Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26[edit]

Category:Aria (band)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aria (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a musical group. Aside from the two subcategories, which are already adequately categorised, the only category member is the main article on the group itself. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And include articles on split-off bands in it, as with other music group categories. Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, everything is interlinked and adopting the suggestion above each of the bands would end up with its own category with all of the same articles in them. Aria (band) serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and logic of Otto4711. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians with physical disabilities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Politicians with physical disabilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a trivial intersection, and no other subcategories of Category:People with disabilities categorize by occupation. In addition, the concept of "physical disability" is vague, and could mean hundreds of different conditions and hundreds of degrees of disability. There's already a list of physically disabled politicians, which is more specific about each politician's physical condition. szyslak (t) 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Good grief. In no way is this a "trivial intersection". I'm sorely tempted to make a sarcastic comment here, but I won't. Suffice to say: Just try this out on a roomful of people with disabilities (and then wait for the hoots and catcalls). I also want to point out that of all the occupational sub-categories for minority groups, those for politicians are so commonplace that they could well be said to be a defacto standard. Why single out this one? Furthermore, the nominator has somehow overlooked all of the other occupational sub-cats of Category:People with disabilities, starting with Category:Disabled sportspeople (which has 3 further sub-cats of its own), and including Category:Blind musicians and Category:Deaf musicians. Cgingold (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say "trivial intersection", I don't mean to say their disabilities/conditions are trivial, and I don't intend to trivialize the hardships these politicians have been through. Having a disability is notable, and being a politician is notable. But is there anything especially notable in the intersection between the two traits? szyslak (t) 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, exactly as there is when members of other minority groups achieve notability as politicians -- which is precisely why I pointed out those other politician sub-cats. They are universally understood to be noteworthy. And probably more so in this case, given the hurdles that disabled people have to overcome to succeed in politics. Cgingold (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tire Industry Association Hall of Fame[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tire Industry Association Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by trivial award. Otto4711 (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a list could work if it had more than one member. (I'm really going to have to visit this hall, it sounds too good too miss ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lightweight Mixed Martial Arts fighters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lightweight Mixed Martial Arts fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category has several issues. First, "Mixed Martial Arts" should be lowercase, so this at minimum needs to be renamed. Second, the weight class "Lightweight" is not uniform across all MMA organizations in the world. One fighter may be lightweight in one organization and a different weight class in another. Third, fighters change from weight class to weight class regularly, so the upkeep of this category would be tedious at best. Fourth, is this supposed to categorize all fighters who have ever fought at this weight class, or only current fighters at this weight class? The category description is unclear. Lastly, this is the only category of its type that I have seen- No categories for other weight classes currently exist. As said above, this at least needs a rename for capitalization. VegaDark (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, maintenance issues, definitional issues, etc. Otto4711 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's impressive rational.--Lenticel (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, very obvious. Voyaging(talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepboxing already has these categories, Category:Boxers_by_weight. Fighters can easily be listed in more than one categories as Floyd_Mayweather_Jr. is listed in both Category:Welterweights and Category:Lightweights. Boxing also has a very similar problem with weight classes not being uniform. i do agree it should be renamed to correct capitalization. Kevlar (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An impressive rationale by the nominator. To Kevlar, boxing weight classes have been uniform for several decades now; although there is disagreement over the names of the divisions - most notably the 154 lb. and 105 lb. ones - the actual weights are nearly universally accepted. Delete, if it wasn't clear. east.718 at 19:55, March 31, 2008
