Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

June 20[edit]

Category:The Modernist Heresy[edit]

Propose renaming Category:The Modernist Heresy to Category:Modernism (Roman Catholicism)
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. Conscious 05:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As per guidelines on Wikipedia:Words to avoid, this title is needlessly provocative. We don't have Category:The Arian Heresy, Category:The Gnostic Heresy or Category:The Protestant Heresy; instead, it's Category:Arianism, Category:Gnosticism, and Category:Protestantism. SnowFire 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree DGG
  • Rename per nom Johnbod 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --Storm Rider (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Although with the slight quibble that "Modernist theology" was an issue with Anglicans too and was more or less the same issue. I'd be tempted for a rename like "modernist theology", but whatever.--T. Anthony 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a rename to Category:Modernism (theology), which I think is the correct form, or similar - on balance I think it is better, per T Anthony. Johnbod 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest "Modernism (Christianity)" as a better umbrella than theology, since I'm not certain "modernism" means the same things with regards to Islam, Taoism, etc. Anyway, my suggested name was based off the main article of the category, Modernism (Roman Catholicism), which currently doesn't mention the Anglican connection at all. Maybe that article should be expanded or moved as well? SnowFire 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true there seems to be only one ex-Anglican (RC convert) in the present category. No doubt both article & category should ideally be expanded & then renamed, but maybe the rename per nom is ok for now - I'll go with consensus either way. Johnbod 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Modernism (Christianity)" might be preferable. I think there is Islamic modernism and it's a different kind of thing. Also Anglican and Catholic Modernism might be more different than I thought. This link compares them some.--T. Anthony 20:05, 21 June 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:Magnificent Seven (gymnastics)[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. Conscious 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magnificent Seven (gymnastics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains eight pages (the seven gymnasts and the main page) which are all pretty well interlinked amongst themselves, rendering the category useless. fuzzy510 21:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this category should be templatized. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Storm Rider (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no template - There is no question that the interlinkages between these articles are more than sufficient for anyone interested in finding out about all seven of them. This is also overcategorization as a small category with no potential for growth. Otto4711 04:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These people worked as a team at the 1996 Olympics, so grouping them together makes some sense. However, the team did not really compete or do much of anything else outside of the Olympics. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use a template. Casperonline 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no template. Overcategorization lacking room for growth. Their articles already link together. Doczilla 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes to template The linkages are not sufficient. Ravenhurst 10:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman dictators[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Roman dictators to Category:Ancient Roman dictators
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. Conscious 05:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with many other categories. This category is not intended to include say Mussolini. Brandon97 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename seems like right name, but I am not sure what would parent it. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. No problem with parents that I can see Johnbod 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Casperonline 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Æthelwold 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the category should be scrubbed to remove "dictators" as in modern sense. For example [[[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]] may not have been dictator in traditional sense. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He effectively revived the office, though using a new name and set of powers. If he is not one, then neither is Julius Caesar, who followed his example. There is a case for sub-categories, though the names would be rather obscure and unhelpful. Johnbod 22:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, good idea to separate Cincinnatus and Mussolini :-) I had the impression that both Sulla and Caesar were officially dictators, different only in that they didn't stop after six months. Nyttend 13:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman senators[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Roman senators to Category:Ancient Roman senators
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. Conscious 05:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with both parent categories. Brandon97 20:46, 20 June 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:List of electrical 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 merge. Conscious 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of electrical engineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Electrical engineers, as duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 20:41, 20 June 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:Kiriakis family[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Conscious 05:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kiriakis family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per many precedents for fictional family categories. I listified it at Kiriakis family (Days of our Lives) (it needs attention from a subject matter expert. Otto4711 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Template:Days of our Lives seems to cover this show and its family pretty well. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and many precedents. Doczilla 08:43, 21 June 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:Stark family[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Conscious 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stark family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - fictional soap opera family. The two articles are linked so I see no need for a list article before deletion. Otto4711 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant with the "Days of Our Lives" supercategory. YechielMan 08:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are not the only Starks in the world. Doczilla 08:41, 21 June 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:Events preceding World War II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Conscious 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events preceding World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I started populating this category, but soon realized it does not make sense: if your start tracking the chains of events, eventually even the birth of Jesus Christ preceded WWII. `'юзырь:mikka 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yeah, I think just about everything prior to 1939 preceded WWII. :-) --Evb-wiki 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This era covers much of human history and all of prehistory, including the Big Bang, the formation of the Solar System, and the evolution of man. It should be deleted. (It gets added to my list of humorous categories when the nomination is closed.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to rename to Category:Events immediately preceding World War II? If it's just the name/scope that is the problem, that is easily fixed. --- RockMFR 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - How immediate is "immediate"? Would this be limited to events in 1939 (for Europe) or 1937 (in Asia), or would it encompass all of the 1930's, or something else? (Some people do recognize WWII in Asia as starting with the Japanese invasion of China.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this will always result in bleeding into so many areas that it becomes meaningless. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good grief. Delete this mindbogglingly broad category with its arbitrary dividing point in all social, cultural, geological, and astronomical history. Doczilla 08:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and nearly every other comment above; also no on the "immediate" suggestion for the reasons stated by Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This category seems perfectly reasonable and it is being used sensibly. Abberley2 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But what should or should not be included? The category has no real boundaries. For example, World War I could be reasonably placed within this category, as it set the stage for World War II. For that matter, the Franco-Prussian War could also be described as a preceding event that was pertinent to World War II. How far back do we go? Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because it has wrong contents now or is generally nonsensical but because of unclear definition it will get misused on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 00:02, 23 June 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:Private Companies[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. Conscious 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as a mistake. Do not merge with Category:Privately held companies. -- Prove It (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge? What is wrong e.g., here? (besides the article being good candidate for speedy deletion tagging) `'юзырь:mikka 17:55, 20 June 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:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008[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. Conscious 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Delete category and all articles in it This category is just blatant crystal ballism about countries qualifying for eurovision. They don't contain anything useful, and blatantly just a waste of space. Francisco Tevez 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Also, smells a little like pre-event hype, i.e., WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deleting the category will not result in deleting the articles. Maybe the articles should be deleted first? Dr. Submillimeter 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the pages are already up for AFD, doing the rest though will take too long. Francisco Tevez 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Preparations on national levels to such international events start well before the event itself, and verifiable information is known well in advance, so the category is not crystal ball. I am also extremely very stongly against any batch nominations except for very obvious cases of vandalism or shameless promo. Each article must be judged by its own merits. `'юзырь:mikka 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is some sort of seeding system, so some countries are already in, but I don't know if the ones listed are the correct ones. Brandon97 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The allegation that this is spam has little credibility, as no evidence has been provided and there is widespread, non-commercial interest in the contest. Alex Middleton 12:13, 23 June 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:Mexican American Quarterbacks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Mexican American sportspeople (all entries are already in Category:American football quarterbacks). Conscious 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican American Quarterbacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Mexican American quarterbacks. Do we really need Category:Quarterbacks by ethnicity? -- Prove It (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We do not need to subdivide quarterbacks by ethnicity, although an article on the subject would be appropriate. This category will just lead to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is overcategorization and ethnicity is a pandora's box i.e. the Irish-Croatian-Swedish-subSaharan African-half back made a touchdown. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Alone - This article is not an attempt to recognize and open up the entire laundry list of racial categories in pro sports. It's one article highlighting the contribution of Mexican Americans to pro football. I've seen many articles about hispanic athletes and it seems that it's always trying to cleanse them or eliminate any kind of Latino connection. I just don't want hispanic football players to be labeled as only kickers and punters. It's simply not true. That's all I am pointing out.

