Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21[edit]

More Swedes[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/merge as proposed. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Afro-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Black African descent
Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Ukrainian descent
Propose merging Category:Eritrean-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Eritrean descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These little devils were hiding and/or I missed them in the previous discussion to standardize these names. Same rationale applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator and recent discussion (both pertaining to Swedes specifically, as well as a few other nationalities). Debresser (talk) 18:09, 26 September 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:Danes of Hungarian descent[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 Category:Danes of Hungarian descent to Category:Danish people of Hungarian descent. --Xdamrtalk 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Danes of Hungarian descent to Category:Danish people of Hungarian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename, possibly speedily (I'll let an admin decide). This category was tagged to be part of the rename here, but I failed to list it with the others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:08, 22 September 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:Video game reboots[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. --Xdamrtalk 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video game reboots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The term "reboot" is interchangeable and loosely defined. Not a valid category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ill-defined category. I asked the creator about this several days ago ([1]) and didn't find his answer very informative. Category:Television reboot (same creator, created about the same time) should also be deleted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; "reboot" is just too objective for a category. By the way, your "his answer" link doesn't lead to a diff. -sesuPRIME 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay I think that Category:Video game reboots should stay and every video game that has a same title needs a reboot with a new story and with the same character.--Lg16spears (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay Lg16spears, so you want to keep it. Why? I can't find your rationale for keeping it anywhere in your post. -sesuPRIME 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reboot is not a loosely defined term when referring to works of fiction, it simply means that all previous continuity in a franchise is declared null and is started afresh. Nothing more, nothing less, there's certainly nothing interchangeable about it. It is a separate entity from something such as a remake. The category is a useful method of categorisation of works by their fictional content as well as by relevance within a franchise's history, even if it may not have many articles in at present, and accounting for the potential for some articles being in the category erroneously. -- Sabre (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "Reboot" applies specifically to the plot being wiped, there are barely any games to put into that category. There is also confusion as to when a game is a remake or a reboot to other editors. And forget about the Final Fantasy games, which are technically reboots for each installment. The category will end up being mostly Final Fantasy.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There aren't many entries in Category:Reboot films either, and reboots are usually associated with films. The size of the category is insubstantial, unless its only got one of two entries; a small category doesn't make it a useless category. Whether a game is a remake or a reboot is an editorial matter for individual articles that should be based on sources, not one that affects the viability of this category. -- Sabre (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a very loose term. Many video game makers don't call them reboots, and they aren't even known as reboots most of the time. Sometimes it's just a sequel, or a prequel and people confuse that with a reboot. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Very, very ill-defined. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 11:46, 28 September 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:Mountain biking by nation[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. Jafeluv (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking by nation to Category:Mountain biking by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Category:Sports by country. Kslotte (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (I hope this is the last of this ill-named bunch.) Occuli (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; we should use the Speedy procedure more often. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Sorry Occuli ;) the mountain biking categories was quite a mess before I started to organize them. --Kslotte (talk) 08:55, 22 September 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:Middle-earth horses[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. --Xdamrtalk 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Middle-earth horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is only filled with redirects. Template:CharR to list entry should be used in its place. TTN (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Middle-earth animals for starters. Then let's have a look at that one... Debresser (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this not only meets the policy WP:Categorizing redirects as Categorization of list entries, it's been cited as an example of good practice since User:Carcharoth added it there on June 2007. The justification stated is that it provides a single alphabetical listing of both named horses and named ponies in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. (In this case I could live with making these a separate section of the target List article, but the policy should be debated on its talk page before scrapping a cited example.) - Fayenatic (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle-earth-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it seems to me that the Middle Earth stuff was once very comprehensively and coherently organised into articles, lists and categories and is being dismantled incoherently for no obvious benefit. (Eg there was once a separate List of Middle-earth horses.) Also this has been discussed at an earlier cfd with several related Middle-earth catgories. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same exact thing can be done with the template up above, which allows us to keep redirects from clogging up main namespace categories. The main category could be "Middle-earth character redirects to lists", while subcategories could be set up in the same way as the current setup. TTN (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But (i) these redirects are not clogging up main namespace categories; and (ii) in the next category up, there are a few members which are not redirects, e.g. Shelob. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you go into a category and find that over half of the articles are simply redirects, that means that they are cluttering up the category. The six actual articles within that category should simply be upmerged to the parent. We should be uniform in the way that we handle these anyway, so why not use an easy to manage template that is in use in a number of articles instead? TTN (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Corral them all together, to avoid cluttering up the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly pointless category. The over-arching rationale for categories is that they serve as aids to navigation. There is simply no purpose served by a category that contains nothing but redirects that all redirect to the same article. Anyone with three brain cells that all talk to each other will figure that out. No one in their right mind is going to search for a Middle-earth horse, get redirected to the list, scroll to the top of the list, click on the link to the redirect and then click on the category. If this is offered up as an example of when to categorize redirects then the concept of categorizing redirects needs a rethink. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last sentence is my point exactly. Is an obscure CFD the place to rewrite policy? It seems to me that at CFD we should follow policies; if a policy is debatable, we should discuss it on the policy talk page rather than undermine it here.
