Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30[edit]

Category:Greek country music songwriters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this category, blatant overcategorization. Kostas is already in Category:Greek songwriters and Category:American country singer-songwriters, and I don't think there'll ever be any other Greek country songwriters. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. -Rocket000 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT per nom, Tewfik^Talk 08:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Theme parks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename the first, delete the second. Kbdank71 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category:Fictional theme parks to Category:Fictional amusement parks

rename Category:Anheuser-Busch theme parks to Category:Anheuser-Busch amusement parks, or delete

All of the theme parks cats were merged into the more inclusive amusement parks cats last September. The Anheuser-Busch cat has just one member now; it should either be deleted or renamed and populated with all of the parks listed in Busch Entertainment Corporation. ×Meegs 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anheuser-Busch Adventure Parks or Category:Busch Entertainment Corporation are also possibilities, if it is kept. ×Meegs 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per convention assuming there are sufficient substituents to justify a category at the new name, else delete. Tewfik^Talk 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first, delete the second (its sole member is not even an actual amusement park). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soccer in South Africa[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 10:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soccer in South Africa to Category:Football in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the other 54 similar subcategories of Category:Football (soccer) in Africa. There is no potential for confusion with any other type of football, because those are not referred to solely as "football", but rather "Australian rules football" and the like. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom., I note that the Leagues (but not the Clubs) all seem to use Soccer, but on the assumption that football is the normal term there, rename. - this asumption now in doubt, so moving to neutral. Johnbod 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Johnbod 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Rugby Union is historically still the main football code in South Africa, despite soccer's upswing since the end of the apartheid era. If the leagues use the term soccer, then it is with good reason. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but ought not similar categories follow similar naming conventions? I don't think we can rely on the subcategories to set a "standard" of any sort; some use "soccer", some use "football", and some use "football (soccer)". The clearest evidence of a standard, in my opinion, is the 54-to-1 prevalence of "football" in the parent category. Finally, there is no potential for confusion with another type of football, as they have their own categories: for instance, Category:Australian rules football in South Africa and Category:Rugby union in South Africa. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and this category does follow the same naming rules as other similar categories - it uses the local name for the sport. The local name is used as is standard practice across all categories on Wikipedia. Whether there is cause for confusion is a secondary consideration. You may say there's no cause for confusion with the name football, but there is also no cause for confusion with the word soccer, so that argument is moot. Local usage then becomes the primary concern. Take an analogous example: Many countries have categories for neighbourhoods. The US is one of only a couple with a category for neighborhoods. Do we change neighborhood to neighbourhood there? There's no cause for confusion with the new name, and it would make the categories consistent. But no, we leave it at the local name. Similarly Category:Limited-access roads by country uses the terms motorway, expressway, highway, autoroute, and autobahn - according to local usage. Similar categories therefore follow one simple naming convention: use local usage wherever possible. If Tim is correct, however, in that the local name is football (something that surprises me, given that I have only ever heard South Africans use the term to mean rugby), then a renaming would be correct - but on those grounds, and not on any to do with standardising all the football categories to use the same word. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The main article is at Football in South Africa and "football" is used in several other key article titles: South African Football Association (the governing body), South Africa national football team and South Africa women's national football team. Timrollpickering 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tim's rationale, that is that categories should be aligned with article-space, while still I appreciate and agree with Grutness' comments. Tewfik^Talk 08:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and oppose as well per Grutness. Football in South Africa, while named football, starts off as Football or Soccer, as it is called there, is the most played sport in South Africa. And if I recall correctly, we do use the local version for naming. For example, Category:Soccer in the United States would never be changed to Football simply because people elsewhere call it that. South Africa should be no different. --Kbdank71 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact that the name of the governing body is South African Football Association? Or the fact the articles for the national teams are: South Africa national football team and South Africa women's national football team? I'd also like to note that the assertion that "soccer" enjoys more prominent usage in South Africa, thought it may be true, is unsourced. As far as the US category, please note that the corresponding article is Soccer in the United States, so the argument for renaming that one is significantly weaker. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ed Roth[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: eponymous overcategorization. Category members are already interlinked. LeSnail 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By which I mean, delete. LeSnail 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, WP:OC. Otto4711 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. –SESmith 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Portland artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Portland artists to Category:Oregon artists

