Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17[edit]

Category:African American engineers[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 upmerge --Kbdank71 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by ethnicity. African American engineering and African American invention are going to be impossible to write. Bulldog123 00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 07:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Postlebury 10:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if this is deleted, upmerge to categories 'African Americans', 'American engineers' and 'American inventors'. However, as written, the nomination misses the point of bio occupation categories, most of which would be deleted with this logic. Hmains 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:African Americans and Category:American engineers/Category:American inventors, then Delete per nom; there is no such thing as African American engineering any more than Latino engineering or Caucasian engineering; ditto invention; imporper intersection. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into parent categories - A list of people categorized by ethnicity and occupation says little on the subject. In cases like this, I recommend writing articles about the intersection of ethnicity and occupation rather than using categories. The category cannot explain whether African Americans have faced discrimination problems in engineering or whether they are underrepresented in engineering today, whereas an article could. Dr. Submillimeter 10:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator Tell-Tale Ghost 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, though this kind of action should really be done in the framework of general occupation by ethnicity. Tewfik^Talk 20:18, 22 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:Murdered Activists[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 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion This category is theoretically for activists murdered for reasons not related to their politics, while category:assassinated activists is for activists murdered for political reasons. I have largely depopulated this nominated category over the last few days, moving articles in which the subject is specifically refered to as having been killed for political reasons. The reason I propose this be deleted entirely is that it is simply confusing, leading editors to list people in the wrong category. Secondarily, it hard to imagine why a categoy is needed for people who happen to be both activists and murder victims, with no connection between the two. Envirocorrector 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I have largely depopulated this nominated category over the last few days" you really shouldn't do that until a result has been reached on CFD first. Lugnuts 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - per nom. I think what Envirocorrector is saying is they have cleaned the category up to meet it's own criteria, which I don't see as a problem. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MrNinja, that is what I meant. I'm new to working with categories, so I'm sorry if I haven't followed all the usual etiquette. What I meant to say was that this category was 95% full of activists that should have been in assassinated activists, and one or maybe two that were listed in both categories (which I probably should have left). Envirocorrector 10:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Delete Ahh right, thanks for the explination MrNinja. Delete as per nom. Lugnuts 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADD A LINK TO THE CATEGORY - HOW CAN WE DISCUSS IT OTHERWISE? Johnbod 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Recommendation: Close nomination and repopulate the category so we can properly evaluate, and then re-nominate it for CfD. Wryspy 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is at category:murdered activists - this isn't a link because the double brackets from regular pages don't work here. Sorry. Also, again, the category was never depopulated, I didn't know the lingo, I simply cleaned up the category as per its own definition. As far as I remember, only one activist was double listed, and no-one from that article attempted to re-list him after I explained on that talk page what I was doing. 50+ other activists were simply moved to assassinated activists with no comment from the editors of those pages. Envirocorrector 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Assassinated activists - that's an informative category. Activists who happened to be murder victims - as you say, not such an informative category. ugen64 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. Tewfik^Talk 20:20, 22 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:Public schools in England[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 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public schools in England to Category:Independent schools in England

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Bedfordshire to Category:Independent schools in Bedfordshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Berkshire to Category:Independent schools in Berkshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Bristol to Category:Independent schools in Bristol

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Buckinghamshire to Category:Independent schools in Buckinghamshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Cambridgeshire to Category:Independent schools in Cambridgeshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Cheshire to Category:Independent schools in Cheshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Derbyshire to Category:Independent schools in Derbyshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Devon to Category:Independent schools in Devon

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Dorset to Category:Independent schools in Dorset

Sub-category Category:Public schools in County Durham to Category:Independent schools in County Durham

Sub-category Category:Public schools in East Sussex to Category:Independent schools in East Sussex

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Essex to Category:Independent schools in Essex

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Gloucestershire to Category:Independent schools in Gloucestershire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Hampshire to Category:Independent schools in Hampshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Hertfordshire to Category:Independent schools in Hertfordshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Kent to Category:Independent schools in Kent

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Lancashire to Category:Independent schools in Lancashire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Leicestershire to Category:Independent schools in Leicestershire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Lincolnshire to Category:Independent schools in Lincolnshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in London to Category:Independent schools in Greater London

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Greater Manchester to Category:Independent schools in Greater Manchester

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Merseyside to Category:Independent schools in Merseyside

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Norfolk to Category:Independent schools in Norfolk

Sub-category Category:Public schools in North Yorkshire to Category:Independent schools in North Yorkshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Northamptonshire to Category:Independent schools in Northamptonshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Nottinghamshire to Category:Independent schools in Nottinghamshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Oxfordshire to Category:Independent schools in Oxfordshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Tyne and Wear to Category:Independent schools in Tyne and Wear

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Rutland to Category:Independent schools in Rutland

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Shropshire to Category:Independent schools in Shropshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Somerset to Category:Independent schools in Somerset

Sub-category Category:Public schools in South Yorkshire to Category:Independent schools in South Yorkshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Suffolk to Category:Independent schools in Suffolk

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Surrey to Category:Independent schools in Surrey

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Warwickshire to Category:Independent schools in Warwickshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in the West Midlands to Category:Independent schools in the West Midlands

Sub-category Category:Public schools in West Sussex to Category:Independent schools in West Sussex

Sub-category Category:Public schools in West Yorkshire to Category:Independent schools in West Yorkshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Wiltshire to Category:Independent schools in Wiltshire

Sub-category Category:Public schools in Worcestershire to Category:Independent schools in Worcestershire

