Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Journalist renames[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Science journalists and Category:Motoring journalists respectively. No real risk of confusion with journalists who write about where to "motor to"... BencherliteTalk 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientific journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Automobile journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename one to Category:Science journalists and the other to Category:Motoring journalists "automobile" is strictly American English, and the "motor sport" categories have all made this move - these ones should too. Anyway, Category:Automotive journalists implies they move by themselves, which I suppose they do if there is a bar nearby. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no general use of "automotive" etc here at all. I thought you all drove "cars" like we do anyway? Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True enough -- except for Boston, where a lot of people drive cahz (I think that's how they spell it). On the other hand, Boston IS home to The Car Guys. But of course, they're not even journalists, much less cah journalists. Now where was I? Oh yes -- I suppose "Automotive journalists" is somewhat odd-sounding, but then so are both "Motoring journalists" and "Automobile journalists". So how to choose?? (see below for more) Cgingold (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. In fact, I'm afraid some of them fall well short of the description. Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename one to Category:Science journalists and the other to Category:Motoring journalists per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (picking up where I left off above)- For what it's worth, I just googled all three terms, and here are the results: after ten laps, "Automotive journalists" has opened up a big lead with ~75,000 hits; "Motoring journalists" is a distant second at ~20,000 hits, with "Automobile journalists" (which mainly seems to be the preferred term in Canada) close behind at ~15,000 hits.

Obviously, my personal preference is for "Automotive journalists", but it's clearly fair to say that all three are valid terms -- so I think I would like to let other folks work on sorting this out for a while. Cgingold (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Motoring is ambiguous in that it could mean someone writing about where to 'motor to' in your vehicle. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Johnbod. Motoring reads better to me. Sting_au Talk 10:55, 29 November 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:Anti-Islam sentiment[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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcat: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. Similar recent deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_24#Category:_Critics_of_Islam. Flex (talk/contribs) 21:39, 23 November 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:Frisian-Dutch_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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ObsoleteCategory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is the same as Category:People_from_Friesland. This category contains only two articles while Category:People_from_Friesland contains those two articles plus a lot more SK-luuut (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible. Absolutely unnecessary and confusing. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 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:Comedian politicians[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 Listify and Delete - Listifying deals with the "keep" and the "Merge" concerns. Noting also that Category:Celebrity politicians currently has only subcats as its membership. - jc37 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: List is located at List of comedian politicians. - jc37 12:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Comedian politicians to Category:Celebrity politicians
Nominator's rationale: Merge, as tautology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, BHG, but I think this goes to the question of intent. In my experience, most (though not all) politicians are complete duds when they're trying to be funny -- whereas all too many are inadvertently very funny indeed when they least want to be. Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously never heard the late lamented Tony Banks, who was notorious for his ability to reduce the British House of Commons to a combination of outrage and helpless laughter. But you're right that while most of them are unintentionally hilarious, very few politicians can do this intentionally, and Banks was one of the exceptions which prove the rule. My nomination was indeed based on the unintentional comedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, BHG - I knew you would rise to the occasion! You do realize, I hope, that your comments could be construed -- perverse though it would be -- as an argument for keeping this category? :) Cgingold (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete per BHG and also because this is a trivial non-notable non-defining and absurd category. --Lquilter (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The late David Lange is another who, like Banks, was a wit and comedian (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Lange). The category, however, seems an unlikely one - delete. Grutness...wha? 08:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete as overcharacterisation, and also as tending to encourage the misplacing of "politicians who are funny" in this category. Of course "politicians who are funny" is different to "politicians who a lot of people laugh at". Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to end the suspense and say Merge. Not even the Kinkster and Al Franken combined require a category of their own -- though I might reconsider if Mort Saul were to make a serious run for political office (not too likely, seeing as he's 80 now). Cgingold (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There you go again says Reagan, the audience laughs and into another category goes Ron. Not defining. Nearly every politician even those tagged as humorless or taciturn have attempted humor, some with success, so this category is meaningless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is useful becasue a) there's interest in it & b) It is a proper subcategory ofcelebrity politicians. If you put too many people into celebrity politicians then it becomes a useless lumble of mess.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all comedians who turn to politics are also celebrities. I'm not sure there is an elegant solution to this but until there is I'd keep it. Benjiboi 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Italy[edit]

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.

The result of the debate was Rename for consistency. SkierRMH (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC) rename all to "in". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Propose renaming Inconsistency with categories such as Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in France which is in rather than of. i'd either suggest moving to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy or moving the french one to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of France, Either way I think its important to be consistent. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to:Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I'd also propose moving Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Piedmont to in or deleting that category depending on how many there are likely to be[reply]

Others include Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of England & Wales, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Scotland and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Croatia to in.

