Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 14 July 16 >

July 15[edit]

Category:Sudanese people by city[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.--Mike Selinker 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sudanese people by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People by city in Sudan, convention of Category:People by city, and to include non-citizen residents. -- Prove It (talk) 22:56, 15 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:Namibian people by city[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.--Mike Selinker 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Namibian people by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People by city in Namibia, convention of Category:People by city, includes non-citizen residents. -- Prove It (talk) 22:43, 15 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:Central Missouri Mules men's basketball coaches[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.--Mike Selinker 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Central Missouri Mules men's basketball coaches to Category:Central Missouri Mules basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category used to be at the proposed rename location, but someone moved all the articles to "men's basketball coaches" without realizing that the school has different nicknames for men's and women's sports. See Central Missouri Mules and Jennies. Dale Arnett 20:48, 15 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.

Yoga art[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 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoga art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Invented term for a single stub on a sculpture of Kate Moss with her feet behind her head. This is adequately categorised elsewhere so the category can just be deleted. Johnbod 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom, we don't have an article Yoga art, so it's hard to say what would and wouldn't belong to such a category or whether the category has any meaning; not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 19:37, 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:Alternative media (U.S. political right)[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 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alternative media (U.S. political right) and
Category:Alternative media (U.S. political left) to
Category:Alternative journalism or create a new cat Category:Alternative media and merge both to it.
Nominator's rationale: and
Both categories are POV and I have already found them being abused. Contents of both categories should be merged into parent category, or create a new parent more appropriately named as "Alternative media", with no political "lean". Crockspot 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not much problem, as such, with the merge itself. It makes sense, more or less. Sort of.
But how, exactly, do you think that merging the two will stop the abuse?
Mitchberg 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative media and Alternative journalism are legitimate categories, but we shouldn't be categorizing them further by left vs. right. That is where the abuses occur. - Crockspot 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I doubt if it will end the POV pushing and abuse, but I suspect it will help. Further, "left" and "right" are fairly subjective and arbitrary (and vary from country to country), and making these US-only categories is overcategorization. The attempt to reduce complex, multi-dimensional political debate into a simplistic, linear left/right division is simply foolish, IMO. Of the choices nom offers, I think I slightly prefer "media", but don't have a strong preference. Xtifr tälk 12:56, 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:Drivers who have won both in Champ Cars and the IRL[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 16:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drivers who have won both in Champ Cars and the IRL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a piece of biographical trivia that would be better dealt with by a list. Æthelwold 17:54, 15 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:Avengers supporting characters[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 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avengers supporting characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:

Delete already have Marvel Comics supporting charactersBrian Boru is awesome 15:52, 15 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:Lexington Public Schools[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; one article is already in Middle schools category --Kbdank71 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lexington Public Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, single item category apparently created for Jonas Clarke Middle School, which actually goes in Category:Middle schools in Massachusetts. -- Prove It (talk) 14:59, 15 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:German veterans of World War I[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, empty --Kbdank71 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:German veterans of World War I
Nominator's rationale: Delete for standardization as Category:German military personnel of World War I has superceeded. See also previous similar cfr here. Category currently unpopulated Kernel Saunters 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jwillbur 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as superfluous. Carom 18:20, 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:Axpo Super League[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 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Axpo Super League to Category:Swiss Super League