Nominator's rationale: The use of the term "public school" in England is deeply confusing to an international audience (these are not state schools but private schools) and to make matters worse the term in Scotland, when used at all, can refer either to a state school or to a school like the English schools or even specifically to highlight the Englishness of it. It is also extremely ill defined within the UK as it refers to a specific sub-set of private schools - see Independent school (UK)#Differing definitions and many would not recognise a lot of the schools in the categories as being public schools. Because of this Public School (UK) is not used for the article which is at Independent school (UK). Rather than argue over the precise definition of a public school, "Independent School" is a better location for all this. Additionally modify the "London" category to "Greater London" for clarity. Timrollpickering 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nomination. - Scribble Monkey 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom, but wouldn't "State-independent schools" be clearer? Also, are there similar categories in other countries that could benefit from a rename? ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 08:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure about other countries. "State-independent school", quite apart from not being in line with the main article which is "Independent school (UK)", is rather ambiguous, isn't a familiar term at all - there's no Wikipedia article and Google doesn't turn up anything of significance. My immediate thought when seeing the phrase is "Grant-maintained school" which is something totally different from an independent school - GM schools were state funded but opted out of local authority control (and the status has now been abolished); independent schools are private. Timrollpickering 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom except Strong oppose adding "Greater" to the London category, which is completely unnecessary, and at variance with all the other London cateegories. "State-independent schools" would be as clear as mud. Ravenhurst 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as I understand it, categories reflect the usage of the context of the article (which in this case should be British English). Most articles about British public schools say something like "Eton College is a public school..." with a link to the British usage and as long as the category contains a similar link, I think the categories should remain where they are. The nom says it's "deeply confusing" - well, does that mean we should move all the football articles to say "soccer"? Everywhere in the world, we know what "soccer" is... Frankly I have absolutely no idea what an "independent school" is, nor have I ever heard that term (EDIT: because apparently I'm an idiot and never noticed that Public school (UK) actually redirects to an article about "independent schools"). ugen64 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eton is one of a very small number of schools where no-one ever disputes the "public school" label because it fits every single definition. But is the "correct" definition the ones covered by the Public Schools Act 1868 (just Charterhouse, Eton, Harrow, Merchant Taylors', Rugby, Shrewsbury, St Paul's, Westminster and Winchester - pupils and Old Boys of these tend to argue they're the only public schools), the ones in Public Schools Yearbook 1889 Bedford School (those nine bar St Paul's & Merchant Taylors' plus Bradfield, Brighton, Cheltenham, Clifton, Dover, Dulwich, Haileybury, Lancing, Malvern, Marlborough, Radley, Repton, Rossall, Sherborne, Tonbridge, Uppingham, Wellington), the members of Headmasters Conference, the ones founded before the 20th century or some other definition? Independent school (UK)#Differing definitions details this and frankly it's as clear as mud as to whether many of the schools in the categories are "public schools". The term is traditionally only used for boys only schools (with a few exceptions for those that have gone co-educational), yet in these categories we've got many girls only schools. "Independent school" is the term most of the schools use themselves and it avoids the wranglings - not only do some people fiercely reserve the term "public school" for a select few (usually they're Old Boys of the said few) but others equally fiercely reject the term for particular schools. Because of this Wikipedia doesn't contain anything resembling a "canonical" listing of public schools and to use the term for categories is only inviting trouble. Timrollpickering 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding "Greater" as London normally refers to Greater London, and all the other categories use London on its own. Otherwise rename to overcome the ambiguity issues. Hawkestone 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This will clear up a confusing area - the school article can discuss if necessary whether the particular school is (or was) a 'public school'. This is in line with the TES – in the 'jobs' section on the left, it divides (see school type, pull-down menu) the independent sector into Independent Preparatory and Independent Senior, and doesn't mention 'public'. -- roundhouse0 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, except just "London" Johnbod 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support amended proposal, ie without Greater [London]. Wimstead 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as we should try to keep categorisation in line with the namespace nomenclature. Tewfik^Talk 20:23, 22 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:Orange County Transportation Authority[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 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: OCAT; this category has only two cross-linked articles, and has for some time. Most related articles are adequately and already listed directly under Category:Transportation in Orange County, California .choster 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there isn't any cross-hierarchy issue at play here. Tewfik^Talk 20:25, 22 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:Aerospace museums[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 Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 08:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aerospace museums to Category:Aviation museums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems to be the more common name for these museums. The proposed name also reflects the name of the main article. Vegaswikian 21:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of the included museums are not aviation museums, but rocketry or space museums. One of them is even an astronautical/hydronautical museum (sea, air, space). 132.205.93.63 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, having Category:Maritime museums, Category:Aviation museums and Category:Space museums is not unreasonable. Maybe the best solution for now is to withdraw this and consider appropriate subcats/categories. Vegaswikian 20:06, 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:1970s retro movement[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 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category based on original research with subjective and vague inclusion criteria. As with the deleted 1970s retro movement article (and all the other deleted retro movement articles) this category attempts to identify a "movement" that isn't clearly definable in encyclopedic terms. The suggestion is that every 1970s-related film released in the 1990s is part of the "1970s retro movement", but every 1970s-related film released in the 1980s has nothing to do with the "1970s retro movement". There may have been a rise in 1970s nostalgia in the 1990s, but that doesn't mean everything 1970s-related is part of that "retro movement". Also listing the related Category:1980s retro movement, Category:1990s retro movement, and Category:Retro movements. Masaruemoto 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These categories appear to gather together anything produced after the specified decade that may have a connection to the specified decade. For example, Miami Vice (film) is listed in the 1980s categoey because it is a 2000s movie based on a 1980s TV series. The problem is that these categories appear to be broadly inclusive of anything with such a connection. Moreover, the categories almost seem like original research. It would probably be better to delete them. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ravenhurst 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as categorisation should be subject to mainspace content policies. Tewfik^Talk 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: it would be definately sad to see any of these categories go, because right now (in the 2000s), the 1980s are extremely popular over any other decade nostalgia. As the 1970s decade was dominate over any other decade nostalgia in the 1990s, but I am for deletion of the 1990s retro movement, because of the crystal ball rule (Tigerghost 23:21, 22 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:Jazz albums by genre[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 withdrawn Tewfik^Talk 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jazz albums by genre
Rationale The discussion on Jazz albums below on this page will do away with categories like Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums, thus rendering categorization by genre in this manner impossible. Since individual albums cannot be categorized into genres per WP:ALBUMS#Categories, then these categories will always be empty. Despite the fact that albums belong in subgenres, WP:ALBUMS is unable to reach an agreement on how to actually do it. I created these categories, and hate to see them go...but they will no longer serve a purpose per discussions below. (Mind meal 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strongest Possible Abstention at least until the previous discussion runs its course. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination to close In light of recent discussions at this discussion. (Mind meal 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Conditional keep if limited (for now) to albums by artists who have worked exclusively in a particular subgenre. We obviously have a much more broad and troubling nomination pending that has an impact on this, and the result of that or of further discussions at WP:ALBUMS may have a further impact on this category, but for the moment, I do think there are artists whose albums can clearly be placed in one of the subcategories of this (though I don't have any specific examples to offer at the moment). Xtifr _tälk 03:14, 22 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.