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom - Poland & Portugal are currently "of" too. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes rename Roman Catholic dioceses of Poland and Roman Catholic dioceses of Portugal also to in ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:50, 23 November 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:Heirs Apparent[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty at end of discussion. BencherliteTalk 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heirs Apparent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, as the aristocratic equivalent of categories for political candidates, which we deprecate in nearly all cases; it's categorisation by the likelihood that someone will attain a notable rank in the future. And since this category explicitly includes heirs apparent to baronetcies, some of the are only heirs apparent to non-notable ranks. If kept, it needs a capitalisation fix to Category:Heirs apparent to match the main article Heir apparent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also a "current" category. By a strange coincidence, all 3 members are clearly NN, and have been prodded. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since Prince Charles has been heir apparent for decades, though this is a current category, it isn't actually in high flux. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not in it, & your newspaper won't tell you when any of these inherit. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate properly - The appropriate population would be as a parent category for Princes of Wales, Princes of the Asturias, Dauphins, Princes Imperial, etc. All the present contents of the category appear to be NN eldest sons of British peers, and all are nominated for deletion. However Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury while Viscount Cranborne would have been a legitimate member of the category, until he succeeded as Marquess of Salisbury in 2003; likewise the politican Michael Ancram until 2004. Nevertheless heirs apparent should only have articles if notable in their own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though strictly it should perhaps be Category:Current royal heirs apparent - every Prince of Wales, Dauphin etc was "heir apparent" once, & many died without inheriting. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the name, but that poses the question of whether the split is appropriate. Won't generally do current/former splits. --23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
I agree with BHG on the name, but disagree with the proposed split. As to what goes into the category that's another interesting conundrum: not all royal heirs apparent held the title associated with the heir apparent - deaths of older brothers didn't always mean that the title devolved on the next oldest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting we actually include non-current ones. Either "current" should be in the name, or at least a note on the page. I think succession is mostly pretty regular in Euro monarchies now. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Royal heirs apparent' and populate accordingly. I'm not sure about "current" either way. DGG (talk) 16:43, 29 November 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:Artists against crime[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists against crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as categorisation by non-notable myspace group. None of the articles in this category even mention "Artists against crime" other than as a category entry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as written the category is a vague and non-defining "opinion"; and per BHG -- if capitalized to refer to the MySpace group, it would be non-notable organizational membership (overcat). --Lquilter (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization by non-notable group membership. Maralia (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all, unless someone produces RS coverage of this group. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:33, 27 November 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:American Samoa territorial agencies[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 Category:American Samoa territorial agencies to Category:American Samoa. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American Samoa territorial agencies to Category:American Samoa
Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category, little immediate potential for growth (Category:American Samoa has already been properly dispersed to subcats). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 23 November 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:2pac Shakur[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. The text is a copyvio, and an eponymous category already exists at Category:Tupac Shakur ×Meegs 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2pac Shakur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, article in category space and eponymous overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 23 November 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:Xingyiquan[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 - now has four articles and a subcategory. Potential to expand. jwillbur 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xingyiquan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, single-article orphaned category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contains only 1 article, Beng Quan. Wikipedian 11:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment not sure about this one. article was not linked to the main Xingyiquan article, so i fixed it. there might be more related articles around. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. there are other articles, which have now been included in this category, as well as a subcategory which is directly related. this topic is notable and worth keeping. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are other articles. Wikipedian 02:50, 29 November 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:Democracy Alliance[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. Neither "people by donation" and "organisation by donor" are good models of categorization, since they are not defining characteristics (and any trend to start categories of this sort would lead rapidly to category clutter). Combining the two ideas in one category doesn't improve it, since categories don't allow "themes" to "emerge" from the grouping. Matters of that sort are best handled on the main article, or a separate article / list, which will allow proper explanation and references. BencherliteTalk 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democracy Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, as undefining categorisation by connection with political party fundraising group, in this case Democracy Alliance of the Democratic Party (United States); most politicians are involved in numerous internal party groups, and and categorising on this basis would leads to massive category clutter. All those categorised here could be listed in the main article Democracy Alliance, and most of them already are. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG -- I was going to nom this one, too, and had been talking with the creator of the category about this one. I believe s/he agrees that listing (as appropriate) is better. See User talk:Buellering & User talk:Lquilter. --Lquilter (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started the category. Having read over the Wikipedia article suggested to me by User talk:Lquilter about when lists are preferred versus when categories are preferred, I think this category is a way to provide information about the Democracy Alliance that will be preferred by those people who tend to prefer categories over lists. I'd prefer keeping the category for the reading ease and comprehension of those who prefer categories to lists. The Democracy Alliance is not part of the Democratic party but, rather, a new group of extremely wealthy individuals who came together starting in 2005 to fund a progressive infrastructure outside the party's confines. I'd encourage those who want to delete the category to hold off for a month or two and see how the category develops. I haven't finished researching and adding DA donors and DA-funded groups. Its most recent national director, Judy Wade, has been quoted in the Washington Post maintaining that within a few years, the DA will be sponsoring progressive infrastructure to the tune of $500 million a year. This is a very significant addition to how politics is funded in the U.S. and there will be a growing body of research on it. My concern is that using lists within the article would make the article difficult to absorb. Over 80 donors have been identified as associated with the DA, for example. The point here is to make the information easier to grasp for readers.Buellering (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buellering, thank for the long reply and clarification. Having read more of the links, you are obviously quite right that this is a significant and notable grouping worthy of the substantial article you are developing.
However, I think that it might help to separate out two questions: a) whether he category is appropriate, and b) how to present the data otherwise.
On the category, the first problem is that we have deleted several funded-by categories over the last year, because funders are rarely a defining characteristic of the recipient, and I can find no equivalent funded-by-categories either under Category:Philanthropic organizations or under Category:American political organizations. Funders may well be worth mentioning in the article, but not always, and it's a form of categorisation we have avoided.
Secondly, the category groups donors with recipients, which seems to me to be unhelpful, because they are very different types of entity, and I'm not sure that a Category:Democracy Alliance donors would be appropriate either. Just to take one example, Pat Stryker has funded many things, and isn't categorised by any of them.
So some form of list is he way to go, and the question how best to do that. If the lists get huge, then they could be split out into separate articles, but it looks to me like that is some way off (though in the meantime I have used {{div col}} to arrange the list in 3 columns on Mozilla browsers). But as the article grows to cover of the history and aims of the DA the lists will appear less likely to overwhelm the article.
With the template facing deletion too, you are probably feeling a bit fed up, but I do hope that this won't put you off. You are doing great work on the subject, but the organisational tools of the template and these don't seem to fit with what other experience has shown to be viable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that grouping donors with recipients--and also grouping them with the major DA activists or operatives or whatever one might call them--is an important and positive feature of the category. The record of this group (the DA) appears to be that the very wealthy individuals associated with it decided that existing Democratic or progressive or left-leaning organizations were insufficient as they stood to meet their self-professed goal of creating a permanent Democratic/progressive majority in the U.S. In other words, these wealthy people felt that there were deficiences in existing organizations--new kinds of organizations were needed or, at times, very significant new funding was required by some older groups--to accomplish their objective. This raises the question--what kind of organizations does the DA fund? Are they funding certain types of organizations? What are those organizations? What do these DA-funded groups do that previously existing groups didn't do? Most political commentators, left and right, who have addressed this issue say that the DA funders have settled on certain types of organizations. Grouping donors with recipients in a category allows one to see the themes that emerge from the grouping. The themes that emerge from that should be an accurate reflection of the DA's own views on what type of organization or political activity needs to be funded and developed in order to support their goal. I am not a political historian but I'm not aware of anything like the DA ever happening before. The DA is an unusual and perhaps even unique donor's collaborative or collective that jointly decides to fund certain organizations. In many cases, I would imagine, the donors who are members of the DA already fund (and continue to fund) organizations outside of the DA. That would not tempt me to create a category. What we have, though, with the DA is a situation where the DA comes together twice a year and votes on which groups to fund, while simultaneously agreeing to fulfill a commitment they incur as dues-paid members of the group to kick in a certain amount of money every year, as individuals, to the DA-approved groups. If there were another donor's collective in the US that did this, I would advocate for a category for that group too.Buellering (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good arguments for a list, but not for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the editorial guidelines at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it does not appear that a consensus has evolved from which one could say in the case of a dispute about a category that "This type of material is only suitable for a list". Rather, I get the impression that some people are list-builders and some are category-builders--that a preference for categories over lists and vice versa is based on how different people like to absorb information, and that material that is suitable for a list is generally also suitable for a category. A consensus might evolve--or may have already evolved, but has been reported elsewhere--that defines the characteristics of material that is suitable for lists, but not categories.Buellering (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is that of a defining attribute, as above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it should stay, because there is cleardefining attribute, membership in the organisation. DGG (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discrete and definite is not equivalent to defining. Neither mere membership nor financial-contributions-to are sufficiently "defining" to be a category. Organizations frequently set up coalition / umbrella organizations and might be involved in many such. Categorizing them all this way -- effectively, by their relationships to other organizations -- would lead to vast overcategorization by relationship.
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:Goldman Sachs alumni[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 Category:Goldman Sachs alumni to Category:Goldman Sachs people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goldman Sachs alumni to Category:Goldman Sachs people
Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:people by company. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, although I got a chuckle out of imagining their Spring Break festivities, football team, etc. Maralia (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this not about former Goldman Sacks staff? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, yes, I presume it is, but we don't split categories into current/former except in very rare cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 26 November 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:Kot Dial Das[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/delete (there is still only the one article). – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kot Dial Das to Category:Cities and towns in Punjab (Pakistan)
Nominator's rationale: Merge, POV category rescued from the orphanage, and rather oddly designed, categorising a big town by its proximity to a small village. (BTW, I propose merger rather than deletion in case the category is more heavily populated before the CfD is closed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Australian Club[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. BencherliteTalk 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Australian Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
'Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation this category rescued from the orphange. Being a member of the Australian Club is not a defining characteristic of these people, who are in case listed at List of Australian Club Members. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in most of a sample of articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially given that there is a list provided. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a bit silly to have the (incomplete) information in a category when there's a perfectly good and comprehensive list available. Lankiveil (talk) 12:57, 28 November 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:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Massacres in Israel during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taking it in parts (based on the discussion below):

