Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:Historical people of U.S. natural history[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 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical people of U.S. natural history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This category is an ad hoc collection of explorers (William Clark, Meriwether Lewis), conservationists (John Muir), and people who studied nature (John James Audubon). "People of U.S. natural history" is vague and seems to sweep up people who may only be remotely related to each other. Moreover, the word "historic" is also poorly chosen. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to help hold your feet to the fire, for accuracy... It is not: "People of U.S. natural history". It is: "Historical people of U.S. natural history", and your highlight of the word "Historic", it is "Historical". This is obvious in Contrast to: the importance of "Modern day", or "Working people" of U.S. Natural history." The word Historic implies Renowned or Famous. You only mentioned 4 of the most famous people. That it is not the category's intention. E. H. Harriman-(the railroad magnate) and his Harriman Alaska Expedition might help you understand how people are put into this category. (from Author of category): -Mmcannis 00:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rethought my previous comment: Not only are U (sic) wikipedia experts so "expert", you easily, and conveniently misrepresent Urselves. If wikipedians continue to put up with expert analysis like "Your Historic", and you are the first vote to be followed by whomever, then we (as the contributor wikipedians) deserve what we have to put up with. (I was being conciliatory, and trying not to offer too much of my feelings(on my first comments), but even Mr Charles Darwin had to deal with "Misrepresentation", and I also don't like it.) It deserves to be called what it is, especially when it is the first, and only, vote in more than 1 month. [A little more opinionated Re-Statement].. {Most of the time I retreat to another area, and hope that change will happen on its own, but sometimes I cannot just do that.)-Mmcannis 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this category POV to suit your needs, Mmcannis? Are you the one choosing who is "historic" enough to go in the "Historic people of natural history" category? It doesn't matter who anyone would choose to put in this category, because it would be POV. Delete —mikedk9109SIGN 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the potential membership of this category is better covered by other existing categories such as Category:American naturalists and Category:American conservationists. We generally classify people by nationality but not by geographical area of work; there are a few European naturalists who would fit in this category but not the existing parallel cats, but that's not reason enough to keep this awkward category.--ragesoss 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one ridiculously named category. Doczilla 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for overbreadth. Also, the name is ... weird. Coemgenus 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, creator of category here: Mmcannis. Overbreadth made me laugh. (It's not easy finding these people to put into the category: only 5 or so came to mind when I started, but Rachel Carson was up there(tho I did not know she was deceased.) POV stuff- also very fun. Talk about POV: It was not a claim of MY pov, because anybody can re-edit and remove from the list. And.... its more of a POV by the Claimer: U can't argue that it could be a problem of POV. Plenty of wiki people would be glad to add or delete people at will(confer: ad hoc). POV thunderbolts aside. I will say that only maybe 33 Percent of these people were "Naturalists", and some were foreign naturalists. I don't protest putting Category:American naturalists under Natural history, but it was only put there as a counterbalance, not really because it belongs there. and.... definitely not put there to help, because at the same time it was up there the deletion stuff was tagged. It was really only used as a weapon. Only the "active participant" could admit that, and anyone else can analyze it or twist it as they want–(I know why it was put there.). If the category goes there, you might have to add: "American conservationists", "Canadian conservationists", ad infinitum. anyhow: fun stuff. Enuff said. At least some of these fellows(I wish more women, I couldn't even find a second for the list)([More properly, a second woman never came up.]), went to other Natural history places: Natural history of South Carolina (and Caribbean), for example. (It was not meant as a learning tool for ME)- [(and I already know what to expect from some of the other editors- One person was added (by another) immediately after the initial 15-Now there is a fellow wikipedian I can put into my "Cabal", probably)] [A fellow:.... popular- but I trust a lot don't know Mr. Rafinesque-I didn't]. Another note about Mr Misrepresentation: of the 35 or so people, probably about 20-30 occupations, or multiple occupations are highlighted: Mtn climbers, Industrial Magnate: Ur trivializing, is exactly that: trivializing, and misrepresenting. I've already explained that above....(Just notes before u (guys mostly) delete this category)-And as for comments about the NAME: it was originally (Before I searched on Wikipedia:The People's Encyclopedia:) it was: Category:Historical individuals of U.S. natural history-But isn't that a weird name?(I had to move everybody into the renamed category:!)(please look up the word: "ad hoc" in relation to the concept: Wikipedia?/and you might want to contrast it with: "ad hoc/ by cabal"- I/ve looked at other comments on this Log Page)... Mmcannis 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - First, please see what is written in Wikipedia:Overcategorization under Subjective Inclusion Criteria. The subjective word "historic" is no more useful than "outstanding" or "famous" or "renowned". Presumably all articles in Wikipedia are about "famous" or "historic" or "outstanding" people; otherwise, the articles would not be in Wikipedia. Generally, categories beginning with phrases like "historic" are renamed, merged into categories with better names, or deleted. Second, please consider using some of the existing categories instead of this category. Despite Mmcannis's comments, the category's inclusion criteria are still very vague, as many activities are related to natural history. Categories using terms such as "scientist", "surveyor", and "conservationist", however, directly specify the activities of the individuals. Dr. Submillimeter 09:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all the other delete comments. Piccadilly 15:46, 8 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:Homophobic people[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. Mairi 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobic people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category is not NPOV, "homophobic" is a loaded term, etc. Xyzzyplugh 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Suffers all the same problems as "racist people". This kind of categorization by general belief or attitude is not going to work. --lquilter 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and creates libel problems. Wilchett 00:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The term "homophobic" gets applied too freely to individuals with any indication of anti-LGBT bias. The word as used does not meet diagnostic criteria for a phobia in the first place because it is overapplied, but as used it lacks any consistent definition. Doczilla 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining characteristic. Even if it was, it is not suitable for a category, just as putting "racist people" or "sexist people" would be. —mikedk9109SIGN 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator of this category did so after his nomination for speedy deletion of Category:Anti-Semitic people was removed, and then this message appeared on his talk page. So the creation of this category was a WP:POINT violation. I too, would like to see all categories like these deleted, but until that happens, we don't need more of them to prove a point. -- Samuel Wantman 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate the page having some kind of restriction stated, but this seems ripe for more abuse than Category:LGBT rights opposition was.--T. Anthony 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to define or prove and, one hopes, not a defining characteristic. Coemgenus 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it is a defining characteristic for some; see, e.g., Fred Phelps. But in its adjectival form it sweeps too broadly. --lquilter 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; too open to POV abuse and not sufficiently encyclopedic to merit disregarding that fact. Bearcat 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unusable as adding anyone to it would be a breach of NPOV. Osomec 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Bless sins 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant and possibly a vio of WP:BLP.Bakaman 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Chris 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining characteristic- Gilliam 09:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. Jinxmchue 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. Jeff Silvers 12:17, 18 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:Disney Channel Games players[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 10:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney Channel Games players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - even if categorizing performers by network were a good idea, this is categorizing performers by commercials for the network, which is way too much of an overcategorization. Otto4711 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is "performer by performance" categorization. Which is Overcategorization. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should not categorize people based on their appearance in commercials. Dr. Submillimeter 23:32, 4 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:People who have won $1,000,000 or more on a game show[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 09:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have won $1,000,000 or more on a game show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Several countries use dollars, this category doesn't specify which type of dollars its refering to. Also some of the people included in the category are from the United Kingdom, and won nothing in dollars. The category just seems like a bad idea to me. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:48, 4 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:Star Fox 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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Fox villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - even apart from the POV issues of "villain" ctageories, this category is empty. Otto4711 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per other "villain" CfD's and this category is empty. —mikedk9109SIGN 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 23:12, 4 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:Fighting_Dems[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 (there is a list at the Fighting Dems article). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fighting Dems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category just duplicates the list found at the article of the same name. This category uses slang or jargon. L0b0t 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I could yet be persuaded, but I don't consider this a slang or jargon, and for many of these candidates, the moniker may be a defining characteristic for a while. Xiner (talk, email) 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By slang or jargon, I mean more along the lines of uniformity of naming, like Democrats that served in Armed forces or even Veteran Democrats, Fighting Democrats would be a little better. I don't think nicknames are a good basis for categories (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but mainly the article Fighting Dems already has a more comprehensive listing of members. Cheers. L0b0t 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you put this category up for deletion just because you don't like it? Alot of categorys duplicate lists found at their main articles. If this category uses slang, and its based off the main article of the same name, then wouldn't the main article name be slang also? Keep. —mikedk9109SIGN 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post above? I nominated this cat because it is a half-assed duplication of material covered in MUCH greater detail at the original article Fighting Dems. I do not like using slang for titles, but as I posted above that is not why I nominated the cat. Cheers. L0b0t 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Delete'". The list is simply a self-given moniker used by a small number of candidates. It has so little historical importance, that it does disservice to legitimate political movements and themes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treeman187 (talk • contribs) 10 February 2007.
