Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

July 11[edit]

Category:AACS encryption key controversy[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category should be deleted per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. It only contains the one article. The rest is talk pages, and a Wikipedia page. Jon513 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Talk pages should not be in a main space category. The template that was doing this was modified. Vegaswikian 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Wikipedia:Keyspam from the category. now it only contains one article, and should be deleted. Jon513 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was probably in use by the keyspam template and used to keep track of articles that were victim of the spamming back then. Not really needed anymore I gather. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was {{09F9-notice}}. Vegaswikian 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any justification for having a category on this topic. Postlebury 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It once served a useful purpose. davidwr (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British health organisations to Category:Health organisations in the United Kingdom[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. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for renaming because organizations are categorized by country, not by nationality. "in X" is the default wording for organizations, such as Category:Health organizations in Canada, Category:Health organisations in India, and Category:Health and Disability rights organizations in the United States. Kurieeto 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention & nom. Johnbod 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:William Hill Sports Book of the Year winners[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners. This is hardly the most notable literary award--probably not even the most notable sports-book award. Many of the winners are much more notable as sports figures than as authors, so this only contributes to category clutter. A list of winners is already present at the article William Hill Sports Book of the Year, so this category is redundant. Xtifr _tälk 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only about one of the winners is a really famous sportsman. This is a major achievement for most of these people. Dominictimms 13:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OCAT, most award winner listing should be handled as list articles, not categories. There doesn't appear to be a need to make this an exception to that rule. Dugwiki 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postlebury 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:BDSM film-makers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with apparently little room for expansion, but in addition to that it doesn't strike me as useful to categorize filmmakers on the basis of the subject matter of their films. Filmmakers can and do explore any number of themes and subjects in their work and categorizing on that basis would lead to massive category clutter. Possibly some POV issues as well in editors deciding whether a filmmaker qualifies for the category (would David Lynch qualify on the basis of the sexual sadism in Blue Velvet?). Otto4711 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would violate WP:OC re: arbitrary. Wryspy 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathanian 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: note that this absolutely does not qualify as "small with no potential for growth" (which section of WP:OC specifically mentions "two or three" items, while this could easily have dozens), but it is fairly subjective and arbitrary, and that is sufficient justification to delete. Xtifr _tälk 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eponymous musician categories - U[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these eponymous categories consists of some combination of subcats for members, albums and songs along with the artist article and perhaps a discography. Per emerging consensus this material is insufficient to warrant the categories. The sole exception is Category:Utada Hikaru which contains an article for the artist's wife but since the two articles are interlinked the single additional article doesn't require the category. Otto4711 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep These are commonsense categories that group closely related material. Dominictimms 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to Dominic's assertion above, most bands do not require their own eponymous category, especially if the category only contains songs, albums and band members. See WP:OCAT for guidelines on eponymous categories. Dugwiki 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No category is required, but one that contains songs, albums and band members for a particular group is useful. Postlebury 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you would not be able to correctly list the items in categories like Category:Musicians by band and Category:Songs by artist. The sub cats are needed. Vegaswikian 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Bulldog123 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and overwhelming precedent. These categories are simply unnecessary. Xtifr _tälk 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Daughters of marquesses[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Regardless of whether the articles are notable, categorizing people by what their parents are is impractical. Such issues should be pointed out in the article (or possibly in a family tree template), which can give more background information, rather than simply by a tag at the bottom. This is in fact an issue for categories, as described here. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate categorisation. Being the offspring of a notable person does not in itself confer notability. The Wednesday Island 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ridiculous categorization. Otto4711 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does serve a purpose. It was created to contain those who are entitled to the prefix Lady as daughters of marquesses, just as Category:Younger sons of dukes etc. do for the children of peers and they are given rank in the Order of precedence in the United Kingdom. I doubt these people would have articles about them if it's notability you're contesting. Craigy (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorizing anyone by their relatives leads to insanely complicated categories. Wryspy 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of larger scheme to categorise nobility titles. As has been pointed out, nomination is misconceived by being based on notability, which is an issue for individual articles, not categories. Johnbod 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baridiah 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: this does seem to be a claim of nobility (which is separate from a claim of notability) and we do seem to generally classify nobles, whether for better or worse. This one is pushing the bounds of rationality, IMO, but I hesitate to claim that it's crossed those bounds. As Johnbod points out, notability is an issue to discuss about the articles, not the category. Broader discussions about the bounds of rationality when classifying nobles should probably go to the appropriate workgroup of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Biography first. Xtifr _tälk 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eponymous musician categories - V[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. These are indeed only a subset of "musician categories", but one that has been debated at length. The intent is obviously not to delete all musician categories. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories consists of one or more of the following subcats: albums; members; songs, along with the article for the artist and an occasional discography article. Per the standard articulated in looking at bands beginning with A and artists beginning with W, along with many additional individual CFDs for eponymous musician categories, this is insufficient material to warrant the eponymous category. The material is accessible through the artists' articles and is categorized in other "...by artist" category structures. The only deviation is in Category:The Vines, which contains links to a template, portal and Wikiproject page. I don't think that material warrants an eponymous category since it's all linkable through the template and articles but it does deviate from the standard. Otto4711 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I see nothing here that deviates from the "beginning with A" verdict.--Mike Selinker 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep These are commonsense categories that group closely related material. That is why there are so many of them. Dominictimms 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That other similar categories exist, even a lot of similar categories exist, doesn't really serve as justification for this batch. WP:OC explains why these sorts of categories are considered overcategorization and there is strong consensus for this guideline. Otto4711 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Wrt to Otto's point, the fact that he is only nominating certain of these categories (9 of 13 in this case) suggests that even he is part of a separate consensus that many of these categories are required. I prefer that second consensus. Postlebury 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The exclusion of any category reflects only the fact of the material in the category. It does not reflect my opinion about the category itself, nor does it reflect my perception of or agreement with any supposed broader consensus about them. Otto4711 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Bulldog123 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments on other batches. The nominator is making an inconsistent series of judgments on individual cases, but is not providing specific justifications for any of them. Nathanian 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same exact justification has been offered for all of them, that they constitute overcategorization and the categories are not warranted by the material in them. On the contrary, it is you who has offered no justification for keeping the categories. So please, justify treating these as exceptions to the guideline expressed at WP:OC. Otto4711 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: we have a well-established (and consistent) consensus on when eponymous categories for bands should be kept, and none of these meet the consensus criteria. The one exception as noted by nom actually has items that should not be in a category for mainspace articles, and if those items were removed (as they should be), the category would absolutely fall under our criteria for deletion. Xtifr _tälk 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sentenced demos[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sentenced albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and suggest renaming target to Category:Sentenced (band) albums to address ambiguity. Otto4711 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & rename per Otto - it confused me. Johnbod 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename per Otto. We don't need subcategories for demos, and, like Johnbod, I was confused by the name at first. Xtifr _tälk 12:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pre-1914 Association Football 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus; looks arbitrary, but Mikedash gave convincing reasons for the date. --Kbdank71 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary inclusion criterion. I see no reason for using 1914 as the cutoff point, and would suggest merging with Category:Cambridge University A.F.C. players. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons for using 1914 as a cut-off are given on the category page. The period 1914-1918 marked a transition in footballing style and players who played the game before that date did so using different tactical systems to those employed in the 1920s and 1930s. In addition, the number of football-related biographies has grown so substantially that it is useful for historians of sport (I speak as someone with this interest) to be able to distinguish between men who played in the early days of the game and those who play(ed) in the modern period. One cannot, for example, look at the category Football (soccer) goalkeepers and have any idea which player belongs in which period of the game's history.