"of Arabs" was suggested below for inclusion, but for now, "UpMerging" to a broader category, to allow for the possible natural growth of subcats (allowing for the possibility of the "of" and "by" discussion below, for example), without suggesting or implying what those subcats "must" or "should" be by this nomination/closure. - jc37 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel to Category:Massacres in Israel
Nominator's rationale: Merge, un-needed subdivision of a small parent category. (Note: this categ was orphaned). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename. (combining ideas of Al Ameer son, Jaakabou, and myself) to "Massacres of Arabs during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". There is already an article and category named Israeli-Palestinian conflict. See Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The renamed category would be a useful subcategory of that. See also List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada. This subcategory saves time. Versus scanning lists, and clicking many articles in various categories trying to find out which ones are about massacres of Israelis, and which ones are about massacres of Palestinians, Arab-Israelis, etc.. The category is no longer orphaned since it is now a subcategory. I edit several casualty sections and articles. Most readers of these articles and categories want to know the breakdown of casualties by sides, combatants, civilians, children, women, men, age, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Meh, I don't see much point to having one subcategory with one or two articles only in an overall category scheme that only has a dozen or so articles. If there were other subcategories breaking down the identity of the victims, maybe this could be OK, but I just don't think going that far is necessary. Seems more amenable to a list or article. Snocrates 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the category was recently created. I am sure more articles will be found for it. Other subcategories can be created for breaking down the identity of victims of massacres in Israel. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Future categories for other classes of victims? Have there been articles written about all of the Portuguese people massacred in Israel? Or am I confusing those with the massacres of the Cape Verdean Sao Tomese people there? Snocrates 11:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Arab-Israelis, and other groups in Israel. Please try to stay on topic. This is a serious discussion.--Timeshifter (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a rhetorical point that there is not much point in having a tiny subcategory when there's not much prospect of having any other similar ones of substance. Apparently you missed that, though, and preferred to assume that I was being "not serious". Snocrates 12:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made your point badly and flippantly. I pointed out elsewhere in this discussion some other subcategories of substance.--Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. We all make points in ways unique to us. It's easy to shift blame for our own misunderstanding on to the person who delivered the opinion. Snocrates 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.--Timeshifter (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If it's still too small it may later be relisted. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Comment. I found various subcategories within other "Massacres in COUNTRY X" categories. For example; see the subcategories in these country categories:
Category:Massacres in Japan
Category:Massacres in Lebanon
Category:Massacres in Vietnam
Category:Massacres in Yemen
Category:Massacres in the United States
-Category:Indian massacres
-Category:Massacres of Native Americans
-Category:Massacres by Native Americans
The above category for the United States (with its subcategories) is relevant in that it breaks down some of the massacres concerning the indigenous population. Massacres "by" and "of" Native Americans. There are many more examples. I only clicked the "+" button on a few categories listed here:
Category:Massacres by country --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many categories with subcategories of only 2 items. Category:Massacres in Israel has many items. Why should people have to open up those many items to figure out who is massacring who? And the subcategory was very recently created. So more items will be added. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or we'll end up with the inevitable series of categories Category:Massacres by Palestinians as undoubtedly given the civil war among Palestinian factions some massacres of Palestinians, and some of Jews will be by Palestinians along the Native American model - which ought to go as well, but that's for another day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Massacres inside Israel itself break down into 2 main categories:
Category:Massacres by Palestinians in Israel
Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel
Why suppress this information? --Timeshifter (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be "suppression" of the information, which is a loaded term. This discussion is one of structure or formatting for article organization in WP. Merging a category does not affect the existence of an article or its content. Snocrates 11:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reinforces the suppression of the fact that there are more massacres inside Israel than just the commonly-known Palestinian suicide bombings. The Western media rarely acknowledges this. It is a systemic bias. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point that it suppresses nothing, because there is an exactly zero loss of net information to WP. The articles still exist, and people can read them, and the content is the same. This is an organizational issue, not one of ameliorating suppression. Snocrates 12:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a loss of categorization. A prime tool for finding information in the vast wikipedia organization. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically a merged category results in a "loss of categorization", but the whole point of CFD is that this benefits overall organization and doesn't result in suppression of any information. Articles that are upmerged don't disappear into the "vast WP organization" though — they are placed in the parent category. Snocrates 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is information. (Later note. I was replying to a previous version of your answer. It is considered bad form to change your comments after someone has already replied to a comment) --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo, you must oppose the whole principle of having CFDs and wish we could all overcategorize until the cows come home. This may not be the best approach to bring to a CFD, but, hey, whatever. Snocrates 13:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ease up on the hyperbole.--Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, I'll stick with my own style. I was merely taking your argument to its logical conclusion and demonstrating that it may be untenable. Snocrates 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That example does not specify a nationality or group of people who are "on the receiving end", as the one under discussion does. It specifies buses (and their passengers, presumably) are on the receiving end. Snocrates 11:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It specifies "Palestinian" on the giving end. Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel specifies "Palestinian" on the receiving end. Similar to my previous example:
Category:Massacres in the United States
-Category:Indian massacres
-Category:Massacres of Native Americans