  • Delete for reason given by the anonymous writer above. Postlebury 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a piece of transitory slang. Wimstead 18:53, 12 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:Video game 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 merge. the wub "?!" 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mega Man villains into Category:Mega Man characters
Category:Nintendo villains into Category:Nintendo characters
Category:Square Enix villains into Category:Square Enix characters
Category:Final Fantasy villains into Category:Final Fantasy characters
Category:Villains from The Legend of Zelda series into Category:Characters from The Legend of Zelda series
Category:Mario villains into Category:Mario characters
Category:Metroid villains into Category:Metroid characters
  • Merge - per multiple other "villain" to "character" merges, as per consensus on use of POV words like "villain" in category names found among other places here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Otto4711 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - if consensus is to merge then the old categories will actually need to be deleted because Cosmetor emptied the categories when he made his new "antagonist" categories. Otto4711 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge How many of these do we have to go through? —mikedk9109SIGN 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Antagonists" if you're so insistent that the word "villain" is too subjective to ever be used.. There was never a consensus for any previous category eliminated. You just ignored everyone who disagreed. Cosmetor 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The large number of categories and articles which have been deleted or merged because their use of subjective terms like "hero" and "villain" serve as evidence of a consensus against using such words in the names of categories and articles. There are links to eight of those previous discussions here. It is you who is ignoring that consensus. Otto4711 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename No, the large number of categories which have been deleted is only evidence that you have deleted many categories, not that everyone, or anyone, agreed with you. However, after thinking about it, I do think that "antagonist" is a better word than "villain". Cosmetor 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to familiarize yourself with how CfDs actually work. I didn't delete any categories. Various categories were nominated (some by me, some by other editors). If a consensus to delete had not been determined the categories would not have been deleted. Otto4711 20:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because of the new, objectively-defined "antagonist" categories, the "villain" categories are redundant and unnecessary. Cosmetor 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that all of the new "antagonist" categories have been nominated for deletion. We have already deleted Fictional antagonists for exactly the same sort of issues. Otto4711 01:22, 9 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:Computer and video games and related sub-categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to delete "computer and"; close up "video games" when separated; delete "banned" category; change "Wikipedian" ones at CFDU.--Mike Selinker 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all from computer and video games to video games notation (see current discussion regarding root page).
Note that the above list is not all inclusive as I may have missed a few pages. This does not cover non-catagory pages that use the CVG label in their title. It is purely a starting point intended to bring this discussion to a high enough profile to validate the final decision. -- BcRIPster 18:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note some of these renames may require title rewording and may trigger subsequint mergers (eg. "1952 computer and video games" ->rename-> "1952 in video games" <-then merge contents from<- "1952 in video gaming". New page will also need some final rewrite. BcRIPster 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - The term "computer and video games" is redundant and leads to unnecessarily long category names. The change will make it easier to read categories within Wikipedia articles. Dr. Submillimeter 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109SIGN 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per Dr. S. I only hope that in a few months someone won't start complaining about how computer games ought to be included. -- Prove It (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Category:Computer and video game villains is currently up for deletion separately, so should be withdrawn from this nomination for renaming. Otto4711 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just pulled it from the list.BcRIPster 23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to administrator - Category:Computer and video games with multiple endings is currently nominated for deletion. Please close that nomination first before proceeding with this rename. (No offense intended towards the person who made this nomination.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (if...) - Since it appears that most of the computer & video game-expert folks have agreed that "video game" is sufficiently recognized to cover both media, then the shorter title is much better. --lquilter 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all except the stub categories. Once that's done, take those to WP:SFD, since they will require stub template renames as well. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all & hooray for da RIPster. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - per above with one exception. Why is there a 2008 category? That should probably be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. --Colage 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all except (see post) - I made the Category:Competitive computer and video gaming category and did this for a reason. These articles aren't really about video games so much as they are about a phenomenon surrounding video games. It contains articles about the competitive playing of video games, which I strongly believe is sufficiently distant from just plain video gaming itself. It contains articles such as this biography or this machinima production. I'm convinced that adding these articles to the same space as all other video games is ambiguous. Thus, Category:Competitive computer and video gaming and Category:Competitive computer and video gaming techniques should be merged and renamed to Category:Competitive video gaming. Similarly, I don't think that it's a very good idea to remove the categorical information on when the games were created. I hope that an admin will take these arguments into consideration, since I believe that the above voters have not considered the competitive video gaming articles in particular (and that's understandable, since a lot of articles are going to be affected by this, and it's impossible to analyze them all). —msikma (user, talk) 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one question to experts in the field: are there computer games that are not video games? Interactive fiction already has its own category, but are there other examples in any of these categories? Otherwise, rename. Thank you, BcRIPster, for all your work preparing this nomination. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Computer games or video games are both correct terminology that cover "both". A console is a computer as well, and computer games also utilize a video stream (whether it's graphics, or a text mode adventure game). There isn't really any difference except for the fact that computers usually have a different input method than consoles (keyboard and mouse; consoles almost exclusively have games for specially made controllers). Another difference is the fact that a "computer" (as in: home computer) usually does more than what a console does (it has special interactive operating systems, such as Windows, contrary to consoles which mostly have non-interactive and much more simple operating systems, or even no operating system at all). When personal taste is concerned, I'd name them all "computer games". —msikma (user, talk) 12:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm going to date myself somewhat, but I have actually played a non-video computer game on a teletypewriter instead of a video terminal. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only issue here is that renaming "2007 computer and video games" to "2007 in video games", is that there already exists a category named "2007 in video gaming" (the category exists for previous years also). You would have my vote if you were to also suggest a merging of the two (2007 in video games and 2007 in video gaming). Pdboddy 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you view my comments/notes following the list of Catagories, I specifically addressed that issue and mention that those will need to be merged and cleaned up following this rename. One thing at a time, please.BcRIPster 13:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose "Video game based role-playing games", suggest "Computer and console role-playing games" to match main articles. Computer role-playing games aren't video-game-based role-playing games, but rather a genre of video games which share the settings and some of the game mechanics of role-playing games. Abstain on other nominations. Percy Snoodle 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Banned computer and video games regardless of the outcome of the remainder of the nomination. Per recent CfDs for other "banned" categories, including "Banned films" and "banned documentaries," this is an inappropriately broad categorization. Otto4711 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that one per Otto, Rename the rest. >Radiant< 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in general (might be case by case exceptions) I agree with the nomination in principle that the words "Computer and" are redundant for most or maybe all of these categories. However, as noted above there are some specific categories which maybe should not be renamed for technical reasons, so my recommendation is just an agreement in principle and I'll let the rest of you guys hash out the specifics for possible exceptions. Dugwiki 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. While I only have the "competitive computer and video gaming" category to worry about (see my post above for a more detailed explanation), there might be more specific cases. These are a lot of categories, afterall. I don't that they need to be immediately merged if there's some doubt, since they can always be merged later, based on their own discussion. —msikma (user, talk) 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the banned video games one, rename the rest. Coemgenus 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Thunderbrand 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Although I have always used the term, "Computer game" (as I have always done my gaming on a PC, never a console), I'll go along with this. Green451 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I have changed my vote; see below. Green451 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all. Simplifies some awkward names. Category and article pages can explain (if necessary) the sense in which we mean "video game" and include the alternate name "computer game." — brighterorange (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all When I used the phrase "video game" with reference to a particular game to my six year old nephew yesterday he replied, "It's not a video game" (it was a PC game). Cloachland 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. I like the more concise naming. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Disagree. Computer and Video gaming is over 50 years old. There are notable games such as Hunt the wumpus which were origionaly written for printed output. I suggest the list is resubmitted to exclude games by date - I would then support the rename. Munta 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This category is computer game article and video game article category. not a video game article only category.--Tujn 10:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this discussion when I was about to rename Category:Magic: The Gathering computer and video games to Category:Magic: The Gathering software. I still believe this is the proper handling of that particular category, but I'll wait until the discussion is over to move it. -- Norvy (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phrase "computer game" means something distinctly different from "video game". Since the articles refer to both, their names should reflect that. Cosmetor 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Computer games are not the same as video games. -- Selmo (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all I was searching for a "videogame characters" category but I couldn't find one so I had to click on multiple article links until I found the "computer and video game characters" category. Aren't people more likely to search using the terms "video game characters" and "computer game characters" rather than "computer and video game characters"? Even though the terms "computer game" and "video game" are often used interchangeably (especially by more mature people), maybe there could be seperate categories "video game characters" and "computer game characters"? Or maybe just "video game characters" with "computer game characters" as a redirect? --Candy-Panda 07:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Tujn is absolutely right: why should computer games not be considered different from video games. For example, Minesweeper is a computer game, as is Spider Solitaire and Freecell, so why should they have to be called video games? And as for Munta's suggestion, we cannot discriminate against 50 year-old computer and video games, so why change? Totalinarian 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback to the recent round of keeps. Computer games are video games. What they are not is Console Games. Please read the definition of a Video game that we are working with. If we were to use your logic then the catagories should be called "Computer and console and handheld and arcade and cellphone and pda and etc... game". The computer isn't so special a platform that it needs to be called out seperate above all others. BcRIPster 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand why people are saying that "computer games" aren't "video games". What is the reason for saying this? They are technically the exact same, as every game played on a console (by your definition a "video game") is actually played on a computer, as a console is a computer, and every computer game is shown to the player using some sort of video output (via a monitor). —msikma (user, talk) 07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. All computer games are video games. All console games are video games. But computer games are not console games. To use an analogy, Computer games are squares, and console games are trapezoids. They are not equivalent to each other, but they are all rectangles. Therefore, a category Squares and Rectangles would be redundant, as a Square is a Rectangle. --PresN 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NAME states, "Use common names of persons and things". For example, why is the article on the 42nd President of the United States called Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton? Because Bill Clinton is the name commonly used. The same rule applies to this debate. Although simply using the singular term, "video games", is more technically accurate, it is only one of the two commonly used terms, which would be exclusionist. Most people call console and handheld games, "video games", and computer games, "computer games". Those are the only two terms that I am familiar with. To simply call the categories, "Video games..." would, by the naming convention rules, make the categories essentially just about console games and cut out PC gamers in name and spirit (as if we aren't cut out by the software publishers already...). I originally voted "rename", but I realized that I can't, because I have never heard any gamer call a computer game a "video game". Green451 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, have heard gamers and non-gamers alike call computer games video games all the time, if personal anecdotes count as reasons for opposing. Seriously though, we (at WP:CVG) finally got the debate over calling various articles C & V Games versus just V Games finished up, and this is the side we came down on. This is just the aftermath, making everything consistent. The final step is renaming the wikiproject itself to WikiProject:VideoGames. --PresN 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal anecdotes certainly don't count as reasons for opposing, I am opposing per my other reasons above (and of course some non-gamers would call all of them video games, they might not know any better). On a secondary note, when did this renaming discussion take place? I am a member of WPCVG, and I received no notification of any such discussion, which would have been nice, becuase then I could have stated my opposition in the proper place. At the very least, a general message sent out to every WPCVG member would have been appropriate, to ensure the maximum number of people weighed in their opinions. I am keeping my vote oppose, but who am I to stand in the way of change? (To clarify, there is no hostility on my part although I understand that this message could read like that). Green451 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename all: Let's not worry about the exceptions for now; they can be dicussed and moved back/elsewhere after the major move is done.--SeizureDog 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - I actually thought this would be really straightforward so haven't turned up here until now. Computer games and video games are the same thing. They are interchangeable terms. Computer games do no solely refer to Personal computer games, and for this reasoning, the term Computer and video games has redundancy in it. - hahnchen 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all rt delete "computer and". There was a time, before cross-platform migration was mandatory for profitability, where this wouldn't have made sense. Those days are over: computer game = video game = electronic game. As for exceptions, I agree with deleting "banned" and leaving the "gaming" one as "gaming". I'll also hazard to speak for the people at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion that the Wikipedian ones are okay to change.--Mike Selinker 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Computer games are not video games! I think that the computer games should have the "computer games" categories and the video games have the "video games" categories!
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-interoperable systems[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. the wub "?!" 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-interoperable systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete A category which expresses a particular POV. Zunes and iPods can be used with non-Apple music/software/etc. See Banshee (music player) or Amarok (audio) for example. Messenger network/software like Yahoo Messenger/Google Talk/etc can be used with other non-Yahoo/Google/etc software. See Adium or Gaim for example. Just plain nonsense. AlistairMcMillan 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence that Skype users and MSN Messenger users can speak (voice) or see (video) each other? Obviously they can't. They are both major VOIP suppliers but are not interoperable. GAIM and the other examples you mention do not make them fully interoperable. Feel free to prove it. No POV here.
It is quite clear from the articles in the category that interoperability comes up regularly. It would strike me you represent an interested party. Sony? Microsoft? You guys don't like this subject, do you. Pgr94 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am surprised this category has been nominated for deletion - it would seem by an interested party. Many of the articles in the category mention interoperability issues. The purpose of this category is to identify products that contribute to Vendor lock-in. Pgr94 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply evidence that there are no lawsuits against Apple for locking ITUNES and IPod together? [1]
This has been discussed in a number of different places. But to take the obvious example, if the iPod and iTunes are locked together how come people have been managing their iPods with Linux for ages, given that iTunes doesn't run there? How come people were using iPods on Windows for around two years, before Apple ported iTunes to Windows? How can anyone seriously claim the two things are locked together when people easily use one without the other all the time? AlistairMcMillan 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when several governments are satisfied that there is non-interoperability [2] then it's irrelevant whether some coder cracked it. You're missing the point. "Works for me" doesn't make it legal. Pgr94 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the part of that article that mentions the iPod? AlistairMcMillan 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty evidence if you look for it [3][4][5] [6] Pgr94 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous. You do understand the difference between consumer groups and governments, right? And you do understand the difference between allegations & the threat of court action and actual court rulings, right? AlistairMcMillan 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. To be in a wikipedia article it needs to be verifiable, not necessarily proven in court. Wikipedia isn't a database of court rulings :-) Systems like Skype are non-interoperable for business reasons. Vendor lock-in isn't illegal. However in some cases there is a violation of the law. Pgr94 10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are missing the point. These consumer groups are threatening to take Apple to court. There haven't been to court yet. There aren't any court rulings. No one has proved that there has been a violation of the law. A bunch of people are suggesting that Apple have broken the law. That is a hell of a big difference. AlistairMcMillan 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not talking about some coders cracking anything. You don't have to crack anything to copy files to an iPod, the format of the iPod database isn't particularly complex, which is why there are so many programs that let you manage iPods. Aside from which the sales of iPod greatly exceed the sales of music through the iTunes Store.