Wrestling video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These games are all too overcategorized. There is no need for separate categories for all franchises. This makes it hard to navigate, and is better done in a list (List_of_fighting_games#Wrestling), or a template ({{WWE_video_games}}).

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:Fire Pro Wrestling[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Fire Pro Wrestling to Category:Professional wrestling games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:Legends of Wrestling[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Legends of Wrestling to Category:Professional wrestling games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:Rumble Roses[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Rumble Roses to Category:Professional wrestling games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:Virtual Pro Wrestling[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Virtual Pro Wrestling to Category:Professional wrestling games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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.

World Wrestling Entertainment properties video games[edit]

Category:WWE Day of Reckoning[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:WWE Day of Reckoning to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:Extreme Championship Wrestling video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:WWE RAW video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:WWE RAW video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:Royal Rumble video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Royal Rumble video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:WWE SmackDown! games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:WWE SmackDown! games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:World Championship Wrestling video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:World Championship Wrestling video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:WrestleMania video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:WrestleMania video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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:WWE Superstars video games[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 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:WWE Superstars video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 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: World Wrestling Entertainment video games[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 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category: World Wrestling Entertainment video games to Category:WWE video games

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are all extensive categories with multiple article. They are far from small. The subdivision seems perfectly logical, especially since such subdivisions are acceptable for other categories on video game series. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Disregard the previous comment for this case only. This is a situation where the two categories have effectively the same name (except for the use of an abbreviation). They should be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 18:14, 21 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:State terrorism[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; recreation of deleted content --Kbdank71 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The article for State terrorism states: "is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition". What is more, the article has no definition at all (although it has a dedicated section). A category cannot be after a vague and controversial notion. `'Míkka 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I sort of feel that the definition may not be clear, but like people say they know pornography when they see it, I don't think lack of a definition in this case warrants deleting a category, although I might generally agree with that action.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve the article and category. There can be no doubt of the reality of the actions, regardless of term that is used. If the term is unliked, suggest a better one Hmains 02:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any content here should be merged into Category:Terrorism. State terrorism is just POV pushing.--Sefringle^Talk 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete move any content to Category:Terrorism, most (all?) state terrorism is either POV, OR, or subject to factual debate, which cannot be referenced well in categories. If we cannot objectively say what's in and what's out, the category isn't much use and isn't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak rename to Category:Government oppression. It is not clear to me what the difference is between these articles and those in Category:Political repression. --Eliyak T·C 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to Category:Government oppression would be a huge change and expansion of the scope of the category, otherwise no opinion on deletion or retention. Hawkestone
Strong Keep Qualifying certain events as "state terrorism" is historically correct. Moreover, "State terrorism" is a diplomatic term (so, the definition is clear). When deleted, the category will pop up ever an ever again. Stefanomione 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, how can we categorise based on a term that is controversial and lacks any clear definition. To Stefanomione, we don't build the encyclopaedia based on mistakes or breaches of policy, but based on the consensus that built the policy to begin with. Tewfik^Talk 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request - I am still evaluating the merits of the various arguments that have been made regarding this nom. In addition, I have just posted notices of this CFD on the pages of closely related categories, in order to bring this CFD to the attention of a larger number of interested parties, as I think this discussion should have input from as wide a pool of editors as possible. My request is simply that the discussion not be closed before one full week has elapsed from the time it was opened. Thank you. Cgingold 14:00, 23 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:DOS games[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 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DOS games to Category:MS-DOS games

Nominator's rationale: The OS in question was MS-DOS (or a derivative thereof), DOS could mean a large number of Disk Operating Systems. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a set of "DOS" categories, and there must be at least one game that would belong here and not in a Category:MS-DOS games. --Eliyak T·C 11:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move. DOS is not the same as MS-DOS. The category was intended to list those games written for MS-DOS, not just any OS MrMarmite 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. although MS-DOS was by far the most common, there are several flavours of "DOS" including IBM-DOS, DRDOS, etc. all are more-or-less compatible, and each of these programs will more than likely run without incident in systems running them. --emerson7 | Talk 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to quote myself, from Talk:MS-DOS#Merger_of_DOS_and_MS-DOS. 'It's like referring to Elvis and Elvis impersonators as the "Elvis family of people". If people didn't know Elvis very well they might believe it.

