Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21[edit]

Category:Idi Amin in popular culture[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Idi Amin in popular culture into Category:Idi Amin. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Idi Amin in popular culture to Category:Idi Amin

Merge - there is no justification for maintaining a separate category for popular culture appearances of Amin. They are all suitably categorized in the eponymous category. Otto4711 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Notes for nominators, "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the category that you are nominating the category." I have alerted User:MinnesotanConfederacy to this discussion on your behalf. --DeLarge 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Eponymous categories are of doubtful merit to start with, so they should not be allowed to breed. Sumahoy 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --MacRusgail 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have any problem with this category whatsoever. It's a child of both Category:Idi Amin and Category:In popular culture, and obviously inclusion in the latter is impossible if this is merged. The individual pages so categorised all seem to have merit. It's not like the pages in this category have only a minor connection with the man; he's the primary subject and/or titular character in most of them. The only thing I'd possibly suggest is that the category be moved from the more general Category:In popular culture to Category:Representations of people in popular culture. --DeLarge 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles in the nominated category are extensively interlinked with Idi Amin, each other or both. As has been noted in a number of recent deletions of eponymous categories, this sort of interlinking for navigation amongst a small number of articles is sufficient reason to justify deletion of the eponymous category. It's more than sufficient to justify deleting a pop culture sub-cat. Otto4711 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and delete Category:In popular culture, a category that encourages one of Wikipedia's worst traits - the accumulation of unorganized trivia. Greg Grahame 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute your thoughts on the matter of popculture trivia lists to this discussion. Otto4711 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Category:Idi Amin and Category:Idi Amin in popular culture In fact, neither of these eponymous categories appears to be necessary at all. There are a total of about eight or ten articles, all of which are (or should be) sufficiently linked from Idi Amin's main article. Therefore the main article serves the same navigational purpose as these categories and thus the categories can be safely deleted as being redundant. Dugwiki 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally fine with deleting both. Otto4711 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created both categories, but I'm fine with whatever my fellow Wikipedians decide. I would either recommend merging both into one, or deleting both. Either way, I have no preference. Josh 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Notable firsts in Major League Baseball[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Delete, This category is too vague; when it is viewed it is just a list of articles with no reference. It would exist better as a list with additional/accompanying reference information. (Also, this is aside from the guidance to not have "notable" categories.) After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable - even an expert would be hard put to say whether the all the articles in this category are appropriate without reading all of them. Sumahoy 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requiring subjectivity in application. Coemgenus 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rugby footballers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There are two different sports called 'rugby' - rugby union and rugby league. All this category does is hold subcats for the two separate sports Category:Rugby league players and Category:Rugby union footballers, there are no articles in this category and none possible that could not fit into one of its two subcategories.GordyB 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though theoretically someone could be in the "Rugby footballers" category, since the two codes did not split until about 1887. Presumably any earlier players would count under union. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1895 but you are correct such players could fit under the union section.GordyB 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of people by wealth[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category is bloated with mainly copies of copyrighted material from Forbes magazine. Remaining information is generally outdated, lacks citations, or from other copyrighted sources. 209.22.88.24 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete all copyright-infringing list articles. Note that not all the members of the cat are copyright infringements, and even if they were, the problem is with the individual articles, not with the categorization itself. A batch AFD is the way to go here. (And while I would support such a move, I'll tell you right now that the majority will want to keep the infringing lists anyway, and the AFD will fail.) --Quuxplusone 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a highly useful categorisation of various wealth-related list articles. Also, which individual articles are supposed to be copyvios? They're not cut/pastes and they cite their sources. I'm going to go through the pages removing the prod templates. --DeLarge 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quality of articles within is not a reason to delete a category. Discuss the articles first. --Vossanova ^o< 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Patrick1982 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are articles which belong in this category. LukeHoC 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

People from Czechoslovakia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czechoslovakian people to Category:Czechoslovak people

