Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons enthusiasts[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. --Xdamr^talk 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing people by hobby or pastime doesn't seem like a good idea, and I know many similar categories have been deleted in the past. Being a fan or enthusiast of Dungeons and Dragons is not defining for the people included in this category. Seems like if anything, this information should be included in a section within Dungeons & Dragons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is almost certainly how the cat was populated in the first place. I think it's an interesting category, and we do have sources, but I am totally ambivalent as to its continued existence. BOZ (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page due to Wil Wheaton being put into the "Dungeons & Dragons game designers" category, which was clearly erroneous, as on the talk page someone informed me that this had probably been done because he clearly had connections to the game as an author and was influenced by the game, yet there was no other way to express this. As he, and a number of other people listed in the category, generally DO find that their involvement with the game has shaped or influenced their lives positively in some fashion, and have been vocal about that (see Jon Favreau, Stephen Colbert, etc.) it is different from a category such as "chess enthusiasts" or "poker enthusiasts", where few people other than professionals mention such games have had a tangible impact on their lives. This is my reasoning to have the category. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whatever the outcome - I draw your attention to Category:Hobbyists, for example Category:Philatelists contains people who had philately as a hobby, not primary interest eg Richard Feynman.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as category contains a notable list, not trivia eg Vin Diesel is a good example since his involvement is verifyable, and extensive. (I would guess the category may need patrolling to prevent bloat?)14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. None of these people are in any way notable due to their Dungeons enthusiasm, any more than they would be notable for liking potato chips, smoking the ganja, or being bald. A category like Category:Philatelists is, actually, a different kettle of fish: some people do owe whatever notability and fame they possess to their achievements in philately, but I'm not sure that kind of notability is necessarily Wikipedia notability. Clifford Washington Kissinger and W. Wilson Hulme II might be some example of people notable for their achievements as philatelists, although both biographies are unsourced currently. That one should probably be nominated separately for a discussion on its merits. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Diesel is not only notable for being bald, he wrote the preface to a D&D 30th yr. anniversary book. Stephen Colbert is noted for playing D&D as well as being an uber LotR fan. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we wouldn't want to categorize Vin Diesel in a Category:Bald people. This is trivial stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Everyone knows the only one whose baldness shaped his life was Lex Luthor. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And possibly Sy Sperling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether someone is an "enthusiast," as opposed to just a player, is vague and would be hard to determine, and more importantly a person's opinion on an issue, like being a cat lover or Star Trek fan, is not suitable material for a category.

-Glenfarclas (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original point was that it differed from being just a fan, as the game somehow enhanced or shaped their lives positively (in Favreau's case, making him a better writer, or encouraging social skills they used later). Most cat lovers don't express their cat love helped them be a better writer. Star Trek fans... well... that is a panacea. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, WP:OR complications, and manyfold precedence. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the WP:OR comes in? Each of these people have been properly referenced. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some context: Wil Wheaton was a regular columnist for Dragon magazine, and thus was logically (but inaccurately) placed in Category:Dungeons & Dragons game designers. The others have no connection other than previously playing the game.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Vin Diesel writing, Lillard (playing for local kids group), Myers going to convention, etc. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know my D&D history, Lillith. Whereas Wheaton was a regular author for an official D&D publication, none of the others were. Hobbyists don't merit categories, no matter how much the hobby shaped their careers. However, I will propose a middle-ground solution: create a category called Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers, make designers and novelists subcategories (as opposed to novelists being a subcategory of designers, which makes no sense), and then Wheaton and even Diesel can be a part of that. Does that work for folks?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad Mike, I didn't recognize Arneson when he walked up to chat with me at a convention, either. I think your proposal would be helpful. If you want to change this one to writers, I'll remove the links from everyone but those two. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If the closing admin likes my solution (create Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers, include the subcategories of D&D game designers and D&D novelists, and add Wheaton and Diesel to that), then that's the way we'll go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game influences careers and that makes it a worthwhile category. In order to avoid BLP problems inclusion should be clearly based on refs, nerds. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, we shouldn't be categorising people by what they're interested in - unless they're primarily notable for being a fan, and very few people are. Robofish (talk) 01:40, 1 December 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:Rail vehicles manufacturers[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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rail vehicles manufacturers to Category:Rail vehicle manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As far as I can tell the current name is a minor spelling/grammar error Shortfatlad (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to expand obscure abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oops! made a mistake in responding to some similar nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to correct pluralses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 25 November 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:DR locomotives[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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DR locomotives to Category:Deutsche Reichsbahn (East Germany) locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and match the main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to expand obscure abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to correspond to title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 29 November 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:DB locomotives[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. — ξ ^xplicit 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DB locomotives to Category:Deutsche Bundesbahn locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To expand abbreviation to match the name in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to expand obscure abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to correspond to title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 29 November 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:Buccaneers RFC[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-article eponymous category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – and the article Buccaneers RFC needs a thorough revision, as it even includes email addresses. Occuli (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no content except main article, which (as stated) needs pruning of contact details, which will be available from the club's website, but that should appear as an external link. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 27 November 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:Noble houses of the United Kingdom[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: Speedy rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamr^talk 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Noble houses of the United Kingdom to Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Families and Category:British families. (Note I just added this to Category:British families). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - same rationale as British Families (below). Bazj (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I should have included it below ... thanks BHG for the addition. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nominator. Tryde (talk) 08:48, 25 November 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.