MS-DOS - July 1981 (July 1980 as QDOS) this is one that most people know
PC-DOS - August 1981 (an almost exact clone made by Microsoft)
DR-DOS - 1988
Novell DOS - 1991
FreeDOS - 1994
OpenDOS - no clue
ROM-DOS - no clue
PTS-DOS - no clue

This is no family, just a series of derivative works.' ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 17:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move - this should be obvious, there is no operating system called "DOS" for PC's. The title is not only misleading, it is also plain wrong. Mstuomel 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, move instead to Category:IBM PC compatible DOS games. 132.205.44.5 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as there is no Category:MS-DOS or Category:MS-DOS software hierarchy, though I am sympathetic to the accuracy concerns. Tewfik^Talk 20:58, 22 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:Date of birth missing (living people)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Date of birth missing, we do not subcat Category:Living people. Such categories require continual maintenance, and that is extremely undesirable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we don't make subcats of Category:Living people and we don't otherwise divide the living from the dead. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up, if this is a maintenance cat and kept as such, it should be repurposed to the talk pages to minimize cat clutter in bios. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the complete list looks to be:
For the most part, they are on talk pages but in some cases they do appear in the main article space. At this point I support keeping all of these on the talk page. Do we need a bot to scan categories like this and move the tag from the article to the talk page? I don't see a way to warn editors that they have put the category in the wrong place. Vegaswikian 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I support having a bot to move the category to talk pages. Go to WP:BOTREQ.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep---of the sixteen categories contained within Category:Articles missing birth or death information, only three have been recognized as containing essential information, and thus eligible to appear on the article page. Those three "defining" categories delineate the absence of years of birth and death. The remaining thirteen categories, including this one, have been repurposed to talk pages where a relative handful of dedicated editors attends to their upkeep (in practical terms, that is the case with almost all categories, but these sixteen require specialized scrutiny). However, there is no additional upkeep necessary for this category, beyond the bounds required for maintenance of Category:Living people. Upon the death of an individual, the change from Category:Living people to Category:2007 deaths is accompanied by the replacement of Category:Date of birth missing (living people) with Category:Date of birth missing. This nominated category is a subcategory solely of Category:Date of birth missing and, despite their close relationship, is not a subcategory of Category:Living people. Prior to the existence of this Category:Date of birth missing (living people), editors grouped individuals from past centuries and even ancients from past millenia, all of whom clearly belonged in either Category:Date of birth unknown (year indicated, but month and day historically unrecorded) or, in most cases, in Category:Year of birth unknown, used with people whose data has been lost to history. The "(living people)" addition thus provides a differentiation guide for editors who are creating entries for contemporaries. While some editors do continue to append this category to the article page, the misplacements are being rectified and the proposed merge is completely irrelevant to the lack of attention paid to the article page/talk page differentiation.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The recategorization effort is a waste of time - both categories are potentially so vast that it makes little practical difference to merge them. Hawkestone 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. For all of these categories, we need a regularly scheduled bot to sweep these from the article page to the talk page. These are really maintenance categories and not defining characteristics of the individuals. Vegaswikian 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything said by Romanspinner. The whole "definining or not defining characteristics" issue has nothing whatsoeover to do with the matter at hand. Hawkestone, just because you would find your time spent on such categorization to be a waste does not mean that all would consider such work time spent. Instead of labelling others' time and effort in such a negative way, why not go do something you actually do consider useful. These "(living people)" sub-categories of cleanup categories are useful to WP:BIO. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Men Who Know above. Johnbod 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Vegaswikian.- Gilliam 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Living people is not intended to be subcategorized. That's a very long standing principle of that particular category scheme. Dugwiki 19:33, 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:Place of birth missing (living people)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Place of birth missing, we don't subcat Category:Living people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we don't make subcats of Category:Living people and we don't otherwise divide the living from the dead. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up, if this is a maintenance cat and kept as such, it should be repurposed to the talk pages to minimize cat clutter in bios. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep---As of this writing, on July 172007, Category:Place of birth missing has 4765 entries and Category:Place of birth missing (living people) has 230 entries. Nearly 3000 of the entries in Category:Place of birth missing belong, in fact, in Category:Place of birth missing (living people). It is slow, laborious process to recategorize such a large number of individuals, all of whom also appear (or, in the absence of categorization, should appear) in Category:Living people, but the process is in motion. When I created this Category:Place of birth missing (living people) on May 52007, I wrote in the edit summary, "Creating a subcategory of Category:Place of birth missing [which, as of this moment, contains 3982 entries] and a Category related to [although not a subcategory of] Category:Living people". With editors adding about 500 new entries each month (most of whom are living people), a subdivision appears justified. Moreover, a number of editors have made no distiction between Category:Place of birth missing which, until recently, encompassed both the living and the relatively recent dead, and Category:Place of birth unknown, which is designed to categorize ancients from past millenia, up to individuals who were active before mid-19th century. The "(living people)" designation is, hopefully, a reminder to use the appropriate category. As to its positioning, this nominated category, along with thirteen others in Category:Articles missing birth or death information, has existed, since its creation, exclusively on talk pages. A small minority of editors continues to place it, as well as its parent Category:Place of birth missing on article pages. The malplacements are being addressed, but the merge is not a solution, since the editors in question will continue in the same manner with the parent category. —Roman Spinner (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: would they lose any usefulness if moved to the talk pages? Carlossuarez46 06:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer: other than the three categories deemed to contain primary "Year of birth/death missing" information, all remaining categories, including the five "Date missing/unknown" and the five "Place missing/unknown", were moved to the talk pages by HermesBot last month (on June 13). This can be confirmed by going to any of those categories, such as, for example, the largest one on the talk page, Category:Place of birth missing and ascertaining that, indeed, each entry (e.g. the first one, Talk:Richard Abanes), already is on the talk page. A few editors, unfamiliar with the placement of category indicators on talk pages, continue to place all categories on article pages, but those malplacements are being corrected and the merge would do nothing to address that separate issue. Incidentally, the "(living people)" descriptive reference is there solely for ease of familiar reference and not as a subcategory of Category:Living people. Any alternate category title, such "Place of birth missing (living individuals)" would still retain the same content. —Roman Spinner (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The recategorization effort is a waste of time, so it might as well be stopped. Hawkestone 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Romanspinner here and in the nomination above; these categories are maintenance categories of use to WP:BIO, harm no one, are not a "waste of time" (cf. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before so characterizing the maintenance work of others please), and whether they belong on talk or article pages is of zero consequence to the questions at hand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: would they lose any usefulness if moved to the talk pages? Carlossuarez46 06:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Men Who Know above. Johnbod 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: would they lose any usefulness if moved to the talk pages? Carlossuarez46 06:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Living People is never supposed to be subcategorized. That's been a long standing rule for that particular scheme. Dugwiki 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dugwiki and comments on other discussions. Vegaswikian 00:05, 19 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:Wikipedians in Northern Cyprus[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: take it to WP:UCFD, user category. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I consider this category disruptive and very controversial as it's referred to a non recognized defacto country. Also, the category is not being used by anyone except a template. I believe it should be deleted. KaragouniS 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/move No POV disputes here please; Northern Cyprus is a place, and it is not necessary for every userbox place to be recognised by the UN etc. Whether this category is in the right place I don't know. Johnbod 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. TRNC is a -seperate- political entity/country from Cyprus. Being defined as legal or illegal can never be a cause for deletion. (Also please note that, the TRNC is not non-recognized, is a partially-recognized country. It is recognized by Republic of Turkey and other political entities such as Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic or Organization of the Islamic Conference. This situation adds TRNC to the same list with Israel or Republic of China, they are also partially recognized countries). Wikipedians from Northern Cyprus are living in a seperate country and they use seperate Internet connection from Greek Cypriot Wikipedians, so they should have the right to add themselves to this category if they wish. Kaygtr 19:07, 18 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:Year of birth missing (living people)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Year of birth missing (living people) to Category:Year of birth missing

