Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Category:Lead-off singles[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: administrative close. This looks like it was misplaced on this page rather than the March 31 page, but no matter—the category was deleted by another admin as being a deletion requested by the creator/sole editor. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating one of my own categories for deletion. Category:Lead-off singles. The reason why is because like Category:Title tracks released as singles, this one may have a similiar problem, and it took me just now to realize that. There'll be too many lead-off singles, and too much work, right? So I figured that this category probably wasn't one of my best ideas either. There were plenty (too many) of singles that were the first singles released from their album of origins. Might as well delete it. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:19, 31 March 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:Black Nova Scotians[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.--Aervanath (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black Nova Scotians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - re-creation of previously deleted category. The same reasons for the previous deletion still apply. Speedy declined because of the number of articles included; however, since the category was not previously deleted per WP:OC#SMALL the number of articles in it should not have been relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – or rename (to 'Nova Scotians of African descent' or similar). It was discussed twice (post-recreation) in 2008 according to its talk page. There is also a subcat. Given that there is an article Black Nova Scotians it seems to me that the original deletion was ill-considered. Occuli (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason it was deleted last time, and now for the additional reason of it being an unnecessary race/ethnicity + province combination; is this an attempt to divide all of Canada or just pull Nova Scotia out for special treatment? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Occuli Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is already a rather clear parent article with the same name that establishes the notability and definingness of the characteristic. The significant number of articles shows that WP:OC#SMALL is indeed irrelevant. I look forward to further expansion and growth of this and other similar categories. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a potential parent article doesn't mean there should be a category, otherwise every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their significant presence is an interesting and important part of history. DGG (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interesting" isn't even the standard for an article, much less a category. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many people don't even know there are black people in Canada, let alone Nova Scotia. The vast majority of Black Nova Scotians have African American ancestry, which makes their culture a very unique part of Canadian history. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) striking out changed !vote per below. Otto4711 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete/upmerge to Category:Black Canadians. Yes, I am Canadian. (Well, kind of. Hardly pure.) Yes, I know that the presence of black people in Nova Scotia is "interesting" historically. Yes, I know there are many black people in Canada. Yes, I know there are a considerable number of black people in Nova Scotia, even moreso than most other provinces in Canada. No, I don't think the intersection of race and province of residence in Canada is defining. Category:Black Canadians more than suffices, especially since being "Nova Scotian" is nothing like nationality—Canadians are free to move from province to province at any time during their lives. So this is essentially Category:Black Canadians who lived in Nova Scotia. No, I don't think the category should be used for black people born in Nova Scotia, because place of birth is not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree. At the end of the day, Black Nova Scotians are Black Canadians, and the same goes with Black Ontarians, Black Albertans, etc. Blackjays1 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 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:People currently in space[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--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People currently in space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Follow-up to the recent renaming of Category:Current spaceflights to Category:Spaceflights. This is a subcategory of it. The main problem is that this is a "current" category, making it time sensitive, which is generally avoided in categories. (I'm not sure if it's quite right to include Category:Space burials as a subcategory—are these really "people" when they are dead and cremated into ash?) This was discussed as no consensus back in 2006 and the template that can apply the category was also recently discussed without resolution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the remains were formerly people, also generally avoided in categories. I'm sure there's a rename ... Cgingold will come up with something. Occuli (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a current category; if kept, do the burials in space people belong? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, I do think that subcategory should probably be removed. Legally, at least in most countries, a dead person's remains do not constitute a "person". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At Wikipedia the dead are still people. Leonid Brezhnev, who is quite dead, is in Category:People buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis - so the location of your body is still a "people" category when it is based on the body's location; if we had a category Category:People currently in Moscow this would be a valid subcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, yes I suppose that is true, though I would still question whether a dead person should be in a "people currently" category—main because they aren't even "currently" "a person", let alone a person who is currently somewhere in particular. This is really just yet another reason these categories are problematic, I suppose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite vague claims about what we generally avoid in categories, it turns out this category is useful to our readers (and to editors trying to serve those readers). Our shared purpose as editors is to make Wikipedia useful. So please, keep this useful category, even if its existence doesn't fit into some particular idea of which categories "ought" to exist. (sdsds - talk) 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If my comments were to "vague" for you I'm willing to make them more clear. Let me know where it gets too cloudy. I don't think being thought of as "useful" by someone is a helpful standard, though, since anyone else can just as easily claim that it's "useless". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Sdsds confirmed on my talk page that clarification would be welcome. The user specifically asked for "specific policies" that would support deletion. Well, WP:OCAT is the general guideline, and there is a long history of discussions results that have decided that categories that categorize people or things by their "current" status is a form of overcategorization. There is not a specific black-letter "policy" that determines the details of every result in WP. But it can be helpful to use a legal analogy, and think of "WP policies" as "legislation" and "discussion decisions" as "case law". Both are important and govern how WP works. I'm simply nominating this category because it fits nicely within the general type of "current" categories that have been previously deemed problematic. There is no "jihad" on space, as has been suggested elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I didn't note the CFD to rename Category:Current spaceflights, and wish I had. That seems to me to have been a very bad idea. Let's not use that as a basis for this deletion. The issue of space burial is a bit of a canard. If that's an issue, let's deal with that, rather than tossing the category. TJRC (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basis for deletion is that it is a "current" category, not that the space burials is included. The space burials comment was parenthetical, which is why it was in parentheses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: If your objection is to the word "currently", then rename it to Category:People in space. But would that kind of change really be helpful, or merely pedantic? (sdsds - talk) 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the concept of a "current" category, not the word itself. (See my comments above.) Unless people are permanently in space, this category is not unlike other "current" categories that have been deleted, regardless of what it's called. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory, what is your basis that "current" is objectionable? TJRC (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above, underneath User:Sdsds's first comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why isn't the entire Category:Current events hierarchy up for deletion? The rationale given for deletion / rename of current spaceflights fits for every single one of the other categories. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Sdsds posted this at my talk page, and I thought it was relevant: "there hasn't been any difficulty in maintaining the category in question -- quite the contrary! There seem to be dozens of editors vying for the priviledge of updating astronaut bio pages with the template within moments of launch!" This fact makes me less inclined to think deletion is necessarily the correct solution—there does seem to be enthusiasm for this category in particular, as opposed to other "current" categories. I'd also like to hear what others think, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We've shied away from "current vs. former" categories partly because there is no way to indicate an "as of date" on category tags. While this category may be closely watched and well-maintained, there are potentially thousands of categories where this is not the case. And since the navigational purpose of a category is to group X with like X, I would think one category should be sufficient for both current and former. This is particularly the case for multi-faceted articles that can be tagged in dozens of indisputably unique categorization schemes.-choster (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as hidden category - valid temporal category, perhaps it should be hidden, but other than that it is fine. I would also like to note that the precedent cited in the nomination was closed without consensus, and I will be taking the issue to DRV. I think a broader discussion on temporal categories is needed rather than picking off individuals. --GW… 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an aid to navigation and ease of access for the reader should be a goal for any reference work. This category is closely watched and well-maintained and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cuts both ways—the concern that "potentially thousands of categories" could be created is no better a reason to delete this than it would be to keep if it was one of thousands of similar categories. - Dravecky (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you read the discussions, it almost appears as if the reason for the category is the template and the template exists to put someone one in the category. A common conclusion of these discussion is no consensus. What I'll suggest is that we replace {{tl:in space}} with {{tl:People currently in space}} with a navbox that goes in the bottom of the persons article like a normal nav box if would group the inhabitants into arrival groups and maybe even list their vehicle and so on. In other words, something useful. Maybe I'll add a template here as a sample. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, I have added a sample template. Notice that you can add by flight or destination. This is important as other countries have and will put people in space. Also there is a difference between people on long duration stays, short duration stays, on the moon, on Mars, going to or returning from Mars and the moon. The current category and template fail to adequately convey that important information. The example is not accurate, but it shows how it could be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This would be fine if we could be sure that some one would maintain it daily. However WP is supposed to be a permanent encyclopedia. Accoridngly, failure to maintain will mean the category becomes obsolete. In view of the limited amount of space travel, it might be possible to categorise "People travelling in space in 2009" (and similar annual categories for other years, but all "current" categories are fraught with the problem of obsolescence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian's template works fine, and eliminates the problem of "currently". --Kbdank71 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing! Does the same logic imply we should delete all categories and replace them with navboxes? (sdsds - talk) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would give a "qualified yes"—yes, but not quite as broadly as you're saying. It would only apply to categories that (1) are "current" or time-dependent categories; and (2) can't be merged into some "timeless" category (there is no Category:People who have been in space to merge with here). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One interesting side effect of a template is that you can go back in history and look at the template at a previous point in time. That gives you the people who were in space at that time. Not something you can do with a category! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right there is an excellent reason to use the template. You can't get history of what was in a category. --Kbdank71 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This category also will have some potential issues in the future. When someone is on the Moon, are they in space? Or are they simply off Earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Kbdank71. John Sloan (view / chat) 22:38, 7 April 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.