Tejanowarvet

  • Delete improper intersection. Do Mexican-Americans (or any other ethnic or religious group you want to select) quarterback in a unique way? nope. Carlossuarez46 20:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Alone - Why do I always have to hear about Michael Vick and Donavan McNabb and Daunte Caulpepper being these great "Black Quarterbacks" but you never see a focus on the great legacy of Hispanic quarterbacks? Tom Flores, Joe Kapp, and Jim Plunkett have all played in Super Bowls while Doug Williams and Donavan McNabb are the only ones I can think of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanowarvet (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2007
    • Note to administrator - This is a second vote by User:Tejanowarvet. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I suggest that User:Tejanowarvet should write an article on the subject of Hispanics in football. Make sure that the article explains the importance of the subject and is not just a list, and be sure to use references. A category that just divides people by race really says nothing useful about the subject. If I see a list of "hispanic quarterbacks", "black quarterbacks", "white quarterbacks", or anything else, I just think that someone wants to divide people by race for no particular reason. If I read an article that explains how hispanic or black quarterbacks may be treated differently from other players with citations to specific examples, then I understand why the issue is important. (Also, note that black quarterbacks are not placed in a separate category from anyone else.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is far too detailed as a cross category. There is no Mexican American style of "quarterbacking". Æthelwold 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge to Category:American football quarterbacks and Category:Mexican American sportspeople. I agree with the delete reasoning set out above, but I am alarmed by the number of nominations of intersection categories such as this which recommend deletion where upmerger would be more appropriate. I recently saw one poor editor who had populated such a category complaining bitterly (and uselessly) to the bot-owner after the bot had deleted in accordance with the CfD's closure, when merger clearly would have been a better solution; the bot had done its job correctly, but I did feel sorry for the editor whose work had unnecessarily been undone. This category is small one, but to avoid the loss of important categorisations, please could the nominator consider revising the nomination to a dual upmerger? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 23 June 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.

Sherbro categorires[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge all. Conscious 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Sherbro people, see May 13th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 05:24, 20 June 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:Astrological factors[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. Conscious 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astrological factors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category's premise is ambiguous, weak, and undefined. What is a "factor" exactly? I added a description to the category recently in an attempt to clarify its usage, as its contents are illogical and follow no standard pattern. I've defined it as "technical factors", but I have since come to the realization that the entire category's premise is flawed. Take a look at other categories. Astrology by tradition is self-explanatory, clear-cut, unambiguous. Only traditions of astrology would logically go here, such as Western astrology, Chinese astrology, and so on. This immediate and direct conclusion for its proper contents is something Category:Astrological factors lacks.
A more in-depth discussion between the two parties involved so far can be found on my talk page. — Sam 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion is good, and I'm glad that you have brought this to the attention of more editors User:Samuella...but deleting this entire category would NOT be a good thing because much data would be lost and many of the articles and lists related to astrology would be left uncategorized. Perhaps merging it to Category:Astrology (and just starting over) would be an option, but deletion of this entire category would be a rather dumb thing to do since it contains about 160 articles and 22 subcategories. Renaming it is also an option; maybe it could be renamed to Category:Technical factors of astrology so that the aspects, signs, elements, and so forth could be categorized more efficiently. I know where you are coming from: at present this category is indeed nothing more than a mishmash of astrological miscellanea. Overall though, I think that this category just needs to be cleaned up instead of deleted entirely. --User:Wassermann 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a category does not delete its contents. — Sam 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but deletion of a category of this size and scope could possibly leave dozens of articles orphaned/uncategorized and contribute to further disorganization. That's why I say that this category should not be deleted entirely (if it is decided here that it should), but simply merged in to Category:Astrology. --User:Wassermann 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many if not all of the articles are already categorized — they will not be orphaned if astrological factors is deleted. — Sam 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The term is too vague and too encompassing to be useful. Moreover, this sweeps up too many articles and categories on real science, which is highly inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it 'orribly Doesn't do anything that Cat: Astrology don't do...