Nominator's rationale: Merge, unnecessary depth of categorization. Besides, how can one be sure that a person is living, when the birth date was missing in the first place. Gilliam 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a reasonable distinction for a maintenance category, & no doubt useful for wiki-gnomes who don't want to be dealing with historical figures. For maintenance categories, I don't see the living/dead issue as key. Johnbod 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Year of birth missing While Category:Year of birth missing is a useful placeholder category for biographies (since theoretically every bio should include a year of birth if possible), I don't see that subdividing this between living and dead biographies is useful. So unless someone can explain why the subdivision is useful for maintaining biographies, I'd recommend upmerging this category into Category:Year of birth missing. Dugwiki 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We don't create subcats for Category:Living people. All such categories would require constant maintainence, and Living people itself exists mostly for legal reasons, see WP:BLP -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this category, I invite all editors to read the opening essay in Category talk:Year of birth missing (living people), introducing its inauguration on May 1 2007. As with its analogous categories, Category:Date of birth missing (living people) and Category:Place of birth missing (living people), it was created as a subcategory of its parent Category:Year of birth missing, and as a category related to, but not a subcategory of, Category:Living people. Of the sixteen categories gathered under the umbrella Category:Articles missing birth or death information, only three have been deemed as "defining", that is, containing essential biographical information which is expected on the article page. The three, Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and Category:Year of death missing have thus remained on the article page, while the other thirteen categories, including all five "Date missing/unknown" categories and all five "Place missing/unknown categories" are consigned to discussion pages, attended by a (relatively) small group of completist editors dedicated to such details. It is also useful to examine Category talk:Year of birth missing where, over the years, various suggestions have been made regarding the subdivision of this unwieldy, oversized category (18,207 entries on May 1), including male-female, nationality, profession, etc. All have have been rejected as impractical or unworkable, while the category continued to grow. Over 60 percent of all entries currently in Category:Year of birth missing belong, in fact, in Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and recategorizing each individual is a slow, laborious process, but it is proceeding. Most of the daily additions of names are, in fact, those of living people and it makes little practical sense to have Category:Year of birth missing, now at nearly 20 thousand names, continue to grow, making no differentiation between the living and the dead. —Roman Spinner (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't make subcats of Category:Living people and we don't otherwise divide the living from the dead. However, if this is a maintenance cat (I'm not sure how useful it is, but someone apparently does), it should be repurposed to the talk pages to minimize cat clutter in the bios. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Romanspinner and at the two related CfDs (place and date). This is maintenance category of use to WP:BIO. Whether it should be repurposed to talk pages is not the issue before us (year of birth has already been determined by CfD to be defining not nondefining, so this is a moot question anyway). Lastly, it is not a subcategory (or should not be; someone could have edited to be) of Category:Living people so that point is also moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Category:Living people is not intended to be subcategorized. Period. It's been a very long standing rule for that particular scheme. Dugwiki 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it even says so in bold and italics right in the category description. "Organization: This category should not be sub-categorized." Black and white, don't subcategorize it.Dugwiki 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dugwiki and comments on similar nominations. Vegaswikian 02:58, 19 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:Foreign films shot in Japan[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 keep per DRV --Kbdank71 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per previous CFD precdent on film locations from July 2nd. Lugnuts 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the July 2nd decision is going up for WP:DRV. See debate at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18#Category:Films_by_shooting_location--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the category clutter problems with categorizing films by location, this film does not represent a global viewpoint. What is meant by "foreign films"? Where are the films considered to be "foreign"? Presumably, the Japanese people do not consider Japanese films made in their own country to be "foreign". Dr. Submillimeter 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a glance at the category shows that these are all non-Japanese films, so foreign from a Japanese standpoint. Johnbod 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good research info for film enthusiasts. --Chicaneo 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where a film is shot is not encyclopedic; Japan has a huge animation business, I wouldn't doubt that lots of films with animation are "filmed" in Japan; listify or better still maybe create an article about the subject of non-Japanese film studios using Japan as a filming location and providing the list as part of a more comprehensive contextual framework. Carlossuarez46 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the July 2 result which was to delete even though the vote was 2-2. My thoughts are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I can understand how the "foreign film" designation could be useful, I don't see what the problem is with including it in a general Category:Films shot in Japan even with the DRV. Tewfik^Talk 04:57, 23 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:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict[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 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict to Category:Battles of the 2003 Iraq conflict