Incidentally, since the category was created with an initial listing of around 75 players, it has grown to number 181 players, a fair indication that other users and creators of football biographies find it valuable. Mikedash 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where the differences in play notably different between 1914 and 1915, or was this a gradual change? Dr. Submillimeter 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it probably has to do with WWI. But according to the FIFA page, the distinction is made at 1918, when the Home Nations withdrew from FIFA. Or it would be 1903, the founding of FIFA, when it takes over administration of soccer. In any case, this category is misnamed, as it starts from 1863, with the creation of the modern ruleset by The Football Association. 132.205.44.5 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed Category:Football (soccer) players (1863-1914) (or whatever end-date is chosen). 132.205.44.5 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the discussion above, I agree that 1914 is an arbitrary cut-off point. Dr. Submillimeter 08:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons are given on the category home page. Notably, WWI led to the suspension of all professional football with the exception of South America. 1920s football tactics were distinctly different from those in the preceding period, for example goalkeepers were no longer permitted to handle the ball anywhere in their own half, the number of strikers decreased and the number of defenders increased. Mikedash 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mikedash. Not all pre-1914 players played for Cambridge University!

Dominictimms 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. per WP:OCAT, this is indeed arbitrary. --Kbdank71 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary inclusion criterion. There's no effective difference between a player with 105 caps and one with 95 caps. Furthermore, it's redundant with List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as arbitrary. Not every list should become a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of categories can be created to describe individual footballers' achievements. It is infeasible to have all of these categories on fottballers' pages, as the categories at the bottom of individual articles will become very difficult to read and use for navigation. As it currently stands, articles on footballers have category clutter problems anyway. It would be better to delete this category and rely on the list. Dr. Submillimeter 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as arbitrary cut off. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have already been through all this, with strong opinions expressed on both sides of the argument, and no consensus reached. The proposer is well aware of this, as he contributed to that discussion (and the proposer on that occasion has now leant his support to deletion again), and to relaunch a deletion debate with no additional grounds did not go one's way the last time it was closed does not suggest good losership. Kevin McE 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that even though I'd like to, I do not and cannot recall with perfect clarity any and all discussions I've been involved in during the past four months. WP:AGF. >Radiant< 15:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not, but it would seem to me very poor form to propose an article or category for deletion without even reviewing its history: there were only 7 items in the history to look through. Kevin McE 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC, arbitrary inclusion criteria. Wryspy 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do I take it the nominator will also be moving in on Category:500 home run club, Category:30-30 club, Category:600 home run club, Category:700 home run club and all the other "arbitary" sports categories? Johnbod 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the criteria listed on that page. All the examples given are for random, non-round numbers. 100 is not a random or irregular number. Postlebury 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Are there verifiable sources that these are in fact "clubs"? >Radiant< 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you would see from the first lines of the articles, they are "informal" clubs, ie not clubs at all, except in the sense that a pregnant woman is "in the club". Johnbod 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an effective difference between 99 and 100. We live by the decimal system as we have ten fingers, and such units are used all the time. Whenever anyone reaches a 100 caps, it is covered extensively. There are so many footballer articles that it is essential to have some categories that help people to find the key articles - something which on the whole Wikipedia does very badly. Dominictimms 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a category with an arbitrary standard for inclusion. While I like having ten fingers and toes as much as the next fellow, the fact that we employ decimalization does not mean that every power of ten is category-worthy (someone create Category:Footballers with zero caps (10^0) or Category:Footballers with ten or more caps (10^1) and see how well those go over). For the record I would also support deleting the various home run categories and the like, just like I supported deleting categories for people who won more than one Olympic gold medal or more than one Academy Award and so on. If kept, the category should be renamed because the vast majority of people on the planet have no idea what a "cap" is in relation to football. Otto4711 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10^0, or indeed any other number to the power of zero, is, of course, 1, not zero, and lots of categories record the fact that somebody has done something once or more than once. I would venture that more people world-wide are familiar with the concept of an international cap than a home run: for those who are not, it is explained in the first line of the category's page. Kevin McE 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most useful categories for footballers. American-dominated sports have overall halls of fame, but football doesn't, and this category does much to compensate for the lack of a hall of fame category for football. It is not arbitary because it is a round number and is in common usage. Postlebury 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using a round number is arbitrary. Vegaswikian 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the definition at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion it isn't: that says that this is breached when There is no particular reason for choosing the cut-off point, but it does not exclude the possibility that a round number is a particular reason for choosing a cut-off point: there are, after all, categories about billionaires. The discussion at that page on the tension between arbitrary inclusion criteria and significant thresholds was inconclusive, but certainly did not provide any evidence for a consensus that would agree with your argument. Kevin McE 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This category is not arbitrary. According to Wiktionary arbitrary means, "Determined by impulse rather than reason" or "Chosen for no reason, somewhat random." The number chosen in this case has been guided by a reasoned understanding of international football, and the category has been created to serve the clear, unrandom purpose of presenting players who had a major international career. One hundred is the only number which people well-informed about football would be likely to choose. No one has suggested a different number in either of the discussions. In any case, the nominator is inconsistent, as he implicitly acknowledges that selecting footballers with 100 caps is rational and worthwhile by accepting the list. That settled, this category is not a well chosen place to address category clutter on articles about footballers, as it has far more utility than, say, the categories for players who participated in particular tournaments. Dominictimms 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for players who participated in particular tournaments should also be deleted. Please point me toward them and I shall nominate them forthwith. Otto4711 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major category. Many good arguments have been presented for retention, none for deletion. Baridiah 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof by assertion isn't. I could just as easily say that "many good arguments have been presented for deletion, none for retention". >Radiant< 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason given for deletion is simply inaccurate. Wikipedia is used by people, and people take much note of career landmarks. Nathanian 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but nobody has verifiably demonstrated that 100 caps is in any way a "career landmark" other than that it happens to be a convenient count on human hands. >Radiant< 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true: this FIFA article was cited on 15 March by User:Howcheng in a discussion in which you were a participant. If the governing body of international football consider it a significant landmark, how can Wikipedia not do so? Given that Radiant himself has said It may be different if you get some kind of special prize for reaching 300, and that presentations would normally be made and FIFA gives recognition of this landmark, I move that the category stay. Kevin McE 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category is both easier to use and easier to find than the list. Neither the list nor the category are arbitrary. Brandon97 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cap is apparently similar to games played? If so, it seems like an entirely arbitrary statistic and the milestone is even more arbitrary. The baseball equivalent would be what? 2,500 games played? Never heard of it. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is 100 international matches played, which for obvious reasons has no baseball equivalent, except something like 500 homes runs, which will be the next category nominated if this goes through Johnbod 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without good references, it's just some round number. Entire books and countless other references make a big deal about 500 home runs. 100 caps doesn't even look like the correct dividing line. I see around 45 people between 100 and 103. 125 caps looks more impressive. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, like 507 home home runs? Johnbod 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, like 500 home runs. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or [1]? Johnbod 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina and subcats[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to "<foo> footballers", per Category:Trinidad and Tobago footballers, Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis footballers, et al --Kbdank71 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Category:Footballers of the Central African Republic, Category:Footballers of the Republic of the Congo and Category:Footballers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

