Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:B-movie directors[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 (upupmerge to Category:Film directors to make sure that isn't lost. single upmerging to Category:Film directors by genre doesn't make sense as that's for genres, not people). Kbdank71 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:B-movie directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per the recent deletions of various categories for B movie actors and the category for horror film directors. The fluidity of the definition of B movie along with the clutter that would be generated by categorizing film directors by genre all indicate that this is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this category was part of a previous CFD discussion. Cgingold (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- Whether a film is a B-movie must be a POV issue. It cannot thus provide a satisfactory basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (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:United States vice-presidential candidates, 1956[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: merge to Category:United States vice-presidential candidates. Kbdank71 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States vice-presidential candidates, 1956 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only by year category in parent. The norm is to include by party. If this is important then it should be a list so that you could see all of the years a person was a candidate. The category simply appears to be a poor way to deal with this characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (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:Places named after the Breuner family[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 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Places named after the Breuner family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per any number of similar categories found here, eponymous overcategorization. If there's an article for the family, listify it there. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (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:Puggle[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: merge. Kbdank71 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Puggle to Category:Dog crossbreeds
Nominator's rationale: One article in the category, and I can't think of anything else that'd go here. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As it exists it's a rather narrow category. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2009 (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:Politics lists[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: merge. Kbdank71 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Politics lists to Category:Politics-related lists
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I think these two categories are overlapping. (Which name does actually sound better? English is not my mother tongue.) Silvonen (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I found one of these untagged and have tried to tag it, but am not sure if I have done so correctly. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a note on the talk page of the merge target category. --Silvonen (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2009 (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:Black hat seo[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:Black hat search engine optimization. Kbdank71 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black hat seo to Category:Spamdexing
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The most correct term for black hat seo is Spamdexing. The current category name is appears to be wrong because Black hat seo is just a redirect, and even if it were to become an article, the initialism SEO needs to be capitalized. As alternative, I would also be satisfied with Category:Black hat SEO. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Black hat SEO or possibly Category:Black hat search engine optimization. Contrary to Jehochman, I have seen "black hat SEO" on SEO boards and such going back to the beginning of the decade; "spamdexing" is a relative neologism. If a Google test is ever reliable, it would be here, and "black hat SEO" turns up three times as many results as "spamdexing," with a not insigificant number of the latter being merely glossary definitions or WP clones.-choster (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure Black hat SEO is a notable term, but it is not the most accurate or NPOV term. Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call the Spamdexing article. Since that title was settled on, it makes sense for us to be internally consistent. If the consensus is for renaming the category Black hat SEO, then we should then consider moving or spitting the Spamdexing article. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Black hat search engine optimization per Choster. I've been aware of this for years, but had never heard of "spamdexing". What dictionaries does it appear in? We should certainly expand the initials as usual. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None as far as I can tell. The article was not my idea. I've just been lazily following convention. I see nothing wrong with Category:Black hat search engine optimization. Jehochman Talk 16:25, 4 January 2009 (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:Gamma ray bursts[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 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gamma ray bursts to Category:Gamma-ray bursts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper use is Gamma-ray burst with a hyphen. The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources use a hyphen. This nomination also applies to all the subcategories. Jehochman Talk 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename & Question - I support the use of a hyphen -- but I'm wondering about the need for the short- and long-duration sub-cats. Is there a reason each of them has only a single article, with the majority of articles residing in the parent category? Cgingold (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short and long GRBs have different characteristics. The articles just need to be categorized into the correct subcats. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Standard usage is to hyphenate when used as an adjective (eg, "gamma-ray spectrometer") but not as a noun (eg, "the gamma ray scatters off the electron..."). ("X Ray" is treated similarly.) Wwheaton (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2009 (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:Dukla Prague 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 15:22, 9 January 2009 (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:Alternative music[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, adding "rock" to the record label category for consistency (if not an oversight, let me know and I'll move it as nominated), keep as redirects. Kbdank71 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alternative music to Category:Alternative rock
Category:Alternative musical groups to Category:Alternative rock groups
Category:Alternative music navigational boxes to Category:Alternative rock navigational boxes
Category:Alternative music record labels to Category:Alternative record labels
Nominator's rationale: Rename Request renaming these categories in order to create consistency with main article at Alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is all alternative music classed as alternative rock?! That can't be right. Lugnuts (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternative music" is a synonym for "alternative rock". The term is a redirect to alternative rock. The category was simply created long before anyone bothered to standardize such things. WesleyDodds (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, keep all as redirects, but move articles into the proposed new categories. Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (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:New York Sun people[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 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New York Sun people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Test nomination : proposing deletion. This is a test nomination more than anything and should be considered such. CfD has an extensive history of deleting categories that categorize people by the media outlet that they have worked for, whether it be movie studios, television networks, publications, etc. I believe this is primarily because there has been a consensus that actors, journalists, etc. can and do move from media outlet to media outlet easily and often throughout a typical career. It is rare for a print journalist to remain with one publication their entire career, for example. The result is that an individual's article could have numerous "media outlet" categories on it which individually are not terribly defining for the person. Despite this CfD background, we presently have quite a glut of these media outlet categories for print in Category:Journalists by publication. Most of them have never been nominated at CfD. I've selected this one at random as the (test) sacrificial lamb.