  • To reply to your other sentences, there is a point in this category, namely to have an alphabetic list of horses. (I have acknowledged above that that could be done by rearranging the List instead, but until that happens, this category has a use.) - Fayenatic (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alphabetical list of horses should be in the form of a list article, not a category full of redirects that all point to the same place. I have no idea why the previously extant list of horses was merged into the current animals list but that merger doesn't justify setting up a category that will never have anything in it but redirects to the same article. If you want an alphabetical list of horses, go update the existing list. Categories are not lists. Nor is this CFD intended to "rewrite policy". WP:CAT-R is a guideline and not a policy, and as a guideline is subject to exception. Especially in a case like this, where the category serves no useful function. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fayenatic, particularly since there is no separate list of horses. Redirects are cheap, and categories on them do not clutter actual articles, so I don't understand going out of our way to delete a category for valid redirects that aren't collected in any other form and that is a sensible grouping of a subtopic. I may not see how a lot of things on Wikipedia are useful, but I'll defer to their defenders if I can't point to some harm, dysfunction, or policy violation. Postdlf (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also-- anything is better than merge (to avoid cluttering up the main cat.) Carlaude:Talk 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my earlier comments here and here apply. For examples of how this can be handled without deletion, see the administrative (for editors, not readers) category at: Category:Middle-earth_redirects. Look at the subcategories there - there are four categories there (sorted under '*') that consist solely of redirects. If the decision here is to delete, could that be done by moving this category from its parent categories to Category:Middle-earth redirects? Carcharoth (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been discussed in a lot of CfDs lately that categorizing redirects by target article is a bad idea. For a few examples, see here, here, here, here and here. (Disclosure: I nominated most of them.) Redirects are categorized by the type of redirect – that is, whether it's a redirect from an abbreviation, full name, misspelling etc. I don't think creating such categories is a solution here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient number to justify a separate category. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 30 September 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:Mountain biking events at Summer Olympics[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:Mountain biking at the Olympics. Jafeluv (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking events at Summer Olympics to Category:Summer Olympics mountain biking events
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since the Olympics are special events it needs to have a different naming then other country specific categories. Kslotte (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified per Kslotte's remark below. Occuli (talk) 11:28, 22 September 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:Hungarian infobox templates[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 delete, G7 (sole author's request). BencherliteTalk 10:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hungarian infobox templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I didn't realise it should be "Hungary" not "Hungarian" (cf. other subcategories of Category:Country infobox templates). I've already created Category:Hungary infobox templates and parented it to that and Category:Hungary templates, and added two templates I created into it. SimonTrew (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename since correct argument and requested by main editor. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I created another templatecategory with the correct name. SimonTrew (talk) 08:47, 22 September 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:Constituent countries 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: Merge Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom to Category:United Kingdom. --Xdamrtalk 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom to Category:Countries of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with article names, and per prior discussion here.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to Countries of the United Kingdom. Throughout articles on wikipedia the term Countries of the UK is used more than "constituent country" and the British government use rarely use the term "constituent country" anymore. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:United Kingdom? which already includes the statement "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state comprising four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland." Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with merging it like that is that it would make it harder to find from Category:European countries. The four main entries in this category belong to European countries, but are felt to be somewhat distinct from the other members of that category, therefore (I think) ought to be in a separate category which is nonetheless a clearly visible subcategory of European countries.--Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename but with reservations. Delete not rename [until this whole issue is resolved - see below]. The countries category is called just that, not 'Independant countries'. Wales, Scotland and England are countries (NI is not, but that's another matter). As they are countries they belong in the countries category, perfectly logically. Despite my opposition to the inclusion of the Six Counties - English Wikipedia has followed the political line of the New Labour UK government, a lie line which is contrary to the Belfast Agreement - I am tempted to agree with the compromise 'Category:Countries of the United Kingdom'. Perhaps what we really need here in the long term is a clearer practical distinction between the terms 'country' and 'sovereign state'. On the Countries of the UK talk page BritishWatcher says that he "supported and accepted the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be called countries" but opposes them "appearing on lists of countries (where only sovereign states are listed)". Therein lies the nub of the problem - the argument that although E, S and W are in fact countries they should not be listed or categoried as countries. A country need not be a sovereign state but it is still a country. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection in principle to a sub-cat 'Countries of the UK', but having read some of the comments and attitudes shown at the Countries of the UK talk page I'm now inclined to change my opinion: I won't support the creation of the category if it results in W, E & S being classed, via this proposed cat., as "regions". That is not acceptable. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? No-one's suggested renaming this category to "Regions...", have they? Such a proposal would be swiftly rejected anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kotniski, I think you've misunderstood. I don't mean renaming the category from "countries" to "regions"; as you rightly note that would not be accepted. What concerns me is that the suggestion has been made (see the Talk page) that the category - renamed or not - should not appear in 'country' categories at all but only in those for regions, specifically 'Regions of Europe', drawing an analogy with the autonomous communities of Spain etc. So W, S & E (and that bit of Ireland) would end up "hidden" as a collective sub-cat of 'UK' and in the European regions category where few if any would think of looking for them - and many people would take offense at seeing their countries treated like this as well. That's what needs resolving.