All sibling cats use the format "<fooish> footballers". These should be renamed to reflect that. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, See September 13th discussion ... what country are Category:Congolese footballers from? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point... "republic of congo footballers" and "democratic republic of congo footballers" perhaps?

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

Category:Indoor soccer players and subcats[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'd like to see some more input on this, especially since all of the leagues, associations, etc, call themselves "indoor soccer", not "indoor football". --Kbdank71 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire structure uses the term "football (soccer)", these should be renamed to reflect that. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Footballers who died from motor neurone disease[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease --Kbdank71 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing sportspeople by the way they died is overcategorization. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The general consensus is not to categorize people by career and form of death. Dr. Submillimeter 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease. That should suffice. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt, intersection of occupation and manner of death is usually not acceptable. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - footballers seem to have a higher risk of developing MND therefore it's definitely noteworthy - see MND Association page on itGeorgethe23rd 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So write an article on why it's noteworthy - a category cannot properly explain that. >Radiant< 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with Radiant. An article could properly explain the connection with references and could cite specific examples. This category cannot accomplish that. (The same could also be said for American football players who suffer from concussion-related illness or professional wrestlers who die from steroid-related problems.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. Excessive intersection of variables. Wryspy 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. Obvious overcategorization, not a defining characteristic—ample precedent exists for deleting such categories. "Seem to have a higher risk" is speculative and irrelevant—Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, and even if there is a connection, it should be addressed in an article per Dr. S. Xtifr _tälk 09:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Historical Northwest Territories electoral districts[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. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical Northwest Territories electoral districts to Category:Former Northwest Territories electoral districts

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" has many interpretations. It could be used to indicate that something is old, or it could be used to indicate listing in a historic register. In this case, it is used to indicate that these electoral districts no longer exist. It should be renamed using "former", which communicates this much more clearly. Dr. Submillimeter 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Historic transportation in Oregon[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated, "historic" is subjective --Kbdank71 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge subcategories into Category:Transportation in Oregon and Delete - This is an ad hoc collection of things that various users may consider "historic" about transportation in Oregon, including defunct railways, road construction projects that were never started or partially completed, roads that no longer exist, defunct ferry services, a person who worked on road construction, and two subcategories for "historic" trails and "historic" ships. The category is very incoherent, and the articles already exist in other subcategories of Category:Transportation in Oregon, so I suggest merging the subcategories into the parent category and otherwise deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Every one of the articles in the category concerns a transportation-related topic which is woven into the history of the state. I don't understand how this can be considered "ad hoc" or "very incoherent." The relationships among these topics are generally explored pretty well in the articles. -Pete 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The category is a collection of every transportation item that was in Category:History of Oregon which has become rather unweildy. It is one of several sub-categories added to make that category more managable. It really has nothing to do with Category:Transportation in Oregon, thus merging into the Trans category becomes counter-productive. Aboutmovies 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I also object to the characterization of this category as "ad hoc" and "incoherent". This category is overseen by a very active WikiProject, WikiProject Oregon, and is by no means random. This category definitely helps us keep the Oregon history category under control and differentiates between modern transportation and everything else. I believe that a user casually searching for Oregon transportation articles is probably looking for modern transportation--the subcategory provides clarity between the historic and the modern, which is a very useful designation. Perhaps the introduction to the category could be made clearer, but that's the only change I think is necessary at this point. Katr67 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could the people opposing this explain why the Mount Hood Freeway, Harbor Drive, and the Willamette locomotive are in this category but the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway, the Sellwood Bridge, and the Mitchell Point Tunnel are not in this category? The inclusion or exclusion of articles really seems arbitrary. Dr. Submillimeter 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Volcanic Byway or Sellwood Bridge would be considered historic - nothing in those articles indicates historic significance. The Mitchell Tunnels could certainly be included. Addressing your broader point: just because it's not immediately clear what articles should or shouldn't get included, doesn't mean the category is incoherent. We're perfectly capable of having productive discussions about each case, and making a determination whether or not it should be included in the category. The current collection is good; there may well be other articles worthy of inclusion. Gray areas are an inherent part of the project of categorization. -Pete 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My point is that it seems arbitrary as to what gets put in here. Given what you stated, it sounds like anything that is "notable" and "old" should be in this category, although it sounds like this category is open to subjective interpretation as to what is "old" and "notable", which is really bad. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion for further information. It also should not be necessary to have a category for "notable" or "famous" (or "notable things that happened in the past" or "notable old") things because everything on Wikipedia must already meet notability standards. (I personally would call the Sellwood Bridge "historic" because it was built in the 1920s, but I could label as "historic" anything that occurred before I was born in 1974.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an off shoot of History of Oregon. If those articles were not there, then they were not added. Feel free to add them if you like. But as a broader note, with every category, it is not up to the creator of a category to populate the category as fully as possible. This is not possible as many articles are uncategorized (there is even a wikiproject for this problem), mis-categorized, or not created yet when a category is created. I'll bet you $10 that hardly any category on wikipedia is complete and has every article in it that should probably be in it. So if that is really a reason to delete categories then there are a whole lot more that need to be CFD. Aboutmovies 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) PS the category was designed for historic, i.e. not currently arround transportation items which is why the examples above also would not be added. Aboutmovies 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Arbitrary, subjective inclusion criteria. The objectors seem to think we can vote on inclusion, but that would be a violation of the no original research policy, and to some extent, a violation of WP:NPOV. Unless there is a clear, independent designation of these as "Historical" by some official body, this category should be removed—policy and precedent are both clear here. And if there is an official designation, the category should be renamed to reflect that this is an official designation. If a Wikiproject has a special need for some sort of special categorization, they should create a Wikiproject-specific category and place it on the talk page! Xtifr _tälk 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtifr, nobody has suggested that decisions be made by "vote" = like everywhere else on Wikipedia, we make our decisions based on reliable sources and, in cases of dispute, the discussion/consensus process. Your criterion of "official" designation is a red herring. If a reliable source,or better yet multiple sources, take note of an entity's importance in the history of transportation in Oregon, that is sufficient for inclusion in this category. I don't think you'll find anyone involved in this discussion who disagrees with that. -Pete 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that! It's still subjective and arbitrary. Sources will differ in their opinions of which are "historical", and per WP:NPOV, we need to present all notable points of view. The binary choice of including something in a category or not does not allow presenting multiple points of view, therefore the category system is not an appropriate way to present this information. We have extensive precedent against such categories. I strongly recommend that your Wikiproject look at how this is handled elsewhere in Wikipedia, rather than trying to invent your own unique, bad categorization scheme. Xtifr _tälk 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtifr, I don't think the facts will support your theory. Can you cite me a single reliable source on any topic, which says "such and such played no notable role in the history of Oregon?" If a reliable source says something has historical significance, it has historical significance. It's not like we have 5000 articles on there and need to trim it down, and I don't see any evidence that's likely to happen. -Pete 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Historic" is vague. Baridiah 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some categories happen to be entirely non-subjective, like Category:Speakers of the Oregon House of Representatives, does not mean that all categories need to meet that standard.