Australian rules footballers follow-ups[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/merge per nom. Kbdank71 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all these proposals re 'XXX players of Australian rules football'. Occuli (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all these proposals per Occuli, Good Olfactory, and common sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In category context, "Croatian" means nationality, not ethnicity - therefore "Australian" is correct. GregorB (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all proposals. These are all Australian players of Australian rules football. Any further categorisation is spurious and misleading. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these. I'd like to see all Fooian ones deleted except for the Irish and Indidgenous cats. The rest, including Australian one are the textbook definition of Categorisation by Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Very few, if any of the Fooian nationality or ethnicities use their background as a defining characteristic. Only the Irish and Indigenous ones, due to their numbers and their representative teams require categorisation in addition to their team/club cats.The-Pope (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Filipino players of Australian rules football[edit]
Category:Filipino players of Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's nothing in the article of the one person in this category that suggests he is of Filipino nationality. He may be of Filipino ethnicity but these are "by-nationality" categories. He was born in Australia and is also in Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football and Category:Australian players of Australian rules football so there is no need to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Croatian players of Australian rules football[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Croatian players of Australian rules football to Category:Australian players of Australian rules football
Nominator's rationale: Merge. None of those included in this category appear to be of Croatian nationality. They are Australians of Croatian descent, so regardless of ethnic background they properly belong in the Australian-by-nationality category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian players of Australian rules football[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Indian players of Australian rules football to Category:Australian players of Australian rules football
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The one person in the category appears to be an Australian nationality of Indian descent. This is a "by-nationality" category, not a "by-ethnicity" one, so he properly belongs in the category for Australian nationals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian players of Australian rules football[edit]
Category:Italian players of Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The one person in the category is an Australian nationality of Italian descent. This is a "by-nationality" category, not a "by-ethnicity" one, so he properly belongs in the category for Australian nationals. The article is already in Category:Australian players of Australian rules football so there is no need to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tuvaluan players of Australian rules football[edit]
Category:Tuvaluan players of Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The one person in the category is an Australian nationality of Tuvaluan descent. This is a "by-nationality" category, not a "by-ethnicity" one, so he properly belongs in the category for Australian nationals. The article is already in Category:Australian players of Australian rules football so there is no need to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 30 March 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:Monroe family[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. Kbdank71 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monroe family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another presidential family, again not necessary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles are sufficiently interlinked so as to make the category unnecessary for this small amount of material. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason given why the category harms the encyclopedia. A reasonable place for people to look. DGG (talk) 22:34, 31 March 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:Fillmore family[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. Kbdank71 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fillmore family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another presidential family that has as many articles about real estate as about family members. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles are sufficiently interlinked so as to make the category unnecessary for this small amount of material. Otto4711 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason given why the category harms the encyclopedia. as for precedent given , that was wrong also, and we should reverse it. A reasonable place for people to look. DGG (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to maintain the overall integrity and usefulness of Category:Political families of the United States. --Wassermann (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is also Category:First Families of the United States. Removing parts of this is obviously a barrier to those navigating via this parent category (and per WP:USEFUL which explicitly supports such categories). Occuli (talk) 01:32, 5 April 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:Taylor family[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. Kbdank71 12:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Taylor family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yes, Zachary Taylor was president, but no, we don't usually have family categories for them (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_9#Category:Van_Buren_family). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles are sufficiently interlinked so as to make the category unnecessary for the material. An article explaining the family history and inter-relationships would be nice, but not required for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason given why the category harms the encyclopedia. as for precedent given , that was wrong also, and we should reverse it. A reasonable place for people to look. DGG (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to maintain the overall integrity and usefulness of Category:Political families of the United States. --Wassermann (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful is already clearly not a reason for keeping; can you offer some indication that "integrity" is a reason for keeping and how retaining unnecessary categories contributes to "integrity"? Otto4711 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have no position on the retention of this category, but I think you are misreading WP:USEFUL. It's quite clearly a reason for keeping categories. "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion." Far from not being a reason for keeping a category, usefulness is the entire reason for the existence of a category. TJRC (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That some categories might be in general useful does not mean that all categories are or that all categories should be kept as such. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I have no position on the retention of this category. I'm just pointing out that your claim that WP:USEFUL supports your position is 180-degrees wrong, and should be completely disregarded in assessing this CfD. TJRC (talk) 00:45, 5 April 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:Red Hot AIDS Benefit Series[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 as suggested. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Red Hot AIDS Benefit Series to Category:to be determined