Nominator's rationale: There are less than 30 Oregon artists total, so it doesn't seem useful to divide them by city, especially since most Oregon artists are probably "involved with" more than one city in the state. If no merge, then at least rename to Category:Portland, Oregon artists per Category:People from Portland, Oregon and Portland, Oregon--Portland is a dab page. LeSnail 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Sub-dividing by city doesn't seem to be the norm for Category:Artists by state. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Prove It ^(talk) 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - didn't we come to a similar conclusion on the whole Cincinnati discussion? Tewfik^Talk 08:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bertolt Brecht[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Following the outcome of several CFDs which have resulted in a drastic simplification of the category structure formerly contained under this cat, it's clear that the remaining material is all appropriately categorized under Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht. That category and its subcats, along with the lead article on Brecht and the extensive navtemplates for both his works and his theories, demonstrate that this category is not needed for navigation and that the category doesn't meet the exception outlined in the eponymous category guideline. Otto4711 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary and functionless OCAT that simply adds another layer to be maintained. Tewfik^Talk 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Notable Alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague non-category, apparently created for Rider University. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely non-category. Shouldn't the name be more specific? Onnaghar^{tl ! co} 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is really an article in Category space, but the article is not worth moving. LeSnail 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LeSnail; "article" appears to be by main subject also. Johnbod 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Rocket000 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not a real category or article. Timrollpickering 16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever this is supposed to be it is not a coreectly titled category. It may be intented to be "Alumni of Rider University", but is do not think we have such categories. The article uses the first person and is thus evidently a WP:POV. Peterkingiron 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Actually, we do have such categories--see for instance Category:Harvard University alumni. Not that that means we shouldn't get rid of this thingie. LeSnail 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - it would need to be Category:Rider University alumni, though there seems to be no one to populate it as of now. Tewfik^Talk 08:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Spanish dukes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (and no upmerge). --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Dukes of Spain, convention of Category:Dukes by nation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge Both this and the next, Italian, nomination, contain the same two articles, covering two Italian titles awarded to Italians by Spanish monarchs. In the Neapolitan case, where the Spaniards were Kings of Naples, this is certainly not a Spanish title. The Genoan one is possibly a bit more borderline, though it also seems to be Neapolitan, but I think should also only remain in the Italian category. Johnbod 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are these actually Spanish titles, rather than Neopolitan ones? if so they should be removed from the present category, which should be deleted. However the proposed merge category (and its compeers) have unsatisfactory titles and are thus misleading. The words "duke of" with a place would be expected to constitute a title. However, there is no Duke of Spain, because Spain has a king. Should not all these categories be renamed with a different preposition, perhaps "in". Peterkingiron 22:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John's rationale, Tewfik^Talk 08:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Italian dukes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Dukes of Italy, convention of Category:Dukes by nation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom , & comments on Spanish category. Johnbod 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per convention, Tewfik^Talk 08:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:One member bands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Looks to me like a recreation of previously deleted category, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12#Bands. Slightly different name, but I think the same arguments still apply. This is little more than a coincidence of membership, or perhaps of naming. Effectively arbitrary inclusion criteria. What distinguishes a band with with only one fixed member from a band with only two (e.g. Steely Dan)? Not a defining characteristic, IMO. This has already been the subject of a dispute at Evanescence, based on an arrogant (though possibly justified) statement made by the singer. There are lots of other bands that could be considered "one member bands", depending on how you look at it, so I think that, in addition to all the other problems, it's too subjective. Xtifr _tälk 12:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of bad arguments show up with this category. Is The The really just Matt Johnson? Do The Pretenders and Guns 'N Roses count once their singers have turned over their entire membership? Not worth the trouble.--Mike Selinker 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining, not maintainable, and many artists have recorded both with and without their "bands", so without is the artist a one member band? Carlossuarez46 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining and subjective cat per nom, Tewfik^Talk 08:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Ramones albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Ramones albums to Category:Ramones albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The band's name does not include 'The' in the article, so this category shouldn't either. Joltman 12:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match Ramones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article's wrong. No fan would say "I watched Ramones in concert at CBGB's." It's not like Talking Heads.--Mike Selinker 14:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that example makes your case; you wouldn't say "I went to see Supreme Court in session," either. The MOS has a section on the inclusion of articles in the names of bands, and advises that we follow the name used on the band's publications. Of course it could just be creative typography, but every one of their album covers says simply Ramones. This is an issue that I've always struggled with. ×Meegs 00:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any difference between "the" Ramones and "The" Beatles in this context. You'd say "I have a Ramones album" as well as you'd say "I have a Beatles album." You'd say "He's in the Beatles" as well as you'd say "He's in the Ramones." Articles are transitory to context. For our purposes, the categories should be consistent. If the band is referred to with a "the" in contexts where it might use one, it should get one in the category names. Talking Heads and Eurythmics never use a definite article; Ramones and Beatles do.--Mike Selinker 02:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your argument limited to bands, or would you also move our cats to The Supreme Court, The Red Cross, and The New York Giants? You need the definite article to discuss their members and their publications in all the same cases as the Ramones. Would you move their articles too? Maybe I don't understand your argument, but given the guideline, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to postpone this discussion in favor of one at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. For what it's worth, I don't think the Ramones and the Beatles should be handled differently, and wouldn't include The in either of their cats. Please don't take my underinformed comments as advocacy for either side, though. ×Meegs 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, actually. I just believe the bands shouldn't be handled differently from each other. I wouldn't be upset to see the "The"s go away entirely.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. We refer to the band as "the Ramones" not "The Ramones". "The" is not part of their name as it's not included on any of their albums, and their self-titled album is called Ramones. Rocket000 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same naming convention needs to be applied to Category:The Ramones members too (weather it's with or without the "The"). Lugnuts 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Category:The Ramones and Category:The Ramones songs. All four should agree, one way or the other. ×Meegs 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the categories ought to match the article. No strong preference for article name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match article-space, though I appreciate the point about the Beatles, and suggest a RM per WP:BEANS. Tewfik^Talk 08:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia OmniMusica[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia OmniMusica