Now I'm quite willing to nominate all of the categories in Category:Journalists by publication, but I'm only going to do it if there still is the long-standing consensus that these categories are generally a bad idea and that most, if not all, should be deleted. I've sensed some push-back from some editors on this issue as of late; I'm unsure of where consensus is on this matter at the present time and would like to hear from users on the issue. If we move away from the approach we've taken for a long time now, I think we do need some solid reasons and a consensus to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted in the nom, journalists can and do move from one publication to another in the course of a career and categorizing them all would lead to clutter. The print categories are no different than the various electronic media categories that have been nominated and deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major publication, that for which associations should be identified. The original "performers-by-performance" issues, in which actors can appear in 100s of performances of their career made some sense. The manner in which it has been abused to mean that there should be no association between individuals and anyone who has ever employed them is patently disruptive to the category system. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep writers, editors, publishers and owners are known by the publication(s) they are associated with and vise versa. No evidence of category clutter is presented as fact. Hmains (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that this is defining for each and everyone of these people. If we force this as an enforcement action, then we have a maintenance nightmare. If not, then why have the category? Simply working for most papers is not defining. Yes, there are exceptions, but which and when? Could well be POV issues.
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:Churches by patron saint[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; in reading this discussion, I am unable to see any reason to keep as a category, as they do appear to be overcategorization by shared name. A list would be a better vehicle to display the connections. Kbdank71 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Churches by patron saint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint Andrew churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint Anthony of Lisbon churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint Francis of Assisi churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint Ignatius of Loyola churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint James churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint Paul churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Saint Peter churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. This relatively new scheme is classic overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared name. In fact, one of the examples in the WP:OC section that is used to illustrate the principle is "Churches named for St. Dunstan". Perhaps these could be listified if desired. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subjects are not unrelated - they share the idea that a particular saint is being celebrated. I would imagine it could be quite useful to get from St. Andrew to a list of churches celebrating him. Remember that the naming of churches is normally much more than just a name - in Catholic churches the veneration of the saint is practised in these churches; Protestant churches tend just to commemorate, but nevertheless, the story of that saint will have a particular role in the life of the congregation. I'm not quite happy with the syntax: "Churches dedicated to St. Andrew" would be rather better. But the idea is good. Incidentally, this would be an opportunity to standardize the use of the full stop: St. Andrew or St Andrew? The article titles are quite inconsistent. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I would imagine it could be quite useful to get from St. Andrew to a list of churches celebrating him." As I said, a list could be created, and would be far more appropriate, since categories are not used to group subjects that share only a name (i.e. person of veneration) in common. It's reasons like this that the guideline was developed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dedications of churches, especially older ones, are of encyclopedic interest for a number of reasons. Few church articles have many categories & I see no harm in this. To call them unrelated seems odd - Category:Saint Ignatius of Loyola churches all certainly have something in common, as only the Jesuits will use this dedication. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedic, yes. Appropriate for a category, no. This is not an AfD so the issue is not whether it is encyclopedic or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - overcategorization by shared name. The churches are unrelated except happening to have been named for the same saint. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In many cases can be a powerful tool to find, or organize information. The Commons, the German and Dutch Wikipedias use it.