British families[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:

--Xdamr^talk 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know the term "House of" is only used with reigning or former reigning families, which in these cases is not applicable. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and family businesses, House of Fraser, House of Chanel, House of Gucci. Bazj (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quite. House of Fraser is an article, because that's the trading name of the business ... but House of Chanel & House of Gucci are both redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom in most cases, per convention of Category:Families.
However Category:House of Sutherland-Leveson-Gower should be renamed to Category:Leveson-Gower family per main article Leveson-Gower. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BrownHairedGirl. Bazj (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is, when it comes to Medieval originated noble families, titled aristocracy, they are commonly and most usually refered to as "House of" in peerage and geneological publications. For instance the House of Cavendish as an example.[1] If it is just ____family, some people may get confused and randomly add everybody with said surname into that category. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply all the family categories are for a group of related people, not for everyone with that surname. It seems to work well in the other family categories, so I don't see why these ones should be different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Comment Google books is rather a converse argument since a search after "Cavendish family" produces even more results [2] then after "House of Cavendish". However I take your point regarding possible errors in populating the categories, so what if we add the same marker as in Category:Stanley family (English aristocracy), Category:Townshend family (English aristocracy), Category:Hyde family (English aristocracy) and Category:Howard family (English aristocracy) ? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - At first glance I rather like that formulation, though some may regard it as tautological because only exceptional families get eponymous categories anyway. The problem if we follow that route is that it doesn't help the non-aristocratic family categories ... and if they are OK without the suffix, why add it here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nominator. I also agree with BrownHairedGirl, Category:House of Sutherland-Leveson-Gower should be renamed to Category:Leveson-Gower family. Tryde (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for example "House of Cadogan" is contextually clear that it contains people of noble birth, whereas "Cadogan family" perhaps does not, and "House of ..." is the standard usage I think. Additionally - other potential categories such as "Manor houses belonging to the Cadogan family" seem to fit better in the broader sounding "Noble house of ..." I see no issue with the "House of .." categories being included in "British familes" without a rename. Shortfatlad (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Do nothing distinction too sematic - current name gives good contectual information.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Argument of nominator is not correct as far as I know. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most -- I have observed these categories being added to articles that I watch. I am far from convinced that they are valuable. It should certainly be Category:House of Leveson-Gower, as Dukde of Sutherland is a title they have only obtained in relateively modern times. I see the argument for a category distinguishing the noble family from non-noble namesakes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do we have a bit of a misunderstanding here? The other family categories are definitely not for just anyone with the same surname, but for a particular group of related notable people. Renaming these categories won't alter their inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Renames to correspond to title of parent articles in the overwhelming majority of cases. Alansohn (talk) 16:23, 29 November 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.

Rugby union clubs in Ireland[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: Speedy Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamr^talk 01:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Irish rugby union teams. AFAICS, none of the teams concerned are in Category:Rugby league in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 24 November 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.

Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi[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:Gandhism; I'll leave the pruning (if there is any left to do) to those who advocated for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Nominator's rationale: Delete: If we had a category listing every notable individuals' principles/philosophies, then articles would be clogged up with categories of individuals. Gandhi is/was not the only notable individual to follow simple living and vegetarianism. History/legacy that is specific to Gandhi should be listed under Category:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Category:Gandhism per the head article Gandhism. The existence of the head article demonstrates that Ghandism is a notable topic, and it's a recognisable philosophical school. The usual criteria should apply to articles placed in it, i.e. references to reliable sources needed in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However that still does not solve the problem that many of the articles listed under Category:Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (or Category:Gandhism) are not specific to Gandhi. Articles like simple living could have numerous categories listed at the bottom of its article page, such as Category:Philosophy of John the Baptist, Category:Philosophy of Buddha and Category:Philosophy of Ammon Hennacy for example. Either delete the article listings in the category which are not specific to Gandhi; or delete the category and move relevant articles to Category:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; or place Category:Gandhism within Category:Simple living (as per Category:Mennonitism), rather than Category:Simple living within Category:Gandhism (same would go for other non-specfic articles like vegetarianism, pacifism, nonviolence, nonresistance, fasting, civil disobedience, fruitarianism etc). nirvana2013 (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Category:Gandhism per BHG but prune severely. Eg Gandhi is in no way a defining characteristic of vegetarianism. (I don't think Category:Gandhism goes in Category:Simple living unless everything there fits.) Occuli (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This brings up another problem. Non-specific principles to Gandhi, such as simple living, vegetarianism, nonviolence, fasting and civil disobedience are however all key to Gandhism. One cannot really be a true Gandhian if you don't follow at least some of these principles. By pruning the category one takes away the full range of Gandhi's philosophies. He did not invent any of these principles. Gandhi sums it up in a nutshell "There is no such thing as 'Gandhism', and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems." (Chapter I, P.47, All Men are Brothers by M.K.Gandhi [3]). I cannot see any other philosopher (see Category:Categories named after philosophers), religious leader or sect on Wikipedia that has a list of common philosophies in their own category. The problem is having a category at all! nirvana2013 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not actually a problem, because the test for applying an article or a category is whether the category is a defining characteristic of the article, not the other way round (as you appear to be suggesting). That's why fish belongs under Category:Water (fish can't survive without it), but Water doesn't belong in Category:Fish (water can get along just fine without fish).
    So if vegetarianism is a critical component of Ghandism, then Ghandism belongs in Category:Vegetarianism ... but since vegetarian is not solely a Ghandian practice, vegetarianism does not belong in Category:Gandhism. Hope this makes sense! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I think I understand. So does that mean that the non-specific (but critical) Gandhian philosophies such as Category:Simple living, Category:Vegetarianism and Category:Nonviolence will switch to having Category:Gandhism as a sub-category, rather than vica-versa? All these practices can survive without Gandhi, but Gandhianism/Gandhism is incomplete without them. Rename - Also just for the record, I prefer Gandhism as a category title if there is consensus to keep. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename Of course, as creator. My rationale is that Gandhi—while not a philosopher of the sort that Immanuel Kant or Albert Camus—nonetheless has a system of ethics and truth that are presented in several articles in Wikipedia. I am basically indifferent to renaming it to Gandhism. As a final note, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is improper to remove categories from a category undergoing CfD. If so, could someone please revert this until the CfD is finished? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Depopulating a category is indeed deprecated, but that is not what happened here. There may be a legitimate reason for that edit, but it seems odd, and I suggest you ask the editor concerned to explain it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The answer to why this was done seems pretty straightforward to me. This is not a category "named after a philosopher". All the other categories in Category:Categories named after philosophers are purely eponymous; this one is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is an essay "don't built articles through categorisation" -other issues aside - tagging every article that relates to Gandhis life philoshopy with "Philosophy of Gandhi" is a nonsense. The obvious thing to do would be to write an article on "Gandhian philosphy" which I am sure will be easy to reference and prove notability of. No.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comment above.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed solution : article Gandhism should be sufficient, place that in Category:Philosophy..Shortfatlad (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, while rename to Ghandism is not a bad idea also. In any case add it to Category:Philosophy. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps exclude subjects of which he wasn't excplicitly a major influence to avoid overcharacterisation. Them From Space 02:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I weeded out some articles which weren't specifically a Ghandian philosophy. The category as a whole is much more coherant now. Them From Space 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Per WP:CfD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I think that line should be modified as editors should be encouraged to be bold and edit categories to improve them as they are facing deletion. I still feel that the category is better now so I'm a little hesitant to revert myself. Is it absolutely necessary to do so, or may IAR trump process here? I know if articles such as "simple living" or "vegitarianism" would belong in this category by common sense, I would switch my vote to delete per IINFO as well as overcategorization issues. We can't categorize general articles like these under everyone who has ever supported them. Them From Space 02:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Gandhism to correspond to title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 29 November 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:Cue sports novels[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cue sports novels to Category:Cue sports literature

Nominator's rationale: Rename: This was my bad; I didn't think long enough before creating this category back when. The problem with it being this specific is that it necessitates the creation of additional categories (for novellas, short stories, novelettes, trilogies, etc., etc., etc.) as relevant articles arise, and that would be silly. The more generic name will encompass everything from The Hustler (novel) to "Darwinian Pool Room" with no problems. The parent cat. sorts at bottom of cat. page will need to be adjusted after the rename. PS: I thought of Category:Cue sports fiction, but movies and TV shows (which already have Category:Cue sports films and television) are also fiction. Best to just be really, really clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think you could do a "category for speed renaming" here link can't see any opposition to this.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename since this is an almost trivial improvement by the sole editor of this category. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's no huge hurry, and this is already half-way through the CfR period anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:35, 26 November 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:The public enemy era[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. --Xdamr^talk 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The "Public Enemy" era was a period during the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in particular and the social history of the United States more generally. While this may be a valid topic for a category, its current form is problematic because it has no clearly-defined scope. The current membership of the category includes articles about individual criminals (e.g., Ma Barker), criminal groups (e.g., Barrow Gang), law enforcement officials (e.g., J. Edgar Hoover), places (e.g., Biograph Theater, where John Dillinger was killed), and events (e.g., Young Brothers Massacre).