Nominator's rationale: Rename - lead article is at Red Hot Organization so I suppose Category:Red Hot Organization albums is a likely choice but for whatever reason that just seems odd to me. No idea why. If no consensus is reached on a rename it at least needs to have its capitalization fixed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 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:Albums by Pebbles[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums by Pebbles to Category:Pebbles (singer) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per naming pattern of Category:Albums by artist and to match lead article Pebbles (singer). Preumably named this to avoid confusion with albums in Pebbles (series); note I have put that category up for renaming below. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 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:Pebbles albums[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pebbles albums to Category:Pebbles (series) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename - ambiguous name, especially in light of the existence of Pebbles (singer) who has some album articles. Otto4711 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 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:New Age female spiritual leaders[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:New Age female spiritual leaders to Category:New Age spiritual leaders
Nominator's rationale: Merge - given that two of the three articles in the parent category, meaning that all but one of the articles in the category structure, are for women, this seems an unnecessary division. If there is a female spiritual leaders category, no objection to merging this there as well but the intersection of female, New Age and spiritual leader isn't needed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 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:A Course in Miracles[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) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A Course in Miracles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, unlikely to expand. I created a navtemplate for all articles, which seems the better way to go. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 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:Marcus Roberts[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) 04:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marcus Roberts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category not needed to hold the single subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 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:Rolf Harris[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) 04:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rolf Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the material. Navtemplate links this and other related material. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 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:The Apprentice US contestants[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 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Apprentice US contestants to Category:The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) contestants
Nominator's rationale: To match naming of parent article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:08, 30 March 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:Lists of West Wing characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Lists of West Wing characters to Category:Both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with no likelihood of expansion. If kept, rename to Category:Lists of The West Wing characters per the proper title of the series. Otto4711 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as indicated, but keep.22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UpMerge to both parents, per nom. If no consensus to merge, rename per nom. - jc37 08:18, 5 April 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 swordsmen[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 12:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional swordsmen to Category:Fictional sword fighters
Nominator's rationale: Rename - needlessly gender-specific, as women characters certainly can and do fight with swords. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - In addition to the gender issue, we musn't forget Reepicheep and others of his kind! (sdsds - talk) 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have a fairly long precedent to not categorise characters by any object they may be wearing/carrying. The only saving grace that this cat could have is if we treat sword-fighting as a martial art, and only categorise those practitioners of that art. But I despair this actually being non-subjectively defined for each member. "But I saw him fight with a sword on TV, so he must be using a martial art"... This category has the potential of including every single character from any historical film, especially from the middle ages, the roman empire, and before. Probably not unique or "defining" enough for a stand-alone category. (Perhaps this would be better as a list so that such definition could be referenced for each character...) - jc37 08:24, 5 April 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:MythBusters[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) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:MythBusters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category not needed for the small amount of material. Navtemplate links all material on seasons and cast members. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 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 arsonists[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--Aervanath (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional arsonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I assume that fictional <name here> categorys are not generally used. Since the ficional terrorist category was deleted with a rationale to that effect. Also, this category is quite lite on articles. John Sloan (view / chat) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fictional categories had been a major battleground in the past few months, though they have been quite lately. The "terrorist" label is what the problem was the recent CfD, and 31 articles in this category is hardly light. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problematic - the problem with this category is that a single instance of setting a fire seems enough to tag the character as a "fictional arsonist" even if the character has a multi-decade or multi-appearance history. Especially with comics and soap opera characters, this is going to lead to any number of such categories. Is this concern sufficient to eighty-six the category? I don't know, but I tend to lean toward deletion because of it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only need to kill one person to be a murderer, even if you refrain over the rest of your life (or story arc). Why not use descriptions in reliable sources as a basis? Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see a difference between murder and arson based on degree, and the same concerns I have over this category apply to other fictional criminal categories to a greater or lesser degree. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you object to the use of characterizations in reliable and verifiable sources to establish inclusion? Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I object to categories being used to capture non-defining characteristics. Regardless of whether someone can point to a reliable source that says a particular fictional character started a fire in one soap opera episode out of two decades worth of appearances, the question is whether that is a sufficiently defining characteristic to warrant categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These are fictional people, folks; they do what their writers make them do. If they are written to start fires but aren't prosecuted for "arson" do they belong? Nope, unless the author characterizes them as arsonists. But that is pure subjectivity; we have no objective jury to convict someone here, only the creator of the character, which is a classification by first person characterization which is basically useless and subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are any, and their arson is of more than background importance in the plot, there should be a category for them. Whether an individual belongs is to be determined on the talk p. of the article. Setting a fire is dramatic enough that if it occurs at all,it very often does have significance in characterizing the individual. We do not, or at least should not, be deleting categories because of disputes about individual item in it. There is hardly a category in Wikipedia that doesnt have such disputes. An article or a category being a battleground is not reason to eliminate it--on the contrary, it shows interest in it. DGG (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My opinion was leaning towards "keep" on this until I actually looked at what articles were included. Jack Sparrow and Erik (The Phantom of the Opera)? A defining characteristic for these characters?? Very strange. There are a slug of soap opera and comics characters in here, and I don't really know anything about these characters but as I read some of these articles for them the arson incidents do not seem to be defining for them. The only ones that seem to be defined by being an arsonist are the inmates in Oz who are in jail for arson. Definitely purge the category if kept to include only those who are somewhere discussed in sources as being "arsonists", but what would be left seems like a pretty thin wedge to balance a category on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Good Ol’factory, et al, above. (As a semi-humourous aside, I'm wondering if those Americans who burned their draft cards in fiction set during the Vietnam era, or those women who burned their undergarments in fiction set during the Women's Liberation Movement, would be dubbed arsonists? : ) - jc37 08:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do not understand the antipathy to categorising fictional people by occupation. Since we are dealing with fictional characters, the issue of proof does not arise: the novelist is imnipotent and omniscient for the characters created. For real people, we require conviction (or other proof) becaue the person could sue WP for libel. Those who burnt their own brassieres would not be guilty of arson, because it is (generally) no crime to destry your own property. If they destroy a lingery shop it would be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's an issue of general antipathy to these categories; more often it's an issue of whether the "occupation" is defining for the characters included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GO. Jack sparrow an arsonist? That's not only not a defining characteristic for him, it's not even a characteristic, period. What's next, characterizing smokers as arsonists as well? Hell, they light many fires a day for years! If this is the type of garbage that makes its way into the fictional categories, we really need to get rid of them all and use lists where we need to. --Kbdank71 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kbdank. 84.92.54.229 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 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:The World at War[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The World at War to Category:The World at War episodes
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to reflect the contents of the category which other than the series article is all episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renamed title better reflects contents of category. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject because a fair number of articles relate to people who were involved in the making of the series. Kransky (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles relating to people involved in making the series are not properly categorized in a category for the series, per WP:OC#PERF. Otto4711 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 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:Title tracks released as singles[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) 04:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Title tracks released as singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is huge and unilluminating – title tracks are often released as singles, so what? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a problem? Obviously, it seemed like a good idea when it was populated. Better than Category:Songs that failed to chart, isn't it? (Ryanbstevens (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Artists usually name one of the best songs on an album as the title track. And artists usually release the best songs on an album as singles. So it's hardly surprising or notable that title tracks get released as singles, and thus not worth making a category out of. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – it is much better than both 'Category:Songs that failed to chart' and the related 'Category:Album tracks not released as singles'. Is the characteristic 'this single is the title track of an album' a defining characteristic of the single? I would say probably not. Occuli (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial intersection of "title track" and "released as single". Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT. While "title track" and "released as a single" are certainly defining characteristics of a song, the intersection of the two is trivia, not a defining characteristic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as non-defining criterion, prone to OR (for instance, is "A Real Fine Place to Start" a title track, since the album was only called Real Fine Place?). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait! - Okay, i have to say that this is nonsense, because not every single released is a title track. It's not like it includes title tracks that weren't released as singles, or every title track on an album known to man. Just the ones that were actually released as singles should be included in this category. It doesn't have to include title track songs that charted based on unsolicted airplay. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • No one is suggesting that every song that is released as a single is a title track, nor is anyone suggesting that every title track is released as a single (although I would be willing to wager that the majority of them are). What is being argued here is whether being a title track that is also released as a single is a defining characteristic for categorization purposes. In other words, upon hearing the name of one of these songs, is it likely that one of the first things that will come to the mind of an average person will be "it is the title track of an album, and it was released as a single." Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and this is an obvious combination to the point of triviality; why not Category:Albums named after the group, or Category:Singles issues in a different version than the one on the album, and other commonalities and trivialities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. God, no. Making up statistics on the spot, let's say that 50 percent of the albums released have a title track. Then let's say that 25 percent of those have released their title track as a single. Why, that's only 12.5 percent of the 31,192 songs on Wikipedia! So please, no mainspace categories which require 4,000 articles to be manually put into them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, i see. - Okay, i see. So you're saying that the reason why it's been nominated for deletion is because it's too long? (Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Ryan, there are a few reasons this category is a bad idea. The first is that it's not defining for the articles, as Otto describes. The second is that it's too specific; there is no category called "Title tracks" (which in theory could be considered defining), so specifying more narrowly than that isn't appropriate. The third is that it's trivial, as it doesn't add much to your knowledge about the article (in the same way the year does, say). The fourth is that it would be colossal, as I've said above; the work required to find every article that belonged in it would be staggering. So for those reasons, I recommend your well-intentioned category be deleted. Does that help?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. - Okay. I get it now. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep It is defining--whether a title track is or is not released as a single is significant in the reception of a work. If "Title tracks" is needed as a parent category, then make it--actually, it would seem to me to be of a very high priority. Size is no problem, given the number of people working on these articles. DGG (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your source that backs up the notion that whether a title track is released as a single or not has any significance to the reception of an album? One would think that the first single or two, regardless of whether they are the title track, would be more determinative. Otto4711 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 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:Philosophical schools and traditions[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 without prejudice to a proper nomination. You know, I've never formally handed out a trout-whack, and I'm not about to start now. But really, I wonder if we could perhaps remember to nominate the category for discussion before making substantial deletions from or edits to the category. It's virtually impossible to "discuss" a category and how it has been used when it has been completed changed just prior to nomination. Anyway, I'm going to basically annul this discussion and restore the contents/subcategories/parent categories as best I can to how they were prior to nomination. Once this is done, feel free to re-nominate the category and we can have a real discussion about it. Another reason to basically annul this discussion is that the category was not tagged properly with a CfD template—it was tagged with a "templates for deletion" template, which is not helpful for users looking for the relevant discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Philosophical schools and traditions --
Nominator's rationale: -- the articles from this category are sufficiently covered by Category:Philosophical theories, Category:Philosophical movements, or Category:Philosophical traditions.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – hard to judge the value of this category as it seems to have been emptied before bringing it to CFD? AllyD (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed This is a breach of Cfd procedure. How can we judge? The next one is the same. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed restore the material, and then discuss whether we need the separate categories. DGG (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Restore the material, then we can discuss deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: -- Folks, This was a proposal for discussion at Wikiproject Philosophy for over a week. This is a noncontroversial move, which is for re-organization of the material. I have been working on "theories", "-isms", etcertera; and this is consistent with the rest of that activity. You're cooperation with our project would be appreciated. I don't really think any of you know what is and is not considered by philosophers to be a major tradition quite frankly. (Jeez, now I sound like those guys in the math department, sorry but I think it's true.) Thank you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this exhaustive discussion, in which nobody else participated? It doesn't matter anyway; Cfd should not be presented with a fait accompli. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that "nobody else participated." The topic was for discussion for half a month. There was one comment, and it was supportive. No one had an objection. That's called consensus. However, you are absolutely right, that it shouldn't be presented as a fait complete. However, the pragmatic reality is such. I'm just asking for a little cooperation please. A little trust please. Thank you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People who empty categories before nominating them should be disciplined by being suspended as WP editors for a week to teach them the CFD rules. This happens far too often. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 5 April 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:Schools of thought[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 without prejudice to a proper nomination. You know, I've never formally handed out a trout-whack, and I'm not about to start now. But really, I wonder if we could perhaps remember to nominate the category for discussion before making substantial deletions from or edits to the category. It's virtually impossible to "discuss" a category and how it has been used when it has been completed changed just prior to nomination. Anyway, I'm going to basically annul this discussion and restore the contents/subcategories/parent categories as best I can to how they were prior to nomination. Once this is done, feel free to re-nominate the category and we can have a real discussion about it. Another reason to basically annul this discussion is that the category was not tagged properly with a CfD template—it was tagged with a "templates for deletion" template, which is not helpful for users looking for the relevant discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Schools of thought -
Nominator's rationale: -- the articles from this category are sufficiently covered by Category:Philosophical theories, Category:Philosophical movements, or Category:Philosophical traditions.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As with the category above, this category seems to have been emptied before bringing it to CFD? And there has been subsequent to-and-fro edit reversion: see [1], [2] and [3] (the last on grounds of being a "depreciated cat", thus explicitly anticipating a conclusion here). AllyD (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Restore the material, then we can discuss deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are mistaken. There is nothing to restore, as it is a small category then and now. Furthermore, I have been moving individual articles within the "theories" category tree for some time now (making wonderful progress up until now frankly). If you could PLEASE offer some co-operation beyond your adherence to bureaucracy we will all be better off for it. There are clearly reasonable cases and clearly unreasonable cases for these processes. Both of these proposals are so clearly reasonable, that I proceeded normally with then, intending to request a speedy delete. Whereas, I made an explicit cfd proposal for moving "feminist philosophy" to "feminism" and it turns out that that getting input there was necessary and appropriate, exactly as I had judged.