Category:People from Czechoslovakia to Category:Czechoslovak people (previously a speedy merge to Category:Czechoslovakian people)

Category:Czechoslovakian politicians to Category:Czechoslovak politicians

Category:Czechoslovakian sportspeople to Category:Czechoslovak sportspeople

Category:Czechoslovakian athletes to Category:Czechoslovak athletes

Category:Czechoslovakian motorcycle racers to Category:Czechoslovak motorcycle racers

Category:Czechoslovakian footballers to Category:Czechoslovak footballers ([speedy nomination by] Darwinek 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Czechoslovakian football managers to Category:Czechoslovak football managers ([speedy nomination by] Darwinek 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Czechoslovakian films to Category:Czechoslovak films

Category:Czechoslovakian society to Category:Czechoslovak society

Neutral. After opposing the two speedy noms by Darwinek on the grounds that 'Czechoslovakian' was the term used by the categories regarding people from Czechoslovakia, Jan.Kamenicek supported the original suggestion:

Support [the two speedy nominations by Darwinek] as Google gives more hits for 'Czechoslovak'. The adjective derived from 'Slovakia' is 'Slovak', so the preferred adjective derived from 'Czechoslovakia' (now 'Czech Rep.' and 'Slovakia') should be 'Czechoslovak'). Jan.Kamenicek 08:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

and commented on the speedy merge of Category:People from Czechoslovakia:

I suggest to move it [Category:People from Czechoslovakia] to Category:Czechoslovak people as Google gives more hits for 'Czechoslovak'. The adjective derived from 'Slovakia' is 'Slovak', so the preferred adjective derived from 'Czechoslovakia' (now 'Czech Rep.' and 'Slovakia') should be 'Czechoslovak'). Jan.Kamenicek 08:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Following those, and the line at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name a nationality which I believe does not make the original speedy noms by Darwinek valid, I have therefore made this full nomination so that all the categories are consistent whatever the result is. mattbr³⁰ 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Category:Czechoslovak law and Category:Czechoslovak media. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems more natural and also slightly prefered. - Darwinek 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support to all suggested moves, for the same reasons as mentioned at the speedy nominations. Jan.Kamenicek (Sorry, I probably signed just with 3 tildes by mistake. The previous contribution was written at 13:16, 22 February 2007. Jan.Kamenicek 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak oppose. Both spelling are used and the -ian varian gives a better hint what it is about (and this will grow more and more important over the time). Oxford English Dictionary menations it as alternative for noun "Czechoslovak" [1]. A 1927 monography about the term [2] states that "Czechoslovakia" is (incorrectly acc. to the author) used as the official term in the US (the Cz. officials preferred the term Czechoslovak Republic). Google got too smart and returns both terms mixed together but AllTheWeb returns ~1 million for Czechoslovakian and ~500,000 for Czechoslovak. Pavel Vozenilek 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Singers by instrument[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all except the stub cat. the wub "?!" 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people who both sing and play an instrument are found in sensible separate categories like category:American pop singers and category:English heavy metal bass guitarists. But these much less frequently applied intersection categories are very strange (Sheryl Crow, for example, shows up in category:Singer-bassists, but Paul McCartney doesn't). I think the lot is a confusing and unnecessary extra layer of categorization, and should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These categories are basically redundant. You will find people listed in them are also in the separate categories, so these provide no additional information or search usefulness. --Blainster 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These singer-instrument categories lead to category clutter while not adding much benefit to navigation. How many people are going to look for these cross sections, anyway? Also, I believe that many instrument players in bands do either back-up vocals or occasionally perform lead vocals on songs, making this a less-than-interesting characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Specifically, drummers who are also lead vocalists are not the norm. I think you underestimate the amount of skill and coordination required for such multitasking, and would probably get a laugh out of this. I put hours of research into populating that particular category. Rather than deleting these categories because some people find them uninteresting and/or incomplete, I'd prefer that we work on completing them. — CharlotteWebb 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think "singer-drummer" is an interesting grouping, then I'd suggest it become a list. "Singer-guitarist" and "singer-keyboardist" are so common as to be meaningless, and "singer-bass guitarist" doesn't seem particularly meaningful either. But for some reason "singer-drummer" does sound mildly interesting, so I'd suggest that be turned into a list. But they're all bad intersection categories.--Mike Selinker 05:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A definite keep to the stub one (why was WP:SFD not informed as per the instructions at the top of the page???). You should specifically not find singer-guitarist stubs marked with both singer-stub and guitarist-stub, and anyone who knows how stub-sorting works should realise that this stub type was created to reduce such double-stubbing. A weaker keep to the others, though I can understand if those are deleted. Grutness...wha? 