--Red Deathy 07:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much do you know about astrology Red Deathy? I'd bet that you don't know much, if anything at all... --User:Wassermann 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intro to the category says, this category is for "miscellaneous" factors connected with astrology, and "miscellaneous" categories are always inappropriate. Much of this material should be in Category:Astrology, but not necessarily all of it. Haddiscoe 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Horribly vague category, and, as Dr. S poends itself more to disorganization instead of what the cats are actually meant to accomplish in the first place. There is no real reason to keep it. Start over and use more specific and more useful cats. Organize this ahead of time through the astrology wiki project and work with the other editors in order to compromise. --Chris Brennan 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)ints out, some of these articles aren't even particularly related to Astrology in the first place. Xtifr tälk 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but in no case delete entirely -- there is no way that we can delete this category entirely without first creating other more specific categories to hold all of the information that would be lost if this category was to be deleted. If this doesn't happen, the very least we should do is MERGE this to the main category. However, even merging has definite problems. For instance, if you look at all of the 22 subcategories in Category:Astrological factors, not all of those subcategories are directly related to the subject of astrology as a whole -- some of these include "Archaeoastronomy," "Ancient astronomy," "Astrological ages," "Pythagorean philosophy," "Moon myths"/"Sun myths," et cetera...these and some of the others are only factors that certain astrologers use (i.e. they are by no means universal in the study or use of astrology; they are often either minority viewpoints or mildly related). Some astrologers do not even use the "astrological signs," the "astrological triplicities," or the "astrological house systems" (thus these are only factors too, albeit technical ones). I might also say that it seems that many who are voting here to 'delete' this category have little if no familiarity with astrology as a whole, and I seriously question their knowledge and understanding of the subject as a whole. --User:Wassermann 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most if not all of these subcategories and topics are already categorized. They are not going to disappear. The vast majority of astrologies do indeed use signs, triplicities, etc. The fact that they are at all related to astrology warrants their inclusion in Category:Astrology, and like I said on our talk page discussion, categories do not follow a "major" versus "minor" topic distinction. If it's relevant it goes in the category. If not it doesn't. While it may be true most of the commenters so far do not have a familiarity with astrology, I do, and I am becoming increasingly convinced this category is a huge organizational fallacy which you for some reason continue to support, despite my multiple attempts at clarifying your misconceptions about categories. — Sam 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit!. I'm told I created this category. If I did, I must have been sleeping if I titled it "Astrological factors" if it then contained all the stuff it now does. The problem lies in the stuff that has been dumped into the category, not in the category itself. Properly, as used by astrologers casting charts, "astrological factors" is not a miscellaneous vague phrase, but a term with a very precise meaning. "Astrological factors" is standard nomenclature enough for, well, the factors that have effects in astrological charts. These are: the (astrological) planets, the signs, the angles (i.e.  the Ascendant, Midheaven, IC, and Descendant), the houses, the (astrological) fixed stars, the Arabian parts, the triplicities, etc.
The subcategories that seem to have been accreted here since I last visited are not factors at all, and are very likely zealous additions by people who don't know very much about astrology: Sun myths, ancient astronomy, Pythagorean philosophy, astrological texts, celestial mechanics, birthdays.... If the category is kept, a bunch of stuff needs to be removed from it: that's what's muddying the waters. Bill 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you and Sam don't seem to understand Bill...Sun/Moon myths, ancient astronomy, Pythagorean philosophy, celestial mechanics, etc. are indeed all FACTORS in astrology. They aren't astrology themselves, but factors that some astrologers take in to account. For instance, Johannes Kepler, one of the most eminent astronomer-astrologers in history, based all of his astrological theories on Pythagorean philosophy, ancient astronomy was and is often indistinguishable from astrology, Sun and Moon myths tie in with ancient astrological theories and celestial-worshiping religions, birthdays (obviously) form the basis of the natal chart and the sun signs, celestial mechanics relate to the Zodiac, the planetary orbits, the astrological aspects, eclipses, and so forth. I've been an astrologer for over twenty years (and I own over 200 books on the subject) so it is fair to say that I know more about astrology than anyone else here (and of all the voters here, only Sam and Bill seem to know anything about the subject, while all of the others know nothing and thus their opinion shouldn't matter all that much). I didn't add all of these categories but did I add many of them because, like I said, they aren't "astrology" in and of themselves but are factors that some astrologers take in to account. You seem fairly knowledgeable about the subject