By the way, I know you are an innocent party who means well, but are you aware that this whole issue has arisen because of the edits of a sock-puppet of User:Wikipéire, i.e. User:TDSDOS, now permanently banned? That's another reason for delaying this until we reach a proper agreement. Perhaps the best solution would be to put this on hold for now and empty the category (seems it will not be staying in any case)? What do you think? I know I have my own POV, just like most of the other editors involved, but it really is a sensitive issue which could lead to Wikipedia being accused of political bias and therefore discredited if it's not handled properly with due respect for both the constitutional situation (not that the UK has one!) and national sensitivities. In the latter respect, by the way, we really are open to the accusation of following the line of the UK government if we include Northern Ireland in this category - calling it a "country" is contrary to the Belfast Agreement to which the UK government is signatory and is a complete anathema for the republican/nationalist community in NI (few Unionists would call NI a country either as they see it as a province of the UK). All in all this category might cause more problems than it appears to solve. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're reading too much into all this. Categories are just to help people find things, not to promote political viewpoints. Why not have a category to help people find articles about the consituent parts of the United Kingdom (which are by and large called countries)? No-one's suggesting moving it out of the European countries parent category - though no harm is done if it's also put into a category of subnational regions, since that's an accurate description too.--Kotniski (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am reading too much into this. I accept what you say that, as a rule, 'Categories are just to help people find things, not to promote political viewpoints.' However, in this case it could be interpreted as 'promoting a political viewpoint'. The problem is not E, S and W, which are clearly historical and actual countries, but Northern Ireland. The majority of Irish people do not accept that NI is a country; many see it as a territory - a disputed one at that - which belongs in a united Ireland. The majority of Ulster unionists see it as a province of the UK, not a 'country'. It's the UK government which decided to start calling it a "country of the UK", for political reasons. So it is a political label. What nationality are the people of NI? Answer: they can choose, under the Good Friday Agreement, to identify as being of Irish or British nationality: no mention of "Northern Irish" nationality because there is no such thing. The category will be seen by many as an acceptance of the UK government position. Do we want Wikipedia to be accused of political bias? What about our neutrality and independance? Enaidmawr (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the also option proposed by Kotniski. It seems a sensible compromise. Although I anticipate some opposition for E/NI/S/W to be included in Category:Countries of the United Kingdom and Category:European countries, as 'over-categorization'. Should this happen my support would change to: Delete not rename. As noted on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom, neither Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom nor Category:Countries of the United Kingdom are necessary. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries. Reliable sources that recognise this include: The Library of Congress quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union."; 10 Downing Street quote: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; Commonwealth Secretariat quote: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; European Commission quote: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. unquote. E/NI/S/W are defined as countries. Countries are not necessarily defined as sovereign. Whether you consider E/NI/S/W to be countries or not, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth'. E/NI/S/W belong in the category European countries. Daicaregos (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dai, I agree with you of course but not for NI (see above). It is simply not a country, whereas Wales, Scotland and England are, of course. The decision of the UK government to call it one was politically motivated. Think about it: it was aimed at Wales and Scotland and any move towards independence by them. If NI, which is not a country, can be called a country, what does referring to Wales and Scotland as countries mean? ('Yes, of course Wales is a UK country, just like Northern Ireland: now you can stop this 'independance' nonsense!'). So do we need this category? As I said above, I think it's going to open a real can of worms, even though I accept that Kotniski simply wanted to help improve the categories, of course. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS The sources merely follow the UK government position. Find me a Republic of Ireland government source that refers to NI as a country. You certainly won't find it called that on Sinn Fein's website. We're Welsh, the Scots are Scottish, the English are English: find me a person of "NorthernIrelandish" nationality. Without nationality how can there be a country? Enaidmawr (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Enaidmawr, as far as I know there is no English, Welsh or Scottish nationality in law. On the subject of whether anyone considers themselves to be "Northern Irish" you might note the existence of a (small) Ulster nationalist movement which advocates a Northern Irish state independent from both the UK and the RoI. Pondle (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "in law", Pondle? So what? That's a red herring of an argument. Yes, I was aware of the existence of some far-right fringe Ulster loyalists who have advocated "better an independant NI/Ulster than be part of Ireland", but they are the exception which proves the rule. Historically and in actuality - at least for the vast majority of the area's inhabitants, there is no such nationality as "NorthernIrelandish" (or whatever). The Northern Irish are not a nation and NI is not a country. 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Enaid, you said that "without nationality there cannot be a country". I agree that there isn't an NI nationality but neither is there an English, Welsh or Scottish nationality; nationality involves a legal relationship between an individual and a state. Maybe you actually meant that there isn't a Northern Irish 'nation'? Pondle (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pondle, the legal argument, which is actually as much about citizenship as nationality, especially in the context of a multi-national polity such as the UK, is only one facet of nationality. I'd also suggest it is not the most fundamental. You are absolutely wrong to say that there is no "English, Welsh or Scottish nationality". I hope you are not suggesting that I'm not Welsh, as that most certainly is my nationality. As the article on nationality itself rightly notes, "nationality can refer to membership in a nation[s] (sic!) (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots." You are right that it would have been clearer to use 'nation' rather than 'nationality' the first time round, but I did make up for that by stating (above) that the people of NI "are not a nation and NI is not a country." Anyway, we need to decide what we are going to do with this category. I'm now firmly convinced that delete is the best solution. What are your views? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Paul Weis says here (paraphrasing), [2] "the indiscriminate use of the term (nationality) is apt to lead to confusion... in the English language the word 'nationality' is less frequently used in its ethnical sense... While the existence of an English or Welsh or Scottish nation is not in doubt, membership of such a nation is not usually described as English, Welsh or Scottish nationality; this term is used exclusively for British nationality meaning the quality of being... a subject/citizen of the UK". In relation to NI, while I understand how calling Northern Ireland 'a country' can sound a little strange intuitively, it depends what you mean by 'country' - which doesn't have to be analogous to either a nation or a sovereign state. I've seen country defined in a dictionary as "a large tract of land distinguished by features of topography, biology or culture". Clearly NI has some characteristics typical of a country in the loosest sense - a devolved administration, its own national football team, and (while complex) some sense of local identity amongst parts of the population, though probably short of 'nationhood'... it's difficult. Pondle (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's one person's POV, based simply on the legalistic argument. If "membership of such a nation is not usually described as English, Welsh or Scottish nationality; this term is used exclusively for British nationality" then I suggest asking Dafydd Wigley and Alex Salmond, not to mention myself and any number of other Welsh and Scottish people, what their nationality is. You must know the answer. Then you can explain to them how deeply mistaken they are and that really they can only be described as being of 'British nationality', not 'Welsh' or 'Scottish' - and good luck to you! Anyway, entertaining though it might be, this is not helping the debate on the category, so shall we agree to leave it there? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well all the people you mention presumably hold British passports Enaid, therefore they are British nationals, whether they like it or not![3] Pondle (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this line of argument is much help. NI is clearly the same kind of thing (bit of the United Kingdom) as E/S/W - people are likely to be looking for them in the same place, and the best we can do by way of a name for these bits is countries. That reflects significant real-world usage - personal views on whether that usage is appropriate are not for here. There's nothing to stop NI also being added to categories of subnational territories or whatever, because it is that too.--Kotniski (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Enaid, I reiterate the point I made above: Whether you consider E/NI/S/W to be countries or not, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth'. E/NI/S/W belong in the category European countries. E/NI/S/W are, verifiably, European countries. @ Kotniski, will you be adding E/NI/S/W to the category European countries now, as you suggested? Daicaregos (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dai and Kotniski, please read what I have said above. Dai, I'm surprised at your interpretation. Did I say anything to suggest your response "Whether you consider E/NI/S/W to be countries or not..."? No. I'm talking about NI, not E/S/W - you should know by now that I'd be the last person to suggest that Wales is not a country. And Kotniski, with respect, I'm not talking about my personal views at all but of the view of many "interested parties" in NI, the Republic and elsewhere regarding the status of NI. Have you read the Belfast Agreement, on which the present peace process is founded? The use of any term whatsoever to describe NI is scrupulously avoided throughout: it is simply "Northern Ireland", not a "country", "province", "six counties", or whatever. And why? Because any such label would be highly contentious and indeed there would never have been a Belfast Agreement in the first place and an end to 30 years of violence which had led to the loss of thousands of lives if the UK government had insisted on the term "country". As a matter of fact the term came to be used by UK gov. after the Belfast Agreement, and is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Agreement. "Verifiability not truth" is often quoted and is fair enough as a general policy, but if the Northern Ireland peace process fails - and I pray to God it does not - it will be in part because of the provocative use of the unacceptable term "country" by the British-UK government. Go ahead and label NI as a country. That will only serve to raise the awareness of this travesting of history and reality and if violence rules again in NI then the English Wikipedia will have to accept responsibility for its part in the tragedy. That would be incredibly sad, and so unneccesary. It's little comfort, but at least my conscience will be clear. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because while we have this category (the one we're discussing) as a subcategory of European countries, I believe it makes more sense to treat it as a normal subcategory ("non-distinguished", to use the language of WP:DUPCAT - we really need a better term than that though, anyone got any ideas?) and therefore it's not necessary to put pages from the subcategory into the parent. Nothing to do with verifiability, truth, politics or anything - it's just the normal way categories are used. But there are other ways of handling the situation if people prefer - however it would help if we could focus on the topic instead of continuing here what I presume to be some lame dispute simmering away on the UK pages (and I thought the Poles and the Germans were bad enough;) ).--Kotniski (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd be interested to know what the other ways are, Kotniski. WP:DUPCAT is not a cast-iron rule and exceptions can be made. Wouldn't it be easier to just forget about this category (remember this was all started by a sockpuppet whose master is probably rubbing his hands with glee)? Enaidmawr (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was me who started it... Anyway, as I see it, the options are (1) Keep this category as a non-distinguished (ordinary, non-duplicating) subcategory of European countries, renaming it as suggested (or to some other name, or not at all); (2) Keep this category as being of interest in itself but asa "distinguished" (duplicating) subcategory of European countries, i.e. E/S/W/NI appear in both categories; (3) Delete this category and put E/S/W/NI back into European countries. It would be nice to hear some relevant arguments for/against these various options (hint: not POV about Irish politics). --Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if you misunderstood what I said about who started all this, i.e. the banned sockpuppet whose arguments led to you creating the category (per User talk:TDSDOS). I wasn't referring to yourself, of course! And you'll be glad to know that I have nothing else to add about the POV of many people - my own hardly counts - on the disputed status of NI etc. As for the category itself, given my concerns not just about labelling NI a 'country' but the possible misuse of the category and the fact we have long made do without it and can well continue that way, I think my final position, in order to avoid any further division, argument or misunderstanding on Wikipedia and in order to protect its neutrality, must be Delete not rename. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK but if we delete it, then Northern Ireland will end up in "Category:European countries" again along with E/S/W, and will thus continue to be labelled a country.--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not rename I have no interest in discussing "some lame dispute". There is no need for this (or its alternative) category. Daicaregos (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is This is the wording that clarifies the contents. To anyone not from the UK, countries of the UK will cause a degree of confusion about what is intended. Quite a lot of people think of it as a single country--this may not match the more detailed knowledge of people actually in the UK, but we write for English-speakers in the entire world and must be clear to them all. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Rename per nom. If we are going to keep this cat, it should at least have the same name as its parent article (a good general principle in all CFD naming discussions). That article has its name for very good reason. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since we've settled on calling England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales - countries of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, since the article on the subject itself is called Countries of the United Kingdom, seems a reasonable enough rename proposal. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:16, 5 October 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:Journey[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 along with subcategories. Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Journey to Category:Journey (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename ambiguous category to match article Journey (band). Tassedethe (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article. Occuli (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Pehaps also rename subcategories? Debresser (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename along with subcats to prevent ambiguity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article, and yes the subcategories also need to be renamed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 24 September 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.

EPs categories[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:

* Category:EP stubs to Category:Extended play stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand to match parent article, extended play. Also to avoid ambiguity, as EP leads to a disambiguation page. — ξxplicit 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and per the precedent to avoid abbreviations in categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck the stubs category which has to be discussed at WP:SFD. Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all in order to avoid ambiguity, as mentioned earlier by another person who commented. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, They are commonly known as EPs in the same way that Long Plays are known as LPs; would we therefore rename all the LP categories to Long Plays ? I think not; for consistency leave as they are...GrahamHardy (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, there are no LP categories. I can argue that Compact Discs are commonly known as CDs, but alas, we have the category Category:Compact disc. — ξxplicit 19:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary. These releases are referred to commonly and within the industry as EPs; the reason the article is at Extended play is to avoid ambiguity with other topics that use "EP" as an acronym or abbreviation; a quick look at EP shows that none of these other topics are creative works, or items that can be categorized by year of release (very few of them are even items or objects to begin with). The comparison to Category:Compact disc does not convince me because it is not used in the same manner as these categories (to categorize creative works by year of release); there are no albums within Category:Compact disc, merely articles related to the technology of CDs. If it were "Category:Albums released on CD" then it would be an apt comparison, but it's not. There is no particular need for the category name to be un-abbreviated just because the article title is, nor is there really any ambiguity as the parent category clearly says "for more information, see Extended play". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions: states Avoid abbreviations. Example: "World War II military equipment", not "WW2 military equipment". However, abbreviations that have become the official or generally used name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts. Although "EP" is the generally used name, there is a obvious conflict, hence the EP disambiguation page. If extended play redirected to EP, I wouldn't see a problem, but because that isn't the case, these categories should be renamed to avoid conflicts (compare Category:NATO to NATO; note how both are abbreviations, because that is the primary topic for that said abbreviation; the same can not be said for Category:EPs and extended plays). Most parent categories as EPs should contain the {{catmore1}} hatnote for further information, so I can't said I understand that part of the argument. — ξxplicit 08:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't see the "conflict". I simply don't think it matters that the parent article for the category is at Extended play rather than EP. The category page clearly directs readers to the correct article, so I don't see how there is any confusion or "conflict" with respect to the relationship between the category and the parent article. I guess I see this as a classic "ain't broke, don't fix" scenario. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IllaZilla. -Violask81976 23:19, 25 September 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.

Botswanan to Botswana[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Botswanan football clubs to Category:Botswana football clubs
Propose renaming Category:Botswanan football competitions to Category:Botswana football competitions
Propose renaming Category:Botswanan football logos to Category:Botswana football logos
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with two discussions (1, 2) which settled on "Botswana" as the Fooian adjective for things from Botswana. "Botswanan" is a made-up adjective that sounds good to English-language ears, but is not correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. See also here. --John (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per convincing rationale. Occuli (talk) 11:29, 22 September 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.