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, why shouldn't you find singer-guitarist stubs marked as both "singer stub" and "guitarist stub"? I can't find any rule or guideline to that effect anywhere, and I can point to a hundred articles that are in two or more stub categories at once. Or did you simply mean that given the existence of an intersection category, no article should be in both supercats simultaneously? If that's all you meant, then you're begging the question: This discussion is about whether the intersection category should exist. --Quuxplusone 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where intersection stub categories exist, they should be used to reduce the number of templates on the face of the article. The hundreds of articles in two or more (officially, up to four, but occasionally on more than that) stub categories are thus because no such intersection exists. A stub on a river on the French-Belgian border would not be in Category: French-Belgian stubs because no such category exists. Similarly, because a minimum number of stubs are reuqired before new stub categories are considered, such categories are unlikely ever to exist. Stub categories do not entirely follow the same rules as standard categories, since they are designed for a different purpose. They are not classification of articles for the benefit of readers, in order to aid navigation, but are classification of articles to aid editors in their search for articles which they have enough knowledge to be able to expand. Thus, although there is a high degree of coorrelation nbetween the two types of category, there is not an exact one-to-one mapping of them. In the case of the specific stub intersection category, it was deliberately created aftyer discussion at WP:WSS/P as part of the process of reducing the number of double-stubbed templates, given that there were more than enough singer-guitarists to warrant such a stub type. To remove such a category - one that has been proposed and debated prior to creation - would reduce the effectiveness of the stubbing of these articles. As such, the category definitely should exist. And, as pointed out above, this category should have been mentioned at WP:SFD, as is stated in the instructions at the top of this page. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea, it needs to be mentioned at WP:SFD. If you look, you will see that the template involved puts the articles in the category being discussed here as well as Category:Singer stubs and Category:Guitarist stubs so losing the intersection cat should not be an issue, especially if all of the other categories are deleted. The stub template can remain and be updated to not use the deleted cat or a bot could go through and replace the template with the other two. What needs to be done will wait till after the decision on the other cats. Vegaswikian 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, it only puts the stubs in those two categories inasmuch as the category under discussion is a child of both of them. It actually removes the stubs from the base categories, which, as you know VW, is a basic aim of stubsorting: to keep the stub categories at a manageable level for editors. Deletion of this category will make the size of both of those categories blow out to a significantly larger size. That was the reason the category was created in the first place, and is a good reason why the category shouldn't be deleted. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Sorry, I forgot about the SFD requirement. Please make that happen when this is decided.--Mike Selinker 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless intersections per Blainster. Indeed, most musicians are also "singers" in some sense or other, at some time or other. "Singer-guitarist" is not appreciably different from "guitarist", in a rock-band context, although there are probably some classical guitarists who have never recorded vocals. --Quuxplusone 08:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. To list ssomeone in Category:Singers and Category:Keyboardists is enough -- why include them in Category:Singer-keyboardists as well? Coemgenus 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Castles in Perthshire[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete Tim! 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incorrectly named empty category duplicating Category:Castles in Perth and Kinross. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perthshire no longer exists as a political subdivision on Scotland. Categorization of the locations of castles and other locations according to both historical and current political boundaries would be impractical, so it is probably better to categorize this using only the current political boundaries. Dr. Submillimeter 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Coemgenus 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Castles in Perth and Kinross. OK, the new cat is currently empty, but just in case ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mayors of Places in the Palestinian territories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Mayors of Places in the Palestinian territories to Category:Mayors of places in the Palestinian territories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Places in the Palestinian territories to Category:Mayors of places in the Palestinian territories