You can't list things under "non-interoperable" when they easily work with other systems. People easily use iPods with Linux. People easily put music on their iPods and Zunes from sources other than the iTunes Store or Zune Marketplace. Similarly the other way around, people easily buy music from the iTunes Store and use it on devices other than the iPod. I'm assuming using music from the Zune Marketplace is just as easily used elsewhere. AlistairMcMillan 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many systems can fit into this category, with not much benefit. Xiner (talk, email) 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If too many systems fit into this category, then whats the point of the category. The category is too broad. —mikedk9109SIGN 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the category gets too large, then subcategories can be created. If we say can't have large categories we'd be against Category:Plants too. :-) Pgr94 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-interoperability would seem to be a quality of 2 or more systems, not of a single system, which is what all the articles are on. Mairi 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If a system does not publish its communications protocol (e.g. Skype) or refuses to reveal its file formats (as Microsoft did with its MSWord .doc format) then you get non-interoperability. Pgr94 10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving Microsoft's Word format as an example? Have you heard of OpenOffice.org and WordPerfect and Apple's Pages and AbiWord and Apple's TextEdit, etc etc etc? How about the fact that Microsoft have also published the format for Word documents. Did this escape your attention? AlistairMcMillan 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Sony Network walkman, it only works with Win platforms and only with Sony software - Sony won't reveal anything about formats (ATRAC etc). I use Skype but I can't talk to anyone on Messenger or Yahoo networks. No has been able to produce an interoperable system. And vendor lock-in doesn't exist. I'm just making this all up. Go ahead. Delete the category. I really can't be bothered any more. Pgr94 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AlistairMcMillan you are not providing any verifiable information - just rhetoric You haven't said a word about VOIP non-interoperability. Pgr94 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know next to nothing about VOIP, and I don't really feel like reading up on the subject just to prove you wrong, especially when the onus is on you to back up your statements (see WP:VERIFY). However after spending two minutes on Google, I did manage to find information on how to use Sony Network Walkmans without the bundled software[7] and on Linux[8]. So that's pokes holes in your previous "it only works with Win platforms and only with Sony software" statement. You are aware that to get material included in Wikipedia that you are supposed to back it up with sources (again see WP:VERIFY). And the things you linked above don't back up the idea that the iPod is a non-interoperable system, it just backs up the idea that consumer groups, NOT governments or courts, have accused the iPod of being a non-interoperable system. So unless you propose to create a "Category:Systems that have been accused of being designed to be non-interoperable by non government organisations" then you'll need to find better sources. AlistairMcMillan 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link you supplied ([9]) supports my argument: if the manufacturer is using obfuscation code (in this case a substitution cypher), then he (Sony) is deliberately building a non-interoperable system. Pgr94 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about you respond to my comments? You gave iPods, Word documents and you Sony Walkman as examples of non-interoperable systems. Do you admit that these things aren't as non-interoperable as you thought? AlistairMcMillan 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-interoperability is like encryption. With enough resources and time you can crack any protocol or file format. (Let's ignore quantum encryption schemes for now). But because a code can be cracked does not mean it's not encrypted. By using proprietary formats and protocols, the vendor is buying time, locking in customers from purchasing from competitors. Many protocols and formats have been reverse-engineered (e.g. Word documents etc) and the lock-in has been broken. But this doesn't change the fact that each time techniques like obfuscation are used, the manufacturer is building a non-interoperable system with the aim to achieve vendor-lock in. Pgr94 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, despite hours of searching the Sony NW-A3000 walkman remains clearly non-interoperable, I challenge you to prove me wrong, but of course you will be right in a couple of years :-) Pgr94 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this POV? Either a system is interoperable with another or it is not. A personal opinion isn't going to change that. Can someone explain why this is POV? Pgr94 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sufficient condition for interoperability is that all file formats and communications protocols adhere to International standards or Open standards. Pgr94 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interoperability is not a black and white issue, it is a complex issue governed by many factors. For example many formats are partially interoperable with some third-party software, but not with others. Full/Partial interoperability can come about intentionally, or as a result of 3rd-party hacking of the file format. In some cases 3rd-party support is perfectly legal, but in others it has spawned intellectual property lawsuits. This category is a gross over-simplification of the issue, and therefore adds no value. —gorgan_almighty 15:49, 14 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:ESPN personalities[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. Mairi 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ESPN personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers (for example, Greg Gumbel). In this case, the issue is made more confusing by the fact that ESPN and ABC are owned by Disley, so individuals working for the company may appear on both networks. This categories (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Also note the multiple discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3. Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all the other CfD's like this one. —mikedk9109SIGN 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Me to on this me to category. Vegaswikian 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a whole pile of detailed categories for specific sports channels and shows that wikipedia would be better off without. Nathanian 16:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorization of people by employer is a bad idea. — J Greb 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ESPN is different than the larger companies mentioned - it has less history and has been a major force in the recent cultural shift in how sports is being covered by the media. Having a one-stop place to see who has worked there is of interest to me and I would conclude of use to others as well. — Zaui (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information should be in List of ESPN personalities. Vegaswikian 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer categories to lists - less work. Is there a consensus on which one is preferred? — Zaui (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No consensus. It is decided on a case by case basis. There was one case in the last month or two where a list was deleted, moved to a category which was also deleted and taken to deletion review. I think it wound up being kept as a list, but I'm not sure. Don't recall what it was for. Vegaswikian 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wrt to the above comment it is now a mainstream channel and this category creates clutter in the same way as the ohters. Carina22 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like ESPN. If I'm searching around and thinking to myself, "Who was that one guy that worked for ESPN?" I could come and use this resource. JFreak213 23:25 8 February 2007
  • Delete. Shouldn't be categorizing people by who they once worked for. There's no particular reason to make an exception for ESPN. The list will do just fine, and can also include the years they worked there. — coelacan talk — 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already given. Postlebury 00:27, 11 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:Nicktoons that changed from TV-Y to TY-Y7[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. Mairi 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-defining, limited geographical scope. -- Prove It (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn category. —mikedk9109SIGN 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TV show articles are not yet sorted according to rating, and even if they were, they should not be sorted according to whether they changed ratings. Dr. Submillimeter 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know if I'd say not notable (though I'd lean that way), it's a trivial characteristic (not the rating itself, but the transition to a new rating) that doesn't need to be categorized. --Colage 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ->AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining and trivial. Osomec 22:22, 7 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:Men who wear eyeliner[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. Mairi 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-defining or trivial characteristic. -- Prove It (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People's stage make-up has little to do with their accomplishments. Dr. Submillimeter 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this category, I think it is a defining characteristic. This category isn't about accomplishments. —mikedk9109SIGN 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can accept that this isn't about accomplishment, and eyeliner is a defining characteristic, but it's so minor that I can't think of any possible reason to have this category. We may as well categorize men by underwear preference. --Colage 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this isn't, actually, "defining": most male actors and "TV personalities" today wear subtle make-up including eyeliner; "eyeliner" includes kohl which was worn by lots of men in other cultures; and do you really want to have to fight over J. Edgar Hoover's inclusion in this category? --lquilter 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I want to say fetish. Xiner (talk, email) 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to say fetish for what? —mikedk9109SIGN 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lquilter. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Coemgenus 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another dumb or dumber category. If this is were kept, we need to create women who shave above the neck! Rgds - Trident13 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a waste of space. Cloachland 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ridiculousBless sins 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absurd!--Newport 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe if it was still the 80's. D4S 20:15, 13 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:Islands in Asia[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 deleted - Darwinek 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Category:Islands of Asia, landforms are always of. -- Prove It (talk) 16:12, 4 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:Vegetarians[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. the wub "?!" 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Vegetarians by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Australian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Brazilian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chinese vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dutch vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Greek vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ancient Greek vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hong Kong vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Irish vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Israeli vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jamaican vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Japanese vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mexican vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Zealand vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Romanian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Russian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Slovenian vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spanish vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swedish vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Welsh vegetarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Australian vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Slovenian vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swedish vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - Most of the people in this category, ranging from Albert Einstein to Sting, are known for their contributions to society, not their dietary choices. This entire category tree thus says little about the individuals' accomplishments. However, it does contribute to category clutter (as seen on the article of Albert Einstein, for example). Moreover, validation of people's status as vegetarians may be difficult. A random search of articles in the category tree turns up several examples (Jeffrey Walker, Siouxsie Sioux, Gottfried Helnwein, Spike Milligan, Ziggy Marley, Vladimir Chertkov) where either vegetarianism is not even mentioned or it is mentioned but the information is not clearly supported by inline references. Because the category has little to do with the notability of the individuals and because classification is difficult to perform properly, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter
    • Must be the circles you run in. Einstein is actually very well known for his vegetarianism. Perhaps you didn't know he was a socialist as well? And a Zionist? I guess you've never heard his often-quoted words like "Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty" and "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." But the fact that you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not both prominent and verifiable. If Einstein was in a category like "vegetarian physicists" I'd argue for the deletion of that, but the fact of his vegetarianism alone is certainly warranting of categorization of such, especially considering that it's something he publicly advocated. As for people who are included in these categories without reference to their vegetarianism, it makes good sense to request citation of that, on the article talk page, and remove the category from that page in a couple of weeks if no citation is forthcoming. The problems with uncited categorization are easily solved, and thus do not constitute an argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, could be useful for a report on vegetarianism in popular culture or something. --Paul Carpenter 16:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is (mostly) a non-defining or trivial characteristic. I can't name off the top of my head any person who's famous for being vegetarian, only famous people who happen to be vegetarians. --Colage 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead and name someone off the top of your head who's famous for being black. I'll bet you can only come up with famous people who happen to be black. Non-defining? Ask a black person if they consider it defining. Some will say no, many will say yes. Ask a vegetarian if it's defining. You aren't equipped to make this distinction unless you can actually argue that vegetarians do not consider this to be a definine aspect of their identities. And you will not be able to argue that, because it's false. — coelacan talk — 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have a feeling I'm going to end up on the losing side of this argument, but here goes. Vegetarianism is in many cases something beyond a simple dietary choice. It's above a trivial characteristic and for some is the equivalent of a religious or spiritual belief. It's a reasonable classification. Otto4711 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being a vegetarian is certainly an ethical/religious/spiritual position as significant as being, say, a Roman Catholic. Probably more significant, as it will more often represent a deliberate choice made by the subject of the article. In fact I wouldn’t object to a mass deletion of a lot of these kinds of categories. But picking on the veggies seems to be distinctly unfair! —Ian Spackman 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - not all vegetarians do so for ethics/religion/spirituality. In that sense, it's a little broad to justify it on that basis. --lquilter 20:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subgroup of religiously-motivated vegetarians may be a minority, but people who do it for ethical reasons (including religious) are the overwhelming majority. The few people who choose it only for health reasons do not usually maintain that for a lifetime, and so probably shouldn't be categorized as such. Again, this is something to be worked out on individual article pages, and probably only an issue of contention in very few if any cases on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone explain how for most people this is a defining characteristic? I know for some it is, but for most of the ones listed or likely to be listed in the future? Vegaswikian 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. Anyone for whom it is a defining characteristic will have made public statements concerning their vegetarianism and probably advocacy of this for others. Those who have not made any such statements will be impossible to categorize as such, since reliable sources will be missing. Therefore, because of Wikipedia's verifiablitiy requirements, the overlap of defining and sourced vegetarians will be a one-to-one overlap, and the category is thus easy to maintain. If somehow there is a particular argument about a particular person's inclusion in the category, this is easily worked out on that article's talk page by normal consensus process. — coelacan talk — 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by continent. Xiner (talk, email) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If these are kept, why merge by continent? That makes no sense. Dr. Submillimeter 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this doesn't seem important. Countries are the standard way of subcategorizing on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also some faiths basically require vegetarianism, or some variant thereof; so for a substantial number of those whose vegetarianism is faith-based, it is redundant of their "Jain", etc., category. Come to think of it, it's a bit of a Western/US POV to single out "vegetarianism" as faith-based. --lquilter 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And of course you know that people who claim a religion as part of their identity do not always fulfill all the orthodox tenets of that religion, whether from simple personal choice or from the fact that they are in a sub-sect. I don't see what the point of this; arguing an overlap with Jainism is irrelevent to most of the people in these categories, and probably assumes the reader has a working knowledge of Jainism, which is probably not true. — coelacan talk — 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be one of those "if you are one you get it, and if you aren't you don't" things. These categories are being nominated in large measure because they supposedly aren't the most important things in the lives of some of the people so categorized. However, and I realize that I speak for a small minority of vegetarians, I have yet to meet a vegetarian who did not find their identity as a vegetarian to be extremely defining of themselves. Whether it's for spiritual reasons or not (and honestly I find the "it's redundant to Jains" business to be a pretty crap argument) vegetarians care about being vegetarians. If eliminating "category clutter" is more important than categorizing people by this important aspect of their lives then so be it, but I will continue to disagree strongly with that assessment. Otto4711 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 15:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otto has already argued quite convincingly that it is. I see no strong rebuttal. — coelacan talk — 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An encyclopedia should not be concerned with what is most important to the self-identity of famous people, but only with what they have done in the public world. Nathanian 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, then we'll be putting all the religion categories up for deletion next? Most people aren't particularly religious in the public world, and there are plenty of vegetarians who are as or more "publicly vegetarian" than a large segment of the people categorized by religion. Otto4711 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention all categories relating to race, sexuality, political affiliation, language one wrote in, and so on that aren't specifically tied to a concrete act that the person did in public. Otto4711 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, Otto4711, I would suggest that you're mixing together a lot of very different categories. Language one wrote in, for instance, is "specifically tied to a concrete act that the person did in public," as is political affiliation. Race & sexuality are related particularly to how one is treated "in public". Vegetarianism, per se, religious faith, and other matters of conscience, may, or may not, relate to specific acts in public. (Vegetarianism is particularly likely to relate to specific acts in public, though; eating ....). --lquilter 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether it's more encyclopedic to know that an American writes in English than that Albert Einstein was a Swiss vegetarian, I don't accept the "what someone does in public" rubric for inclusion anyway. I continue to contend that vegetarianism is more than sufficiently defining to warrant categories. Otto4711 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - a list can include citations while categories cannot, and will retain the grouping in a way that can be used for research purposes. ~ BigrTex 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This used to be a list, but most people advocated deleting the list in favor of a category. (This seems to happen often with categories in Categories for Discussion.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations should be in the articles, or the articles shouldn't be in the categories. Putting the citations outside of the articles instead, in a list, is defeating the purpose of having useful information within articles. Note that I am not saying to immediately go start deleting these categories out of articles that aren't cited. Requests should be made on the article talk pages for citations first, and citations should be sought by google by the deleter first as well. — coelacan talk — 01:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • proposal: Create a category of Vegetarianism advocates ("Vegetarianism activists" ? or "Vegetarianism advocates"?), and a second category of Vegetarian-as-spiritual-practice practitioners ("Practitioners of spiritual vegetarianism"?). I agree that picking up people according to defining, discrete attributes that are one of the reasons they are notable is important; the question is how to define a category such that it doesn't sweep up everyone else. The current category of "Vegetarians" sweeps too broadly; it picks up people who have been vegetarian at some point in their life (which includes practically the entire population of California and every lesbian I have ever known), as well as people who are vegetarian as an incident of a religious faith, as well as people who are vegetarian for health reasons. However, I think that a category of Vegetarian advocates, activists, or proponents, would pick up an important set of people; those who, like John Robbins, advocate for vegetarianism. I also think that categorizing people for whom vegetarianism is a key part of their identity could be useful; the question is defining the category in a way that makes it clear that it's not going to pick up temporary, incidental, or medical vegetarians. A clunkier but more descriptive category, like "Practitioners of spiritual vegetarianism" might work. (Ethical vegetarianism is probably a little too inclusive.) ... This might also keep the categories small enough that they would be useful for people browsing them, and they wouldn't have to be split into the often-times silly "by nationality" subcategories. --lquilter 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection would be that as soon as a word like "advocates" gets introduced there is an immediate POV issue. What makes someone an "advocate" of vegetarianism? It's the same problem with "supporter" categories. Deciding what is sufficient "support" or "advocacy" to qualify one for inclusion. As far as breaking it down by the reason someone is vegetarian, that potentially could amount to more categories, not fewer. I'm a vegetarian for ethical and health reasons; if I had an article I'd be properly categorized in both. As for the specific suugested "spiritual" vegetarianism, I question that as well. Why is a spiritual basis for vegetarianism to be considered as more valid for categorizing than an ethical basis whch doesn't rely on a "spiritual" basis? Best option is still to just leave the categories alone. Otto4711 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Otto that preferring religious vegetarianism over secular ethical vegetarianism is a POV problem, in my view a horrendous and inexcusable one. If there are problems here with putting people into these categories who were vegetarians for only short periods of their life, then it might make sense to limit the criteria: people who are currently vegetarian and people