Let's take a quick survey of some other categories. Category:Impressionist painters - what makes a painter an impressionist? Ask 20 art history scholars, will you get 20 identical answers? I think not. Subjective, vague. Category:Skyscrapers in Singapore - how tall does a building have to be to be a skyscraper? Subjective, vague. Category:Skyscrapers over 350 meters - not subjective or vague, but completely arbitrary. Category:American investors - nearly notable American at some point invests in something - do all Americans with articles belong in this category? Subjectivity and arbitrariness can be problematic, but not to the point where they make categorization a pointless exercise. Every article currently in this category concerns a topic that is verifiably considered important to the history of transportation in Oregon. If you have a problem with a specific one, let's discuss it on the talk page for that article. If there's not currently a reliable source in the article that claims it is historic, I will find one - because I guarantee they exist for all articles currently in the category. How can I make such a guarantee? Because I know something about the subject, and have been reading Oregon newspapers for over 15 years. -Pete 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pete's above argument about the existence of other vaguely-named categories does not validate this category. Dr. Submillimeter 07:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean by "other stuff exists" - I think this link is the specific argument you're referring to. But your argument doesn't apply here. I've drawn a few examples that (I hope) are obviously useful, in order to illustrate the point that "vague boundaries" is not a sufficient reason to delete a category. If you think all the categories I named should all be deleted due to their vagueness (or in one case, arbitrariness), then I suppose that would be consistent with your position that this one should be deleted. But if not, I hope you will reconsider your nomination, in light of the similarities I pointed out. -Pete 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a small sampling of some precedents for deleting, renaming, or otherwise getting rid of similar categories: Historical upper houses. Historical programming languages, Historical airports in Canada, Historic ships of Australia, Historic places in Colombia, Historic buildings of Louisville, Historic houses in the United Kingdom, Historic houses in Omaha, Historic United States Executive Departments, Historical cats, Historical US Republicans. Note that "Historic(al)" is often used as a synonym for defunct or deceased or retired, which only adds to the confusion and ambiguity of this category. Rather than jumping up and down and insisting that this badly named, misguided, arbitrary and confusing category be kept, I strongly suggest that the Oregon Wikiproject look into how other state and country wikiprojects organize their articles. Note that there is no Category:Historic transportation in the United States, Category:Historic transportation in Pennsylvania, Category:Historic transportation in Iowa, Category:Historic transportation in Scotland, Category:Historic tranportation in the United Kingdom, Category:Historic transportation in Germany, or Category:Historic transportation in India. Either Oregon is the only place in the world with history, or this category is unnecessary. Xtifr _tälk 12:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtifr, thanks for listing those other discussions. You're right, some of them do concern categories where "historic" seems to be equated with "defunct" or something similar, and in those the consensus generally was "delete" - and I think that was the right decision. This case, though, is different: the articles contained in the category in fact are of historic significance; their presence here represents quality work of WP editors, that provides a valuable resource for readers of WP. This was also the case in some of the other discussions you list, where the results were "keep," "rename," or "merge." While I don't agree that categories need to be named uniformly in different areas, I'd be open to renaming the category to either "History of transportation in Oregon." That would be in line with Category:History of transportation, History of rail transport in Japan, Category:History of transportation in New York City, Category:History of rail transport in Great Britain. Finally, please consider the possibility that transportation in Oregon - which features high mountains, a treacherous gorge, and an extraordinarily powerful river separating it from the previously settled parts of the US - would play a more significant role in its history than might be the case in Iowa. I can't say for sure because I don't know Iowa's history, but transportation was certainly a major factor in the settlement of Oregon. -Pete 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:History of rail transport in Great Britain was primarily created to contain articles that are specifically devoted to general history and that begin with the word "history", such as History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830, History of rail transport in Great Britain 1830 - 1922, History of rail transport in Great Britain 1923 - 1947, etc. It is not just a collection of articles that some editors think are of "historical" importance. The comparison of that category to the Oregon category is invalid. (The Great Britain category shows what a history category should look like.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sub, once again – it's not "some editors" who think these articles are of historical importance, it's reliable sources. History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830 is in a "history of transportation" category by virtue of its citation of sources like Robert Kirkby, Richard Shelton et al. (October 1990). Engineering in History. New York: Dover Publications Inc., pp 274 - 275. ISBN 0-486-26412-2. Neil Goldschmidt is in a "history of transportation" category by virtue of its citation of sources like Cass Peterson. "Staying in the transportation field", The Washington Post, March 3, 1981 and Buel, Ron. "The Goldschmidt era", Willamette Week 25th Anniversary Edition. I am encouraged to see that our colleagues working on Great Britain have achieved such a high level of organization and quality. Why deny editors working on Oregon history-related articles the ability to organize content in a similar way, while working toward that level? Why deny readers interested in Oregon history the ability to browse categories that will further their education on the topic? A final comment: it will take us a lot longer to achieve that level of quality, if we have to spend this much effort defending our approach. We're building some momentum at WP Oregon, and this CfD has disrupted that. It's possible that it's worth the effort in the long run, but it's starting to feel like a waste of time. -Pete 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The inclusion criterion given by Pete is basically to list articles in this category that appear in any reference that has "history" in its title. This is not a way to bring together articles on related subjects. Over time, I expect any topic that occurred in the past will eventually appear in a book or article with "history" in its title. All the articles labeled as "historical" would be only remotely related to each other. (Moreover, categorizing living people, such as Neil Goldschmidt, as "historic", is just weird.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The content of the sources, which identifies Neil Goldshmidt as a central figure in the history of transportation in Oregon, is the reason for inclusion. The titles have nothing to do with it. Also, what is weird about the following sentence: Neil Goldschmidt is a prominent and historic figure in Oregon transportation. -Pete 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Presumably, any article on Wikipedia already needs to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion. Therefore, any article about transportation in Oregon is already about "prominent" subjects in Oregon transportation. "Historic" is just being used as a useless qualifier here. I would make the same arguments about Category:Notable transportation in Oregon or Category:Prominent articles on transportation in Oregon. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so those other categories don’t exist. Give me ten minutes and I’ll go make them. Then there is precedent and all can stay, right? My guess would be that you would still want them gone (if not let me know). The problem with your argument is until someone creates a category, it don’t exist. Which means someone had to start every single category and thus the argument for deletion only because the new category does not fit into an existing scheme would mean zero categories in Wikipedia, ever. So unless you are arguing against categories in general, you cannot really support that hypothesis. Honestly, just because some other states are not as developed as Oregon in structure does not mean they shouldn’t have a similar category.