-Category:Massacres by Native Americans --Timeshifter (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but as I originally said, your example of Category:Palestinian suicide bomber attacks against buses is not on point as the nominated category specifies who is on the receiving end, whereas this one doesn't. It's two different issues and two different styles of categories—specifying giver and specifying receiver. Snocrates 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was about specificity. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mine was that specificity cuts both ways, and your example was bass ackwards. Snocrates 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ease up on the hyperbole.--Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, I'll stick with my own style. Snocrates 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer substance over style. Of course, I have both. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Carlos, nom. Unpopulated categories with unclear criteria is not a helpful organisational tool, and just invites more controversy; neither are charges of "suppression" particularly helpful in a good-faith environment. TewfikTalk 11:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for the populated category in question are clear. And reversing or preventing the "suppression" of info is the purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, of which I am a member. Please do not make spurious accusations of "good-faith" violations. Such spurious accusations themselves are considered to be personal attacks, or at the very least uncivil. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.--Timeshifter (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Twefik's point was that you're not helping your cause when you blaze into a discussion and suggest that the opinions of other editors' on an organizational point results in "suppression", because that can imply that the editors are implicitly or explicitly part of the suppressive activity, when in reality that is probably no one's intent in this discussion. You probably don't mean to make such accusations, but that's how it comes across and it grates people the wrong way as we all prefer to have an assuming good faith environment. Snocrates 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the suppression of information does not impute motive. Your words "blaze into a discussion" are a little over the top. Please ease up on the hyperbole. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't of necessity imply that, but as I said above, that's how it comes across to many editors, including me, and it's off-putting. That's fine, I was just trying to try to explain what I think Twefik meant, because I didn't discern any intended attack in his comments. Snocrates 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tewfik made a sneaky attack. I particularly like his use of the word "charges." He has this type of gamesmanship interaction with many editors. Kind of like your "style." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, if you're predisposed to thinking the worst of any editor, there's not much that can be done. Snocrates 07:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, that's a sneaky attack on your part. "predisposed to thinking the worst of any editor". But then you are into untenable, overreaching hyperbole,... and style over substance. So, have a stylin' day...--Timeshifter (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of course everything has to be an "attack", usually a "sneaky" one. (rolls eyes). Snocrates 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start into the conspiracy theory and paranoia angles. You did: "It wouldn't be 'suppression' of the information, which is a loaded term." I made a simple observation: "Why suppress this information?" I imputed no motive. Then you and Tewfik began imputing motives, and putting out wild theories about "attacks", and "charges", and "loaded term", and other hyperbole. Keep trying, though. It is educational to newbies on wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. (rolls eyes) (If I just agree with you, maybe your martyrdom index may come down.) Snocrates 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletemerge - the articles listed in the cat are not even massacres in israel, the events listed are located in territory outside of 1948 Israel - could/should be added into 'arab-israeli conflict related massacres' or something similar. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (changed !vote at 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename If the word Palestinians is an issue we could nominate the category to be renamed Massacres of Arabs in Israel also in agreement with Jaakobou it could be renamed Massacres during the Arab-Israeli conflict - which would include a broader scope of massacres on both sides instead of specifically against Arabs. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks like there are now 5 items listed in the category. One article listed, Eilabun massacre, states: "Eilabun was the only one of the 532 villages where expulsions took place whose inhabitants managed to return. The other 531 Palestinian villages were razed to the ground by the Israeli army, including garden walls and cemeteries." I don't know how many of those villages were in what is now called Israel, or how many of them involved massacres. In any case I now think that the category should be renamed to "Massacres of Arabs during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". See my revised first comment at the top of this section. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per Timeshifter. Those calling for deletion of category have not provided a compelling reason as to why such a category is uncalled for. Timeshifter is correct in pointing out that such a breakdown is used in the case of Native populations in America. I don't see why this should be any different. Timeshifter is also correct in noting that the category will become better populated once people are aware it exists and begin placing the numerous events relating to massacres against arabs in israel into it. Tiamut 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BrownHairedGirl, Snocrates and Tewfik. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per timeshifter, al-ameer son and tiamut. Categorisation is information as timeshifter put it and i agree (once it's within reason, pointless categorisation or categorisation add naseum aren't and this certainly doesn't fall under either rubric as far as i'm concerned). Tiamat's iteration of the point that the category will become better populated once people are aware of it makes sense. So keep, rename and let people add to it, that's what wiki is all about! Delad (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom and the discussion above. Cgingold's suggestion is problematic on a few counts. The King David Hotel bombing wasn't a "massacre of Arabs", the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre wasn't in "Palestine", but the West bank, (Maybe one day it will be a part of an country called Palestine, but WP:NOT#CRYSTAL). It's also not appropriate to categorize by ethnicity. Are we going to have a "massacre of Jews" cat as well? How about a cat for those who are neither? <<-armon->> 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternate proposal rather than using ethnicity or geopolitical names, why not have a parent category Category:Massacres committed during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sub-categories organized by periods in history, such as Category:Massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and Category:Massacres committed during the Second Intifada? Or alternatively (or additionally), it could be organized by perpetrator rather than victim into two broad categories, for example Category:Massacres committed by Palestinians and Massacres committed by Israelis. (I should mention I just created a sub-category, having forgotten this discussion, for the 1948 war. I don't know how to delete it, so please excuse the impetuousity and do what is necessary to set things rights. :)Tiamut 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - we have a "massacre by country" hierarchy, and not a "massacre by nationality" JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 3 December 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:RiffTrax movies[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. The essential arguments here are (1) it is not a defining characteristic of these films that they have been riffed by this company and (2) notability of RiffTrax does not mean that this category is therefore warranted. Otto's final comment in the discussion (16:09, 30/11/07) puts it neatly. BencherliteTalk 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RiffTrax movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: DELETE Non-notable category, filled with OR. Who really cares if some random people did their own commentary for movies and TV shows? Anakinjmt (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - previous discussion here. So many problems. Performance by performer overcategorization for starters. Also non-defining. None of the films or TV shows categorized here are notable for having been riffed, which stands in stark contrast to the category for MST3K-riffed films because many of those films wouldn't be notable were it not for being riffed. It's also borderline spam. Listify it and put it in the RiffTrax article if the information is wanted but it's not suitable for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that the 'previous discussion' you cited ended in an almost unanimous vote to keep, right? There was only one person strongly pushing for delete. Your arguement that being covered by RiffTrax is non-defining? Most movies aren't "defined" by what year they're released in, yet we still have year categories for that. I think this issue's already been settled once, best leave it be. DrakkenZero (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that consensus can change, right? You do realize that the existence of the by year category structure has nothing to do with whether this category should exist, right? Otto4711 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - barely notable enough for the article itself, no need for a cat. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What does "Non-notable category" mean? That this specific Wikipedia category hasn't been featured in some mainstream news source? If you know of a Wikipedia category that is notable, please do tell; I'd like to see it. Odd declarations aside, I see little OR here as this list can be easily verified through RiffTrax's catalog (Unless you want to start making the absurd demand that we require a third party source to verify what movies/shows have had a RiffTrax, as if they themselves are not reliable enough to know what they've done). Also, RiffTrax isn't just run by a bunch of random guys doing little commentaries, but rather feature three of the main writers and actors (Mike Nelson, Kevin Murphy, and Bill Corbett) from the decade-running, Peabody Award-winning, hit TV series Mystery Science Theater 3000, all of whom additionally happen to be prominent comedians, book writers, playwrights, etc. This category is little different from Category:MST3K movies, in that sense. MarphyBlack (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is very different from that for MST3K movies because, as has already been noted, a number of the films riffed for MST3K episodes would not otherwise be notable had they not been episodes of the show. The films and TV shows riffed by Riiftrax are not notable for having been riffed. The awards and accolades for MST3K are completely irrelevant to this discussion, as is the prominence of the people involved in RiffTrax. Otto4711 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the nominator's rationale asks "Who really cares if some random people did their own commentary for movies and TV shows?", I think that "the awards and accolades for MST3K" and "the prominence of the people involved in RiffTrax" are actually highly relevant, as it directly addresses the question.DrakkenZero (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - RiffTrax is not just a couple guys on their couch podcasting, this is an actual company that's enjoying a fair bit of popularity and fame amidst the large MST3K fanbase. Most of the people who've worked on RiffTrax have won multiple awards and are all notable in their own rights, and a category featuring which titles they've commented on only makes sense. By virtue of being a category instead of a list, the RiffTrax tag also appears on the titles they've covered, acting as a handy non-obtrusive cross-reference. I'd far rather see this exist as a category than see someone go into the entry for each title RiffTrax covers and add a "Alternative humorous commentary also available by RiffTrax", which clearly would be spam.DrakkenZero (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of RiffTrax and the awards that the RiffTrax people may have won certainly serve to establish the notability of RiffTrax and the individuals involved for purposes of articles about them. The notability of RiffTrax does not mean that each of the movies they've riffed gains any notability for having been riffed. Otto4711 16:09, 30 November 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:Star Trek-style starship simulators[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 - The main problem, as shown below, is that such a "listing" would require references, and as such is better suited to a list. WIthout references, though, there is no way to know if such a list is valid. I've posted the list of (former) members to Category talk:Star Trek starship simulators, with a request for references. - jc37 12:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not notable, original research, games already covered by other categories: Category:Space combat simulators, Category:Space trading and combat simulators SharkD (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. this category groups together a significant subgroup within this category of games, namely those with an articulated plotline, and also with many developed features like exploration, negotiation, role-playing, and problem-solving. Those who have played these games know they have significant features which make them more complex than other items in this genre. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, what does this have to do with Star Trek? SharkD (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't see how these games are related in the way you describe. Elite, Frontier: Elite II and Iron Seed feature hardly any story at all. In Elite, Frontier: Elite II and Frontier: First Encounters you play a mercenary/trader—hardly Starfleet material. Elite, Frontier: Elite II and Frontier: First Encounters don't feature any sort of negotiation. SharkD (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
basically, this is a category for games which create some form of an in-game universe setting with a diverse set of interactions, whether with game characters, artifacts, economies, or other aspects of the in-game setting. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - "star trek style(?)" need i say more? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some research, and this may have something to do with the influence of Star Trek (text game) (see here, and here), though this is mentioned nowhere in the category description. I still think it's a weak category; just because the game was influential doesn't mean it influenced the games listed in this category. SharkD (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as currently formulated, the categorization borders on nonsense. Ill-defined nonsense, to boot. The category's associated talk page doesn't really help to clarify matters. In response to Steve, Sm8900, I have played most all of these games and I'm not sure what he's on about w/r/t this particular categorization. SharkD posits what may be a valid reconstruction of the category, but only one existing member qualifies (Star Fleet) and the existing category labeling could be construed as misleading. D. Brodale (talk) 03:54, 29 November 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:Byzantine allies[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Byzantine allies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Byzantine enemies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This categorisation scheme is not viable, for several reasons. First, if expanded across time and space, we'd have enormous category clutter on many articles. How many "Allies of X" and "Enemies of X" categories could be appended to articles about individual countries? Second, the allegiances of political leaders – and the tribes and/or nations that they represent – are about as stable as the attention-span of a 3-year-old. One's ally today may well end up to be one's enemy the next day (for instance, the Lombards appear in both Category:Byzantine allies and Category:Byzantine enemies). Third, categories are simple creatures by nature, and are simply not suited to capturing the complexities of foreign policy. Few can be neatly classified as either allies or enemies, and certainly not without substantial original research. Politics consists of infinite shades of grey, and a simple Manichean classification scheme not only fails to reflect its essence, but can also easily mischaracterise it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 23 November 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:Hebrew Bible quotations[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:Hebrew Bible verses - I gave great weight to User:Fayenatic_london's comment:

  • "That does raise the issue of whether this category should gain Biblical phrases from Category:Hebrew words and phrases that are generally familiar only within Judaism, or be restricted to words/phrases that are more widely understood in English."

Essentially, the suggested rename would create even more confusion, as it could now potentially include various Hebrew words and phrases from the Hebrew Bible, and in addition, the suggested rename could potentially have caused a renomination to merge the new target cat with Category:Biblical phrases. (As also somewhat noted in the discussion below.)

As for the merge, I note that nearly every entry in Category:Hebrew Bible quotations is also in Category:Hebrew Bible verses (which also appears to be noted by the nominator). And also noting that both cats are subcats of Category:Bible verses. There is just too little difference between the two categories. No prejudice against "cleanup" by placing possibly appropriate "quotations" or "verses" under Category:Biblical phrases. - jc37 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a conclusion is that? That option was not mentioned or discussed. If it was, fine - but it wasn't. --Eliyak T·C 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hebrew Bible quotations to Category:Hebrew Bible words and phrases
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The new name would be more exact, follow conventions used elsewhere, and help distinguish this category from Category:Hebrew Bible verses. Also, it would clearly enable the inclusion of articles dealing with words but not phrases. Perhaps its parent category, Category:Biblical phrases, should be changed to match, specifically: Category:Biblical words and phrases. Eliyak T·C 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - very good idea. Please make this a multiple nomination to include Category:Biblical phrases exactly as suggested earlier; that one already includes words as well as phrases. In terms of head categories, will it be OK for them (or just Category:Biblical words and phrases) it to go into both Category:Phrases and Category:Words? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know about this - there are 10 times more HB/OT phrases in Category:Biblical phrases, and I suspect what we should be doing is either merging the two or (better) properly dividing them into HB & NT. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I agree with that, too: all HB (words/)phrases in the "Biblical" cat should be down-categorised to HB, to allow shared use by Jews & Christians. To save work, that can be done after this renaming. That task does not conflict with this proposed renaming.
    • To encourage full use of this HB category, there should probably be a new parallel NT sub-category for NT phrases, rather than leaving them in the "Biblical" head category.
    • It is late now to make this a multi-cat nomination, so the head category can be renamed later. The definition of the head category needs discussion anyway; it says it is for "English language phrases originating in the Bible", but currently includes Hebrew, Greek and Latin expressions which have not all passed into common English usage.
  • New question: That does raise the issue of whether this category should gain Biblical phrases from Category:Hebrew words and phrases that are generally familiar only within Judaism, or be restricted to words/phrases that are more widely understood in English. Can we reach a consensus on that in this CFD, then include it on the category page? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per my comments & fayenatic's above - Present head cat to support 2 sub-cats for HB & NT in future. I think these categories should include all languages. Some are both HB & NT I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:King James Version Old Testament quotations, which is basically these are with 2 exceptions that are transliterated Hebrew expressions. These quotations may well differ in different versions of the Bible in English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order: I'd like to see evidence that "words and phrases" is more appropriate than "quotations" -- what are some other entries using that nomenclature? Yudel 23:52, 2 December 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 born in Mozambique[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.