who were vegetarian when they died (notwithstanding pre-death changes of eating habits mandated by doctors; as this has been common and is not the same as personally renouncing vegetarianism). — coelacan talk — 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 'em all into one category: vegetarians. Or maybe two, with a separate category for vegans. It's important enough to keep, but breaking it down by nationality makes no sense. Coemgenus 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like nationality either. I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to a merge, but I think this has been done to make the categories small enough to be easily navigable. This is really something that should be taken up at the Village Pump, since subcategorization by nationality is so common on Wikipedia. I don't think it'll be successful, but I'll support it if you bring it up, contact me on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vegetarians but restrict categories - merge National subcategories I don't have a problem in principle with categorizing articles of people whose article notably mentions that the person is a vegetarian using verified references. For example, I don't think I'd have a problem using a Vegetarian category to include, say, an article about someone who actively, publicly promoted a Vegetarian diet and that information was included in their article. I wouldn't approve of the category including someone who happens to be a vegetarian, but whose article makes no mention of it and the vegetarian diet is thus a non-notable characteristic. So "prune" (pardon the pun) this category to only include people whose article notably indicates they are vegetarians. Given that the resulting category is probably going to be at most moderate in size, the National subcategories can, I think, be safely merged into the main Vegetarian category. Dugwiki 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if they exist they will be used in the way they are now as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, so you are voting for an option that does not exist. Carina22 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I can't normally base my decision on the hypothetical premise that people will misapply a category. Editors make mistakes all the time misapplying categories that are otherwise ok. But that doesn't mean that a category which editors might misapply should be deleted. It just means that articles which don't actually fit should be removed from the category. Dugwiki 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be verified with reliable sources that someone is a vegetarian, this is almost in every case because they have been public about it. That should of course be cited in the article, and requests for such citations should go on the article talk page before removal. But if the category is used correctly, as any category should ever be used, the public/notable/verifiable caveats should all be identically overlapping, so really I think you're just advocating that the categories be used according to standard WP:V policy, and I surely agree. — coelacan talk — 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too difficult to verify - people change their minds all the time, not a defining characteristic. — Zaui (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otto already convincingly argued that it was a defining characteristic, and I don't see you trying to rebut what Otto has said. As for changing minds, if they do then they can be removed. No problem. Not at all difficult to maintain, and no argument for deletion. People change their minds about religion all the time but we still categorize people by religion (raw, parent categories, ideally, not meaningless overlapping subcategories. But this, vegetarianism, is a raw category). — coelacan talk — 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all because this is a defining characteristic Ulysses Zagreb 09:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is hardly ever a notable characteristic of people's public careers. Carina22 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographies rarely if ever confine their scope to the public careers of their subjects. So assuming your point is correct, it's not really that relevant. Otto4711 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is suggesting that the information is not relevant in a biography; the point that I believe Carina22 is making is in reference to its notability in terms of categories -- meaning, it has to be a defining characteristic. --lquilter 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to assume that Carina meant what s/he wrote, which was in reference to "public careers." I would maintain that we categorize uncontroversially on all sorts of things that aren't part of people's "public careers." Sexuality, religion, etc. aren't necessarily part of someone's public career; in many cases the people we have so categorized have never even publicly acknowledged being a member of the category. We categorize people with eating disorders, which is rarely if ever part of someone's "public career." And so on. There are also a number of vegetarians who have made being vegetarian part of their "public careers," including off the top of my head Linda McCartney, k.d. lang, Morrissey, etc. so on that basis a category is justified. But assuming that your interp of Carina's comment is correct, I would also still contend that being vegetarian is sufficiently defining for a large enough percentage of those so categorized that, again, the categories are justified. I don't have a problem with merging all the national subcats into a vegetarian and a vegan category but the parent cats need to stay. Otto4711 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not defining then it won't be publicly known and so it won't be verifiable and we won't be able to include it anyway. If it's verifiable, then it's also notable enough to be used here. — coelacan talk — 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're getting too delete-crazy. --(trogga) 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if kept do not merge as categorization by nationality is the rule on Wikipedia. Cloachland 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any actual argument for deletion? — coelacan talk — 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorized. Quatloo 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explanation of why you think that would be helpful in gauging how much your opinion should count. — coelacan talk — 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. --Smerus 08:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Otto4771 is absolutely right here; every vegetarian I've met has emphasized that it is a core part of their identity. This is not overcategorization, because we're not talking about "Vegetarian footballers" or any non-defining intersections like that. I'm not a fan of emphasizing geography categories, but when a category is very large that's been the default way to subdivide it on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This could be useful if someone was doing research on vegetarianism, and needed to write about famous people who were vegetarians. Also, who says it's trivial? A lot of vegetarians take their vegetarianism very seriously... --Candy-Panda 07:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia should not focus on individual's self indentity. Abberley2 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to articles on individuals, it should focus on what, then? — coelacan talk — 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep of course. If it wasn't a good faith nomination, this could actually be quite offensive... to people who are vegetarian it is extremely notable; just as religion is to specific religious groups.
Vegetarian has 55,600,000 hits on Google.com, this isn't some obscure lifestyle choice, of course it is acceptable to have this catagory. With people like Brigitte Bardot and Linda McCartney it is also interlinked to their public actions, such as animals rights activism, etc. What next? are we going to put year of birth cats up for deletion too? - Deathrocker 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, this is not a helpful comment. Google hits helps in assessing notability of an article. Nobody is questioning the notability of vegetarianism as a movement or lifestyle choice. The question, rather, is whether it is workable as a category. --lquilter 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a helpful response to those who are saying that vegetarianism is non-defining. And the google part of the comment was only one sentence. The rest stands independently. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge national categories into Category: Vegetarians It's a notable enough characteristic, though there probably isn't any need for all the nationality-based categories. Jeff Silvers 12:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge national categories into Category: Vegetarians per Jeff Silvers. Icemuon 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep such people often provide a positive role model, important to keep track of them. Can't see how this CfD got off the ground, it seems, well, groundless. --Oscarthecat 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strongly in favour of keeping it. The category seems restricted to publicly identified vegetarians and vegans, as it should be. As to whether to merge the nationalities, I'll go with keep, as per other large, and potentially large cats. Mostlyharmless 23:56, 19 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:University shootings[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. the wub "?!" 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:University shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - duplicate of Category:School massacres, we don't need a second one. Headphonos 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate, nn. —mikedk9109SIGN 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Block as muliply reposted deleted content, see Sep 19, and Nov 9th and Nov 23rd. -- Prove It (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A university is not a "school," but an institution of higher learning and thus these incidents do not belong in the "School shootings" category. The above comments are unhelpful and represent the typical practice of many "regulars" at the call for deletion pages; they do not provide any helpful solutions, but instead simply like to vote "delete" for everything. It's time to step up and actually address some issues of making our encyclopedia as good and accurate as possible. Keeping university shootings in "School shootings" does not do that, I'm sorry to say, because a university just is not a "school." Badagnani 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a university is ALWAYS a school, a school is not always a university. A university is any college that does research. L0b0t 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, as a matter of linguistics this does not necessarily follow—see my comment below. --Xdamrtalk 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in American English, but totally wrong in other varities of Enlgish. Cloachland 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - This is recreated content. WP:CFD deals with enough problems and already has a significant backlog. This type of category creation and discussion is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no need to differentiate between primary and secondary educational institutions when dealing with school killings regardless of the nomenclature. --Colage 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is of no relevance as universities are tertiary institutions. Cloachland 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and salt for recreation. Xiner (talk, email) 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badagnani. I think we may be running into a difference between US English and other variants, particularly UK/Commonwealth English. In the UK it would be regarded as most odd to refer to Universities as schools, a usage which seems to be uncontroversial in the US. In the UK an university is a university, a college a college, and a school a school. On these linguistic grounds I would favour retaining this category.
I don't advocate duplicating content already in other categories, and it may be that this category would have too few members to be viable. Nevertheless I think that there is a prima facie case for allowing it. This category is a recreation of deleted content, yet none of the other debates, bar the last, have considered the point I have just made. Although this linguistic point was eventually raised in the last debate, the international aspect of the category name was overlooked—on these grounds I would urge you all to consider the matter afresh.
Xdamrtalk 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment' is the LSE a school or university (or a college?) 70.51.11.102 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A university; despite the fact it has 'school' in it's title, no-one would refer to it as being anything other than a university. (Actually to be precise, it is part of the University of London, although colloquially it is often treated as an institution in its own right).
