Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Category:NFL 1990s All-Decade Team[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 discussion was relisted on jan 23. Kbdank71 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award or honor Lists already exist at main articles. Otto4711 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems major enough to warrant categorization. Whether a list exists isn't that important to me; the weight of the category is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2008 (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:Saw props[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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Saw props to Category:Saw

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with little or no growth potential. The parent category is not so large that subcategorizing these three articles makes sense. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sting au Buzz Me... 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nomination is to merge the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - and consider renaming the categorry to Category:Saw (film series), per the article name. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom then. It still gets deleted. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er...what is a saw prop? Deb (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (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.

Obsolete psychological theories[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 discussion was relisted on jan 23. Kbdank71 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A theory might not be mainstream but obsolete implies there is absolutely no one who believes any part of it, highly unverifiable. Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another nom who has improperly emptied the category & removed the parent cats, contrary to procedure. Current title certainly sounds POV, but how are we to discuss it now? The previous condition should be restored before we do. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I should have left incorrect categories on article pages? That is also against wikipedia policies. I just wanted the empty category deleted. If you want to see what was there just look through my user history. You can't really want me to restore everything? Could you also show me in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Procedure where I have edit "contrary to procedure"? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We debate whether they are incorrect here - which we are now unable to do. Yes I can really want you to restore everything - see the comments of others below too. Why should we all have to pick through your user history? Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the term "obsolete" as applied to a psychological theory is inappropriate. For future reference for the nominator, there can be a fine line between category cleanup and emptying the category. It's probably best, if you think the category itself should be deleted, not to clean it up to the point of emptying it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would have liked to see what was in the category before making a decision. It's possible there would be a decent rename that could have been proposed. Snocrates 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent cats restored pending outcome of this discussion. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but still no contents. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what articles were removed from the cat? I agree that the nominator should not have removed these. I would also like to request that these be reinstated pending outcome here. User best able to do that is the one who removed them. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles restored to category under discussion.Tstrobaugh (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe rename There is in fact a whole tree of Category:Obsolete scientific theories. Some of these are probably being consigned to the dustbin of history rather early, like Id, ego, and super-ego - there must be some true-believing Freudians left, surely? Or Type D personality - type A is also here, but not B. For me the question is whether there is enough left to justify a category, & if there is a better name. Personally I am sure there are many articles that could be added here, but I'm open to a rename - presumably to cover all the "obselete" cats. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What objective standard shall we use to decide that a theory is "obsolete"? Otto4711 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see Superseded scientific theories is the main article, with a definition, which might be a better name. Fortunately we only have to decide if a standard is possible, not apply it here, and I think it is. Phrenology for example, must be obselete or superceded by any standard. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the theories mentioned seem to have little to no support nowadays. Which is as good a definition of obsolete as any. The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts also suggests the addition of graphology to the list. Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (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:Medalists[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 discussion was marge. Kbdank71 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Medalists to Category:Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Merge in line with parent category Category:Awards in which the various "types" of awards were merged earlier this year. Basically, this is categorization by name. Many awards & prizes include medals, but only those with "medal" in the name have been gathered here. (And not all of them.) Moreover, there is no clear distinction between prizes, awards, and medals; all of them are properly types of award, and often an award will include a variety of things including prizes, medals, honorary titles, honorary lectures, and so on. Lquilter (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While both categories could use some clean-up, I think that this is better as a sub-cat of the latter cat. - jc37 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there, FYI. --Lquilter (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - lots and lots of awards come with medals. The fact that one particular award comes with a medal while another comes with a plaque or a scroll is not significant enough to categorize them separately. Otto4711 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is the size of the cat - usefullness for navigation. Often it's a good idea to find ways in which a large category can be split into subcats. "Medalists" seems like one good dividing line. - jc37 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Nobel Prize issues medals. Is anyone going to think of a Nobel Prize winner as a "medalist"? If the award winner category is too large, subdividing it on the basis of field (sports award winners, sciende award winners, etc.) makes a lot more sense than subdividing by the physical form the award takes (medal, scroll, cash prize, plaque, etc.). Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found it so far, but I seem to recall at least one discussion in the past about the various award cats. (Including a consensus to use "laureates" for recipients of the Nobel prize.) That said, I'd welcome discussion about other ways to subcategorise the parent cat. - jc37 23:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to dig some of the prior discussions out of the archives. In the meantime, fyi: there are some basic subject subcategories in Category:Award winners. They're hard to see in the middle of all the specific names, but look for art, journalism, science, sports, theatre, etc. I haven't gone through to clean it up as thoroughly as I have with Category:Awards, largely because my strong sense is that many of these are not "defining". So they're not all in subsets. I had thought to weed through the non-defining WP:OCAT award-winner categories, and then tackle subcategories as needed. --Lquilter (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi -- i did index all the individual award-winner category discussions from 2005-end of 07 at Wikipedia talk:OCAT. --Lquilter (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Otto's comments. Snocrates 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge par nom and the above. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love a happy typo coincidence. "par nom" is like "par excellence". --Lquilter (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it was supposed to be Marge per nom ;-) Sting au Buzz Me... 04:48, 18 January 2008 (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:Fu Manchu EPs[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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fu Manchu albums, this level of categorization is not useful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Sting au Buzz Me... 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it not useful? EPs are clearly not albums. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, it is clearly a different format to singles or albums. Btw they're usually rather seen as long singles than albums. Salamitictac

I think it's partly because we long ago decided to merge all the singles by artist and songs by artist categories together, due to the substantial overlap. There's also substantial precedent against subdividing by media, such as vinyl, tape or optical disk. We don't have cats for LPs, cassettes, and CDs. We have Category:EPs, but not Category:EPs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (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.

Football awards[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - complete list of all of the various NFL MVP winners already exists at National Football League Most Valuable Player Award, which allows for explanations as to why and how the various awards were instituted, which categories can't do. Nominated once previously and closed no consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list should suffice. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:24, 17 January 2008 (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:Landmark cases[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: What constitutes a "landmark" case is inherently POV. Where cases are notable they will be discussed in the article on the relevant topic, and as a navigation aid this is completely useless (not sorted by country, year, topic, etc). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Landmark cases 2005, Kept, Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, entirely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term is used and there are certainly consensus as to some things that are landmark (Brown v Board) and some things that are not landmark, but it is on the whole subjective. One might argue that landmark is equivalent to "notable" and that, therefore, only landmark cases should be in WP. --Lquilter (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I completely disagree that this is subjective or POV. A quick read of landmark decision will reveal that a landmark case is in no way related to notability. It is do with whether the case sets a precedent (verifiable from law reports etc.), and is incredibly important in common law jurisdcitions. It would however be a good idea to divide the cases up by jurisdiction, American, English etc. Tim! (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but ... while landmark case is right ("substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular issue") the problem is that there are all kinds of landmarks in ever finer bodies of law. It seems to me that it will inevitably lead to arguments about categorization, and whenever I see something like that, I think it's a problem with the category. It's really a problem because lots of people ignore categorization edits, so even getting substantive participation in such an argument is difficult. An article about "landmark cases in X body of law" is a much better place to handle that sort of argument. So listification is better with judgment-call labels. --Lquilter (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No judgment call is required though, a case either sets a precedent or it does not. Landmark is law does not equal either importance or notability, and furthermore I cannot see any cases in the category that do not set precedents. Tim! (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really broad def. of landmark case, "setting a precedent". It's also not quite so clear as you suggest -- "setting" a precedent, versus "modifying" a precedent is pretty wiggly. In the strictest sense, setting a precedent could even mean that the instant a case is cited by some other court as an original source for a particular proposition, it would become a landmark case. I've never seen a case analysis on something like that, but I would bet a majority of published cases have been cited as original source for something. Of course that's not the "common" understanding of "landmark", but my point is that it's one of those squishy somewhat laudatory terms that's not really subject to precise definition. --Lquilter (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could go even further - cases are only supposed to be published in the Law Reports if they establish a precedent of some sort, yet for all Common Law jurisdictions together there are perhaps ? 30 such cases per working day (wild guess). Take - at random - Tweddle v. Atkinson; an important case for contract law, but is it really a landmark? Or is Mistretta v. United States? Obviously someone thought so. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most cases with their own articles in Category:Case law will be "landmarks" of one sort or another. Several of these actually seem rather obscure for those not in the field. Nb 2005 debate now refed at top. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. too much WP:OR of what is considered a landmark case. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Landmark cases are those which are taught in law school classes on particular topics e.g. Feist and Copyright law. The are often cited hundreds or thousands of times. A landmark case is easily identified if a legal researcher checks the citing references to the case in question. This category is too broad as it would include the majority of cases in every case book from every jurisdiction. Land mark cases are best discussed in reference to the topic they involve e.g. contract, torts, public international law, tax law, conflict of laws etc. The list from the category page is unwieldly, with each cases involving entirely different facets of the law. Most lesser known cases do not have an article on wikipedia. The vast majority of articles on cases here are in fact landmark cases. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2008 (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:SlamTV! Season 1 roster[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Capturing wrestlers who appeared on a particular TV show, thus improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I say rename it just SlamTV! roster, or if even that is too overcategorized we could name it simply JCW roster. And I could change it every season and add the former wrestlers to the JCW Alumni page. Juggalobrink (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deb (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization. Plus, the SlamTV! article itself is up at AfD and looks to be deleted as of right now. Nikki311 04:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Irish-born Americans[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 discussion was merge, with a caution to all involved to WP:AGF and avoid being a WP:DICK . Kbdank71 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Irish-born Americans to Category:Irish-Americans

Nominator's rationale: The consensus of this discussion was that we should not be categorizing people by location of birth, but instead by ethnic or national origin. LeSnail (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, neither is necessary and at least the Irish-born is objective whereas Irish Americans is entirely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People by birthplace is non-defining and sometimes even accidental. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the merge cat and the target - non-defining intersection based on birthplace, given the melting pot nature of American society categorizing on ethnicity and nationalty is untenable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. The target is the correct category. Ignore the agenda-pushing deletors of all things regarding our ethnic population, whose losers position just wastes all our time. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to be civil there, sport. I appreciate the accusation of bad faith "agenda pushing." Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a merge? We recently discussed John McEnroe who is a German-born American but not German-American. (It's odd that place of birth is not thought to be defining when it is one of the few items of data present on most passports.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Paasports also record height and eye color. They record birthday/birthplace since names are often not unique. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that that is so odd. One of the other major items of data on a passport is the person's name, and we avoid categorizing by that too. You are right to bring up the issue of whether it is a merge. I checked articles before I nominated and didn't see that any of them would not belong in Category:Irish-Americans, but I could have missed something. If we accidentally put a page in Category:Irish-Americans that doesn't belong there, I'm sure the people watching the page will take care of it fast enough. LeSnail (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom then, per LeSnail above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (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:Period piece TV series[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Period piece TV series to Category:Period television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation, and the word "piece" is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I created the category and this renaming is fine with me, though I don't have any strong leanings either way. I do think the category serves a purpose. Fiction using historical events as background is an established story telling tradition. Being from a prior historical period is part of the definition of such a story. Otherwise the story is assumed to take place "now". SnappingTurtle (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not defining for tv series which are often fiction which obviously has ahistoric events usually from the past to give them context. And how far in the past must it be to be "period" - 60 Minutes is mostly about past events, as are most newsy shows - I am waiting for a financial channel who'll be giving me the closing stock prices for a future date. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Period Piece Television implies a piece set in a period but made outside it, while Period Television suggests a piece of a period. That said, neither really "works" for me. However, as the only alternative I can think of is "costume drama" I can't suggest something else. Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the rename is in line with the existing Category:Period films. The notion that 60 Minutes could be viewed as a period piece is ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That Happy Days has anything really in common with Gunsmoke or dramas set in ancient Rome is ridiculous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all ridiculous that someone might be interested in researching how various historical periods have been represented in fiction television. Otto4711 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to Category:Period drama television series which deals with some of the objections. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including the word "drama" eliminates comedy series like the aforementioned Happy Days and When Things Were Rotten. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. They form a wide genre and they are not all dramas. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2008 (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 killed by loyalist paramilitaries[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries to Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. (Could drop "in Northern Ireland" depending on the outcome of the CFD below.) Snocrates 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Central America... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if "in Northern Ireland" is dropped - as they didn't just kill people in Northern Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles or Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries during the Northern Irish Troubles, although I think Bastun is clearly wrong to find the current name POV (what POV exactly?), but it is no doubt confusing for many. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for this and two succeeding items - I would suggest "during Northern Irish Troubles", provided that a similar category exists for those killed by Republican Paramilitaries. This could conveniently include casualties during previous IRA campaigns. If the title were "during Irish troubles", it would include the events of 1918-22, which would be better with a separate category. I do not think the loyalists carried out more than one outrage in Eire and none in mainland Britain, so that there is no difficulty about these. However, the IRA did claim several notable victims in mainland Britain, particularly Airey Neave. The IRA bombers who were killed in Gibraltar on the suspicion that they were in possession of a primed bomb (which turned out to be wrong), would legitimately come within a "Northern Irish" category, but not an "in Northern Ireland" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There used to be at least one subcat ("people killed by UVF" or similar"), but the nature of UDA/UFF and UVF killings tend to mean the vast majority of people killed by them will never be notable enough for articles. As for republicans there's Category:People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army and Category:People killed by the Irish National Liberation Army (which includes Airey Neave, who wasn't killed by the IRA), and both of those don't tend to need any "Troubles" qualifier. If this cat was made organisation-specific rather than the slightly vague "loyalist paramilitaries" (which only means one thing AFAIK, but I'm sure there must be at least some ambiguity with it) it would make it more consistent and neatly sidestep the problem above. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:31, 21 January 2008 (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 killed by security forces[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed by security forces to Category:People killed by British security forces during the Troubles in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. (Could drop the "in Northern Ireland" depending on outcome of CFD immediately below.) Snocrates 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Israel... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People killed by British security forces during the Troubles, the "in Northern Ireland" will cause problems, for example Diarmuid O'Neill. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People killed by British security forces during the Troubles or Category:People killed by British security forces during the Northern Irish Troubles, per the lasst one. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2008 (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 killed during the Troubles[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed during the Troubles to Category:People killed during the Troubles in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. Although the main article is at The Troubles, the parent category is Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I think the addition to the category name is helpful. Snocrates 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming to that name. The category and sub-categories include people who were killed in the Republic of Ireland, so it would be factually inaccurate. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about Category:People killed during the Irish Troubles? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that suggestion could work. Snocrates 08:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is "during" intended to indicate a causal relationship? Or just a time-relationship? Because if the former, I'm not sure it's strong enough -- wouldn't it include random car accidents? I note that there is no "people killed..." parent category; it should probably be Category:War-related deaths, and the format there is "People killed in ...", as in Category:People killed in World War I or Category:People killed in the Spanish Civil War. That would lead to "Category:People killed in the Irish Troubles" (which is clear but I do note that "The Troubles" is specific enough -- the term is used only in reference to n.ireland AFAIK). --Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Actually "the Troubles" has in the past been used for various periods of violence in both Ireland and Britain, as the article should mention but does not (OED first use in this sense 1378). The term is probably not very ambiguous at present, but I would rather see a date range added here to avoid any possibility of confusion. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. But what do you think about the "during..." versus "in..." issue? --Lquilter (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think on the whole Category:People killed during the Northern Irish Troubles, with dates ideally. This is ok for deaths outside NI itself, & I don't think likely to cause confusion with deaths from traffic accidents, heart attacks & bird flu over the same period. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. If this means a few articles need to be moved then so be it. Given the the ambiguous main article name, following the parent category name makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't mean a few articles need to be moved, it renders the entire category tree practically worthless. You'd make this category tree a triple intersection and you'd need an entirely seperate category tree for a different location which would be another triple intersection, and navigation would be a nightmare. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:52, 22 January 2008 (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:Turkish Navy ship classes[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:SHIPS categorization guidelines, ship classes are not categorized this way; instead, the class categories (for example, Category:Essex class aircraft carriers) are categorized under the country category (for example, Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States). TomTheHand (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mainly for convenience within Category:Turkish Navy - I will remove from Category:Ship classes. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. In the future, ideally (according to WP:SHIPS guidelines) Category:Turkish Navy ships would have subcategories for each class, which would contain the class article and articles for all of the individual ships; however, I understand that that's difficult to at this point because for most of these classes we don't have articles on the individual members. TomTheHand (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All settled, yes? Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (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:Basingstoke Bison (BNL) players[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge. While sympathetic to those who want to make clear what league the players played in, JD554 points out correctly that that information should already be in the article. Categories are not meant to capture and duplicate every single detail of every article. Kbdank71 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The team player categories listed have been split into "the team (league) players". I believe this to be over-categorization to categories that are very small with a low potential for growth. The number of articles in each sub category is small and the parent categories suggested would not be overly cluttered. I believe the defining item is the team the player played for and not the league the team was playing for at a particular time. This has also led to a number of players having multiple categories for the same team. JD554 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Splitting these categories up in the first place was ridiculous and should have been discussed prior to doing so. The defining characteristic is most definitely the team and not the league it was playing for at the time. The categories are small and unlikely to grow much past what they are. And players who have played for the team through the different league changes would have significant category clutter. -Djsasso (talk)
Keep. Right now, all of these categories are subcategories of Category:Ice hockey players by league. Removing these categories will not make it cleaner. I believe it will add clutter because players will be in the team categories and the league categories instead of just the team/league categories. (e.g. Paul Adey is a member of Category:Nottingham Panthers (BHL) players, Category:Nottingham Panthers (EIHL) players, & Category:Nottingham Panthers (ISL) players. If this merge proceeds, he will then become a member of Category:Nottingham Panthers players, Category:Ice Hockey Superleague players, Category:Elite Ice Hockey League players, Category:British Hockey League players. With this example, this player is in more categories, and they are less defining than before.) -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No it wouldn't because you would put the Category:Nottingham Panthers players in each of those league categories like it was before the creator went on his spree causing havoc with hockey categories. So to use your example the player would only now be in one category instead of three. -Djsasso (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As Djsasso says the Category:Nottingham Panthers players would be a sub category of Category:British Hockey League players, Category:Ice Hockey Superleague players etc. so those categories wouldn't be used for the player. Which is how they used to be before they were all changed. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. So, if you do that, you will get players categorized into leagues that they have never played in. e.g. K. C. Timmons has never played in the BNL, but would end up being in a subcategory of the BNL players because he played for Coventry Blaze in the EIHL. Should we rename the category to be Category:Players of teams that at one time were in the British Hockey League? That is what the definition of the category would become if you make such a change. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd rather have it clear what team/league each player played for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It should already be clear in the player stats section or, if there isn't one, by following the external link to either Hockeydb, Eurohockey or Legendsofhockey. Even the most basic of stubs needs to be referenced. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and remove all the league categories (per UK football, cricket, rugby, ...). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom KimThePanther (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with User:JamesTeterenko that the way it was was misleading, having players linked to leagues that have never played in. Although I am sympathetic with the nominator's sentiment that naming by league as well is unnecessary, ice hockey is heavily North Amer. biased in the way its leagues are structured even in Europe (and likely for longer in the UK), moving away from a promotion/relegation system, so I think listing by league is necessary. finally, there is no precedent for not having category pages because they are thinly populated. as User:Mike Selinker, what is important here is accuracy Mayumashu (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One of the main problems I see is that the top level league in, particularly the UK, has changed a number of times over the years. In fact there are reasonably strong rumours of another change in the UK structure in the near future. This could mean that a player who has played for one club could have three (or more if you count second level) categories for the team they've played for eg. team (ISL) player, team (EIHL) player, team (whatever next) player etc. To me, that simply causes clutter at the bottom of the article while not really helping to inform. In my opinion the league part of the current categories seems more relevant to the team than the player.--JD554 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:I wouldn t be against seeing players listed by league and club separately with no interlinking between the two for clubs in Europe, so long as User:JamesTeterenko's concern is addressed Mayumashu (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:19, 17 January 2008 (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:Hepsi album[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 discussion was Rename, WP:SNOW, should have been speedy. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hepsi album to Category:Hepsi albums