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Capitalization of Places is nonstandard. See eg, Category:Mayors by country Lesnail 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - this should have been listed under speedy renaming at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fauna of Europe subcategories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fauna of Europe - The distribution of animals across Europe has nothing to do with these political boundaries, and European animals are generally not restricted to one or two countries. Moreover, categorizing European animals by country is infeasible, as some animals may be found in multiple countries (see, for example Eurasian lynx). Including a category for each country in which every animal is found would lead to category lists within articles that are not readable. Given that the political boundaries have little to do with the distribution of the animals and that the categorization would not work well, I recommend merging these categories to Category:Fauna of Europe. (Also note related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12, where similar categories for European country categories were merged into Europe categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator - Category:Fauna of Scotland and Category:Fauna of Spain appear to be comprehensive lists and should be listified. The other categories are incomplete and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should have categories for Endemic (ecology) species. Some if the animals listed are endemic to small areas, like the Saimaa Ringed Seal. We should also have categories for local breeds domesticated animals like Finnsheep. (Now we do not even have Category:Agricultire of Finland.) -- Petri Krohn 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with creating categories for endemic animals. However, these categories are being used for any animal that lives within the countries, not just the endemic ones. Also, note that Category:Domesticated animals by country exists for domesticated animals sorted by country. The categories for domesticated animals should certainly be kept, as animals breeds are often developed within specific national boundaries. Dr. Submillimeter 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is recurrent topic (see Category talk:Biota by country). Pavel Vozenilek 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately, the discussion at Category talk:Biota by country did not lead to any action. This nomination is part of ongoing work to condense these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The distribution of animals by country has certain political aspects, due to the conservation of nature etc. If I write an article called List of protected animals in Slovenia, I could put it in Category:Fauna of Slovenia. Alternatively, I could also put it in Category:Conservation in Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We could also have a "lists of fauna by country" category, where lists like the one described above could be placed. With Category:Fauna of Slovenia, people will not only insert the list article itself but also all of the animals on the list. Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cars that only sold one generation[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Xs that Y" is generally avoided in categories, as "Y" is usually arbitrary, and in this case, one generation is not necessarily a remarkable or valuable trait. --Vossanova ^o< 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what is wrong with it. It is a well defined category, and I think it is a useful trait. Karrmann 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that this seems to be fairly common and that it relies on automotive jargon, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary inclusion standard. Might be worthy of a list along the lines of List of television shows cancelled after one episode perhaps. Otto4711 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes:

A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":

Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

Also does not seem "well-defined" to me; from one of category creator's first edits, "Limited production/exotic vehicles...do not qualify for this list." Who says? Why not? And that being the rule, why was the exotic (and heavily facelifted in 1987) Lotus Esprit included? --DeLarge 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711. These cars have nothing in common, other than they were all discontinued sooner than some other cars. Coemgenus 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. An initially "simple" and "obvious" category, this one falls apart on closer examination. Not a defining characteristic, because in most cases, these vehicles are replaced by another model which fills the same market niche: e.g. the successor to the Jaguar S-Type will not be called an S-Type, but that is a marketing decision about the labelling of the successor model rather than about the model being categorised.
Another example woud be the Peugeot 205: it was replaced by the 206, which was in turn replaced by the 207; but its rival, the Renault Clio has retained the same name for three vehicles with a new chassis each time. Boh manufactuters continued to produced vehicles competing against each other in the same market segment; the only difference is the marketing logic.
The category is also hard to define, because model names are also inconsistent in different markets (see for example the the VW Bora/Jetta/Vento); current usage of the category appears to be focused on the names used in the US market. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:E-Science[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E-Science to Category:Cyberinfrastructure