(Please note that in the two cases above, "notable" is used in place in "defining" and should not be confused with Wikipedia:Notability)

The "keep" arguments offer good reasons why various categories may not work well in particular cases, but they do not explain why this category is necessary, or why it should constitute an exception to existing guidelines and convention. This situation (Europeans born in a colony that subsequently became independent) is by no means unique to Mozambique. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People born in Mozambique (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Totally the same function as Category:Mozambican people. Matthew_hk tc 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Category:Mozambican people or its subcats; no reason to think about delete. Hmains (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question. If someone was born in Mozambique but never really lived there for a substantial amount of time, isn't he/she not included in Category:Mozambican people but is included in Category:People born in Mozambique. And if that is correct, is that a reason to keep the cat? --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People born in the former colony of Portuguese East Africa were born Portuguese and only some became Mozambican nationals or citizens after independence; others remained Portuguese. Nor is this a unique case. There's more on this on the talk page. SamEV (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep! - there are a lot of people (namely Portuguese), who were born in Mozambique, particulary during colonial times (up to 1974), that are not Mozambican! The Ogre (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Put them on Category:People of Mozambican descent or Category:People by city in Mozambique. Wikipedia had its effective Categories Tree system, not create by you own view. Matthew_hk tc 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read why Category:People from Suriname deleted. Matthew_hk tc 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As stated already, not all people born in the country identify as "People of Mozambican descent". It's not an automatic identity we should be attributing to them. That's OR. Many born in colonial times in Mozambique have never been anything but Portuguese, so they only belong in People of Portuguese descent. SamEV (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under the cat Category:Mozambican people by ethnic or national origin, there may have Category:Expatriates in Mozambique, is that enough? Matthew_hk tc 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's a couple of problems with that. The issue is that some of them are not nor were Mozambican, so they shouldn't be in any sub-cat of a "Mozambican people" category. Many of them, such as Heinz, do not live there, so they're not expats in Mozambique. They were never Mozambican nationals; though born there, they were born into a different nation (Portugal), before there was an independent Mozambican state. Their nationality and citizenship belongs with Portugal, so by leaving Mozambique, as they did, they did not become expatriates. Many went to metropolitan Portugal and continued being Portuguese just as before; they weren't expatriates. They were one thing: people who were born in Mozambique. Not Mozambican nationals; not Mozambican citizens; not ethnic Mozambicans. They were Portuguese born in the colony (later a province) known as Portuguese East Africa or Mozambique. So some of the people in the category are Mozambican, but others are not. SamEV (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another reason, all native African were also born in Mozambique, then the cat will over-sized. If you want all non-black people, whatever he spent entire life in Mozambique, or just childhood, the only possible way to put in cat is above trees. Matthew_hk tc 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The category has blacks and whites in it! That's how it should be. It should just be a category about people born in Mozambique, period. What's so complicated about that? Who cares how many native Africans it contains? It's not about all people born in Mozambique, it's like any other category: it's about notable people born in Mozambique, of whatever race. The stuff about who among them is Mozambican or not belongs somewhere else. That's what the other categories are for. Didn't you read the cat talk page? SamEV (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least Category:Portuguese expatriates in Mozambique is the best place for those governor-general. Matthew_hk tc 10:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; we shouldn't have people born in place X categories that don't cater to changes in borders and rulerships otherwise it's just an accident of geography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. This has been discussed in the past. Where a person is born is rarely,if ever, a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a variation on the Category:Natives of Foo categories which have all been deleted. Categorisation by place of birth is not part of WP's scheme: see this guideline repeated here in this convention and precedents such as this one for Welsh "natives of" and this one for Irish "natives of" as well. There is no reason to single out Mozambique as an exception to this approach. Any names in this category that have notable residence in Mozambique should be manually added to the appropriate category. BencherliteTalk 00:46, 28 November 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:Cities by geographic region[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. A merge to Category:Judea and Samaria Area does not seem necessary, as all articles that would belong there are already appropriately categorised. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in Samaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cities in Judea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete These seem to be some artefacts from the early 'pedia. They aren't inherently useless, but I haven't found a "cities by geographic [and/or] historic region" hierarchy for them, or even sister categories. TewfikTalk 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.cbs.gov.il+%22judea+and+samaria%22
http://www.cbs.gov.il/population/new_2007/table1.pdf --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may have been alright if these were historical cities in their historical context and a hierarchy were established as is the case in the various former provinces of the Roman Empire elsewhere. But alas, these aren't historical cities in context, but modern cities in what could be POV categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - merge with Category:Judea and Samaria Area, would be good if there were articles of the historic cities, but as of now - should be merged. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Jewish settlements should be merged, not the modern Palestinian cities and towns. This way Category:Judea and Samaria Area remains strictly a category for an administrative function of the Israeli government, and not a geographic category like Category:West Bank. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:24, 28 November 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:Arab localities in Palestine 1948[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 as nominated; since renaming in this case involves not just a change in title but also a change in the scope of the category, please revise the category description and add/remove articles as appropriate. A few notes:

First, the precedent of the 2007 May 14 discussion is not directly applicable to this case, as noted by Timeshifter. It is relevant – for instance, in that it sets a precedent against renaming to Category:Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict – but the circumstances are substantially different.

Second, while there a number of historical settlement categories (see Category:Former settlements), their scope is limited to settlements that no longer exist. As many "Arab localities in Palestine 1948" are still in existence, this category does not fall into the Former settlements category scheme.

Third, cities tend to outlast political systems. Not only that, the territorial boundaries of political entities can and do change due to war, negotiation (e.g. Alaska Purchase), and external and internal political developments (e.g. Breakup of Yugoslavia). In cases where the 'life' of a settlement spans multiple political systems, we generally do not add a category for each system. Otherwise, Paris/Category:Paris would appear in Category:Cities in the Kingdom of France, Category:Cities in the French First Republic, Category:Cities in the First French Empire, Category:Cities in the Second French Republic, Category:Cities in the Second French Empire, Category:Cities in the French Third Republic, Category:Cities in the Provisional Government of the French Republic, Category:Cities in the Fourth French Republic and Category:Cities in the French Fifth Republic. Similarly, Rome and Category:Rome do not appear in Category:Roman towns and cities in Italy.

Fourth, the additional intersection of a particular year makes this much too narrow an intersection. 1948 does have special significance in the history of Palestine, but so do 1917 and 1967. In general, what happened to a particular settlement (e.g. depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict) is more likely to be a defining attribute of the settlement than its status at a particular point in time. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948 to Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict
Nominator's rationale: The article-space list that this category serves was long ago renamed to List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. Additionally, it is in some cases being attached to every village that is over 60 years old, to the point that it is becoming useless. TewfikTalk 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both points of view in that discussion. I lean towards the view that categorizing towns destroyed or depopulated or moved due to war is very difficult. Because in the Vietnam War and World War 2 many towns were largely or totally destroyed or removed. What percentage of destruction of a town is required before categorization occurs? Many bombed-out German, Russian, and Vietnamese towns were rebuilt even after near total destruction. The discussion here is different. It is very useful to learn about the history of nations, territories, bioregions, etc. by following category trees for cities. It is a lot simpler to categorize too. A city either existed, or it did not exist, in that place and time. A list is better for delineating the various degrees and timelines of depopulation, destruction, removal, ethnic cleansing, etc. for cities, towns, and localities during and after wars. On the other hand one learns a lot about historical regions, nations, empires and cities by drilling down their category trees to various subcategories such as the category for cities. See Category:Ottoman Empire. Drill down to Category:Geography of the Ottoman Empire, and then drill down to Category:Cities of the Ottoman Empire.--Timeshifter (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At present the category contains some places not depopulated, like Kafr Qasim. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my point. The list was already scoped so as to only have depopulated places, while many, if not most of the categorised locations were not depopulated, but are tagged only because they existed before 1948. TewfikTalk 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are proposing changing a category that fits its current name to a different name and a different purpose. What is the objection to having Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict as a sub-cat of the present cat? Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current name and purpose is untenable. We already have broad consensus that we don't categorise by previous forms of government (Ottoman 1918, Mamlukes xx), neither can cities like Tiberias or Acre be called "Arab localities". The article space list has already reached a neutral and encyclopaedic scoping, and it seems that the category should as well. TewfikTalk 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many historical settlement and city categories. Here are some more below. Check out their many subcategories:
Category:Former settlements in North America.
Category:Roman sites.
Category:Native American settlements --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948 is not equivalent to Category:Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no reason for not also having Category:Jewish localities in Palestine 1948. There are maps for it. See my previous comments for links to those maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CFD discussion you linked to was closed in favor of deleting the type of category you are trying to create. Categories for depopulated or destroyed localities due to wars. The main reason from the admins closing those discussions is that there would be so many of those categories. Also, how would one determine inclusion in those categories? What level of depopulation or destruction would qualify inclusion? Would rebuilding during or after the war require removal from the category? This type of explication requires that it be done inside articles and lists. Also, lists within articles. The point is not information suppression (as many POV warriors may be trying to do), but where best to put the info. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename not useful to pick a date and categorize what existed where when, what makes these alike is their depopulation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where would this map be categorized?:
Image:Map of Jewish settlements in Palestine in 1947.png
Where would similar maps of Arab settlements in Palestine in 1947 be categorized?--Timeshifter (talk) 10:55, 27 November 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:Friends[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. BencherliteTalk 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - following cleanup and with the remaining material all linked through text and templates, this is an unwarranted eponymous TV series category. Overcategorization per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 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.
Ok. It would have been nice though if someone here had taken the time to notify me, as the category's creator. Just wanted to mention that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_23&oldid=1147870205"