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame to Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Rename - either rename in line with other inductee categories or delete as WP:OCAT by non-defining award. List exists in main article already. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see it as over categorization. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as overcategorization. It's just not the first thing that pops into ones head when one thinks of George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury, H. G. Wells, and Mary Shelley. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I reviewed Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization and this category falls within the spirit of categories. I don't mind the list of people on the main page as it organizes the inductees by year while the category serves to link all of the inductee pages together and back to the parent article. I would also keep the category name unless there is a project to go through and rename the "inductee" style categories. At present there are 109 "inductees" categories, 934 "Hall of Fame" categories, and just 69 "hall of fame inductees" categories. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran across Category:Halls of fame inductees and updated it to include all of the sub-categories found by Google. It turns out there's only 18 such named categories. I had overstated the counts before as I was searching the entire page rather than just the page title. Here are the numbers using just the page titles. At present there are 25 "inductees" categories, 88 "Hall of Fame" categories, and of that, 19 are "hall of fame inductees". FWIW - here's the five "inductees" categories that are not "hall of fame." I don't know the procedure for nominating a category for renaming but Category:Inductees of the Australian Rugby League Hall of Fame looks like a candidate for renaming to be consistent with the other category names. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Doctor Who universe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, no opposition. Kbdank71 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Doctor Who universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Doctor Who universe characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Doctor Who universe and Category:Doctor Who universe characters are redundant of the parents Category:Doctor Who and Category:Doctor Who characters. - LA @ 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it appears that the nominator may have emptied the categories prior to nominating them. If that is the case, not only is it bad form but the categories should be repopulated so that we can make an informed decision. I'm not completely versed in Whoiana but it may be that "Doctor Who universe" has some connotation similar to for example Category:DC animated universe or Star Wars Expanded Universe that warrants separate categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of military units and formations of Civil War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of military units and formations of Civil War to Category:Lists of military units and formations of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is being used for lists of American Civil War units and is a subcategory of Category:Military units and formations of the American Civil War. Needs to be renamed to distinguish it from other Civil Wars. jwillbur 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science fiction writers of color[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Science fiction writers of color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per the extremely well-reasoned close of this CFD, this is not an appropriate basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the recently established precedent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - African-American literature, Asian novels, even Slavic writing or Romany stories - but not "of colour" it highlights a group where one does not exist - largely defined by it's lack of being "white". No established community using this nomenclature. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite wrong. "Person of color" is a well-known term that refers to a specific group of people. --Lquilter (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent and the delete comments there — unhelpful and possibly U.S.-centric binary classification as "white people" and "people of color". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The "Of Color" is an accepted term among many of the authors listed on the page. The idea that some people have come in and decided that they have the right to determine how other people identify smacks of racism and worse. I personally identify as African-American, I also identify as a Person of Color and that whole "we all have a color" bullshit is just a step above an accusation of "reverse racism". Ask yourself why this category's definition bothers you so much you want it deleted? Is it actually harming you in some way or are you just angry that it's a category you cannot belong to. I argue for retaining the category because it is a way for POC to find each other and writers who in a lot of instances we can trust to portray us. The resons used to justify this deletion are such bullshit and straw men, as if there aren't a bunch of categories that are considered redudnat on here but I don't see those up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.61.90 (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC) — 12.43.61.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Retain After reviewing each of the author pages currently listed in Category:Science fiction writers of color and also reading Person of color I'd like to retain this category as it represents a class of people who have been disfranchised and thus tend to write through that lens. Science fiction has often been used as a vehicle to comment on social issues and this category can be used to expose people to a fairly broad selection of writers that all share the common trait of being "of color." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain but I know this will be deleted also. I give up on you. I give up on Wikipedia. Many of you are very sorry excuses for human beings. --Booksellergirl (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To avoid the appearance of a vested interest, I will not close this discussion nor participate in it to any substantial extent. However, I do wish to offer a few thoughts regarding the one "retain" above that does not constitute an accusation of racism or a broadly-aimed personal attack.
The fact that "of colour" is an accepted classification in a few contexts and in a handful of places (primarily in the United States) does not make it a useful basis for categorisation. Once political correctness and recentism are put aside, it should be apparent that, although Angela Davis, Chimalpahin and Shen Dao are non-white, they did not write through a common lens because of that fact.