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per the categorization guidelines at WP:MILHIST#CONFLICTS. Under the now-more-developed category scheme, there's a higher-level Category:Military operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict that can be used for the various non-combat operations, so there's no longer a need to lump battles together with all other types of military activity, nor to maintain two redundantly named categories. Kirill 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. This seems sensible. Carom 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Ditto. -- Hongooi 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom Lugnuts 07:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, Tewfik^Talk 04:57, 23 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:Peniel Revival Ministries Inc[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 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peniel Revival Ministries Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:4awindow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category seems to have been created for no purpose other than to promote the organization. Despite the directions at the top, it has been added to any number of "other religious articles" and "non-related items" by the category's creator and sole editor. Not a sufficiently notable corporation to make a category for it a useful sort. Second category seems to be this organization's idiosyncratic name for 10/40 Window, and it is as unclear as for the other what purpose it might serve other than promotional. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom If this organisation was as large as it suggests, they would have someone doing their promotion who could spell. Johnbod 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. This isn't what categories are for.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This seems sensible. ApFaq 1:46 17 July 2007 (EST)

Comment - How could a rename fix the problem of a category which has no clear inclusion criterion and appears to be entirely redundant to existing categories? What rename would you really suggest?--C.Logan 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Both) - I believe that the previous users have said it well. It appears that all this was created very recently by the above user, Apfaq, and appears to be entirely for the purposes of promoting awareness of an organization. For such an insignificant topic, one category is really too much, never mind two (the first of which has a muddy criterion, the second of which has no discernible/unique purpose whatsoever). The Peniel Revival Ministries Inc has also been proposed for deletion, and it would seem from that discussion (whether or not you feel that the article should be deleted) that user Apfaq is a little green as to how Wikipedia operates (read here), so one may want to keep this is mind when considering the existence of this category.--C.Logan 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete makes no sense at all, not a valid category (either). Would imagine to org's article also needs rewriting. Gatorgalen 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please review deletion debate ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peniel Revival Ministries Inc Scarykitty 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it passes AfD, as it would only just pass the threshold, and has no need for its own category hierarchy. Tewfik^Talk 05:03, 23 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.

Jazz albums[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 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and per Mind meal's suggestion:

Category:Paul McCartney classical albums to Category:Paul McCartney albums and Category:classical albums