Merge, Both categories contain the exact same set of articles. Honestly, both might even be merged into a higher category. --Vossanova ^o< 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', They might have the same content, but they serve two different constituencies, that are not talking about the same fundamental object. E-science and cyberinfrastructure are not synonymous, though they are related. If there is a higher category that could encapsulate both, that is a possibility, but none is proposed above, so it is a moot option. This is one of those... too early to tell in the development of wikipedia content to see whether they will eventually merge or not, if they do in two or three years that is fine, but I suspect that because of their inherent differences, they will grow apart. To merge them now, without considering their differences seems a bit hasty and judgemental in ways that are not justifiable. --Buridan 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What if someone used cyberinfrastructure for a purpose totally unrelated to science? Then it would fit into the latter category but not the former. We need to specify to prepare for that possibility. That's why articles like "fictional immortals" have the word "fictional" in them. Cosmetor 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Colleges in Nagaland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Colleges in Nagaland into Category:Universities and colleges in Nagaland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in Nagaland, convention of Category:Universities and colleges in India by state or territory. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Royalbroil^T : C 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roman roads in Britain[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, they are all empty. Prove It ^(talk) 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romano British roads ending in '-gate' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Romano British roads ending in 'Street' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Romano British roads ending in 'Way' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Romano British roads starting with ‘Via’ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete: I came across these when looking through Category:CfD 2007-01. They were incompletely nominated on 27 January 2007. The former contents were upmerged into Category:Roman roads in Britannia and are partly listified at Romano British road names. Excessive and now unused categorisation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, they are all empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anti-communist political parties[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the category's talk, It should be deleted for two reasons: 1) It is an arbitrary issue stance of a party, why not create a category for parties that favour the separation of church and state and the use of nuclear energy? 2) Anti communism isn't a defining features of those parties. They are defined by they identify themselves as liberal or conservative. C mon 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If it was populated by specifically anti-communist parties that's fine, but the GOP's in there, and while I'm sure there's not many pro-Communist Republicans in the world, it's definitely not the defining characteristic of the party. You could argue that any political party which isn't explicitly pro-communist could be categorised here. --DeLarge 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The label "anti-communist" is applied too broadly to be useful. Dr. Submillimeter 12:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Includes most parties, I would think, depending on the POV. Too subjective, or too broad, or both. Coemgenus 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absurd (e.g. for Popular Front of Latvia), undefined, expecting the label to stick with a party forever. Pavel Vozenilek 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above mentioned reasons. Jan.Kamenicek 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (even though I made the article) Josh 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Autodidacts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These are categories for people who have educated themselves (at least in a specific field) rather than receiving a formal education. This is a fairly common activity for people, especially before the twentieth century, so categorizing people this way means little. However, this category tree does contribute to category clutter, rendering the categories more difficult to read within individual articles; see Alexander Graham Bell and Benjamin Franklin, for example. Moreover, given that other education-related categories have been nominated for deletion here (with most people voting to delete), it does not seem appropriate to keep these categories related to education levels. Therefore, this category tree should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Craig.Scott 12:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant accomplishment and/or uniqueness tell users of wikipedia useful information about those so categorized, making it easy to navigate between such articles, etc. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I've been bothered by these categories for awhile, but never enough to bring them up for discussion. Everyone who knows anything has taught themself to some degree, whether they had a formal education or not, so it seems the categories must be a little WP:POV to decide who goes in. Anyway, they don't seem like useful navigational tools at all. Lesnail 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories are good unless redundant, misconstructed, or socially unacceptable. Whether someone can be shoehorned into a category "to some degree" is irrelevant to whether a category should exist. If you don't think someone should belong there, edit them out, don't delete the category. A category that is not useful to you may be useful to someone else. --Blainster 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If these categories suffer from subjective inclusion problems, then they should be deleted anyway. Such categories are not maintainable in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have come across these categories quite often, and in my opinion a high proportion of the entries are dubious. Due to the potential aggregate size of this set, I do not think adequate maintenance is possible. Sumahoy 01:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Autodidact" is hard to define consistently. Greg Grahame 13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. How much formal schooling need someone have before he is no longer self-taught? Walt Disney and Abraham Lincoln are both on this list, yet both went to school at some point. Frederick Douglass is listed. He had no formal schooling, but someone taught him to read - it's just too difficult to define. Coemgenus 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Coemgenus. LukeHoC 11:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful cats especially in relation to all the cats regarding university educated persons. Pastorwayne 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to administrator - This is a second vote from Pastorwayne. Please disregard this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 10:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Beatles EPs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:The Beatles EPs into Category:The Beatles albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:The Beatles EPs to Category:The Beatles albums