    The churches don't have a name, they have a "patron saint". Why do you think thousand of people during the centuries made the Way of St. James, to go to a simple church? The "patron saint" reflects all the tradition and faith of the people. Can you imagine the the Irish without Saint Patrick? or... Joseolgon (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - This is overcategorization. List is better suited for this, and also lists can be better linked from articles about saints themselves. --Thv (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is the connection with 'St Andrew' a defining characteristic of say St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney? Yes. QED. Occuli (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not, are the churches connected to St Andrew? The question is, are the churches connected to each other in any way other than name? No. QED. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be connected to each other: the painters in Category:British painters are not connected to each other. Rather, they have something in common. These churches also have something in common. The question is whether what they have in common is only a name. The answer is clear: they have in common a religious tradition which is still maintained. This incidentally makes them quite different from towns named after a particular saint, where (at least for most people nowadays) it really is just a name. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What religious tradition do Saint Paul's Church (Pawtucket, Rhode Island) and Ruins of St. Paul's have in common? What religious traditions do St. James's Cathedral, Riga and St James' Church, Audlem share? Their articles don't indicate that they share anything other than a name. Easy to say blithely that they share some great common religious tradition. Not quite as easy to prove it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to Category:Churches dedicated to St Andrew, etc. This should be useful as a naviagtion tool, for those who do not manage to get the "official" name quite right. Accept that listifying might be an alternative, but in my view a less satisfactory one. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this rename - the present name is clumsy. Occuli (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a defining -- and potentially quite useful -- category. The patron saint affiliation is likely much more than an arbitrary name choice for churches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • Do you have any evidence that supports your supposition that the choice of saint is anything other than arbitrary, and if so that one church's choice of saint is in any way related to any other church's choice of saint? Otto4711 (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, do you have any evidence that it is arbitrary, other than your own conjecture? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you've added a burden a proof that is unnecessary. One doesn't has to prove that "one church's choice of saint is in any way related to any other church's choice of saint." I'm not suggesting that churches are influenced by other churches' decisions in the matter, or that there is any causal link. Just that the decision by a Christian church to name itself after a particular patron saint is a defining characteristic, because patron saints are important within Christianity. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on those who favor keeping the category, not those favoring deletion. I have not suggested that the choice of name is "arbitrary". I have suggested that the choice of name by Church A is not related to the choice of name by Church B. Again, what is the relation between Saint Paul's Church (Pawtucket, Rhode Island) and Ruins of St. Paul's or St. James's Cathedral, Riga and St James' Church, Audlem other than they happen to share some commonality of name? Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the onus is on me to prove notability, or else everything would be in Wikipedia until proven otherwise. Since I cannot, I've struck out my keep vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are not for just something related with something, but something with something in common with something. E.g. "Category:Year deaths". The people who die in that year are not related between, they have in common died in the same year. Like this many others categories in wikipedia. Joseolgon (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The birth and death years are maintenance categories, not the same sort of category as these. Otto4711 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete: apart from a couple of special cases like Ignatius of Loyola, the quantities will mostly either be enormous and meaningless - e.g., Saint Andrew + most of the above - or small enough to be added more usefully to the articles on the saints involved. If the cats end up staying, however, then rename, as per Peterkingiron, to Category:Churches dedicated to Saint Andrew etc, simply because that is better / clearer English. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, Rename to Category:Churches dedicated to St Andrew, etc. The present name is clumsy. Listifying would also be fine with me alternative. --Carlaude (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced by the discussion that this is more then simply association by name. Do any of these churches work together to accomplish something? The needs expressed above can be dealt with on a dab page or a list. I fail to see how the name of a most churches is defining. For many it only means a special service on the saints holiday. For others it many be extra fund raising to support an activity associated with the saint or an order or an organization that they started. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (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:One-term congressmen[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 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:One-term congressmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization by length of time in a political position. I've seen no other example of categorization by number of terms. It's probably good list cruft, and in fact a list (incomplete, I imagine) does exist at One-term congressmen, which itself should probably be renamed. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big political junkie and have never been able to find the list anywhere else, so I've started putting one together. One-term congressmen are interesting because unlike most members of congress that stick around for decades, their time is very brief. I think the category is a needed one and would help to link these one-term congressmen (almost all of whom have wiki bios) into an easy to find resource. The name is also appropriate because we are not talking about members of the senate. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And is this characteristic defining for all of them? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't found one yet that doesn't have a bio on wiki. Also, it takes a lot of digging through old journals and almanacs to come up with this info. Having them in a category would be very useful. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All representatives are notable here. So they all should have articles and that does not make this defining, being a representative is the defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oddiebe, your concerns are valid but a list plus the "What links here" link on the left side of your screen can accomplish the same thing. Assuming all 1-term Congressmen were listed and properly wikilinked in an article called "List of United States House Members serving only one term," every one of them would have that article show up in their "what links here" list, Special:WhatLinksHere/nameofcongressman. Plus, a list can become a featured list and be part of a featured topic a category cannot become featured content. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a list can include the reason why. This may be more important since it could include points like, did not run, defeated and the like which is probably a more interesting characteristic. As a sortable table this would be much more useful. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category because it is overcategorization. I support keeping the list but a category for them is too much. Reywas92Talk 03:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not a defining characteristic for most all of these. Articles are blindly being tagged for anyone who only served a single term. No indication that this is a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify. While not without interest, this isn't sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a category, imo. It reminds me somewhat of a category that we deleted last year for "sole survivors of airplane accidents" -- which was adjudged to be an unnecessary sub-cat of Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents. Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys know more about lists and categories than I do. How can I save this information so that anyone can search for it and find it? I've never found anything before that had a list of one-term members of the House. The point about why they served only one-term is a good one, too. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi OddibeKerfeld. I appreciate your desire to keep the information. Just so you know, this discussion hasn't proposed a deletion of One-term congressmen, the list article you've created. I believe that's an appropriate form to keep the information in. I agree that it would be a shame to delete the information completely from WP, but this proposal is only to delete it as a category, not all the information in the list as well. See also the comments above by davidwr and Vegaswikian that discuss the advantage of having this in a list and other handy ways of doing things with them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've copied the current contents of the category to Talk:List of members of the United States House of Representatives who served a single term. You can compare it against what's in the body of the article and fill in anyone who is missing from List of members of the United States House of Representatives who served a single term. However, you should double-check to make sure it's accurate, sometimes categories have false entries. Also, you'll want to not include or asterisks people who served either less than 1 term or who served a partial term then got elected to one complete term before leaving office. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:35, 5 January 2009 (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:Ray Mears[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 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ray Mears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small eponymous category overcategorization: no subcategories, only two articles presently. All information is adequately linked in Template:Ray Mears. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He'll survive without :) Johnbod (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: The category links simply need fixing. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Wha ...? I'm not following you. What broken links? The fact that it has not parent category, you mean? That was nothing to do with the rationale for deletion, and were they added it wouldn't change the rationale. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (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:Former churches[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 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former churches to Category:Defunct churches
Nominator's rationale: This is related to this CFD on deleting Category:Former church buildings and its subcategories. Churches are virtual bodies, formally or informally organized corporate entities that are not identical with the buildings they erect (many can, and have, met in nonchurch buildings prior to erecting their church buildings). We wouldn't have a separate article with a disambiguation term if they were. To more clearly distinguish non-extant churches as organizations from disused church buildings, we need to use defunct for the (ahem) former, the same modifier we use for organizations and companies that no longer exist, and leave "former" for instances where a church building still stands but is no longer used for any religious purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fail to see why you think renaming categories to "Defunct" will improve any issues raised in the January 3 cfm-- that you link to this cfr and vice versa. Are you proposing a change in any category content?--Carlaude (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I fail to see why you make snippy, one-sentence, accusatory responses to my point that churches are not the buildings they use, as if this whole argument were some annoying waste of your time (I know, you may not feel that way, but this is the impression that I get). When one falls into disuse but not the other, one category alone won't cover it. Categorizing the Dutch Reformed Church (see other discussion) as a former church is misleading, when the article largely focuses on the building, not the congregation. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will am bias toward snippy, one-sentence responses to points that I agree with but see as skirting a significant issue in that I find that when a particular Categories for discussion discussion is too excessive, large, sizeable, ample, and massive; and the words are too plentiful, abundant, ample, copious, plenteous, great, generous, lavish, abounding, expansive, roomy, voluminous, capacious, profuse, commodious, infinite, overflowing, exuberant, bountiful, profuse, and bounteous; and the time it takes to read the said discussion becomes too great, extended, lengthy, prolonged, expanded, protracted, and extensive in duration, then people-- at least new people-- tend to lose interest in the discussion and a positive result becomes hard to achieve. I agree that that churches are not the buildings they use. But if all our articles on defunct churches also have defunct churches buildings and vice versa, then we do not need two categories.