Nominator's rationale: Rename, It is better to drop the sponsor name, as Premier League. Because many Super Legaue, it is Swiss Super League. Matthew_hk tc 11:57, 15 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:Marathi mobsters[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 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marathi mobsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category of Indian mobsters (see Category:Indian mobsters) from Mumbai, who happen to be Marathi people. This is a clear case of non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Since Mumbai is the capital of Maharashtra, many of the mobsters in the city happen to be Marathi-speaking people (Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra). Delete as overcategorization. utcursch | talk 10:55, 15 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:Members of the Lunar Society[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 --Kbdank71 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Members of the Lunar Society to Category:Lunar Society
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many members of the LS to necessitate a separate category for them. Having two categories relating to the Lunar Society on a biography page, for example, is redundant. I believe that this duplicate makes it harder, not easier, for editors and readers to use the category (see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Reasons for duplication). I have alerted the creators of both categories. Awadewit | talk 09:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we be WP:BOLD and apply WP:SNOW. Otherwise, merge Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is pretty obvious as the nominator indicates. --Bduke 10:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify (preference) or Oppose Merge - These people, including Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Priestley, probably belonged to many societies. Categories for all of these things would be infeasible, as the category links in individual articles would be difficult to read and use. Moreover, some of these biography articles already contain many categories anyway; see Benjamin Franklin for example. Membership is not important enough in these people's biographies to warrant having this category. If people should continue to be categorized this way, then merging makes little sense, as the members should be kept separate from the main category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: There is very little to put into the category "Lunar Society" except for its members. Awadewit | talk 11:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, including removing member articles from Category:Lunar Society. Per Dr S., categorizing people by their membership in discussion clubs, salons and the like are in most cases going to be unworkable. The membership doesn't warrant a separate category and the society's category shouldn't be on the members' articles either. Otto4711 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historically, this is a very important scientific society. I think that the category itself is important. Awadewit | talk 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the modern-day Lunar Society distinguishes itself from its "eighteenth-century predecessor" on its website ([1]). Perhaps the category should be renamed "18th century Lunar Society", then? That is the important one. Awadewit | talk 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original should be called and classified as "Lunar Society"; the modern pretender should be "new Lunar Society" or some such. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I was simply trying to be diplomatic. But, Andy Mabbett is correct that only the 18th century Lunar Society really has any significance (as far as I know - open to evidence otherwise). Awadewit | talk 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article. No need to listify. Sleep On It 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please explain your reasoning for this opinion, please? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else would you put into the "Lunar Society" category? I can think of very little besides its members that wouldn't be a big stretch (like Birmingham). Awadewit | talk 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep but don't delete. Some articles, like Soho Mint in the main category seem to have only an indirect connection with the Society. Johnbod 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. These are different societies with the same name. Mr Stephen 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I hit the wrong key) ... and the categories should be made distinct by suitable naming. Mr Stephen 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think that members of the new society should have a category. Arguably they should not be in either category at all. Johnbod 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Stephen, please demonstrate the significance of the new society. For example, could it have its own article, such as Lunar Society (which, although dismal at the moment, could be improved - there is much written on this topic). Awadewit | talk 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a slightly different issue. Perhaps I wasn't clear. My aim is to keep the members of the 20th century society separate from the members of the 18th century society. I do not have any particular opinion on whether the 20th century version should have a cat or not. Mr Stephen 09:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really believe that only the 18th century members should be included, since that is the important society (see my quotes below). The new Lunar Society is really a totally different enterprise - it just has the same name. But I am still not clear as to why you think that we should "Lunar Society" and "Members of the Lunar Society." Are you proposing something like "Lunar Society" and "Members of the Lunar Society" and "Members of the modern Lunar Society"? With such a system, I would ask you what I have asked others here, what would you put into the category "Lunar Society"? I am pretty sure that very little could be included in that category besides the 18th-century members, but I am ready to hear suggestions. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. OK, this is what I had in mind. One cat for the 18th century lot, and - if needed - one cat for the 20th century lot. Category:Lunar Society to contain members & other things relevant to the 18th century society, and not to contain anything from the 20th century society. Category:Members of the Lunar Society to contain the 20th century crowd, and anthing relating to them (ie nothing). Category:Members of the Lunar Society to be renamed. Mr Stephen 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have deleted Category:Masons (twice if memory serves), and various fraternity type-organizations as non-defining. Is this society any more important in defining its members? I don't think so. No objection to a list. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't that sort of society at all - much more like the Royal Society and others whose categories we have certainly not deleted. Johnbod 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least read a little bit on the topic before declaring that the category should be deleted. I quote from Jenny Uglow's The Lunar Men: "It has been said that the Lunar Society kick-started the industrial revolution. No individual or group can be said to change a society in such a way, and time and again one can see that if they hadn't invented or discovered something, someone else would have done it. Yet this small group of friends really was at the leading edge of almost every movement of its time in science, in industry and in the arts, even in agriculture. They were pioneers of the turnpikes and canals and of the new factory system. They were the group who brought efficient steam power to the nation. They were the white heat of the drive to catalogue and name plants, to study minerals, to detect and work out of the history of the formation of the earth. The philosophers among them were keenly concerned with the nature of human knowledge itself, with the process of learning, and beyond this with enquiring into the origin and evolution of all organic life." (500-1) Or, read this little site which begins, "it has been written that 'The Lunar Society was second only to the Royal Society in its importance as a gathering place for scientists, inventors and natural philosophers during the second half of the eighteenth century'." I would think that such an important group would deserve its own category. (Note also, that the Lunar Society ended in the early nineteenth century and was only restarted later. I think that that helps establish that the 18th century Lunar Society is distinct from the modern-day one.) There were very few professional scientific organizations in the 18th century in Britain, therefore these informal groups were extremely influential. Awadewit | talk 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Others claim that the masons founded the USA, doesn't make membership defining. Unlike the Royal Society, it appears that there was no formal requirements for admission. If it is so important and defining one would have thought that a WP:RS rather than a blog could be quoted. Our article says that members of the society were influential; well and fine, but was the Society influential? I am sure that people who were masons were influential too, but ultimately membership in the organization is not what makes the people notable here. Is there anyone categorized here that has no other categories? Couldn't the list suffice for navigation? Was membership in the society defining at that time - as the Royal Society is today (like people would crow about it put in on the cv's, etc.)? These remain unanswered. Carlossuarez46 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there were no formal requirements for admission, but please understand that "science" in the 18th century was very different than it is today. The kinds of institutional structures so familiar to us simply didn't exist at that time. These societies were essential to invention and discovery because the members exchanged ideas and stimulated each other intellectually. You cannot make an analogy between the 21st century to the 18th century in that way. Yes, membership in the society was defining at the time, in the sense that it dominated these men's lives (there were no CV's - that is an anachronistic comparison). By the way, I did cite a RS, Uglow's Lunar Men. I simply added the website in case not everyone participating in this discussion had easy access to her book during this discussion. Awadewit | talk 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements for entry were exactly the same as the Royal Society at the time (and, effectively, now) - by invitation only. You have been given a whole book (very widely reviewed when it came out) as an RS. This was a small group containing a high concentration of very notable people, whose significance Awadewit has explained well. Johnbod 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original, ambivalent on merge or keep of category for members, do not include 20th century members. merge - keep original category Lunar Society for Industrial Revolution era only (with original and well known (to historians) name). This was a unique historical phenomenon which advanced human knowledge and capability enormously. There is no comparison with the modern Lunar Society, which should be a separate category, with a qualifying contemporary adjective in its name, if it deserves to exist at all (no opinion). Oosoom Talk to me 08:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not clear. You don't think we should merge "Lunar Society" and "Members of Lunar Society"? Why? The category "Lunar Society" would be sufficient to address this topic, in my opinion. What would go in "Lunar Society", if not the members? That was the most important aspect, was it not? I agree that the modern society is not relevant here. Awadewit | talk 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I really meant was that the category Lunar Society should only contain the 18th century members, not those from today. Oosoom Talk to me 10:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that as well, but do you think that there should be two categories dedicated to this topic ("Lunar Society" and "Members of the Lunar Society")? Sorry, I'm still not clear on this. If so, might you explain why and if not, why not? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cf Category:Royal Society (not for persons) and its subcat Category:Fellows of the Royal Society (for persons). The article could be renamed Lunar Society (1765-1813) and (1765-1813) appended to names of the 2 cats (for complete clarity). I don't know if the modern Lunar Soc is worth its own article; if so there is a case for a membership cat. -- roundhouse0 11:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is,Category:Royal Society is full of articles. If you remove the duplicate categorising of members, and the likes of Soho Foundry which are related to the Society only via members, there is very little left here. Johnbod 11:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am ambivalent regarding having separate categories for members for such a small group of people. That might be a policy issue which already exists. I am quite sure that the historic Lunar Society should not have 20th century people in it, and that it should continue as a category as it really does group the influential people who met regularly in the time and place of a major era of human development, and with a profound impact on it. I am not really in favour of actual dates being put in the title in case they one day turn out to be slightly wrong. Oosoom Talk to me 14:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The Lunar Society is fairly significant, and having a category for its members makes sense. However, there is clearly no need for both the Lunary Society cat and the Members of... cat. Deleting and listifying would be counter-productive, since the members are mentioned in the Lunar Society article already.--ragesoss 03:36, 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:Robert Moses[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 13:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robert Moses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This eponymous category does not meet the standards set at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Eponymous categories should only be used for multi-part biographies on people. The category only contains an article on a biographer of Robert Moses, an article on the biography itself, and a subcategory on Moses's projects. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:22, 15 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:108 Stars of Destiny[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. Valid arguments from SnowFire backed up by "Subtopic categorization" section of WP:CAT-RD. --Kbdank71 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:108 Stars of Destiny to Category:Suikoden characters
Nominator's rationale: This is a housekeeping nomination, equivalent to db-catempty. This category is filled only with categorized redirects; it should be (speedily?) upmerged to the parent, something easier to do with a bot.
For those curious as to the how this category came about at all, the short version is that "108 Stars of Destiny" was a flavorful category name chosen by some of the early Wikipedians interested in these articles. Others used the more utilitarian "Suikoden characters" later, and the result was an inconsistent mess where two extremely similar categories were used with much overlap. Doesn't matter now, as all these articles have been merged into six lists and two navigational articles. SnowFire 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er... a merging would delete this category, just keep the redirects properly categorized. SnowFire 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, yes, and when the entries in the current category are merged upward, the category is certainly free to be used for the original 108 Stars. These are not mutually exclusive options. Although that said, it seems that Category:Water Margin characters seems to fit the bill pretty well as it stands right now, and the boring explanatory name is clearer. SnowFire 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge - I'm not seeing any reason to add 80+ redirects to the suggested target and this doesn't seem to fall under a good reason per the suggested Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. The redirects all appear to be redirecting to character list articles. Put the list articles in the characters caregory and delete this. Otto4711 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they all are redirects to the list articles. The advantage of the category is that it's an additional alphabetic list at no cost - a rather minor benefit I agree, but there's no particular reason to get rid of it either. If there was an issue with the redirects cluttering out the "real" entries in the category, I'd agree with you, but there's only eight "real" articles in the parent category Category:Suikoden characters, and they are all sorted to the top. So there's no cost to having an alphabetical list of notable redirects afterward in the category, and some benefit: History diving, for example, and these are also anchored redirects that go directly to the location that they are discussed at. SnowFire 19:47, 15 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:Sports teams sponsored by consumer electronics brands[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 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports teams sponsored by consumer electronics brands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcatergorisation into trivial defining characteristics. Sponsors change, does it have to be naming rights/shirt sponsor only or any sponsor, etcThe-Pope 04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a meaningless intersection. Wimstead 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; teams' relentless search for sponsor cash produces an ever shifting intersection of sponsors & teams which is neither defining nor maintainable. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Oliver Han 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Dale Arnett 14:58, 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:Siege of Zara[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 close, neither category exists --Kbdank71 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Siege of Zara to Category:Siege of Zadar