Xdamrtalk 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The merge votes all seem to be based on the American English usage of school, but this is a global encyclopedia. Cloachland 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep It is alarming that such a clear cut mistake of a nomination has slipped through the net three times without the semantic issue being brought to the attention of American users. "School" means very different things in different countries, and in the UK describing something that happened at a university as a "school shooting" is simply a factual error. However people all over the world understand that "university" is a place of degree level education. Osomec 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No brainer. It seems that the only reason anyone wanted to delete this category is that Americans don't use the terms correctly. LukeHoC 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badagnani, Xdamr, and Osomec. Clarity and correct use of language should trump the other concerns here. There may be a good case for merging both into something like Category:Shootings at educational facilities or Category:Shootings at educational institutions, but that's a separate nomination. To merge this into the school shootings would be simply wrong. — coelacan talk — 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination is a mistake for reasons already explained. Postlebury 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I resent the suggestion that Americans don't use the word "properly" simply because it has a more restrictive meaning here. Jeff Silvers 12:32, 18 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:Slovo family[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovo family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

notable articles, but not enough to justify a category. Chris 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Keep I'll suggest that we keep this category. The Slovo family, as a family and as individuals, are fairly notable in South Africa. The category has 6 members at the moment, by no means the largest category in Wikipedia, but certainly not the smallest either. As is the case with most South African topics, these articles seem to be rather under-developed at present; however I can see reasonable scope for adding further pages to this category.
Xdamrtalk 14:10, 4 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:Islands in Russian Lakes[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 delete per request - Darwinek 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islands in Russian Lakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Completely unuseful + bad capitalization. Darwinek 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a part of my project to clean up Category:Islands. I agree it is not very useful. Can all of the contents of this category be moved into Category:Islands in lakes? This would make more sense. Category:Islands in lakes is a way of classifying types of island, compared with (for instance) "Islands by river" and "Islands by ocean or sea". Bards 11:48, 4 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:Cape Bretoners to Category:People from Cape Breton Island[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 (I'll leave a category redirect, per all the other demonym closures). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename a left-over demonym titled category page Mayumashu 07:40, 4 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:Films about insects[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about insects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category is not being used in any articles and it was created by a sockpuppet of MascotGuy. Keep, even though this was created by one of MascotGuy's sockpuppets, it is still useful and it seems important. Squirepants101 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and populate - seems as reasonable a category as any other in Category:Films about animals and if it's a valid category who cares who created it? Otto4711 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for overcategorization. Upmerge into Films about animals. Doczilla 07:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overcategorisation and empty. --Xdamrtalk 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can't up merge if the category is empty. Theres nothing in it to merge. —mikedk9109SIGN 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those saying this is an over-categorization: is it just films about insects that you consider over-catting or is it all of the sub-cats of Category:Films about animals? Otto4711 15:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Unless I am the only person ever to have watched a Bunuel movie! —Ian Spackman 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate to avoid any need to include articles in both Category:Films about animals and category:fictional insects. Come to think of it a film isn't a fictional insect, so the precise category is doubly important. Wilchett 00:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doing films per subject is dodgy at best. >Radiant< 15:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming we keep Category:Films about animals This appears to be a natural subcategory of the parent category Category:Films about animals, which is currently subdivided by animal type. So assuming we are keeping that parent category, this subcategory makes sens. Now, that being said, I think you could make a reasonable argument that maybe we should examine possibly deleting the parent category and all its subcategories. But if so, that should be done in a seperate cfd thread. For now, pending that possible discussion, keep this subcategory as is. Dugwiki 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, since someone above mentioned the category was empty, I'm adding a few films that center around insects. That eliminates the problem of the category being empty. Dugwiki 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I'd probably support upmerging this and all the subcategories into the parent, or deleting the whole thing. But again, that is a topic for a broader cfd that covers the parent. Dugwiki 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added a few films, mainly about fictional insects. I'm sure there are plenty more, but these are ones I remembered off-hand or found with a little digging. Dugwiki 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should categorize by types of film Ulysses Zagreb 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first reason given for deletion no longer applies and the second was worthless in any case as it is a judgement about a user, not about this category. Carina22 13:58, 6 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:2007 Tamil-language films[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 to Category:2000s Tamil-language films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Tamil-language films, Rename to Category:2000s Tamil-language films, or Keep. -- Prove It (talk) 02:28, 4 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.

Australian denominations[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 Upmerge all Duja► 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(all subcats of Category:Decimal coins of Australia)

Merge to parent. The creator probably thought the category structure is like directories of a file system of a hard drive. Well, it's not. If these categories remained, then they would have to include Canadian, American counterparts too. I hate to see the effort of these hard working editors go away, but the editors of currency articles currently just don't have the resource to make it "right". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to admin If the verdict is delete or merge, then please delete the talk page as well. (to avoid the mistake someone did as mentioned 3 sections below). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Decimal coins of Australia - As indicated, the category tree was apparently created by someone who misunderstood the Wikipedia categorization system. I would suggest a rename, but the category tree does not contain enough articles to warrant subdivision, although the images could be subdivided in a separate category tree. Dr. Submillimeter 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Wilchett 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Each is too small on its own. Coemgenus 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge. Same reasons. Sorry I created a new discussion -- I looked for this first, but didn't see it. Ingrid 00:49, 9 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:Companies based in Salt Lake City, United States[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 to Category:Companies based in Salt Lake City. the wub "?!" 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies based in Utah, little point in a single-item category, and parent is hardly overpopulated. -- Prove It (talk) 02:04, 4 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:Companies based in Chicago[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. the wub "?!" 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies based in Illinois, or Keep. -- Prove It (talk) 01:57, 4 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:Women psychologists[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 upmerge. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women psychologists into Category:Psychologists
  • Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality says, "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." I doubt that gender has that much to do with being a psychologist; i.e. I don't think it's an unusually male field. Suggest upmerge these 5 articles into Category:Psychologists. delldot | talk 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Gendered categories are often useful in discussing and studying specific subjects. I just fail to see who is going to find use for this one. User:Dimadick
  • Upmerge Overcategorization. —mikedk9109SIGN 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Psychology is a recent field (about a hundred years old), without a long history which necessarily includes centuries of gendered/racist discrimination against practitioners. So I think it's distinguishable from older fields, like medicine, science, lawyering, and so on. I'm also not aware of a field of study that focuses closely on "women in psychology"; again this is different from numerous works focusing on race/ethnicity & gender within, say, the sciences; education; law; etc.. --lquilter 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. It's true that psychology is younger than some other sciences, but women didn't start getting into any sciences in a big way until the 20th century anyway. This is not significantly different. — coelacan talk — 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the fact that women are a minority prior to the 20th century (at least) is why their presence is notable in certain other fields. --lquilter 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is actually probably a good argument for a "feminist psychologists" category, since there are real disciplines that constitute "a feminist way to do psychology". The women in this category who would fit into that category should be categorized there. I'm not convinced that this category constitutes anything particularly notable, though. — coelacan talk — 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Men might also fit into such a category, since feminism is a political belief about gender, not actually a gender. --lquilter 02:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I didn't think that needed to be said. Feminist psychology, however, has been almost exclusively pioneered by women. The men who practice it today might not be notable enough for their own articles. I don't know. Anyway I was just trying to give an example of a useful article that would have a good deal of relevence concerning women and psychology, not saying that only women would be in the category. — coelacan talk — 03:07, 10 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.

Deleted categories of Australian currency[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 delete per WP:CSD G8. Mairi 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, category talk pages. They were deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 15. But some admin forgot to delete the talk pages. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as orphaned talk pages. --Xdamrtalk 01:37, 4 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:Jewish fencers[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. the wub "?!" 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fencers, we don't do Sportspeople by religion, and I see no reason for Fencers by ethnicity. -- Prove It (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish fencers" is clearly contemplated by Wiki policy. It says: Heritage

People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

2. Nationality. Also, if the Jews are a nation (and not just a religion), it would clearly not be appropriate to merge.

The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)."

The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)."

Thus, one can maintain that in the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to merge.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for Black Jews and various types of Jewish athletes other than Jewish fencers ... see Category:Jewish sportspeople.