Lesothan to Lesotho[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lesothan football clubs to Category:Lesotho football clubs
Propose renaming Category:Lesothan football competitions to Category:Lesotho football competitions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with this discussion, where "Lesotho" was adopted as the Fooian adjective for things from "Lesotho". "Lesothan" is a made-up adjective that sounds good to English-language ears but is not correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's as daft as "Botswanan". --John (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per convincing rationale. Occuli (talk) 11:30, 22 September 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:Indian Music Developers[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 Category:Indian Music Developers to Category:Indian record producers. --Xdamrtalk 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian Music Developers to Category:Indian record producers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is consistent with what the category is intended to encompass. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 21 September 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:Universities and colleges in NOIDA[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 Category:Universities and colleges in NOIDA to Category:Universities and colleges in Noida. --Xdamrtalk 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in NOIDA to Category:Universities and colleges in Noida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "NOIDA" is an acronym but the main article is Noida. It's one of these "SCUBA" vs. "Scuba" issues. Perhaps this is overcategorization at this point, since neither Category:NOIDA nor Category:Noida exist at this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 21 September 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:Michael Jackson's death[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Michael Jackson's death to Category:Michael Jackson
Nominator's rationale: Merge. My sense is that judging by the contents of this category, it is probably overcategorization and should be upmerged. The article Death of Michael Jackson would normally be acting as the appropriate "hub" that interlinks all of this stuff. For a similar example, see the deletion of Cat:Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. (If kept, surely it should be renamed to Category:Death of Michael Jackson in order to match the main article Death of Michael Jackson?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as too small. Recentism. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Few articles and the number is not likely to grow significantly. In the (hopefully unlikely) case it is kept, it should be renamed as suggested by Good Olfactory. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per all. The subcat is ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 21 September 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:OKW[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 Category:OKW to Category:Alumni of King William's College - unless, that is, there is more to the alumni of King William's College than meets the eye... --Xdamrtalk 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:OKW to Category:Alumni of King William's College
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Changing inscrutable category name to what it actually is for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent :) Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well. I suppose no great harm is done if they go in the UK. I suppose a global category is not going to be much used. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe, found on the Isle of Man page, does show it to be a "Dependent territory" of the UK. Carlaude:Talk 03:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since to me, this is a German war related category 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 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:Canonizations of Pope Pius XII[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canonizations of Pope Pius XII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I venture to say canonizations are much more loosely tied to popes than, say, apostolic writings. The veneration of a saint never mentions which pontiff sainted him/her. Until very recently, I think it is hard to characterize any papacy based on the saints and blesseds it recognized. I would argue therefore that which pope created someone a saint is not defining either for that pope or for that saint, and that lists should be sufficient. This category is the only example of its kind in Category:Sainthood. -choster (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice left at WP:CATHOLIC.-choster (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There is much truth in what the nom says. Nevertheless, it is probably defining, and by definition there can only be one such category per saint. We are unlikely to have many such categories - here as elsewhere Pius's admirers are testing the limits of WP:OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish delete. I've seen this category before and have always had the sense that it was odd, especially since no other similar categories exist for other popes. It always struck me as the type of thing that would be expected in a list article, but not really in a category. If for whatever reason it's thought that this scheme would be beneficial to expand across all popes, then I think I could be OK with keeping the scheme for the reason Johnbod states—there will only be one per saint, so we wouldn't experience category clutter. But since this one stands alone, it seems to be more like OCATing Category:Pope Pius XII than anything else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom who states it clearly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 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:Members of the Democratic Party (Romania)[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Democratic Party (Romania) to Category:Members of the Democratic Liberal Party (Romania)
Nominator's rationale: The former Democratic Party has been known as the Democratic Liberal Party for nearly two years. It's about time the category reflected that change. Biruitorul Talk 03:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed Hell yeah. Dahn (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Pretty clear case where the cat should match article naming. --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 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:Sports teams by origin of their name[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports teams by origin of their name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Greek antiquity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Roman antiquity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Ajax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Apollo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Hercules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Hermes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Olympia and Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Sparta and Spartans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Gladiators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Senators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sports teams named after Spartacus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are all recent creation by one editor and are a fairly straightforward example of overcategorization of unrelated subjects with a shared name. This clearly is categorizing subjects "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself". (Category structure of parent–children is also not internally logical, since not all sports teams named "Senators" were named after Senators in Greek antiquity; in fact, probably most were not. Some teams may be named after the modern Olympics, not the ancient Greek ones, etc.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom is absolutely right that this is an obvious example of what is discouraged at WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. --RL0919 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can exclude the specific teams that may be unrelated, not the categories.
  • 1.Ottawa Senators and Binghamton Senators's emblem clearly indicates that their name is relevant to Roman antiquity.
  • 2.Ancient or modern the Olympia and Olympic-named teams are part of the Olympic Sports culture.