Call them "defunct"-- that is fine, but I still did not get answer to my question. How does the renaming categories to "defunct" improve any issues raised in the January 3 cfm? --Carlaude (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer to Johnbod below. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm puzzled. We have Category:Former Christian denominations. A Dutch Reformed congregation should not be called a "church" - only less affiliated independent congregations. I don't see any case for what seems to be proposed, namely using Category:Defunct churches for buildings constructed for continuing church organizations, now mostly still in use for other purposes. Of the 2 possible senses of "Defunct churches", they fit neither. This category has always been about buildings, & said so. I would support renaming the whole tree to "church buildings" to remove the confusion that continues to dog these categories. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was following the lead of Category:Defunct organizations and Category:Defunct companies and so forth. We seem to prefer that word to describe nonextant abstract entities. Other than that I generally agree with you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how it is done, but we need three categories: former church buildings, former church congregations, and former church denominations. The categories should be clearly described and have obvious labels. I recommend withdrawing the existing CFDs and relisting them together. If you will not be changing Category:Former Christian denominations in the relist, then say so. In the relist, be sure to describe what is to happen to all the subcats. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, while I have seen you talk as if these categories are only about buildings, they cannot be-- many sub cat still relfect that they are about the congregations as well as the buildings-- only you seem to be hailing this idea-- and I see no where that you have even a CFD to pin it on.
There is no where else to put articles on congregations because they share the same names and articles as the buildings they occupy. You have claimed in the past that congregations go in "Category:Parrishes" but I have people seem to think it so unlike an idea they hesitate (for some reason) even to name the civil parrishes categories "civil parrishes"
Again I point out that in this case all but one of the (United States) pages in these categories are former church bodies and former church buildings. There is no purpose in have two categories with the same content. --Carlaude (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, it makes sense to have 1 article for XYZ church, and have it in both the "former churches" and "former church buildings" category. In other cases, it makes sense to have them in only one category, such as a defunct church whose former building is now occupied by another church, or an active church who left a historic building and moved to a new building. In the rare cases where a notable church left a now-historic building then later disbanded, there should be 2 articles, one for the building, one for the congregation, each in their own category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not forum to plan what articles should be out there. (If you want these articles, then more power to ya.) Here we can only deal with articles that do actually exist-- and change or create categories for the existing articles. If you are type A-- like me-- you may think that former church congregations and former church buildings deserve separate categories but to do so would make it harder them maintain and harder to use-- and thus only serve an asthetic "purpose", not a useful purpose. --Carlaude (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Certainly I agree that buildings are not organisations, and vice versa, and it makes no sense to muddle them up. But nor do I see any point in renaming a well-established set of cats. Keep Category:Former churches for buildings, and start up - if it really has to be done - Category:Defunct church bodies or something similar for the organisations.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2009 (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:Baltimore Light Rail Stops[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 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Light Rail Stops to Category:Baltimore Light Rail stations
Nominator's rationale: This title more accurately describes the contents of the category. Every article contained within describes the facility as a station, and thus the category should reflect this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Since they are on a light-rail system, they tend to be considered stops, rather that full-fledged stations. ----DanTD (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2009 (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:Baltimore Metro Subway[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 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Metro Subway to Category:Baltimore Metro Subway stations