Nominator's rationale: per WP:MOS. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Mus001 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (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:Regular hybrid electric vehicles[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 discussion was already deleted. Kbdank71 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated category, unencyclopedic title Ng.j (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What is a "regular" vs. "irregular" any way? Is the latter only to be found at the discount rack or is it in need of a laxative? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy delete - since it is an empty category. If it were populated it should be upmerged to "Hybrid electric vehicles". Perhaps some one has done that, leading to it being empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment My guess would be "regular", as opposed to "plug-in". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (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:Images Using The Rationale Template[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 discussion was relisted on jan 23. Kbdank71 15:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images Using The Rationale Template to Category:Images using the rationale template

Nominator's rationale: Image needs to be renamed to Category:Images using the rationale template or something similar cause the capitalization is wrong. — Save_Us † 09:11, 17 January 2008 (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:Desperate Housewives promotional images[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 discussion was speedy delete, empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an empty category, redundant of Category:Desperate Housewives images. — TAnthony^Talk 05:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (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:War experience of Nepal[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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:War experience of Nepal to Category:Wars involving Nepal

Nominator's rationale: Convention of Category:Wars by country. LeSnail (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - follows convention. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to match other caregories in the parent category Hmains (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Deb (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per nom. Dimadick (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (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:George Lopez[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:George Lopez to Category:George Lopez (TV series)

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article George Lopez (TV series) and to make it clear it is not a category for everything related to George Lopez the person. LeSnail (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Of the four articles, two of them should be in the episodes category, one is a character list that should be accessible through the show article and the last is the show article, which serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Neither the person nor the show warrants a category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary - have to agree with Otto4711 on this. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:09, 18 January 2008 (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:Faculties and Departments in Sri Lanka[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 discussion was relisted on jan 23. Kbdank71 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Faculties and Departments in Sri Lanka to Category:University faculties and departments in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Child of Category:University and college departments, which has other children by various names. Open to further naming suggestions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but I think to Category:University departments and faculties in Sri Lanka mainly because "d" comes before "f" but what do others think? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Sting au. As far as I can reason, the ordering would be arbitrary either way, so we may as well default to alphabetical. Snocrates 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:09, 18 January 2008 (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:Law firms of Guantanamo Bay attorneys[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. No need to listify since the main article Guantanamo Bay attorneys already has a full list. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is defining. This is not a trivial characterization. A U.S. administration official had spoken out about these firms as a group, and others defended them as a group. A list isn't as good because not every article links back. It's better than having a paragraph devoted to this in each article. -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if it is defining for the firm, then it better have a paragraph or two about its involvement in the article. Otherwise there is no justification for the firm to be included in that category. And exactly how many categories do we need for every case where a 'U.S. administration official' has spoken out about a group of organizations or individuals? Someone speaking out is not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are absolutely correct, each article about one of these firms should have cover the firms involvement with Guantanamo clients. They should have this coverage without regard to whether this category remains. However, the wikipedia is a work in progress. And removing this category will make the work of maintaining these related articles more difficult. Geo Swan (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The same can be said for lawfirms representing other clients who many people think are bad people: Category:Law firms with pornographer clients, Category:Law firms representing death row inmates, Category:Law firms representing pedophile priests, Category:Law firms representing drunk drivers, Category:Law firms representing celebrities going through ugly divorces... yuck. A law firm isn't really defined by its clientele any more than most businesses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. How do you figure that? Are the firms who defend drunk drivers, abortion clinic bombers, singled out for harrassment, have their phones tapped? I think it is not a stretch to say Cully Stimson DID "define the firms by their clientele. Geo Swan (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Casual use of sloppy terminology could over time lead to a redefinition of things, but it's hard for me to see how that would work in this instance. Also, Randy2063, it is not true that there is no link back -- click on "what links here"; every article that is linked is linked back directly via "what links here". I further note that if it something is not notable enough to be listed in the article, then it is certainly not "defining" as per WP:CAT. --Lquilter (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable enough to be noted in their articles. You'll find it in a couple of them. It probably be in all of them sooner than later if this deletion goes through.