Last year we eliminated all non-Beatles EPs categories, merging them into their respective albums categories. I said then that I'd nominate the Fab Four category for similar merging, but never did it. So here it is. As dominant as the Beatles were, I don't think a special categorization scheme is necessary for them. EPs fall under the definition of album here: According to the rules of the UK Charts, a recording counts as an "album" if either it has at least four tracks or lasts more than 20 minutes. Sometimes shorter albums are referred to as EPs, an abbreviation of extended play. So I suggest a belated merge.--Mike Selinker 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I am aware that some Beatles EP's were recorded in the singles charts of the day (as were one or more Rolling Stones ep's) and never in the album charts, but they should be treated like all other bands on Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sensitive Information[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sensitive Information to Category:Information sensitivity

Nominator's Rationale: Rename for consistency with main article, information sensitivity. (Plus it would eliminate the incorrect case.) Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Makes sense, the cat is about information sensitivity, but it's not sensitive information. mattbr³⁰ 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Doom production crew (game)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another variation on the theme of creator by production. The names are all linked in Doom and/or Making of Doom. Otto4711 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing crewmembers by project is generally infeasible, as crewmembers work on many projects over the course of their careers. The resulting list of categories on individuals' pages would be difficult to read and to navigate. Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 03:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Thor villains[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete as recreation. If it gets created again let me know and I'll WP:SALT it. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of category previously deleted as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 30#Category:Supervillains by adversary. That CfD was closed on Feb 9, 2007. Recreation made on Feb 18, 2007. J Greb 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation. Otto4711 03:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 08:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per recreation. Darth griz⁹⁸ 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mayors of Norfolk County, Ontario[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep as one of many subcats of Category:Mayors of places in Ontario; the list has been deleted, it seems. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category for mayors of a small county in Southwest Ontario (for those curious, it borders Lake Erie). There is already a list, so I fail to see why a category is needed. Scorpion 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A category for 2 individuals? I don't know... I'm not going to vote either way, but to any who might: I have proposed the list (List of mayors of Norfolk County, Ontario) for deletion and will add relevant information to the main Norfolk County, Ontario article from sources I'll dig up. After all, it's a list of 2 people. -- Black Falcon 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that some record should exist on Wikipedia, which is why I wasn't sure if I should go after the list, but yeah, it could probably be merged with the county page. -- Scorpion 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have actually proposed the list for deletion rather than a merge as I updated Norfolk County, Ontario using information in the indivivdual biographical articles. However, it might be useful to redirect the list to Norfolk County, Ontario. -- Black Falcon 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is a list in the Norfolk page, then is a category for two really necessary? -- Scorpion 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't add a list, but instead the sentence "The first mayor of the County, Rita Kalmbach, was successed in 2007 by Dennis Travale." It just strikes me odd to have a list of two persons. I wouldn't oppose deleting this category, but at least it provides a place to categorize the two individuals aside from Category:Living people or Category:People from Ontario. -- Black Falcon 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Mayors of places in Ontario has 29 subcategories. It's better to have them than to have hundreds of articles in that category. Craig.Scott 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series under Category:Mayors of places in Ontario. Vegaswikian 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Chinese name[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy closed, nom withdrawn and submission in wrong XFD. 64.178.98.57 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template (not the category) is unnecessary and duplicates information that is obvious. Niohe 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The appropriate place for this is WP:TFD. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion.--Niohe 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to admin. Withdrawn (or rather, relocated to WP:TFD by nominator. -- Black Falcon 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Axis powers of World War II[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete (it's covered at Axis Powers of World War II). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of the list/articles that already exist. This is not a useful way to define the likes of Bulgaria and Thailand (it is one of a handful of categories on the main categories of those and other countries which are much better known for other things). The majority of the articles indirectly placed in this category have absolutely nothing to do with World War II. Thankfully there is no matching category for the Allies. LukeHoC 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. There is no need to place country articles or country categories in this category. The article Axis Powers of World War II more than sufficiently covers the subject. I think this qualifies as a category based on a "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" per WP:OCAT. Really, how many people think of "WWII Axis power" at the mention of Romania or Hungary? -- Black Falcon 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who considers Romania and Hungary to have been Axis powers? Quite a few people actually—it's just a question of being knowledgeable and informed. If WP has any purpose then surely this is it, to inform people? --Xdamr^talk 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But you didn't vote. Pastorwayne 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not disputing the fact (and I am well aware) that they were Axis powers and contributed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the Axis war effort. However, it is no longer a defining characteristic of those countries (of course it was during the War). I see no use in classifying countries by categories as "Countries which participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq". -- Black Falcon 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of those countries have dozens of characteristics more important than this one. Categories are not a way of describing all aspects of a country - that's what articles are for. Craig.Scott 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful, helpful way of comparing the various "powers" or nations. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a list be better for that purpose? I see categories mostly as navigation tools, not as ways to compare things, since no other info is available through the category, while a list can add e.g. the military force, number of casualties, ... Fram 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing countries by their alliances over the course of history would be too cumbersome and impractical. Moreover, since such categories only describe relatively brief periods in these countries' histories, the category says little about the countries in general. Dr. Submillimeter 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the existing list is far better suited to this purpose, the category is just clogging articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Countries should only be categorised on the basis of attributes that are permanent, or at least both long-term and current, because otherwise where do we stop? Countries have thousands of characteristics, and it is much harder (and more politically sensitive) to say what are the key characteristics of a country than to make the same call about a person. Sumahoy 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article with explanation, not just a list, is appropriate. Doczilla 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially inclined towards keeping this, but, on reflection, which side a nation took in WW2, WW1, and almost any other war does not really constitute a defining characteristic. This, of course, should be dealt with in the appropriate articles, but it isn't a proper basis for categorisation.