Bill, but how much do you really know about the intricacies of the subject? How long have you been studying/practicing astrology? --User:Wassermann 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category's title is ambiguous, so this muddying is no surprise. If it is meant to be for factors in astrological charts, then a decision should be made to either rename it or merge those relevant topics to Horoscopic astrology. — Sam 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just now cleaned up the category. I removed the philosophical/religious/mythical subcats, also the purely scientific subcats, also things like "astrological texts" (texts are about the factors, they are not themselves factors). Interestingly, of the articles belonging to the cat, 90% actually do belong: I removed a few, maybe missing one or two. Most of those articles should or actually did belong to just plain ::Category:Astrology. One or two of them were so categorized as to set up loops. All of it due to sloppy editing. Bill 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the previous three voters seem to know little to nothing about astrology, as they have never edited or improved any astrology related articles. I hope that this fact is taken in to account when evaluating this Cfd and that the decision is to MERGE this category in to Category:Astrology; otherwise, much data will be lost. --User:Wassermann 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know exactly what data will be lost if this category is deleted. Perhaps you can actually back up your argument. — Sam 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I understand the initial rationale behind the cat, as well as the notion that 'astrological factors' is an attempt at a general catch-all term for a lot of miscellaneous components of astrology that are hard to categorize, it still remains that the cat is a mess and probably lends itself more to disorganization instead of what the cats are actually meant to accomplish in the first place. There is no real reason to keep it. Start over and use more specific and more useful cats. Organize this ahead of time through the astrology wiki project and work with the other editors in order to compromise. --Chris Brennan 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal -- go ahead and MERGE this subcategory in to the main category as I've stated above, but create two new (more specific) categories and start separating them out; these new specific categories would presumably be: Category:Technical factors of astrology (for the signs, houses, aspects, precession, birthdays, etc.) and Category:Historical factors of astrology (for archaeoastronomy, Sun/Moon myths, ancient astronomy, Pythagorean philosophy, Mythological cosmologies, etc). The recently created categories dealing with "Astrological writers" and "Astrological texts" can remain in the main category. Sam and the others that are familiar with the subject (Bill, Chris): do you agree with this proposal? --User:Wassermann 09:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging these articles into Category:Astrology isn't necessary, as I have yet to find an article in Category:Astrological factors not already in that category. This comes back to your claim that "much data will be lost". I suppose you're going to conveniently ignore actually substantiating your claims? I do not agree with your proposal, because it's merely another perpetuation of this vague idea of "technical factors". I've proposed a rename to "Horoscopic factors" which I think is a much better title. — Sam 13:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What are "technical factors" and "historical factors"? The proposed category names are still unclear and appear to still be broadly inclusive. It looks like they would just be a recreation of this category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:39, 25 June 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:Paula Campbell 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 keep, should be speedy deleted if becomes empty. Conscious 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paula Campbell albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that does not comply with WP standards. Eusebeus 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator redirected the two album articles linked in the category description to the artist's article before making this nomination. Otto4711 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I temporarily restored these two albums' articles, so the category has two articles in it. However, the articles are barely more than song lists, so I'd encourage the nominator to take them to AfD. Till then, the category merits a keep, as per all categories of Category:Albums by artist.--Mike Selinker 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right, sorry I was not trying deliberately to disrupt the process. That was simply the order of the maintenance I was doing. Eusebeus 09:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I have moved the albums in question to AfD as advised. Tx. Eusebeus 09:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawing the nomination until the outcome of the AFDs on the albums. If they both get deleted then the category can be deleted but if one is kept this category is required. Otto4711 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless all album articles are deleted As above this category is part of the Category:Albums by artist scheme. So long as those album articles exist this category must exist too as part of that scheme. Of course, if the articles are all deleted, then the category can be too since it will be empty. Dugwiki 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending AFD per Dugwiki. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending AFD per Dugwiki. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_20&oldid=1074798783"