Nominator's rationale: This new title more accurately describes what the category contains. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: per nomination. ----DanTD (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indifferent - makes sense if the category contains only the 14 articles it does now. But if any more are ever added, which there may be some now that exist, it would make more sense to make the proposed title a subcategory of the current. Sebwite (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (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:Igbo female singers[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, empty. Kbdank71 15:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Igbo female singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete or merge into Category:Igbo singers as an unnescesscary intersection of ethnicity, gender and occupation.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas, you may not have noticed that right there on the CFD notice it says, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." The reason, of course, is that doing so makes it impossible for other editors to evaluate the merits of a nominated category. So would you be good enough to restore the contents of the category pending resolution of this CFD? Thank you. Also, seeing as you've already been in discussion with the creator of the category, it might could be very helpful to let him/her know about this issue, as s/he may well be able to add the missing info to the articles in question. Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, that is correct. However removing unsupported entries has been generally allowed as far as I know. The problem in this case is that nothing in the category supported inclusion there. Not sure how to deal with this case, but I'm not convinced that adding the category back is right for this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is "generally allowed" -- but it shouldn't be done in the middle of a CFD discussion, [so please be good enough to put them back as lots of other editors have done before you (you're by no means the first)]. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Now that you've signed your note, I see that I was replying to you, VW, and not Thomas.macmillan. All the same, I'd still like to see what was there. Cgingold (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, I figured that since the category didn't actually need to exist because none of the articles in question actually fit the category, it might speed up the process a bit. Anyway, I will put the articles back into the categories. BTW, upmerging with a category like this is a bad idea. The sorter of this category included dozens if not hundreds of people he suspects to be of Igbo descent and often times they are in the Nigerian diaspora and have nothing to do with Nigeria anymore, thus we should delete and be careful with an upmergings.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring those 2 articles, Thomas. I thought I remembered having seen 3 articles when I had a quick glance at the category, but I didn't want to bother you again, so I looked in your user contribs and found the other one, for Lachi, and put it back, too. I'm still hoping that Ukabia will respond to our entreaties about these categories, and perhaps join this discussion before it closes. Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't restore the Lachi because it made absolutely no reference to being Igbo nor to even being Nigerian or Nigerian descent, so I hope that when this is over and we (hopefully) upmerge this category, it isn't included.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stella Damasus-Aboderin seems Igbo as she was born there. Nnenna Freelon is American and no connection with Africa is mentioned at all (except that Nnenna is an Igbo name, hardly conclusive). It is not the business of cfd to scrutinise all articles for correct categorisation - 'delete' loses all the info completely whereas upmerge preserves a less specific version. I agree with Thomas.macmillan that an American should not be in any Igbo category but in say Category:Nigerian Americans, Category:Igbo Americans or Category:Americans of Igbo descent (but this is not a matter for cfd unless the latter 2 are thought too specific). Occuli (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2009 (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:Fraggle Rock[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 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fraggle Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a TV series, also a small category with no likely expansion possible. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2009 (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:Proposed buildings[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 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Proposed buildings to Category:Proposed buildings and structures
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Just proposing that "and structures" be added to category name to bring it into conformity with other categories in Category:Buildings and structures. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2009 (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.

Canoers/Canoeists[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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I get this wrong - this is the largest group nomination I've ever done!

Consequent of The CfD on Category:Canoers last month, the following all need changing.

To summarise my argument at the time (which can still be found at the above link): the term canoer is unknown in much of the English speaking world; where it is known, the term canoeist seems to be equally-frequently used. Most Wikipedia articles primarily use the term canoeists, including the articles Canoe and Canoeing. As far as the Olympics categories are concerned, the IOC seems to use the term canoeist rather than canoer. I am willing to accept that a case could be made for keeping the US and canadian categories at "canoer", since that term is widely used there, but given that the term "canoeist" is also widely used in those countries, it may be worth moving those as well for the sake of consistency. (Note: Category:Canoer stubs and its two subtypes wwill, be taken to WP:SFD if this proposal is accepted). Grutness...wha? 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(PS - if anyone here knows how to put this proposal into a handy collapsible table, please do so! Grutness...wha?)