Nominator's rationale: Rename, The name of the city was not Zara! It was Jadera in the age of the siege, so that name should be edited in the topic or present name Zadar. See Talk:Zadar and RFC discussion. Zara was later administrative name Zenanarh 13:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both categories are empty and after reading the artice Siege of Zara unless a lot more is written the single battle while interesting would hardly be expected to generate a sufficient number of articles that would be categorized under (either named) category; especially note we would not categorize the various kings, generals, etc. who played a role in the battle, much less their countries, in what is essentially a category about a single battle - yes, it lasted 2 weeks, but many sieges do and many non-siege battles did too - especially in the 13th century when you couldn't radio for help and reinforcements couldn't be flown in. Given that both of these cats are empty, there seems little purpose to debate this (further). Carlossuarez46 19:57, 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:Banned book[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 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banned book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert to a list article, perhaps somewhere under Category:Lists of controversial books ... categories do not work well for this kind of information, please see previous discussions. -- Prove It (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not listify - neither a category nor a list is appropriate. A category for all the reasons that all the similar categories were deleted and the list for all the reasons that similar lists of "banned" items (songs, music videos, probably books) have been deleted. Every book that some unenlightened school district takes off the shelf could end up in the list or the category, making them potentially enormous and unmaintainable. Otto4711 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't listify. Following up on Otto's argument, limiting the discussion to "banned" There are perhaps a few hundred of these a year, a complete list would indeed be unmaintainable. The source now used for the category is merely a list of most-widely known banned books, not them all. A category maintains itself, if the category tags are added, as they should be, (but generally are not). But when there's a book with an article in WP that has been the center of such a controversy, then it's appropriate to provide a place for finding them all together. Normally an article would not be started just because of such a controversy, unless general attention were paid, which is not usually the case--most of the items here are well known books, etc. which have attracted unfavorable attention from censors. Many more are "challenged", the term now used by schools and libraries for books that people in the community want to ban, and that was appropriately deleted. DGG (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete there already was a Category:Banned Books cfd. this is a recreation of an category which was already speedily deleted. Because it looses the "s", it is somehow different? This re-creation is a disruption of wikipedia.--SefringleTalk 04:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as a recreation that has been already deleted 3 times. The fact that the 's' is missing just means that we need to salt both forms. Vegaswikian 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert text to article, delete category, and block - This is a specific list taken from http://www.oclc.org/research/top1000/banned.htm, not just an arbitrary list of banned books. The list is already in the text of the category, so the text could just be transcribed to an article. The article could also explain in more detail were the list came from and where the books were banned. As for the category itself, is should be deleted and blocked as the recreation of a category that has been deleted three times in the past year. Dr. Submillimeter 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + lock recreation of deleted category (or variant of). Lugnuts 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly imprecise. Wimstead 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, banned where?, banned by who?, banned in what why? This does not work as a category. --musicpvm 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recreation of deleted content without addressing the fundamental reason it was deleted in the first place, which has been largely echoed above. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't listify per Otto4711. Sleep On It 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt vaguely named recreation. Wryspy 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete and salt to taste, for reasons well-covered at the previous debates. Different books are banned by different groups at different times, and some regime somewhere has probably banned any book you care to name. Xtifr tälk 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or, alternatively, Keep. The study and analysis of banned literature and the process of banning literature has been significant, and it strikes me that providing a factual foundation for this is exactly the sort of thing an encyclopedia should do. I prefer a list, since it is then possible to footnote and source the material, which may be the more important component.A Musing 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the process, motives, etc., for banning books is one thing, and I can certainly see why we would want that, but when it comes to trying to make a list of, well, frankly, examples, I think it's going to be less-than-useful, given the multitude of books that have been banned at one time or another by various entities. Effectively, it's going to be a list of nearly-all-books-ever-published. Just consider the list of books banned by the Taliban, for example. For that matter, I have banned several authors from my own personal library! :) Xtifr tälk 21:09, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_15&oldid=1138388183"