This isn't quite the same as "law firms representing..." No one seriously says that those other interests don't have the right to representation. That makes this one controversial in a way that the others aren't.

I wouldn't say "what links here" really counts as a link back.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely not defining. Law firms can have many different interests or focuses, and taking on GB clients might be part of their steady diet of ordinary matters, or it might be an unusual pro bono case ... Lawyers also leave law firms. --Lquilter (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per --Lquilter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said above, I couldn't disagree more that representing Guantanamo clients is just like defending drunk drivers & etc. It is unlike those other categories suggested above. I agree that whoever noticed that not all the law firm articles actually state its relationship to Guantanamo clients has found a lapse. I'll work on that tonight. But I fail to see how that is grounds for deletion of the category. It seems to me that the appropriate action to take, if you find a lapse like that, would be one of:
1. Put a question on the article's talk page;
2. Figure out which Guantanamo captives they represented, and add that material one's self;
3. Remove the category from that article; Geo Swan (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Law firms who represented X" is classifying entities by their relationships with someone else; it's analogous to defining performers by performance. Any lawfirm with even one attorney might have hundreds of clients, and dozens of "types" of clients. Should we define them all? Consensus on categories has been, typically, no. --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'd appreciate it if the nominator could explain more fully why the existence of the article Guantanamo Bay attorneys is an argument for deletion. I can't claim to fully understand all the different competing interpretations of how categories should be used on the wikipedia. I asked some questions of a very experienced administrator a year or so ago, when I was just beginning to use categories. He told me that the existence of an article on the same topic, which mutually supported the category, should be considered an argument IN FAVOR of keeping the category. Where as our nominator seems to be arguing it is an argument for deleting the category. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an argument for the concept represented by the category. You can see this articulated on the CATGRS guideline which talks about gender race & sexuality categories that intersect with occupations (e.g., African American scientists, women in science, etc.). But here nobody is challenging the concept of "law firm representation of Guantanamo Bay defendants" as non-notable and the category as therefore meaningless. Even categories which are semantically meaningful in real life might not be good ways to index articles. A category is basically an automatically generated, alphabetical index or list of articles. That sort of thing might not work well in many situations: When the inclusion of the articles needs references; when non-alphabetical sorting would be preferred; when the subject of the category is real but hard to define; when the subject of the category is not an on-off binary but a sliding scale; when it is a non "parent-child" relationship (not biological parenting but organizational parent-child: subparts or descendant parts); etc. Here, a category that seeks to define firms by their clients is an example that could lead to massive overcategorization, as we start trying to describe all the kinds of clients that a firm might take on. I consider that "categorizing by relationship" and it leads to overcategorization. In any of these kinds of situations, a list or seriesbox might be the better way to index the content. See WP:CLS. --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the reason for deletion. Deletion is based on it not being defining as is clearly indicated in the articles included in the category. The existence of the list of companies in the main article is mentioned so that it is clear that a listify is not needed in this case since the list already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (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:Aviation Spotters[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aviation Spotters to Category:Aircraft spotting

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with the article aircraft spotting, which is presumably what this category is for. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 article without much room for growth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Can't see it as necessary. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both; rename per nom if kept. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2008 (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.