If kept, rename to Category:Public Enemy era. However, since I do not believe that it is useful to categorize biographical articles in broad "era" or "period" categories (the practice is equivalent to placing Talleyrand in Category:Napoleonic Wars instead of in a subcategory of Category:People of the Napoleonic Wars), I am currently leaning toward deletion of the category, since there won't be much left in the category if the biographies are removed. (Category creator notified using {{Cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Public Enemy era; this is a notable, unique, and well known time of crime in American history, as demonstrated by its own main article. It is a part of Category:Social history of the United States and rightly so. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of articles would you suggest be placed in the category? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly the articles that are already there: the criminals who were notorious as being public enemies at this time and the article on this subject. There is no valid reason to remove the biographies. Hmains (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete is the best option here, I think. I agree with the nomination that categorizing biographies in this way is inappropriate. It is unclear what the scope of this category is meant to be. To me it looks like someone just took the article public enemy and created a category for every article that is linked to in that article, which is often not a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too vague to be useful. Category:Public enemies would be fine, listing people who had been officially described as such, but this is too broad and ill-defined for a category. Robofish (talk) 01:38, 1 December 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:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith to Category:LGBT clergy

Nominator's rationale: Simpler name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The current category name is unwieldy, and the proposed new name appears to fit conventions better. However, the new name may slightly restrict the scope of the category, so I'd like more input from those familiar with using the category. I have just left a {{cfdnotice}} at Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems simpler but how would it potentially disallow anyone? -- Banjeboi 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because there are some lay religious orders where people take vows, but don't take on clergy functions. I think that Opus Dei fits this category, although I doubt that there are all that many openly gay ppl in Opus Dei ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say do the move and add a note on that cat page that even Opus Dei and exceptions can be included if seen as religious equivalents to clergy within their worlds. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, since they are the same. Perhaps this should be closed as a keep, just to show that we are serious about Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
REname but purge of non-clergy, who should merely be categorised by their deonomination or order, if belonging to it is a significant characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I am not sure we need Category:LGBT people of lay religious orders either-- but they at least ought not to be mixed with Category:LGBT clergy. It would seem that no group has even opposed LGBT people be admitted to lay religious orders. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:42, 29 November 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:Auto car racing controversies[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: Speedy Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamr^talk 01:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Auto car racing controversies to Category:Auto racing controversies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with Category:Auto racing and its numerous existing sub-cats. DH85868993 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to make it consistent with prior categories. Royal broil 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above for consistency.--Midgrid (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 24 November 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:Philosophical media[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philosophical media to Category:Philosophy-related media

Nominator's rationale: The media itself is not philosophical (necessarily...) but it is related to philosophy. Cf. Category:Cult-related media —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The convention of Category:Media by interest is to name sub-categories as "Foo media", and it's a pity to break that convention. I do see that the current category name could be misleading (e.g. can it include CD-ROMs which sit in the desk-drawer contemplating the futility of their existence?), but is that really enough of a problem to justify breaking the convention? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can see your point – and it's certainly a valid one, but I am still inclined to agree with the nominator on this. Something like the Philosophical Gourmet Report ([4]), for instance, shouldn't be categorized as "philosophical media" – it's philosophy-related, but not philosophy per se. I would not support all media related to philosophy – for example, popular sources known for their discussions of the status of philosophy in academic graduate programs or notable faculty moves in Ivy League universities – to be classified as "philosophical" media. A workable solution could be to keep this category with more specific categories, such as Category:Philosophy publications (say, further subdivided into Category:Philosophy journals, Category:Philosophy books, and Category:Philosophy magazines (for magazines like Philosophy Now) as some of the subcats, so as to assist those looking for actual content of philosophical interest, with distinctions drawn between the more scholarly, professional philosophy-type academic sources and those oriented towards a more popular audience. Things like the aformentioned academic Gourmet Report and things that devote some of their contents to documenting attractive issues in aesthetic and religious trends are probably better-described as "philosophy-related" than "philosophical." I perforce think that keeping this category is the neatest solution possible. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per my own explanation in the above comment additionally. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It is not the media who are philosophical. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Them From Space 02:22, 29 November 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.