- Category:Wikipedia OmniMusica candidates
- Category:Wikipedia OmniMusica extant issues
Delete: The related project has been inactive for a long time now, and it doesn't seem likely to be picked up again. Also, the are hardly any articles in these categories. -Rocket000 08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the categories are attached to WP-space templates, it might be best to take those to TfD first, though they can safely be removed from all of the entries, which save one are all FA or former-FA. Does anyone know if it would be appropriate to list the project at MfD? Tewfik^Talk 08:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Homophobia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is already a page titled Homophobia. This category is being used abusively to tag living people as homophobes. I have no problem with the page or the content of the homophobia page, I have a problem when category tags are being used abusively on people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for namecalling. Benkenobi18 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this trouble magnet that lacks objective criteria. Isn't this a recreation? If so, salt. Wryspy 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Homophobia" is the etymologically dubious but widely accepted and reasonably concise and unambiguous term for what it describes. The proposer (who has continued to depopulate the category even after being warned not to do so) hasn't explained how the term is being used abusively. Clearly it could be misapplied. But for people such as Fred Phelps it seems just right. -- Hoary 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same reason it was kept two months ago. Otto4711 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. There are tons of great arguments in the June 2007 discussion. For example, Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Antisemitism, and Category:Racism are more than acceptable categories per WP:CAT. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous debate and Otto. DuncanHill 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Correctly tags the Richarlyson affair - here's a quote from the article "football is a virile, masculine sport and not a homosexual one,... homosexual player should leave the team..." - Fosnez 13:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto and Hoary, though Comment: I've just started a discussion on this very topic (people in this cat) at the LGBT project's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per Arichnad, if racism can have a valid category, so can homophobia. Haiduc 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous debate and Otto4177. Drm310 16:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename: "people who hate gays, but not sure why, but i know i'm not gay because i have a wife and kids and it's really not gay anyway when you don't kiss him". but that's kinda too long, so leave it as it is. --emerson7 | Talk 22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove all biographies. Biographical articles should technically be in Category:Homophobes, which would meet the same fate as Category:Racists. Being a "X-phobe" or "anti-X" is generally not a defining feature. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite having voted "keep" above, I have some sympathy with this view. Yes, Category:Homophobes would make more sense (if it had enough members, anyway). I'd then try to distinguish between (a) people who persistently and publicly deliver homophobic messages (or even incite violence against gays, etc.), and (b) those who for example oppose gay marriage (which could well be compatible with homophobia but doesn't imply it) or who make the occasional homophobic remark: (a) would be in; (b) would not; the distinction would of course not be clear. As for it generally not being a defining feature; well, being a defining feature (e.g. of the fragrant Fred Phelps) would be a condition of categorizing. ¶ So what happened to Category:Racists? (URL?) -- Hoary 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to Hoary, re point (b) I would argue that calling for different laws for gay relationships than those which apply to straight relationships does imply homophobia, in the sense of a prejudice against gay people. DuncanHill 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but for most people that's not a defining feature. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Duncan, that's an entirely reasonable point of view. It may very well have more going for it than its reverse. (Indeed, I've a hunch that it does.) But it still seems a point of view. -- Hoary 09:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re:Hoary: Both Category:Racists and Category:Homophobes were deleted at CfD. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 20#Category:Racists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24#Category:Homophobes. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that it shouldn't be used to simply categorise people by view, but that is a basic OCAT principle that is already at play in the other categories mentioned - someone like Fred Phelps does indeed qualify for inclusion. Tewfik^Talk 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't bother to look at the debate over the Racists category, but that for Homophobes was odd. First: "To call someone a Homophobe is to imply that it is a neurotic condition". My comment: Yes, if you insist that the phobe morpheme must always behave as in agoraphobe, claustrophobe and the rest. But even though one may disapprove of the way its meaning has been diluted to little more than obsessive or obsessively expressed distaste, this dilution seems undeniable: cf "francophobia" and the rest. Secondly: "there is already a LGBT rights opposition cat. that covers this". Comment: This isn't specified; if it still exists, perhaps it's still the one to use. -- Hoary 09:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, Tewfik^Talk 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be "Keep contra nom" (or "Delete per nom")? -- Hoary 09:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:African international organizations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African international organizations to Category:International organizations of Africa

Nominator's rationale: Rename, seems to be what the rest of Category:International organizations by region is doing. Picaroon (t) 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 09:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Methodist artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial intersection After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Wryspy 04:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both, plus the artists tree is supposed to be for visual artists only - these are mostly singers and writers. There are a number of similar categories in Category:Artists by culture, which should probably be deleted. Johnbod 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at Category:Artists by culture and I'm not sure if that category is needed either. Vegaswikian 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete added categorie so as to match Category:Latter Day Saint artists. Perhaps both should be delete? Otherwise do not. OfficePuter 11:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is no such thing as Methodist art. Category:Latter Day Saint artists should probably go too, if anyone wants to nominate it. LeSnail 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection, Tewfik^Talk 09:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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