The term "person of colour" can apply to culturally, historically, and politically-distinct people on all six populated continents (for example, African Americans in North America, Afro-Brazilians in South America, the Nigerian British in Europe, the Zulu in Africa, the Aborigines in Australia, and the Han Chinese in Asia) across a time-frame of millenia (see e.g. Han Dynasty). A category that includes all such groups is not only redundant to existing and more focused categories such as Category:African American writers, but fundamentally fails to tell us anything informative about the people being categorised. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Helloooooo!!!! Reality calling! We are talking about science fiction here, not about Shen Dao or Angela Davis. Science fiction did not exist during the Han dynasty millenia Black Falcon refers to. It is a development of the past century, and during that era, in the areas where science fiction was birthed and defined, "white" as distinguished from "people of color" is a distinctly useful categorization. In another century, the writing of the next Nalo Hopkinsons or Mary Anne Mohanrajs may not be shaped by the experience of being non-whites in a white-dominated Western society; but in this one, they will both tell you that it gives them a powerful commonality. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but do you mean to suggest that racial identification has less of an effect on political writing, for example, than on science fiction writing? Moreover, to use more modern (and hypothetical examples), how is the science fiction writing of a 20th century Chinese Malaysian, a Japanese Brazilian, and a Seminole inherently similar? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is "Science fiction writers of color" and not political writers or other genre. I looked at the category, saw some writers I recognized (even read), but had not realized they were of color, read their articles, and learned something new. The same is true for the concept of "of color" in general. In that sense, the category, the Wikipedia, and this discussion, are serving their purpose which is educating us. Writers of color share a commonality in two areas. 1) They tend to be from a culture that has recently, and often continues to, experience active suppression by the whites. 2) They personally are working in a field that's dominated by whites, and particularly white males. People are shaped by their backgrounds and experiences and this shows through in how they express things in their writing. Another purpose of the category is as a resource for someone specifically seeking works by writers of color. These people would usually have a personal identification with this category and are seeking their works. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NBA high school players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:National Basketball Association high school draftees. Kbdank71 13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NBA high school players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category should be renamed, but I'm not sure what would be best. Right now, the title could be misinterpreted to mean "People who played in the NBA while in high school". I would suggest something like "National Basketball Association players drafted directly from high school" (unless there's some way to make that more consise), except right now the category description page says:

This page lists the NBA players who were taken directly out of U.S. high schools, without having either enrolled in a U.S. college or university, or played in a foreign professional league.

Would "National Basketball Association players who drafted directly from United States high schools" be too verbose, or are there other options? — CharlotteWebb 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Radio Stations in Spring Arbor, Michigan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Radio Stations in Spring Arbor, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessive overcategorization - only three radio stations exist that are licensed to Spring Arbor, Michigan, nor is Spring Arbor an Arbitron market. Category:Radio stations in Michigan is sufficient. JPG-GR (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unattributed POV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unattributed POV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for the talk pages of articles that "introduce a point of view as fact". This is characteristic of virtually every article with NPOV problems, which makes this category redundant to the dated subcategories of Category:NPOV disputes. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Speedway[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Feel free to nominate the subcats. Kbdank71 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Speedway to Category:Motorcycle speedway
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Motorcycle speedway. Current name is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should affect all sub-categories as well. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, did not think about that. I'll try and add them to this nomination when I get the time. I'll be a little busy for a while and would have no objections if someone wants to include them in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Masonic officers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Masonic officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, now empty. The articles that were here were duplicates and/or forks of material in the Masonic Lodge Officers article, and three articles (two unref'd) does not a good cat make. MSJapan (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked MSJapan to restore the articles so other editors can see for themselves how the category was being used. Cgingold (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification of what MSJapan was trying to explain. If those articles no longer exist, then there's no reason to keep this category: delete. Cgingold (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historians of Freemasonry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historians of Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization/inappropriate. Out of the four entries in the cat, one was the guy who wrote Cracking the Da Vinci Code, one was a vanity article from a guy who was on TV once talking about Freemasonry, one is a conspiracy theorist, and the other a pseudohistorian. Needless to say, there's now no articles in there. There are very few legitimate Masonic history specialists (Mark Tabbert, Allen E. Roberts, S. Brent Morris and Steven Bullock come to mind, as they've all written Masonically well-known books; the redlinks here are intentional to illustrate the point of NN). MSJapan (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked MSJapan to restore the articles so other editors can see for themselves how the category was being used. Cgingold (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cat contents were Martin Faulks (which is a COI NN article), Robert Lomas (who is more correctly a pseudohistorian) and Simon Cox (author) who wrote about Da Vinci Code and not Freemasonry. They simply don't belong in the cat, and without them, the cat is empty. MSJapan (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response, MSJapan. Now we can begin to make an informed evaluation of the category. You did mention a fourth article above, could you add that one to the list? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last article was Michael Tsarion... who is discribed as "an author, public speaker, conspiracy theorist, and historian whose topics include religion, symbolism, sidereal astrology, mythology, the occult, and Atlantis." There is no indication that he ever wrote or spoke about Freemasonry's history, so I don't think he comes close to being considered a "Masonic Historian". I am not sure why he was included in the category in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the creator of the cat, I support Deletion. I intended it to be used more along the lines that MSJapan discusses... to categorize authors such as Tabbert, Roberts, Morris etc., serious scholars who wrote extensively on the subject of Masonic History. Since no one has written articles on these historians, it is an overcategorization (or at least a miscategorization). I now realize that it was a mistake to create a category before there was anything to put in it. it ended up being used as a dumping ground for pseudohistorians, conspiracy theorists, and people who simply mention Freemasonry in passing in a book about something else entirely. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan and Blueboar. Now that we have a complete picture, thanks to the explanations that have been provided, I'm persuaded that there's no good reason to retain this category. Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a legitimate area of historical study and a number of historians have been added in to the category. JASpencer (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have taken a look at the seven articles on "historians" added by JASpencer... He re-added Robert Lomas, who had been removed by MSJapan; and added John Robison (physicist), Augustin Barruel, Augustin Cochin (historian), George Payne‎, S. Brent Morris, Christopher L. Hodapp and Albert Mackey and I have removed all but the last three. Robison, Barruel and Cochin have written historical works. But the works are only tangentially about Freemasonry, (for example: one wrote a history of the French Revolution, in which he discusses the roll played by Freemasons. Another is an anit-masonic conspiracy theorist who includes some discussion of Freemasonry in his "history" of the conspiracy). These authors can not be considered "Historians of Freemasonry" because they did not write works devoted primarily to the History of Freemasonry. George Payne did not write a history at all (he wrote a set of regulations or Bi-laws for the fraternity, but not a history). The three that have been kept (Hodapp, Mackey and Morris) have written extensively on the history of Freemasonry, and thus fit the category... but a category of three articles is a clear overcategorization. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Since this CfD has been posted, a flurry of articles have been added. I can only assume that this is a last minute attempt to "save" the category. However, most if not all of these additions are completely inappropriate and do not fit the category even if it is kept. The majority of these additions are Anti-Masonic authors, conspiracy theorists or pseudohistorians who have written books that rant about the evils of Freemasonry (but do not go into detail as to the history of the fraternity). It would be different if these people had written an actual history of the fraternity from a negative viewpoint. I would consider such a historian to fit the category... but these do not. A few are actual historians, but their works deal with the history of Freemasonry only tangentially, and are actually histories of something else entirely. I urge the closing editors and admins to carefully review any articles listed, to make sure that they actually belong in the category. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Masonic culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Per the discussion, we're not left with any good options. "Culture" is akin to "trivia", the suggested renames leave us with the equivalent of "films about foo" (how much about foo must an article be to be in the category?), and even if we get a good rename that spells out specifically what should be in the category, we're left with small with no potential for growth . Kbdank71 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Masonic culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misnomer. Two books, some music, an opera, and some films (the contents of the cat) are not indicative of a "Masonic culture" - they are simply the personal writings/musings/ideas of people about Freemasonry, and are by no means institutionalized. This cat gives an air of support and/or legitimacy of the works to worldwide Freemasonry that simply does not exist. MSJapan (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename - I have a feeling that this category is an outgrowth of the consensus decision to remove a section on "Masonry in Popular Culture" (ie trivia) from the main Freemasonry article (which, if I remember correctly, was done about a year ago). All of the articles in this category (the exception being the National Treasure article, which probably does not belong in the category at all) are about works by either Mozart, or Kipling. The only thing that ties these subjects together is the fact that both Mozart and Kipling were Masons, and that the works mention Freemasonry in some form. The Magic Flute (while it does not mention Masonry explicitly) is commonly thought to contain Masonic themes. Maurerische Trauermusik was written by Mozart for the funeral of one of his lodge brothers. Other than the title it is not related to Masonry at all. "The Man Who Would Be King" (both the short story and the film) is a work of fiction in which the main characters are Masons, and this plays a key roll in the plot. However, these works do not form some sort of common "Masonic Culture". They are simply cultural works that have a Masonic connection. I would suggest renaming the cat to "Masonry in culture" ... but that is too close to "in popular culture", a phrase that has become a "buzz word" on Wikipedia, meaning "Trivia". It would invite the inclusion of articles where the connection to Freemasonry is minimal (Simpsons episodes containing a Masonic reference, video games that have a (supposedly) Masonic emblem in their art work, and pop songs that include the word "Freemason", etc.). Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed renames have the same problem that various "films about Foo" categories that have been deleted have; how much of the work needs to "deal with" Masonry to qualify? Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename (probably). Literary and operatic works where freemasonry is at the core deserve a category. Those with mere passing allusions to it should be removed (or omitted). I would suggest that this is done by provising a short headnote explaining its intended scope. I would support either of Cgingold's suggestions. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - I think we have to think about the potential for growth here. At the moment we only have about five or six articles in the cat, and I seriously doubt that we will get much more... The simple fact is that there are not a lot of works that "deal with Freemasonry" except in passing. We would need a very broad inclusion criteria (essintially opening the cat up to trivia) for the category to grow. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think about my suggestion(s), Blueboar? Can you improve on them? Cgingold (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the potential "abuse" via trivia far outweighs the value of the cat - there's a lot of things that could be said to "deal with" Masonry but without any sort of concrete guidelines, I'm not sure what the value is - there's an offhand Masonic reference in "The Cask of Amontillado", but it has nothing to do with the plot. There's a character in War and Peace who is a Mason (as was Tolstoy), but again, the relevance to the overall plot is minimal. Same with the fraternal groups in The Simpsons, The Honeymooners, and The Flintstones - do they count, and if not, do we potentially have a longer list of "please do not add to cat" than actual cat content? Fundamentally, the title is subjective, and I don't know that there's any way to make it objective without it being either very restrictive or totally unbounded. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have reason to believe that the presumed potential for abuse is so great that we can't go forward with a renamed category, along with instructions not to use it for passing references to Masonry. We can always revisit this in the event that proves necessary. Cgingold (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold, if we instruct people not to use it for passing references, then we end up with essentially the same tiny category that has no potential for growth. There are tons of works (both high culture and pop culture) that mention or allude to Freemasonry in passing... but very few have any substantial reference. In addition to the "Magic Flute" and "The Man who Would be King" (and arguably "Masonic Funeral Music")... I can only think of only two other cultrual works that would fit the category... another poem by Kipling ("The Mother Lodge"), and a poem by Robert Burns (I think it is titled "A Farewell to The Brothers of St. Andrew's Lodge"). The more I think about this, the more I end up leaning towards a firm Delete... if we Keep and rename, we either have a tiny stagnent category, or we have an overly broad trivia category. I just don't see a middle ground here. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I don't know why, but you left out two articles that are currently in the category: Mozart and Freemasonry and the film version of The Man Who Would Be King. So that's five articles -- not a huge number, to be sure, but by no means too small for a category (we have thousands that size). Cgingold (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... I was thinking in terms of "works" and not articles. The point still stands... we end up with a tiny category with no potential for growth. In fact we end up with a category that is smaller than the first two of the examples given at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hong Kong football players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hong Kong football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Hong Kong football players to Category:Hong Kong footballers — to follow the other similar pages Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_26&oldid=1138390947"