If those proposing deletion and merging had done their homework before the proposition they would see the category is a sub of Category:History of transportation (since it has the word history in it, it is obviously subjective inclusion criteria), which survived deletion recently. Two out of the three articles in that category do not have the word history in the article title, thus it is not meant to be a collection of articles with the word “history” in the title. The rail transport in GB is an off shoot of the UK cat where few articles start with the term history. Come on, don't cherry pick, give an accurate synopsis of the categories. Some of the articles in all the sub categories of Category:History of transportation have the term History in the title, but it looks like more than half do not. And that is how most of the “History” categories work that I have been involved with, just look at the related Category:History of Great Britain where I didn’t see a single “history” article in the main cat and only four out of eleven sub cats have “history” in the title. Next, the proposer did not look at the category since they want a merge partly because the items all exist in a sub cat of Transportation in Oregon and want them merged into the “parent category” which again there is no parent category, there are three parent categories. So that would mean three categories per article instead of just one (Transportation in Oregon, History of Oregon, and History of Transportation), and that seems counterproductive to me, and exactly why categories such as this need to be created. But you know I carefully studied the issue before creating the category and attached the category to three appropriate parent categories, but maybe a quick gut felling without studying the issue is a better approach. Aboutmovies 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the articles within the Category:History of transportation hierarchy are articles labeled "history" or on historical societies. The other articles could be moved to other parts of the category tree. This analysis by Aboutmovies is simply invalid. Dr. Submillimeter 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sub, what? I'm confused. Only one (of two) articles in Category:History of transportation have "history" in their titles (is that what you mean by "label"?) Even in the sub-categories, very few are titled "history." Nor need they be - see my explanation above. On what grounds do you dismiss AboutMovies' entire argument? It appears to me that you are not engaging directly with the issue, but are simply unwilling to admit that your initial nomination was in error. You have not replied to this: would renaming the category to Category:History of transportation in Oregon address your concerns to any degree? -Pete 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Again, my primary issue is that "historic" is not objectively defined in this case. Many of the other articles in Category:History of transportation are about history articles (or people who study history). The other articles (about random subjects related to the past) can actually be cleared out and moved to other categories. The Oregon category contains no "history of transportation in Oregon" articles nor any articles on historians or historical societies. It is just a set of articles gathered together based people's opinions of what is important. The articles are not related and should not be grouped together. (Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and stop using that argument.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sub, please take the time to read that essay first and note in the lead where it says: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged" and stop refering to that essay without an actual argument. Then note that your co-hort is basically using the same argument in reverse (no other categories like this exist so this one cannot too) that is also an argument to be avoided, so you can't if you will have your cake and eat it too. Aboutmovies 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per arguments of users Pete & Aboutmovies. Cgingold 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this point, let me reiterate that no one have provided an OBJECTIVE definition for "historic" that is useful. The only inclusion criterion that was provided was that an external source identifies the subject of the articles as "historic" or "important" or "notable". However, all Wikipedia articles must meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability, so a category does not need the term "historic", "notable", or "important". The keep votes should provide a definition not based on opinion (including the opinions of other references). Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Oregon historic ships[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, as per above, "historic" is very subjective --Kbdank71 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is an ad hoc collection of ships with some connection to Oregon, including ships that were built in Oregon, ships that sailed in Oregon, ships from outside of Oregon that were shipwrecked in Oregon, and ships from outside of Oregon that were named after Oregon. It seems awkward to categorize all of these ships together. Also, ships are not categorized by location like this in general, and it could become messy to have categories for every place a ship ever went. Therefore, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Same as the above item, not about the ships and ship classification (that's why there is a place name in the name). It is about Category:History of Oregon and trying to make sub categories to move items from the main cat into more navigatable sub categories. Aboutmovies 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Again, not ad hoc, and certainly doesn't include "every place a ship ever went". That would indeed be silly. (Does the category include every ship that ever came to Fleet Week during the Portland Rose Festival, for example? Nope.) No, this category lists ships with a significant connection to the history of Oregon, and like Aboutmovies says, and per the above Cfd, the category helps keep the Oregon history category manageable. If any change is to occur, perhaps a rename for clarity about what the category is for, but otherwise it should be kept. Katr67 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The inclusion criteria are still subjective, as it relies on editors to determine whether ships have "a significant connection to the history of Oregon". (Someone may indeed decide to include every ship that appeared at Fleet Week.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually every ship there is historic (no longer in existance/use) and sailed in Oregon waters. Thus it is a ship, historic, and Oregon. Any ship with those three criteria should be included if there are more, then they should be added too. Aboutmovies 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the ships are no longer in use, then a word other than "historic" should be used; "decommissioned" or "inactive" might be better. However, the ships' connection to Oregon still seems too ad hoc to really consider keeping this category. Dr. Submillimeter 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, obvioulsy you are not hearing the purpose of the category (even though I've mentioned it several times). It is about history, not transportation. Would it make it easier for you to understand if I remove the cat from being a sub of Trans in Oregon? Seriously, "inactive" and "decommissioned" are fine for a Transportation category. This is a History subcategory, and like anything in history it is subjective (BTW historic is often used for things no longer around see Historic regions of the United States). The criteria for inclusion is as finite as it can get for a history category. Much like a "People from Foo" their is going to be debate on what goes where, and are you going to CFD all those cats? After all what constitutes "from" is very subjective. If someone went to college in town A shold they be considered from town A? That's a long running debate in those categories, but no one is seriously propsing those be deleted. Did you even think about the nomination, since "ships from outside of Oregon that were named after Oregon" makes no sense to me. What ship is that? The one I'm guessing is the famous battleship since that is the only one named Oregon, which would mean you didn't read the article where not only is it named after the state, but it was moored in Oregon for years (see the section Moorage in Portland) and parts of the ship are on display in Portland (at Tom McCall Waterfront Park and the Oregon Historical Society Museum). Aboutmovies 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The problem here is that any article that describes past events in Oregon could be labeled as "history". It appears to be set by individual editors' assessments of how far back in the past these events occurred and how "notable" they are. As I have already stated in one of the discussions on this page, a category is not needed for "notable" articles, as all articles must already meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. As for the "old" part, is seems like some arbitrary time limit (50 or 100 years) is chosen to separate "historic" articles from "non-historic" articles. Hence, it seems to be arbitrary as to whether articles get placed in this category. Here are some random examples: The Link River Dam could be labeled as a "history in Oregon" article because the dam was built in the past. Camp White, Oregon could be labeled as a "history in Oregon" article because it was built and operated in the past. The Widmer Brothers Brewery could be labeled as a "history in Oregon" article because it was founded in the past. This is not a useful form of categorization, and it should be done away with. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but should we do away with every category that has a subjective element to it? If so that is most categories. Take the category you want to merge Historic transportation of Oregon into, Transportation in Oregon. What goes there? The Columbia River is a major waterway transportation category, along with many other rivers and some lakes in the state, yet none of them are in the category. The Pacific Crest Trail is a well used transportation corridor, yet it along with the other trails in Oregon are not in the category. Why? An argument can be made either way for inclusion or exclusion based one’s personal belief as to what is transportation, which makes it subjective.
As to History, you are absolutely right. Anything can go there and often does. I don’t think items that have occurred in the last 10 years should be there, but its not up to me. I’m not the WikiCzar. But Category:History of Oregon is part of a large collection of History in Foo (about 50 of them for the US states ), and every single one of them is going to have subjective inclusion criteria. So if you are serious about deleting subjective categories, I expect a whole lot more. In fact here are some more to think about.
First we have the common category such as Category:Beaverton, Oregon. Again what should go there? It seems simple enough until you get on the edge. Oregon National Primate Research Center and OGI School of Science and Engineering (both part of OHSU’s west campus) have Beaverton addresses, but are within the city limits of Hillsboro. Then take Nike, Inc. who in a long and contentious battle has remained in unincorporated Washington County completely surrounded by the city of Beaverton and has a Beaverton address, but is not within the city limits. Also related, Columbia Sportswear is in unincorporated Washington County with the Beaverton city limits adjacent to the headquarters, but the place has a Portland address. So again (and if you need more of these city examples I can give you more) this is a subjective element that is left to the editor to decide what goes where.
