has Category:Film category pages which is populated by the project banner; this extra layer of categorisation is unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do WikiProject Film feel about this? It might have been able to go through without the debate. Just a thought. Hiding T 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dunno, I haven't asked the rest of the project. Can't see it being an issue, but what speedy criteria would it fall under? PC78 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the WikiProject wants to delete one of its own Wikipedia space categories, as it were, this can usually be done under WP:IAR as long as it is uncontentious and all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. You used to be able to use a csd called housekeeping, but that appears to be named technical deletion now. You could probably do it under that and IAR. Basically all the WikiProject is doing is moving this category to Category:Film stubs, so if the WikiProject itself agrees unanimously, it's uncontentious and would likely get away under non-controversial maintenance. You could also make a case for doing it under user request. Basically, what it amounts to is common sense. You;re unlikely to have anyone outside of the WikiProject disagree with teh deletion of such a category, so if it's uncontentious within the WikiProject, it'll likely be uncontentious in the wider community, and so you can get away with it, unless you can't. Wikipedia is a complicated place, but it is luckily built on a premise that everyone is trying to help and that no-one will get in really big trouble if they happen to cock up, and if anyone does shout at you for cocking up, they're wrong for doing so and should know better. It's WP:IAR, WP:AGF and WP:DICK. You are allowed to do anything as long as you think about it, ask advice, answer questions, act sensibly, fix it if it's decided you called it wrong and learn from your mistakes. It's a lot like life. Hiding T 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm... well, I'll post a link to this discussion at WT:FILM, then if anyone is bothered they can comment here. My past experience has shown that trying to speedy stuff like this can be more trouble than it's worth. Letting an unopposed CfD run it's course can sometimes be the path of least resistance. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - whatever PC78 thinks is necessary on this category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 16 February 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:Riot control weapons[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: no consensus The idea for the merge is sound; when you control a riot, your goal isn't to kill people. Hence, you use less-lethal weapons. However, as pointed out, these are not completely overlapping. For example, while you could use the less-lethal cattle prod to control a riot, you probably wouldn't. Kbdank71 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Riot control weapons to Category:Less-lethal weapons
Nominator's rationale: Almost complete conceptual crossover, and "Less-lethal weapons" is the slightly broader category covering everything in the smaller cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be kind enough to clarify what you mean by "Almost complete conceptual crossover"? (just in case it still eludes me after I get some sleep... ) Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Less-lethal" is fairly ridiculous. Whatever else happens, that name needs to be looked at. Otto4711 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Less-lethal" is actually the term used in military and law-enforcement circles. I got 4,960,000 g-hits for the term. It sounds a little odd if you're not used to hearing it at work, but it is indeed the current term for weapons made to stop someone without killing them. 20 years ago it was "non-lethal," but some lawyers decided that was misleading since someone can still get killed with rubber bullets. So they changed it to "less", to imply that you still need to be careful with less-lethal munitions and can't just fire them willy-nilly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Less-lethal weapons is a less ambiguous name and the common term ("non-lethal" is perhaps more common, but it's less accurate). Riot control weapons, on the other hand, has two possible meanings: (1) weapons designed specifically for riot control; or (2) weapons used in riot control. In the first case (this is how it's currently being used), there is "almost complete conceptual crossover" between the two categories, as MatthewVanitas notes. In the second case, it would virtually duplicate Category:Weapons, since any weapon could potentially be used to control or quell a riot. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning is weapons characteristically used to control a riot. True, this can go up to a substantial degree of lethality, including tanks in some well known cases, but it does not include fighter planes, battleships, and heavy artillery. I think its a meaningful non fully overlapping category. DGG (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose riot control weapons are not necessarily non-lethal, and although there is an overlap, many non-lethal weapons are *not* useful for riot control. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you perhaps offer an example of a riot control weapon (i.e. one designed specifically for riot control) that is not less-lethal? Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Less-lethal" seems to be a euphism pushed by users of these weapons which probably doesn't bear up to scrutiny (and less lethal than what? Bullhorns used to shout "Go home!"?) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Reading the category contents, one can clearly see that 'riot control weapons' are a subset (thus a sub-category) of less-leathal weapons. Less-leath weapons include weapons used one-on-one by police--which are relatively useless when dealing with a riot--a mass of people in the streets or other places. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 18 February 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:United States victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. My own opinion is that American != only from the US, but alas, the masses have spoken. Kbdank71 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes to Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes
Nominator's rationale: Rename - "American" is the correct demonym. Not sure if this is speediable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is eligible for speedy renaming. Criterion #5 specifically excludes this type of change, and I don't think it's specific enough for criterion #4. In any case, rename per nom. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the category is intended to include Canadians, Mexicans, and Brazilians. WP always uses the demonym "United States" because of this ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 21:23, February 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. Apart from the Peter's perplexing statement that we use "United States" as a demonym for categories, this seems like a relatively straightforward discussion that would bring this category into conformity will all others in Category:American people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --MPerel 15:52, 19 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_14&oldid=1138392144"