If these moves are denied they will certainly be back. This will be a great waste of time. The philosophy department is not a roiling swarm of activity, so we really do rely on the cooperation of others in cases like this in order to make progress. Please relent. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Category:Art movements and Category:Philosophical movements were all formerly under this category, as was Category:Political theories which has been reinstated by another editor, I don't understand your statement that BrownHairedGirl is mistaken? AllyD (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that you mention are organized under the "theories" category tree. This is the principle I am using for organizing things. If we put organize things under some general "theories" category or subcategory, they will eventually find their rightful place. Furthermore by combining these under theories, we will have patterns emerge for creating new categories. I have really thought the whole thing through quite a bit.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to organize all articles in the very broad area of "theories," "belief systems," "-isms", "schools of thought", "movements" etcetera. My view is that invariably, these things can be formulated as a "theory." This is to say that they all can be expressed in the form described in theory (mathematical logic), and theory. For instance, creationists are making links to Wikipedia with the idea that evolution is "just a theory." Well it's true! It is a scientific theory, whereas creationism is a philosophical theory. This is all fine and good. I am trying make explicit that all kinds of legitimate studies are also theories. There are metaphysical, ethical, epistemological theories, etcetera. I am trying to create an organization that makes sense in terms of classifying various theories. In this regard "Schools of thought" is redundant and not helpful at all. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it worries me that this seems to be something of a personal quest and so POV categorisation. I don't see "theory" as a term to be made ubiquitous throughout category naming (especially if that is to feed into a contra-creationism argument, attractive as that counter might be). AllyD (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... No, categorizing things by the organizational principle of what kind of theory it is is NOT POV, it is actually a very smart way to organize things. I gave the creationist/evolution example so as to demonstrate that IT IS a good way to organize, because it is objective, and everyone ends up getting what they want. No I am not interested in pigeonholing any particular group, however, this organizational principle does make it possible to cover "spiritualism" under the "theories" category tree, without portraying it as "philosophy", etcetera. It is very clear to me what I am doing here. It is wrong to portray it as a "personal quest" because A) there is no evidence that it is personal. B) questioning people's motivations is rude and not AGF, C) the principle at work has been enunciated, so therefore we are able to see openly if there was a POV issue, and none has been shown.
Please, consider that I have extensive experience in the study of philosophy, and the organization of WP's philosophy department. The philosophy department is not huge and active, so it really does rely on myself and the cooperation of others. "Schools of thought" is not a term in philosophy, and I hope you can find your way to respecting that.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and restore prior categorisations removed before CFD). In the absence of a clear rationale which addresses the 5 sub-categories. AllyD (talk) 13:10, 5 April 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:Vice[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 was delete. EqualRights (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is inherently POV, violating WP:CAT#What_categories_should_be_created. (This characteristic recently attracted article vandalism, e.g. [4] & [5]) —EqualRights (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the categories Category:Virtues, and Category:Virtue aren't inherently POV, and neither is this one.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: From the category's associated article: "Vice is a practice or habit considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading in the associated society"; "The term vice is also popularly applied to various activities considered immoral by some"; "Behaviors or attitudes going against the established virtues of the culture" - all POV. —EqualRights (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective. Snob is vice? Malakia (effeminacy) is vice? If we are trying to capture the "Seven Deadly Sins" those can be interlinked; and it would not be WP's judgment that those are "sins", just that they comprise the canonnical seven. Like we have the {{Seven Wonders of the Ancient World}} that of course excludes the wonders outside the ken of the Classical World. Beyond the 7 deadly sins: nearly anything else is opinion. I note the exclusion of Prostitution from the category as an example; in most of the US vice=prostitution (e.g., the "vice squad" doesn't usually try to arrest snobs, they're usually after hookers and johns.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What's your plan for Category:Virtues? Surely this too is inherently POV? (sdsds - talk) 02:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct; it's POV as well, contrary to Pontiff's statement above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is and is not a virtue has been studied in the ethics department for centuries. There are clearly reasonable, and clearly unreasonable cases which are quite manageable by consensus. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The ethics department"? Which ethics department would that be, one at Columbia University, the Vatican's, a Sunni Islam one in Iran, one at Jerusalem University ... ? —EqualRights (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which ethics department? Are you some kind of joker? Every philosophy department at every university has an ethics course and every one of them covers virtues and vices (and almost every university has a philosophy department). Furthermore, there is a WikiProject Philosophy here at WP, and I would recommend that this deletion be postponed, so as to give them time to respond. The "philosophy department" at WP is active, but relatively small. I don't think anyone should make any move on this category, until we have some expert opinion about it (and not WP regulars who think any old thing can possibly be used as a POV folk). There are other categories, which I hesitate to mention which might have the same reaction among the uninitiated. Those of us who study these subjects formally however do not fall into such pitfalls. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics may be definable (as to say, what should be studied in a course on Ethics), but the judgments of what is or isn't ethical is not a universal, as are virtues and vices, they are all derived from someone's POV - and long-standing institutions have changed positions on many issues over time: roles of women, tollerence of dissent, roles/theories of government, war, capital punishment, human rights, etc. To try to tag each item as either virtue or vice will lead to many being in both from different points of view: were the Crusades a virtue? When clerics promise remission of sins for engaging in the holy task one would think that the 11th century Roman Catholic Church's position is clear; my guess is that the Islamic view was different, probably considering the Crusades as vicious (i.e., full of vice). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is proposing to list "Crusades" as either a virtue or a vice. It is basically a very lame attempt at an example that could be controversial for this category. Since it is so lame, you really have proven my point. There really aren't any problems with these categories by the wikipedians paying the most attention to them. There are published sources which can be considered reliable in the field of ethics. If someone wants to make a claim that something is a vice or virtue, it will always be possible to include the clearly reasonable, and exclude the clearly unreasonable just fine. Thank you, however for inspiring me to create the line drawing fallacy. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restrict - certainly the study of what is considered vice is an encyclopedic topic and there are certainly articles to populate this category. However, categorizing individual "vices" is unworkable because morality and ethics are not universal. So, use this category for articles about the history of vice and the like but remove articles for the various "vices". Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this sounds sensible, I'm not sure there are enough articles fitting that restriction to make it worthwhile —EqualRights (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are four currently in the category, which is a decent start, and others like Comstock laws are extant. Otto4711 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That low number suggests to me that such a category wouldn't be particularly useful. In any case, if the restriction were added the category should also be descriptively renamed. —EqualRights (talk) 12:57, 1 April 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:Napier engines[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 but remove from Category:Categories named after companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Napier engines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Template listed really populates the only sub category, so this currently serves as an extra level that is not needed. Also it is not correctly classified in Category:Categories named after companies since the company name is Napier & Son. Probably best to delete this and allow recreation of an appropriate parent in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Napier made engines for land, water and aircraft use. Their best known individual engine is best known through its railway use. The fact that Wikipedia currently has sparse coverage on Napier's early engines (car & boat) before the aircraft engines isn't the fault of this category!
The template is an irrelevance (albeit with some other usefulness) to the existence of the category.
Of course it's a Category named after a company. Who else do you think it's named after? The phrasing is "named after", not "shares an identical name, right down to the punctuation". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then Rename to Category:Napier & Son. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "engines" like that is inappropriate as this is a category for the engine products of the company, not the broader history of the company. The company is also better known as "Napier" or "Napiers" (especially in their later years), rather than "Napier & Son", but their history is such the "Napier & Son" was a valid choice for naming the company's head article. Category:Napier & Son engines would be a poor choice (albeit fitting with usual Wikipedia behaviour) in that it's an arbitrary neologism to fit with some wiki-centric "consistency" at odds with reality itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Engine manufacturers, which is something of a cross-over between manufacturers and their products. Commons has Commons:Category:Engines by brand that's closer to your hypothetical Category:Categories named after makes of engine and which is more obviously tied to the products, perhaps a clearer structure (but not enough to make me worry about it). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 31 March 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:Software business[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Software business to Category:Software industry
Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. 1) These two categories mostly (or entirely) overlap. Software business after all, is what the software industry does (I could find no other example of an XXX industry paired with an XXX business category). 2) Both categories are small; Software industry: 1 subcat, 9 articles; Software business, 0 subcat, 4 articles, and unlikely to grow. Software business, created 16 February 2009, should be merged into Software industry. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 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:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas[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; and future creation of Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas, Nevada as a subcategory should be permitted. (This is very complex issue to those not familiar with the area, IMO.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas to Category:Visitor attractions in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a trial nomination to determine consensus for the remaining Las Vegas categories that are not fully qualified. If renamed to Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas, Nevada, it would logically be a child of Category:Las Vegas, Nevada which is specifically about the city. Category:Las Vegas metropolitan area already exists and is the logical parent. In addition, this change leaves all of the articles correctly categorized and does not require creating or moving any articles. In the case of this category, some of the subcategories don't even have articles for things in the city. So on balance, the is the solution that requires the least amount of cleanup and does not introduce any errors. If needed, categories like Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas, Nevada can be created at a later date. The vast majority of the categories that would be affected state that the contents cover the metropolitan area, so the proposed rename would actually provide conformity with the category introductions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As the category appears to include attractions not in Las Vegas proper, the rename would appear to more accuratelt capture the category's contents. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a caveat. This category rename makes sense to me, because Griffith Peak is definitely not in any definition of Las Vegas. I am, however, going to suggest that the category contain a subcategory called Category:Visitor attractions in Las Vegas, Nevada, which contains all the Vegas city attractions including the ones in the unincorporated areas next to Las Vegas. Those unincorporated are only not part of Las Vegas so that the Clark County Commission can retain its status as the most powerful government agency in Nevada. Nearly all other definitions of the area include the Las Vegas Strip as part of Las Vegas. This is probably the only place in the world in which I'd make this case, but I will make it here. Because nobody flies into McCarran International Airport, checks in at the Luxor Las Vegas, and then thinks "I sure hope we get to Las Vegas soon."--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:19, 31 March 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_March_30&oldid=1138392802"