  • Rename - per nom and previous CFD. Table collapsed. Otto4711 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom and previous CFD. Heroic nominating! Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. I'm exhausted just reading all of those - great nomination! SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, both of you - it only took an hour and a quarter! :/ Had to be done, though... (and thanks to Otto for the table-collapse!) Grutness...wha? 07:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. I agree and I also agree that this was a valiant nomination. Well done. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:38, 3 January 2009 (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:Shades of brown[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shades of brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The display carried by this category implies that each of the shades shown in an authoritative rendering of the shade named. In fact, the names by and large do not represent mutually exclusive single points in color space but subjective ranges with some degree of overlap. This exposition is arbitrary, subjective, and misleading original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2009 (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:African American United States vice-presidential candidates[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 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American United States vice-presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is an arbitrary triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and occupation/electoral status. Violates WP:OC. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or possibly upmerge to US Vice-Presidential candidates) -- US Vice--Presidential candidates are surely not so numerous as to requiere disambuigation by skin colour. Alternatively listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - to Category:United States vice-presidential candidates per WP:OC as an arbitrary intersection. Glad this came up though because it alerted me that we were missing an article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Arbitrary"?? Apparently that term has been redefined some time in the last 24 hours. This category exists for the same reason as Category:Female United States vice-presidential candidates. It's not about how "numerous" the V.P. candidates have been (and it's more than just "skin colour"). In a country whose history has been dominated by white males, it has always been highly noteworthy for an African American to run for the second highest office in the land. Cgingold (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold. Which part of WP:OC exactly is this supposed to fall foul of? Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who thinks the subject trivial or non-notable should certainly vote delete, though they might want to consult dictionaries & read WP:OC & its examples carefully first. At 12, the category is clearly over the "small" bar, around 5 on current precedents. The nominees policy is interesting, but a presidential candidate, even for a small party, is clearly a achieved status rather than a potential one. No one seems to want to nominate Category:United States vice-presidential candidates - perhaps you would like to do so? I tried & failed to find where this part of the guideline was discussed before it was added. Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify as anyone could come up with a crank party and become the VEEP nom, ... a list would be easier to manage. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, any crank can run for any office they please -- and be entirely ignored by the news media. Meaning they, of course, come nowhere near passing notability and don't have articles. In other words, this is a totally bogus issue. Cgingold (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that easy, although I could not find anything in our article on what you have to do (as a crank) to get on the ballot papers - rather an ommission. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not that easy - or there would have been a lot more than 6 pairs contesting the last election (or does it vary by state?). Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does - the category could well be restricted to those on the ballot in every state, cutting out the minor cranks anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states -- the two big parties have seen to that, and it's a real sore point for smaller parties, even those that have been around for a good while. Often they will manage to get on the ballot in 35-40 states, but can't spare the resources to get on all 50. Cgingold (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A stroneg defining characteristic of the candidates involved. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:United States vice-presidential candidates. Looking at who is here, you get a list of minor party candidates. Many of the articles don't even mention any African heritage. So if this is not important for inclusion in the body of the article, how can it be a defining characteristic? When it is mentioned, it is for things like the first African American to own a newspaper. Is accepting the nomination because others have turned it down defining? If yes, then maybe we would need this category. Bottom line, the articles themselves offer no case that this is a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really hope you'll reconsider your assessment, VW. The real problem is that -- as you may possibly have noticed -- we have an awful lot of articles, in every subject area, that are very sketchy, to say the least. And compounding that issue, with African American bio articles there's a serious and widespread problem when it comes to mentioning their ethnicity. I have seen countless examples where the fact that someone is African American was completely left out until I made a point of adding it to the article -- sometimes shockingly so, as in the case of Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the very athletes who gave the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics. So it's just utterly wrong to make any inference about these candidates' African American heritage supposedly not being important just because some of the articles didn't mention it. Not incidentally, those four (out of 12) are all extremely short. In contrast, several of the articles make note of the very fact denoted by this category right in their Intro (including the one about Charlotta Bass, who you referred to as being "the first African American to own a newspaper").
The other issue that you touched on was the fact that most of them were "minor party candidates". But that, of course, is essentially a reflection of their outsider status in this country until very recently in our history. It may not seem exceptional now, but it certainly was quite noteworthy at the time they ran for office that a Black person was on a Presidential ticket -- even if it was a third-party effort. I'm sure you didn't mean to sound elitist, but if we were to exclude minor party candidates as an across-the-board criterion for categorizing politicians, our entire category structure would be decimated. So I would hope we're not going to single out this category on that basis. Cgingold (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't remember creating this, but apparently I did, I suppose after noticing there wasn't this companion category to Category:African American United States presidential candidates. The reason was not to "disambig" "numerous" VP candidates. It seems a given to me that people would be curious about how many/which African Americans have run for the office. I wouldn't be adverse to it being listified, though I don't think the "crank party" fear above is legitimate. Шизомби (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a WP helpful method of navigating historical facts, which are often overlooked, but which are important nevertheless in African American history and history in general. Hmains (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment African American candidates are just that, candidates. They should be upmerged to African American politicians. Presidential candidates are unique because of their supreme status; Vice Presidential candidates are relatively unimportant in comparison.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (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/2009_January_3&oldid=1140543164"