Pursuant to this nomination concerning Nat Adderley's brother, I believe we should merge all of these into their parent categories. These genres are difficult to force albums into, and as such many of these categories overlap tremendously; see New Thing at Newport, which is in six of these categories.--Mike Selinker 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom and July 7th discussion -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought this method was already agreed upon. Why are you standing in the way of categorizing albums by subgenre Mike, ProveIt? I don't get this. Category:Jazz albums by genre cannot even exist if you do this, despite the fact that all jazz albums belong in specific subgenres. What are your ideas on alternatives, besides "These genres are difficult to force albums into". I find such arguments lazy and unproductive, and shows your lack of faith in general concerning the intelligence of editors who know music (unlike yourself, quite obviously). Incidentally, it has already been accomplished at Category:Jazz musicians by genre. It isn't as though it cannot be done. You just have a bias in mind that disallows you from believing such categorization can happen. Your POV is that such categorization is "too hard". Prove it. Don't forget to nominate Category:Paul McCartney classical albums too, and nominate merger of all Paul McCartney albums into Category:Classical albums; as we know, all Paul McCartney albums are classical albums. You don't even seem to understand the scope of the problem. (Mind meal 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I've added the McCartney category; see above. As for the rest, I choose to ignore it rather than getting myself into the same morass as Septentrionalis has unfortunately walked into.--Mike Selinker 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This nomination would leave categories by artist and categories by genre; it would eliminate categories with both artist and genre in the cat, which does sound like overcategorization to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then HOW do we categorize an album that is free jazz into Category:Free jazz albums? Individual albums cannot be listed there, they must be grouped under artist. Does anyone, I do mean anyone, understand why this was done? If you are even interested, please contact me. (Mind meal 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Why? There are seven articles directly in that cat now. All of them, except Free jazz itself, are albums. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they are there incorrectly per guidelines (WP:ALBUMS#Categories). That is why this happened in the first place. Those albums should not be there. Albums should NEVER be placed directly into a genre, which is the guideline. I was trying to address a serious problem, and can't do anything to address this problem anymore. (Mind meal 17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- That appears to be the issue behind this nomination. You appear, so far, to be alone in interpreting this language as you do; and the rule you support is not the way categories are usually done. If anything needs to be done, it would be better to change the guideline to allow albums in genre categories (when the artist does more than one genre), than to snarl at all the people who are "doing it wrong". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not alone, ask anyone. Albums can only be categorized by artist and year, which THEN the artist albums as a group get categorized into genre. Also, we have the added problem of taking the route you propose. Doing it that way, albums appear without context. They just are random albums in a category. Users don't know who made the album before clicking on it. I agree that this is an odd way to do this, but if you see the discussions on WP:ALBUMS talk page, you will see why it was done. (Mind meal 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- It is the nature of categories to be without context. Classification with context we do by lists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Septentrionalis has now edited category guidelines at WP:ALBUMS, which does not clear anything up. In fact, the opener still states that actual albums be categorized under artist albums and albums by year. They have just introduced a radical change that goes against the project guidelines. (Mind meal 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Nothing says that that is the only way albums should be classified. This is the other aspect of the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly states that albums not be categorized directly by genre. I have undone your revision so that we can have a discussion prior to such a change. Since you made the revision, I propose you suggest the change at WP:ALBUMS talk page. I'm not trying to get in fights with anyone here! NOBODY! But I can't have a discussion with people that haven't even understood the guidelines. They are quite clear if someone takes the time to read them. Only Category:Slayer albums can go into Category:Thrash metal albums. Am I hallucinating? I mean what if Slayer tomorrow decided to make a classical album? Then we would need to create Category:Slayer classical albums and place that at Category:Classical albums. Otherwise it will appear with all of their other albums at thrash metal albums. (Mind meal 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I still fail to see, I'm afraid, where any of these "must"s have come down from Sinai. But there is a possibly useful discussion of changing the guideline, whether to state them or to exclude them, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Artist.2Bgenre.2Balbum. All are invited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per nominator. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ALBUMS#Categories, Mike's proposal goes against current guidelines. When he proposed this, the language there clearly states that albums can be categorized into two categories (artist albums and year). It is only artist albums that can be categorized by genre. So for this to actually fall in line with current guidelines, Mike must formulate a new proposal or just pretend those guidelines don't exist for the sake of his crusade. After dealing with Mike, he'll take the latter path. Nobody here seems to have read WP:ALBUMS guidelines, which is why nobody here has grasped anything of substance. Even those who know the guidelines are clear on this won't defend me on the point, because siding with me on anything has become quite unpopular these days. Mike only is doing this due to back and forth exchanges that have occured between he and I, and this was not a proposal done in good faith. But he'd never be a man and admit that. (Mind meal 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I'll respond to this, as it's about the nomination rather than me: I didn't know that Mind meal had created these until after I started nominating them. I was following the consensus on the Cannonball Adderley nomination, and this seemed a logical outgrowth.--Mike Selinker 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly oppose without prejudice. I have to say that I think Mind Meal has managed to identify a large hole in our categorization scheme for albums. We say "genre X albums", but we really mean "albums by genre X artist", because the artist's entire repertoire is supposed to be a in a single subcategory. In these particular cases, I think the problem can be resolved by saying (for example) that Archie Shepp is a jazz artist. He has worked in multiple subgenres of jazz, but overall, he's a jazz artist, not specifically a free-jazz artist or hard bop artist; not all of his albums are free jazz or hard bop. So, I think we should have a single Category:Archie Shepp albums which should be a subcategory of Category:Jazz albums. But there are artists whose range of genres is too broad for any categorization by a single genre categories. Artists who have covered jazz and rock or jazz and bluegrass or country and punk rock are simply not going to fit in our current schema, and I don't see a good way around that. I used to have an album which had one side of straightforward instrumental bluegrass and the other side had the same band, with the same instruments, performing a set of jazz standards. How would that album (or artist) be classified? Such things are not exactly mainstream or very common, but they're not so rare that we can just ignore them, IMO. I don't have any obvious answers, and I think we may have to think this through a little more, probably at WP:ALBUMS. Xtifr _tälk 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Absolutely ridiculous! Inevitably most albums are going to end up in at least two categories. Whoever is responsible for the categorization doesn't seem to understand the difference between modal, post-bop, and fusion, and anyway, who does it actually help? John Coltrane discography (which I created) should be a model for us all. -Maggie --67.71.123.32 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also reluctantly Oppose, as though the system outlined at WP:ALBUM seems to go against the general principles we apply to categorisation, I must assume that that consensus was arrived at for good reason, and that at the very least a new consensus should be formulated before we alter the categories. Tewfik^Talk 05:11, 23 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:Republicanist-Federalist debate[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 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is still no such word as Republicanist. This category contains three subcats, and no supercats. Two of them are recreations of the categories deleted on July 3, here and the following section; the remaining one, included in this nom, contains only James Madison, who was never in the Federalist Party, as being on both sides. The subcat is an error; this is therefore a useless, orphaned cat. Drown it mercifully. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Septentrionalis? Should I quote from the articles themselves? Here is a quote from the first part in the article about James Madison: "During and after the war, Madison reversed many of his positions. By 1815, he supported the creation of the second National Bank, a strong military, and a high tariff to protect the new factories opened during the war". These are absolutely, completely Federalist stances, especially the main issue: the National Bank.