Next up we’ll take Law and all its subcategories. What should go there? Should courts go there, should law enforcement, should actual laws (statutes), Argumentation theory, law breakers, law makers, Ty Law, or what?
The last one I’ll leave you with is Category:People, and take a look at all the subcategories: Groupies, People by political orientation, Old age, People by nationality, People by race or ethnicity, Researchers, People by status, and Youth. Everyone of these subcategories is going to require a subjective decision by an editor on whether or not to include a person in the category. What age is youth or old age? Take Michael Bloomberg, what is his political orientation? What makes a researcher, does it have to be someone from an academic institution or does the wacko down the street that says he is “researching” the effects of alcohol count too? Again, it becomes a subjective issue as to where people are categorized.
Now the last point I have is that with all of these categories and those up for deletion, is that having laid out rigid criteria would in my subjective opinion violate WP:OWN since it would bypass WP:CONSENSUS and allow a single person to dictate what goes into a category. But again, that’s my subjective opinion. Aboutmovies 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as arbitrary and subjective. See my comments on "Category:Historic transportation in Oregon" above. Xtifr _tälk 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Dr. Sub, you keep arguing (in this nomination and the one immediately above) that the word "history" is part of the problem with these categories. But reliable sources are a fine guide to what is considered historic, and what is not; this principle has guided Wikipedia through numerous controversies over the years. When numerous sources discuss the vital role Neil Goldschmidt played in the history of transportation in Portland and Oregon, that becomes worth noting in an encyclopedia (both in the text of an article, and in its categorization.) When numerous sources place the Columbia Redviva at the beginning of American settlement of the Oregon Country, same thing. That's not to say someone couldn't reasonably disagree - you are correct that these things are subjective - but it guides the presentation of knowledge in an encyclopedia. What is the problem here? -Pete 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem is that "historic" is a subjective word that could be applied to anything that occurred in the past. Therefore, "historic" could be applied to any article on Wikipedia that does not describe a current event, an entity that currently exists, or a person that is currently alive. The word "historic" just is not useful for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic is not a subjective word - no more so than any word relating to a certain area of study. You have raised numerous counter-examples in these two CfD's, but none of them apply. The Link River Dam should not be included in the category, unless a reliable source can be cited that says it plays a prominent role in the history of transportation in Oregon. Also, we're getting these two nominations muddied up. Obviously a dam doesn't belong in a category about ships.
AboutMovies, I have a question for you: is there a reason this category should't be re-named to simply "Oregon ships?" Is there a reason to exclude ships with strong Oregon ties that aren't specifically "historic?" -Pete 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Historic" is vague. Baridiah 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps by User:Briangotts, Category:Fictional maps by User:Briangotts and Category:Historical maps by User:Briangotts[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Reading the discussion the delete arguments are stronger. Since commons supports this structure, the images could be moved there and have a different category structure. I have decided not to delay the deletion to allow the creator to do the move since he indicated a lack of interest in doing that. Vegaswikian 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not what categories are for. What's next, Category:Articles co-written by Radiant? This encyclopedia is a cooperative effort, so you don't get to sign your work like this. That's what the 'history' tab does. >Radiant< 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User-created categories for media (not articles!) exist in Commons, I can't see why they should not exist in Wikipedia. Every article is a collaborative effort, whereas every image is created by a specific wikipedian who needs to be identified. If I created so many media files myself, I would certainly want some sort of category to bring them together, if only to be able to monitor them from time to time. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. images != articles. Neil ╦ 13:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment yesterday was it. But only for categories containing images only of course. Johnbod 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why do we need to identify who created what via a category? And what are we monitoring? Changes? A category won't tell you that. To make sure it hasn't been deleted? A category won't tell you that either. There isn't much a category can do that the watchlist won't do better. --Kbdank71 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least move to talk pages I am not sure that we should get into classifying material by who provided it. These pages are editable presumably by anyone. If that's done, is it still a map by anyone? We have moved most "by source" categories to talk pages, if kept, this should be no different. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason these couldn't all be transwikied to the Commons? Then everyone could use them, and there could be a category for whatever use it's for, as Ghirla points out. Rigadoun (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment (something that was confusing me), note that the historical maps category was nominated yesterday for deletion and then withdrawn. You may want to read the comments there. Rigadoun (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with them being migrated to Wikisource but I'm not interested in doing it myself. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Images are an individual effort, not a collaborative one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the arguments on this, I have changed my opinion from neutral to in favor of deletion. Although Wikipedia allows for categories that contain user pages, Wikipedia would not allow for categories that contain articles that individual editors have worked on. This category is too much like the latter type of category; it looks too much like the contributor is signing his own work. Also, no one else listed in Category:User-created maps has their own category, nor do I think users have their own categories anywhere else in Wikipedia. These categories should be deleted. However, I have no objection to Briangotts creating a series of gallery pages that show his contributions. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There simply has to be a clear-cut policy prohibiting these. I'll look later if nobody knows it. -Pete 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dr. Submillimeter and the others, and would also point out that we can collaborate on images just as we do articles; one of this cat's maps, Image:Scotch regions.svg, shows this, albeit superficially. I would not object to deleting all of the user-specific subcats of Category:User-created images either, though they hold mostly photographs and are unlikely targets for collaboration. As noted above, contributions can be tracked and showcased at least as well with a gallery in the userspace. ×Meegs 06:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subcategories of Category:Former subdivisions of countries[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. >Radiant< 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:Former (subunit) of (place) - The names of the subcategories in Category:Former subdivisions of countries are rather heterogeneous. Moreover, some of these terms have multiple or vague interpretations. "Historic" could also be used to refer to "old", or it could be used to indicate that the places are listed in some government register. This nomination would lead to all of the former country subdivisions being renamed using "former", which has a very clear meaning. It would also add uniformity to Category:Former subdivisions of countries. (Note that categories for cities/municipalities are not included in this nomination; I may get to them later.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Someone created the South Carolina category about the same time that I made this nomination. I am including it in this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since I created the South Carolina category yesterday, I will comment. I have no problem with changing this to "Former South Carolina ...." I used "historic" because it seemed appropriate. I could easily live with "former." I chose "historic" over "extinct," which was the preference of one of my references. I have more to add to this so an early decision would be helpful. KudzuVine 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator - I had difficulty with the special characters in the name for the Hokkaido category. It will be properly tagged for this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. It's good to have a naming convention, and we've been standardizing on former or defunct since historic is prone to many possible interpretations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom & ProveIt Johnbod 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:R.S. Films 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated to match article --Kbdank71 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:R.S. Films films to Category:RS Film films