And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jewish athletes. "Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [10]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [11]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [12]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [13]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [14] and medalists can be found at [15]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [16]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [17] and [18]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [19]. It is mentions such as these that demonstrate the importance of this classification ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on. --Epeefleche 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jewish people are a nation in a way more like how the Cree or the Catalan people are a nation than how say Belgium is a nation. Although we have a Category:Fencers by nationality, it's essentially a shorthand for "fencers by state or semi-autonomous province." We haven't really been doing fencers by nationality in the sense Jewish people/Jews are a nationality. If we had we'd have a Category:Catalan fencers, Category:Tatar fencers, etc. Personally I think Category:Scottish fencers should even be merged into Category:British fencers.--T. Anthony 14:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding to Cloachland, above, your comment skips over the first point above. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), which clearly by its example contemplates categorization of "Jewish ..." --Epeefleche 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge When did the Jewish fencing team last participate in the Olympics? I don't agree with the guideline and would vote to delete all the Jewish occupational categories. Osomec 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding to Osomec, above -- that is the policy of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), though, so if you don't like the Wikipedia standard, you might consider seeking to revise it, but on this page we are bound by the existing Wikipedia standards. (And, btw, I support this existing Wikipedia policy.) --Epeefleche 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've bolded "oppose merge" three times now. Although this isn't a vote, it's still a bit confusing. It's better if you make the other two a comment or something.--T. Anthony 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.--Epeefleche 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. The case for maintaining is admittedly not overwhelming - but evidently some of those supporting the merger see it as the thin end of a wedge. E.g. Osomec 'would vote to delete all the Jewish occupational categories'. Whilst 'Jewish fencers' may or may not (I have no idea) anything 'Jewish' about them, Category:Jewish writers and Category:Jewish musicians (for example) can be strongly argued to be meaningful. I would be alarmed to see deletion of Category:Jewish fencers used as an excuse to attack, for example, the other two categories I have cited. So let it stay. After all, as my yiddishe grandmother used to say (and as the Wikipedia standards seem to confirm) 'Who forbids it?' --Smerus 11:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I think a person could vote merge here without rejecting all Jewish categories. I don't see this specific case as a notable intersection or necessary to avoid overcrowding. However I would strongly oppose a deletion of Category:Jewish writers, Category:Jewish musicians, or even Category:Jewish actors.--T. Anthony 12:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T -- I can't say I agree. Where are you drawing the line? What makes Jewish musicians more notable than Jewish fencers? How would you handle Jewish chess players? Jewish baseball players? Jewish boxers? If you take a look at the Hall of Fame info on Jewish fencers above, and the info on Jewish fencing history below, perhaps this will influence your thinking? --Epeefleche 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article Jewish music sort of implies the existence of Jewish musicians. Same with Jewish American literature or Hebrew literature and Jewish writers. Likewise Jewish political movements and Category:Jewish politicians; the various Jewish newspapers and Category:Jewish journalists; Jewish humor and Category:Jewish American comedians etc. I'm not as clear on chess or boxing though and you do a good job below.--T. Anthony 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this gives a little more history, for those who are interested, on Jewish fencers. It was originally in the Category description, but a commentator deleted it.

Historically, Jews have done very well in fencing in the Olympic Games. Hungarian Jews alone won 20 medals in fencing before World War II. The Jewish fencing tradition in middle Europe partially stemmed from the constant insults Jewish students were subject to when they entered universities in large numbers in the mid-19th century. A common response to an insult in this setting was to challenge the offender to a fencing match. So many Jews humiliated their anti-Semitic taunters in these matches that some anti-Semitic student 'clubs' finally decided that their members didn't have to answer a “duel of honor” challenge from a Jew.[20]

Since World War II, Russian Jewish fencers have been the most successful Jews in the sport, even though “official” anti-Semitism kept many Jews off the Soviet team from 1976 until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Many Jews with a fencing background have since left Russia and enriched the sport in the countries in which they settled.[21]

Between 1896 and 1976, 38 Jewish fencers won 76 medals (39 gold, 22 silver, and 15 bronze) in Olympic competition.[[22]] Over the years they won numerous world, national, European, British Empire, Commonwealth, and Pan-American games medals. --Epeefleche 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm good job.--T. Anthony 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the above passage be incorporated in the article Fencing? It seems encyclopaedic, in giving evidence of Jewish participation and specfic background and reasons for that participation. In that case, you could perfectly well, within WP's standards, create an article List of Jewish Fencers and give it a link from the article - regardless of what happens to the category. --Smerus 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. However, another category with something along the lines of "famous Jews" would probably be appropriate.Bless sins 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I can just about stomach Category:Jewish sportspeople even though I think it is a manifestation of systemic bias (like the guideline), but this is just too much. Piccadilly 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merger, the argument quoted by Epeefleche is compelling. Quatloo 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger What next? Merge American scientists into Americans or scientists? Unles and until we have tools to do these cross-classifications ourselves, cats like this are needed.--Osidge 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Epeefleche.--Newport 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and strongly so, mainly per User:Epeefleche. --Shamir1 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Epeefleche and Shamir1.--Holdenhurst 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category is quite in accordance with WP policy, and I see no NPOV reason to get rid of it.--Brownlee 13:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this seems obvious. See above discussion. --Daniel11 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, regardless of Epeefleche, this is Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Yes, there happen to be plenty of Jews who are good at fencing. But there's still no "Jewish fencing". If there was a specific style of fencing that was practiced by many Jews, I would argue differently. But this is just pulling out some gold medals and saying that it represents a social trend. Write the article on Jewish fencing and lets see that go through AFD first, if it survives, then this category can be resurrected. — coelacan talk — 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Fencers by nationality should be a valid cat.Bakaman 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge A useful category; those supporting merge seem to be unconvincing.--R613vlu 12:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per Epeefleche and Brownlee.--Runcorn 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - If Category:Fencers becomes to large to use, then I think that such sub-categorization may make things easier. With under 200 articles there, I think such a sub-category is useless. Eli Falk 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What use is a category with 200 articles, that just means you dont see them all in one go. 56 is plenty enough for a category of its own... Ansell 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Those opposing merge seem to be unconvincing, and to base their votes simply on the importance of Jewishness to them, not on its importance in fencing. Abberley2 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a helpful comment. Where did I or others say such a thing?--Runcorn 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have sportspeople by all sorts of nationalities. Why is this such an issue. Jewish is not the same as Israeli... so what? There are many better things to spend time arguing over than whether this particular sports by nationality category should be deleted.
(Unsigned comment made 23:46, 14 February 2007 by User:Ansell--R613vlu 23:35, 15 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:People associated with Turin[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 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Turin, to match the usual conventions. -- Prove It (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, or someone will add you-know-who to the list for his alleged association with a particular piece of fabric. --lquilter 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename − The goal of this Category seems to be anyone who has been largely involved with Turin. However, I don't think such a category needs to exist. So, if renaming is to occur, someone will have to sift through the members of this list and determine which were born in Turin and which are only associated with the city. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was my goal in creating this category: to bring together people with significant links to the city, whether or not they happened to be born there. It mirrors List of people associated with Turin (which itself was largely derived from it:Personalità legate a Torino), but also acts as an umbrella for more narrowly defined categories such as Category:Juventus F.C. players. I am rather certain that such a category—however it is named—ought to exist. If a reader is interested in Turin, it should help her to find the biographical articles in our encyclopedia which are most pertinent to that interest. So no. Even if the category is renamed there seems to be no need to weed out the non-natives. —Ian Spackman 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lesnail 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Inconsistent with other categories of People by City. User:Dimadick
  • Oppose Possible bias: I created and populated the category. I am generally in favour of consistency and if it wasn’t for such cats as Category:People associated with Aberdeen I might on that basis be mildly in favour of the proposed change, or at least neutral towards it. However it would create problems both for very minor figures and for ones somewhat significant in world history. Firstly it would be very odd to describe a footballer who played briefly for Torino F.C. as a ‘person from Turin’. But surely the category tree should enable one to find him through the route Turin->people. Secondly take Charles Albert of Sardinia. Despite the name of his kingdom, its centre was Piedmont and the capital and royal residency was Turin. He certainly has to come under a ‘people of Turin’ category, however it is named. He was born in Paris and is currently categorised both under Category:People from Paris and under Category:People associated with Turin. That seems to me to be fine. But if he came under both Category:People from Paris and Category:People from Turin our readers might be unnecessarily puzzled. Finally take Shakespeare and London. Anyone whose interest we can arouse in the cultural history of that city ought to be directed towards him pretty rapidly. However, he is not a member of Category:People from London, and it’s easy to see why: he didn’t come from London; he went there and flourished. Quite rightly he falls under Category:People from Stratford-upon-Avon. It seems that if we limit our basic city-related biographies category to ‘People from X’, we exclude people whom we shouldn’t. —Ian Spackman 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your remarks, I would say delete vague category altogether. "Associated with" is meaningless. Doczilla 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the city. (I am glad to see that the Natives of IsItACityOrAProvinceOfItaly problem is being addressed.) —Ian Spackman 10:49, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4&oldid=1138388035"