In the categories about "Federalists" and "Republicanists" I did not refer to the persons' party memberships (Federalist Party or Democratic-Republican Party), but to their ideas and the political acts they performed as a result of those ideas.

Yes, he adopted some Hamiltonian policies; but he did so as leader of the Democratic Republican Party, a term which dates from his administration, and is cited from Niles' paper, which supported him. The Federalists continued to oppose him, as not being Hamiltonian enough. We cannot use ideas as a basis for a cat, especially our interpretation of ideas; they're subjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to Patrick Henry, I admit I was indeed wrong; He was an Antifederalist and then became Federalist; Hence, he should be in the category "Both".

And about the word "Republican" versus "Republicanist": Firstly, "Republican" would mean, to a modern ear, a member or supporter of the present-day Republican Party. Secondly, "Republicanist" is on the same weight as "Federalist". If the word "Federalist" exists, so should "Republicanist". Even if it weren't so, the first reason I mentioned – to save Wikipedia users from utter confusion – is important enough, as I think.

We don't do neologisms, however convenient. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, an article named "Republicanism in the United States" is alive and kicking. That's exactly the ideology whose supporters are "Republicanists" (surely no one would claim that "Republicans", i.e. supporters of modern Republican Party, do all support "Republicanism").

That article was one of Rjensen's PoV tracts the last I saw it; but insofar as it is talking about reality, it is summarizing views which Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison all held, not the issues between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last words on the entire subject: the Republicanist-Federalist debate was one of the most important ideological conflicts in the history of the United States, the country that later became leader of the world. Issues related to central government's power and to constitutional law still make headlines today. So why not include a category that tells about the Nation's politicians back then and their stand in that crucial debate?! I think it is extremely important. A.R. 08:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A.R. was very convincing, although not in the way he intended. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You treat me (a user with NPOV on the entire issue) with an extreme POV. Can you, please, explain yourself? A.R. 10:57, 17 July 2007

Delete - These two categories list people who were involved in the debate concerning the powers that the government of the United States. However, the categories only indicate that people were involved; the categories do not even indicate their specific opinions. Presumably, most United States politicians from this time period were involved in this debate (directly or indirectly), so these categories will ultimately grow to encompass everyone from this time period. Alternatively, they could be limited to "important" people, but that would be subjective, as editors would need to decide who is "important" enough to be included. Ultimately, these categories are not functional and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Submillimeter, do you define a category that includes many articles as a non-functional category? I think that is supposed to be the definition of a functional category.

The definition of includable persons for this category is quite intuitive (in my opinion), and it is: any one who exerted a considerable influence on the course of the Republican-Federalist debate. The persons, I have already included, conform to that requirement: Henry, Washington, Jefferson, Burr and Hamilton.

I think we should reach an agreement. The category, subcategories and their contents shall not use "Republicanist" but, instead, "Republican". The category will continue to exist, and any inclusion of persons in any of the subcategories will be carefully examined.

I was trying very carefully to maintain NPOV while categorizing. Please do take that into account. Best regards, A.R. 13:52, 17 July 2007

This is a proposal to delete, not an effort to assign blame. We have other fora for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A.R.'s inclusion criteria are subjective, as inclusion in this category relies on editors to determine who "exerted a considerable influence". This cannot be empirically defined. I therefore still advocate that this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category seems to be of dubious usefulness.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain why I think it is useful: after the article about the Republican-Federalist debate is written, this category (and three subcategories) will be very useful in understanding the issue and learning about the persons who were the "pushing forces" behind it. You may suggest that the categories be named "Members of the Democratic-Republican Party" and "Members of the Federalist Party", instead of the current names. I do not think this would be best, because the Rep-Fed debate spanned into after 1824, when the Democratic-Republican Party had dissolved.

If you think that first the article should be written and then the category and three subcategories should be created, that is acceptable. Can we agree on that? Best regards, A.R. 06:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Submillimeter. Categorizing people as involved in a debate (for which we have no article) doesn't seem useful. Also, we already have Category:Anti-Federalists and Category:United States Federalist Party. Mairi 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it isn't very helpful to categorise by "debate" rather than by overlapping ideology. Tewfik^Talk 05:16, 23 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:People who claim to have seen God[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 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This isn't really an objective measure for starters, and the intro text to the cat seems contrived and bias. Furthermore, is this one of the most defining aspects of individuals? This category could end up including surrealist painters with the criminally insane with rock musicians with mythological figures with religious figures etc. Just seems overall problematic. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of all possible keeps. If it were, as the name implies, limited to those for whom there is direct testimony on the claim (i.e. not Adam, but Plotinus) that would be a useful cat. Whether Buddhists should be included may still make this too much of a judgment call. What do others think? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, there's no objective standard. For every Plotinus there's a couple of dozen people who have had an NDE and interpret their hallucination as a vision of God. I think that immediately renders it useless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So many people claim to see supernatural phenomena that this is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 07:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless category that is bound to be influenced by original research.--Svetovid 07:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need of any such category or article, there are so many peoples who falsely claimed to have seen God—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.29.247.218 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 July 2007.
Delete - no disrespect intended but similar to and as unencyclopedic as Category:People who claim to have seen UFOs. Note: we do have Category:Contactees for those who have "been contacted" by extraterrestrials but that is their (usually sole) claim to notability. Here, these people appear to be notable for something else. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively broad category. Wryspy 00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessively broad, pointless. I'd suggest that the primary point of this category is likely met by Category:Prophets anyway. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlos, as we also have Category:Prophets for any very notable cases. Tewfik^Talk 05:18, 23 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.