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because the name of the company was changed in a rebranding effort earlier this year. — WiseKwai 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see what happens with this AfD. If the main article gets deleted, this category should go as well. PC78 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the company is the second largest media group in Thailand, the article will be kept. Postlebury 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Vegaswikian 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Korea-related articles by quality[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was per discussion, nothing to do --Kbdank71 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Propose renaming Category:Feature-quality Korea-related articles to Category:FA-class Korea-related articles~~

Nominator's rationale: Rename, wasn't sure if this qualified as a speedy or not, however the proposed name will bring this in line with other such categories for the Korea WikiProject. PC78 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original proposal is now redundant per the following discussion. PC78 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:FA-Class Korea-related articles, with an uppercase C, convention of Category:FA-Class articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The others should also be renamed to:

Category:A-Class Korea-related articles

Category:B-Class Korea-related articles

Category:FA-Class Korea-related articles

Category:GA-Class Korea-related articles

Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles

Category:Start-Class Korea-related articles -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:FA-Class Korea-related articles with an uppercase C. WikiProject Korea has a seperate quality scale, thus it would also necessary to merge D-class into Start-class or Stub-class.
- I also propose to merge Very Low into Low in importance scale. eDenE 13:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for above suggestions, including Edene. (Wikimachine 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I agree, articles in non-standard classes can't be counted in the assessment statistics. -- Prove It ^(talk)
Comment: Now that the above categories have been created by Prove It to replace the old ones, the following are now empty and should be deleted:

Category:A-class Korea-related articles

Category:B-class Korea-related articles

Category:Feature-quality Korea-related articles

Category:Stub-class Korea-related articles

Category:Start-class Korea-related articles — PC78 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assessment statistics are now working ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May as well close, since everything has now been done. Thanks to Prove It for the assist! PC78 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Juvenile songs[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Juvenile songs to Category:Juvenile (rapper) songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Juvenile songs" is ambiguous, as it could refer to songs written for or performed by juveniles. Rename to match the lead article Juvenile (rapper). Otto4711 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The category name looks like it's about youths (juvenile) not the guy called Juvenile. Wryspy 05:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 14:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Albums of Ellington-Strayhorn compositions[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing albums on the basis of who wrote the songs on them strikes me as overcategorization. There does not appear to be a Category:Albums by composer or Category:Albums by songwriter structure and I'm not seeing a lot of utility in starting one. If an album is notable then its songwriters can be noted in the album article and if the songwriter is notable then his or her songs can be noted in the songwriter's article and cross-linked. Otto4711 05:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Postlebury 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have Category:Songs by composer, and that's enough. The situation becomes much more complicated when considering similar categories either for songwriting teams or for albums, and like Otto, I do not see thee payoff. ×Meegs 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Irish-American singers[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by ethnicity. Irish/Jewish/Mexican folk songs aside, the ethnicity of a singer 99% isn't relevant, because there can't be an true articles written about these ethnicity-singer combinations. I did not nominate African-American singers in this nomination because there might be a reasonable article written about it given African-American's massive contribution to American music (especially singing) but there might be some arguments for deleting that too. Upmerge into Category:American singers and other relevant subdivisions. Bulldog123 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge - Ancestry/ethnicity plays virtually no role in the music of Bing Crosby, Pink (singer), Paul Simon, David Lee Roth, and many of these other performers. However, a category could be made for a genre of music (e.g. Category:Performers of traditional Jewish music), and such categories probably exist for Latin American music styles. Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American singers per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other two, but do not delete Category:Mexican American singers as a subcat of Category:American singers. There is a substantial body of literature on the Mexican American musical tradition, which is unique and distinct from either Mexican music or American music. Needless to say, there is great potential for an article on Mexican American music and/or musicians.--Rockero 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It almost looks like it would be better to categorize people as performers of one of the styles of music listed in Category:Mexican styles of music rather than to just use the label "Mexican-American musicians". Dr. Submillimeter 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are just straight Mexican by the look of them. I think what is meant is Tex-Mex aka Tejano music. Personally I am more familiar with "Tex-Mex" as a term, and since "Tejano" is also an ethnic term, it is best avoided here, to avoid the same confusion. So Select from Category:Mexican American singers to new Category:Tex-Mex singers and delete the rest. Those that are not Tex-Mex in style to be excluded of course - actually most sing in various US styles, from Richie Valens to Linda Ronstadt, and are already categorized adequately elsewhere. Johnbod 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Johnbod, I don't know how to say this any other way and I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but you don't know what you're talking about. Of all the singers in the category 9 of them sing in the Tejano style. The rest are, as you say, of various styles, but you are wrong about them being US styles. Granted some of the artists in the category sing in US styles, most of the artists sing in various Latin music styles, or genres. Some of the genres include banda, mariachi, Latin pop, Latin jazz, Mexican folk, what we call "International" music, and the list goes on. To delete the rest and only make a "Tejano" music category is silly. If you are going to group by one genre, then you also need to break each of the genres down by the categories I just mentioned. Regarding your comment about the artists being "straight Mexican" I should also clarify a few other things. When one uses the word "Mexican" that means "Mexican national", in other words, a citizen of the country of Mexico. When someone says "Mexican American" that means an American (a citizen of the United States of America) with Mexican ancestry. The artists in the category are not Mexican, they are Mexican American. --Chicaneo 16:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Straight Mexican" referred to the style of music, not the people - I was commenting on the Dr's suggestion just above, replying to Rockero. I think you will find that most or many of the other singers are already adequately categorised by genre. I did not & have not checked them all, but I think that there are enough people here to make up a Category:Tex-Mex singers (you say 9), and probably not enough to make up categories, where they don't already exist, for the other genres you mention. The current, ethnic-based, category is clearly doomed, salvaging a Tex-Mex category is frankly the most constructive outcome that can be hoped for from this CfD discussion in my view. Johnbod 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Wryspy 05:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete all per above. Dominictimms 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upmerge Jewish American singers there is 399 articles in it --Java7837 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upmerge these categories - This nom is similar to the nom on ethnic subcats of American journalists, also proposed by User:Bulldog, which was wrongly decided in my view. There are two fundamental problems with these efforts to do away with ethnic subcats:

These categories are being viewed through the lens of occupation. In other words, the primary emphasis is on the occupation aspect of the categories — i.e. singers who happen to be X, Y or Z ethnicity — with the ethnicity aspect being deemed essentially insignificant. This is clearly reflected in both the proposed upmerge, which focuses exclusively on their occupation, and the discussion, which likewise is concerned primarily with what these individuals do, rather than who they are in terms of ethnicity. When these categories are, instead, viewed through the lens of ethnicity — i.e. "X, Y or Z -Americans" who are known for being singers — the entire complexion of the discussion changes. Most importantly, we need to acknowledge the fact that there are many, many readers who consider ethnicity an important attribute, for whom these ethnic categories are, therefore, a very useful and valuable feature of Wikipedia — not just a "trivial intersection".
Because these noms are premised on the notion that these ethnic subcats are some sort of hideous perversion of categorization that simply must be done away with, no attention has been given to the "collateral damage" that would result.

First of all, upmerging these subcats into Category:American singers would add a total of 276 pages into a category that already has 330 pages! Even if we assume some overlap/duplications, the result would still be a major increase in a category that is already overburdened. In fact, it sports a {{CatDiffuse}} template, which advises that: "Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories where appropriate." Upmerging would run completely contrary to that important goal.

Second, the exclusive focus on upmerge into Category:American singers completely ignores the effects on the other parent categories.

Category:Irish-American singers has 57 pages; if it's upmerged, those pages will also be added to its other parent categories: Category:Irish-American musicians already has 109 pages and Category:Irish-Americans already has 189 pages.

Category:Jewish American singers has 167 pages, which would be added to its parent categories — but Category:Jewish American musicians already has 471 pages! It clearly needs more subcategories — not fewer.

Category:Mexican American singers has 52 pages, which would be added to its parent categories — but Category:Mexican American musicians already has 101 pages.

In short, these noms are simply wrong-headed, they run contrary to Wikipedia's over-arching purpose of increasing knowledge — and if implemented would be very harmful on account of the types of damage I've described. Cgingold 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Upmerge I am in complete agreement with Cgingold on this and think he has identified several crucial points in this CfD. If we do away with the differentiations and add all of these pages into a catch-all "American singers", we make that category much too big and much less useful. Subcategories exist as a shorthand way of getting more information to the reader, and to reveal interconnections among the articles. Following the logic of these deletion requestions, we could well devolve into one huge "Americans" category and that is obviously the wrong direction. CGingold's argument regarding the importance of ethnicity to many readers is also extremely important and valid. It is frankly bizarre for the nominator to say that the idea of a category of African-American singers is ok but one for Irish-American singers is not, because the nominator can imagine an article being written about the former but not the latter. Surely we're not bound by the imagination of one editor or even several. (And the parenthetical "especially singing" regarding the contribution of African Americans to American music is even more out of line, and somewhat patronizing.) This group of deletion requests goes in the wrong direction, and is counter to why we have categories and subcategories. No good reason has been given as to why these offend, and a community-wide discussion about this trend in deletions is clearly due, since the encyclopedia is being taken in a direction that some feel runs counter to what we're supposed to be doing here. There is no emergency here, and I think the discussion should remain open so others can weigh in. Tvoz |talk 02:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I admit this category likely falls within WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference, but deleting or upmerging at this point would destroy a lot of hard and valuable work, and would make Category:American Singers]] even more bloated. What would the harm be in holding off on deleting this category until Wikipedia:Category_intersection comes online? --Osbojos 02:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kitchen appliance bands[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's only one, see January 6th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy 05:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also Electrolux of Sweden for one, and many other brands all over the world. The white goods/kitchen equipment industry is probably larger than the music industry, which has goodness knows how many categories. Postlebury 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The people discussing this category need to keep in mind that this is about musical groups (bands), not manufacturers (brands). I am removing Electrolux from this category. Dr. Submillimeter 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Salt. We had the same problem the last time this was nominated. Editors misread the category as Category:Kitchen appliance brands. The keep vote should be discounted based on the the fact that it is apparently based on misreading the category name. Vegaswikian 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Schools in Llanelli area[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Schools in Carmarthenshire, member of Category:Schools in Wales. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The key point is that it is Carmarthenshire that is one of the 22 Administrative divisions of Wales. Postlebury 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman Catholic composers[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, see also April 16th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial intersection, past deletion precedent.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Religion is irrelevant. Bulldog123 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A category for the composers of Roman Catholic music would be acceptable, but these composers worked on music that often did not have anything to do specifically with Catholicism. Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Wryspy 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation Without commenting on the specifics of the previous cfd for this category, this is a recreation of a previously deleted category and, since nothing has significantly changed regarding it since that previous discussion, it should be deleted. Dugwiki 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain - Roman Catholic composers composed church music to be performed within the Roman Catholic church or other religious-motivated works for edifying the faithful.

Like Chopin? There is Category:Catholic music, although rather surprisingly there seems to be no category for Composers of classical Church music, whether denominational or not. Perhaps it got purged in a previous CfD. Johnbod 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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