Xdamr^talk 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a category based on a horribly strong POV on a character's actions. ' 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Apostrophe. --Ozgod 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, in some cases it is a defining trait of a character, such as Sosuke Aizen, though the exact criteria for inclusion may need to be fine-tuned. Katsuhagi 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And who determines whether that "betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy" is a defining trait of characters? You? I believe that Sōsuke Aizen's defining traits are that he is a Shinigami and leader of the Arrancar. Not that he is a traitor. Whose interpretation is right? Mine or yours? ' 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under the technical definition of traitor (A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy) he definately fits under that, since he worked with and eventually joined a faction that is pretty explicitly the enemy of his former affiliation. I don't really see much ambiguity there. Katsuhagi 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under the enough is enough theory. This has been up twice in the last two months and consensus was to keep the first time and rename the second. Maybe we can see how this works for a while? Otto4711 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that should be noted in the currently non-existent talk page? ' 04:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have noted both CFDs on the talk page. However, as I could not find the category equivalent of the {{oldafdfull}} template, I have simply typed the information. -- Black Falcon 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Less than 2 weeks seems like an awful short time to think that there has been a massive shift in consensus. I also agree that, in practice, links to CfDs that result in a "Keep", "Merge", or "Rename" should be linked to the relevant Category Talk pages by the closing Admin. This is a lot like an AfD. Editors should have a link available to make them aware that the cat has been reviewed and kept by consensus. — J Greb 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Otto4711. The last CFD was only 3 weeks ago (and the other one was 2 months before). It is unlikely consensus has changed. -- Black Falcon 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be a good idea for the nom of this CfD stop depopulating the cat until this closes. The editor has already remove 29 articles since placing the nom. — J Greb 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is an evident difference between betrayal and treason, as shown in the treason article? It's clear that nobody else actually wishes to work on this category and set some actual standard. ' 04:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless this category is trimmed down to include only characters who are explicitly and specifically tried and convicted of acts of treason within the context of their fiction, this category inclined toward the editor's (sometimes arbitrary) interpretation of the characters' actions. ~CS 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried and convicted may be too much. How about explicitly accused? -- Black Falcon 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps -- my point is simply that this is being applied to broad to be a helpful category. When a reader clicks on a link to this, it's reasonable to expect a list of characters featured in fiction about the act of treason. When they get a list populated by the likes of Captain Qwark, A Teen Titans character and Ursula from the Little Mermaid the category is no longer presenting them with anything of encyclopediac value. ~CS 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I can see a possible problem with that since the cat was changed from "Fictional traitors". All it would require is an in-story statement from another character calling the subject "traitor", "betrayer", or similar. That can become a sticking point since it can be leveled by countrymen, teammates, family, or just about anyone. That's with out the POV question of "In who's eyes?" This may be a non-fiction example but, the Continental Congress was considered traitors to the British Crown for there actions, but in the light of American history they are seen as patriots. Similar things are a staple in fiction, look at how often characters are put in a position of choosing "friends or family", "country or religion", "this team or that", and so on. — J Greb 06:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see your point. However, I still think requiring "tried and convicted" from fictional works may be too much. I could suggest this as a compromise: a character is included if s/he has been branded a traitor by any (fictional) government representative/agent/officer. However, that would require changing the title to "Fictional characters who have been accused of treason". -- Black Falcon 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd almost say "Fictional characters portrayed as traitors" or "Fictional characters that fit the role of traitor" would be better. In any case, I also think that the article itself needs to clearly contain the information that supports adding the cat. And differentiate characters that are infiltrators instead (ie is an undercover cop a traitor to the mob?). — J Greb 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that works, since it gets rid of ambiguity often associated with this. In terms of undercover people "double agent" (which has its own category already) fits that better. We definately need some criteria here as to who is a traitor. Katsuhagi 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, "portrayed as traitors" has negative connotations, and I can imagine a traitor being shown in a positive light (e.g., a traitor to a tyrannical regime). I can't seem to think of an option that is not seriously flawed in one or more ways. I do agree, however, the the articles need to clearly contain information that identifies a character as "traitor", an "accused traitor", a "convicted traitor", or whichever criterion is eventually chosen. -- Black Falcon 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Committing treason or not, it is based on the facts. Obviously not PoV. Pea ceNT 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Treason is "based on the facts," like all crimes, but it's also subject to a legal judgment. A category for fictional characters convicted of treason would be measurable (if still a useless category). Coemgenus 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after removing offending articles, or possibly delete and recreate. Treason should be easily defined. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague and unworkable. Metamagician3000 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic; and if you think that treason is easily defined or that it is consistently defined world-wide, were the "patriots" of the U.S. in 1776 or of Ireland in the Easter Rising traitors? See Lord Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose and John Walker Lindh for other conundrums over the term. After a civil war ends, were the combatants (or supporters) on the losing side traitors? Is it different if it is a rebellion suppressed versus an overthrow of the de facto or de jure regime? Lots of POV judgments to make folks. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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