  • 3.What about the animals-named teams? undoubtedly part of the category : animals in popular cultureCatalographer (talk) 13:39, 21 September 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:Actors to portray superheroes[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors to portray superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization. Such categories would simply overburden relevant article categories ie, Actors to portray murderers, Actors to portray flyers, Actors to portray flying nuns, Actors to portray gunfighters, Actors to portray clergy, Actors who portray living people, Actors... and so on, in finitum. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The slippery slope argument, with analogy to flying nuns, murderers, and such, really doesn't warrant deletion of this category. Comic book superheroes constitute a tremendously popular film genre, and this category allows for the collection of the principal actors who have starred in these roles. It is a category that has real utility for followers of comic book superheroes and films of that genre. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Cbl62 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT, as an actor-by-role category of which we have previously deleted many. There are and have been many "tremendously popular film genres," and eventually every such role (as well as the less popular ones) would have its own category, and every actor would be then categorized by every role. I also don't understand the syntax of the category name at all. Was "actors who portray superheroes" intended? Postdlf (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you wouldn't want to have a category for each type of role, but the comic book superhero is a genre that warrants an exception, in my opinion. We are allowed to use our judgment, as no guideline is intended to be inflexible. It's the best way to collect all these folks in one place. Opening the door on this one doesn't need to open the floodgates. As for the syntax, a change to "who have portrayed" may flow best. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt The category title threw me as well, and I agree that if kept the category should be renamed to "Actors who have portrayed superheroes" or some such. I'm neutral as far as whether this category is kept (I admit, categories are not a major part of my life and so I'm not very familiar with the guidelines behind them, and I personally won't be affected by the outcome of this CfD). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CfD has gone through this debate with similar categories many times. The 2006 deletion of Category:Super Hero actors is exactly on point, but there have also been many others of a similar type. It's overcategorization. There's no good argument for making an exception to the general rules for actors who have portrayed superheroes, because then we'd need an exception for actors who have portrayed Jesus, and then one for supervillains, and one for serial killers, and then one for anyone who has appeared nude, etc., ad infinitum. Lists do the job of allowing people "to find a variety of actors who have played the principal roles in a very popular genre", and it is at List of actors who have played comic book characters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I really do think that actors suffer from undercategorization rather than over. Just dumping thousands upon thousands of actors into a generic category like Category:Television actors (10,000 entries) or Category:American actors (2500 entries) or Category:American film actors (12,000 entries) is not useful. There really needs to be a better way of sorting actors into subcategories. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there has been consistent consensus that this is not the way. Doing it by role wouldn't solve the proposed problem anyway, because we wouldn't remove someone from Category:American film actors just because we could place them in this category. Very few actors have played only superheroes, so dividing by role (e.g., American film actors who have played superheroes) doesn't get us anywhere if subdividing a mass of articles in a parent category is the principal goal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the "consistent consensus" is a good reason to freeze things "as is" or if thought has really been given the alternatives. It makes more sense to me than dumping thousands of actors into generic nationality (American, Candian) or media (TV, film) groupings. Sure we could subdivide further with categories like [Actors from Wisconsin], but that's not really getting to the heart of what differentiates groups of actors. Seems to me that experimenting with catgegories such [Actors who appear in film noir] or [Actors who appear in Alfred Hitchcock movies] might be more worthwhile. Cbl62 (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, though, it wouldn't accomplish the goal you are seeking. See my comment above, starting at "Doing it by role wouldn't solve the proposed problem anyway...". One doesn't need to experiment to realise what would result would be another (very elaborate, of necessity) subcategorization scheme but no resolution of the underlying "problem". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Experimentation is not a bad thing. The current system of broad categories with thousands of entries doesn't work and ignores the features that would be helpful to users. I submit that a little experimentation is just the thing that's needed to shake things up and find a system that works. Types of roles are in fact one of the things that distinguishes actors. For example, John Wayne and Tom Mix were actors known for appearing in Westerns. Cary Grant was an actor known for appearing in screwball comedies. Judy Garland and Gene Kelly were known for appearing in musicals. Lynda Carter, Buster Crabbe and Christopher Reeve were known for appearing in superhero roles. (Of course, these actors might fit in other categories as well, but that doesn't override the utility of such categories.) These types of categories would be worthwhile experiments in my opinion. Saying we "don't need to experiment to realise what would result" is really just another way of freezing a bad system in place. Cbl62 (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I don't think so. Not when you can't even present a hypothetical explanation of how this might relieve the large size of Category:American film actors and the like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment misses my point. My point is that dividing American actors by ethnicity or state/city of residence is not the solution. Instead of focusing on geography or ethncity, it would make a lot more sense to focus on the things that are really helpful in distinguishing between categories of actors. But I 'm clearly not going to persuade you, and if you're the guy in charge of these issues, I guess things will just remain the same. Cbl62 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not the guy in charge. I'm a user who has made a comment here, but anyone can comment. A non-participating admin assesses the discussion and makes the final determination, but that won't be me. I didn't realise you were suggesting that an entirely parallel or replacement category w.r.t. the nationality ones would be preferred. This raises a number of other issues, but I won't belabour things here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This sounded like an easy overcat delete, but Cbl makes some good points. We do need a way to actually cat actors, and this should stay until we figure it out, since it is useful, and the general ones aren't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anti-status quo arguments. The current method of categorization does nothing to help one find a specific actor and instead creates over bloated categories that are impossible to sift through. Kuro ♪ 05:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I voted keep earlier, and I've since read all the arguments. Basically, we have serious problems with our actor cats. US or Brit actors is close to useless to our readers. "Hey, your interested in this US actor? Here's 10,000 more!" On the other hand, you can't cat actors by TV show, becaue then they end up with 10, 20, 50 cats (Law and Order, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, etc.) I still don't think this should be deleted, but we've got problems that go beyond what CfC can fix. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree about status quo issues. I don't have an opinion on whether this is kept or deleted, but there does need to be some way to categorize actors. Categories with thousands of entries don't serve any navigational purpose (they may serve others, but not that), since no one's going to sit there and click through them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Having thought about it further, the issue is more significant than actors playing superheroes. I continue to think a better way of categorizing actors could be found. Opening the broader point up to discussion in the right forum (?) may make sense. There are people who will likely have better ideas, but the following concepts occur to me: (1) Categories tied to particular genres (as noted above, certain actors are known for their work in particular film genres, e.g., Westerns, screwball comedies, musicals, superhero genre, etc.), or (2) Categories tied to more precise time periods (e.g., the silent era, the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, etc. (actors with longevity would be included in multiple categories). Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best thing might be to start a page somewhere (userspace, or WP:) for brainstorming/discussion of ideas for overhauling actor categories, and then post links at the relevant pages (WikiProject films, WT:Category, stuff like that). It seems like it will be a pretty big issue so it deserves a page to itself. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a concept that has already been discussed to death and if memory serves, too many actors cross many, many lines as to what sorts of films they do to start sticking in categories regarding genres. Some categories have already been deleted (Western actors comes to mind). Following this, imagine how many categories would end being put on just one actor... Brad Pitt for example. That was the point to which I was alluding when I said "Actors who played flying nuns". It still comes down to overkill and trying to define an actor in a way that doesn't reflect a career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/per WP:OVERCAT. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing so exceptional about playing a superhero that warrants a category or that warrants bucking the clear and consistent consensus against this sort of categorization. Far from simply being a "slippery slope," the argument raised about categorizing by other sorts of roles is directly on point. "The parent category is too big" is a decent reason for sub-categorizing but as noted this won't reduce the size of those categories because an American actor who played a superhero should still be categorized as an American actor. I also question whether this is a defining characteristic of an actor to begin with. Sure there are some actors who have been typecast, but for every George Reeves there's an Uma Thurman or a Ben Stiller or any number of others who played a superhero once but who are not thought of as "superhero actors". Categorizing actors by genre (screwball comedy actor, musical film actor) doesn't work either because actors cross genres. For every screwball comedy Cary Grant made there's a romantic drama or a Hitchcock thriller. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711's well-stated explanation of the difficulties with this type of category. --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete, it's categorisation by performance. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per GO, Otto etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I am noting this discussion to WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM, since they are the two primary projects concerned with this topic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've never understood the complaint that a category is "too large." Too large for what? The actors categories have a lot of entries because there are a lot of articles on actors. They are meaningfully subdivided by nationality intersected with medium (e.g., American film actors, German stage actors, etc.), probably the most fundamental facts for actors, and I am skeptical of any further subdivision being useful, workable, or anything but a nuisance. Arbitrary subdivisions based on trivia, such as this category, don't help people locate articles more easily and they don't make substantive, useful groupings. At one time, we had not only categories for all actors who had played superheroes, but all actors who had played characters within specific media franchises. Voice actors on video games, film actors, etc. All television series also had their own categories. The end result was for categories to group actors who had never worked together, and actors who did one relevant role with those who stayed through the whole franchise, simply based on the licensed property they had worked on at least once. The end result for articles was to flood them with categories for every job they ever took as an actor, no matter how insignificant for their career. So that's why the slippery slope argument is not only valid, it was proven in practice to be the end result of such categorization. Postdlf (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Overcategorization. That said, a general discussion about overhauling actor categories wouldn't be a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Just tossing ideas into the fold - what about by decade of birth, as per the stub categories for US film actors? Lugnuts (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean as a separate category scheme, or to subdivide the existing ones, as in "American film actors born in the 1970s"? Postdlf (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorization. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify For all the passion on the keep side, it's still a classic case of overcategorization by performance. Especially a time when superhero movies are becoming increasingly prevalent, how can this be said to be a defining characteristic? Hollywood can't turn out superhero flicks fast enough and more and more actors are getting roles. But so what? To suggest that Val Kilmer is today defined by once having played Batman is an unsupportable, highly POV position, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It becomes even worse when you add in voice actors (as this category would naturally include); a look at the cast list for just one TV series, Justice League Unlimited, shows how bloated this category would become, and how insignificant it would be for most entries (unless you think Jeremy Piven is defined by portraying the Elongated Man). Postdlf (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of great arguments here, but I wanna vote out of spite. So...I win. --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Ebyabe (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note the category is being added to a number of articles as this discussion is going on. Also, it's being added to actors who portrayed Tarzan, which raises the question of what classifies a character as a "superhero". I wouldn't consider Tarzan one, but that's only my opinion. Therein lies another problem, I would think. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Usual noob overcategorization. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ebyabe who raises the ambiguous nature of this category. Add to that the OCAT and the need for maintenance and there is clearly sufficient reasons to delete. I will add that I did find the Lots of great arguments here, but I wanna vote out of spite. So...I win. logic to keep, interesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 28 September 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_September_21&oldid=1144513145"