Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

April 25[edit]

Category:Jewish American figure skaters[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish American figure skaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, see American figure skaters by ethnicity, Jewish figure skaters. -- Prove It (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also there's Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Figure_skaters_of_religions. -- Prove It (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Jewish American sportspeople, to which I have just added this category (it should have been there already). I think that Category:Jewish American sportspeople could probably be deleted too, but that's a matter to a separate CfD.
    Category:Jewish American figure skaters has only one member, and it's an irrelevant intersection: I see no reason to believe that Jewish people figure skate in a particularly Jewish way, so unless someone can show that there is some discriminatory or other reason for the religion of American figure skaters being significant, it's an irrelevant intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Various issues on the uniqueness of Jewish American people in figure skating or the discrimination battles that they have fought should be addressed in an article (as should be done for Christian figure skaters or African American figure skaters or LGBT figure skaters or any of these other figure skater categories). A list of names really says very little about the subject other than these people exist. Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hypothetical scenario: If there was evidence in a properly-sourced head article that the sport of figure-skating had systematically excluded Jewish people, that would make being a Jewish figure-skater a very notable characteristic, in the same way that (to take an extreme example) it would be notable characteristic of a mountain-climber to have had a leg amputated; similarly, if there was a uniquely Jewish style of figure-skating that warranted a head article, that would be a notable characteristic. Neither case has not been made, which is why I support deletion, but if it was, then the category would be useful to assist navigating between articles on people with a similar set of skills or achievements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - In the case that Jewish people may have faced discrimination in the field, it is still better to discuss this phenomena in an article, as a list of names does not say anything about the phenomena (just as an article on amputees who were once mountain climbers would be more useful than a list of mountain climber amputees). If a style of figure skating was referred to as "Jewish", then I would recommend renaming this as Category:Performers of Jewish figure skating as did happen with most categories on musicians (e.g. Category:Performers of Islamic music, which I am cleaning up at the moment). Dr. Submillimeter 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment a discussion of the discrimination is great, but a category is still useful helping the reader to navigate between the articles about those who overcame it. That's what categories are for: to help readers navigate between articles on related topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: an article about discrimination against jews in figure skating would have to defend itself against people anxious to merge it into more general articles about discrimination against jews in sports or about general discrimination in figure skating. Singling out figure-skating and/or jews for this hypothetical article could be seen as violating WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a particular aspect of a more general issue. Xtifr tälk 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if there was "evidence in a properly-sourced head article that the sport of figure-skating had systematically excluded Jewish people", referring to it on every article would be over the top POV-pushing, especially as that evidence would relate to the past, while the category lives in the present. Haddiscoe 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But only because it's unpopulated, and unlikely to GET populated. Generally, though, if there are sufficient numbers of entries, the category should stay. --TheEditrix2 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per overcategorization guidelines. Tarc 16:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per overcategorization guidelines. Notmyrealname 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to Category:American figure skaters due to Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. See my views at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. And merge all the other Jewish American occupational categories as well. IZAK 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IZAK's arguments on the above page were not accepted.--Runcorn 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable category. The suggestion that categories should represent people who do things in the same way or have been persecuted is odd. Does Category:Belgian chemists fit that?--Brownlee 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos Sleep On It 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. 66.229.120.240
  • Keep It seems to be assumed that this is a non-notable intersection, but no clear reason is given.--Simul8 11:25, 2 May 2007 (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:Welsh people by county[edit]

(with a few from Category:People by city in Wales for good measure)

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 per nom. Sam Blacketer 10:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename Category:Natives of Anglesey to Category:People from Anglesey
rename Category:Natives of Bridgend county borough to Category:People from Bridgend county borough
rename Category:Natives of Brecknockshire to Category:People from Brecknockshire
rename Category:Natives of Caernarfonshire to Category:People from Caernarfonshire
rename Category:Natives of Cardiganshire to Category:People from Cardiganshire
rename Category:Natives of Carmarthenshire to Category:People from Carmarthenshire
rename Category:Natives of Denbighshire to Category:People from Denbighshire
rename Category:Natives of Flintshire to Category:People from Flintshire
rename Category:Natives of Glamorgan to Category:People from Glamorgan
rename Category:Natives of Merionethshire to Category:People from Merionethshire
rename Category:Natives of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:People from Merthyr Tydfil
rename Category:Natives of Monmouthshire to Category:People from Monmouthshire
rename Category:Natives of Montgomeryshire to Category:People from Montgomeryshire
rename Category:Natives of Neath Port Talbot to Category:People from Neath Port Talbot
rename Category:Natives of Pembrokeshire to Category:People from Pembrokeshire
rename Category:Natives of Radnorshire to Category:People from Radnorshire
rename Category:Natives of the Vale of Glamorgan to Category:People from the Vale of Glamorgan
Rename all from Category:Natives of Foo to Category:People from Foo per various precedents e.g. recent CfD on Category:Irish people by county here Bencherlite 21:46, 25 April 2007 (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:Juilliard School of Music alumni[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 Mallanox 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Juilliard School of Music alumni to Category:Juilliard School alumni
Sorry, didn't explain as fully as I should - my understanding from looking at the parent category was that the alumni category should be named in line with the main article (i.e. Juilliard School) and so this category appeared to be unnecessary duplication. Harvard sub-cats of alumni seem to follow separate articles on the school in question (e.g. Harvard Divinity School, Category:Harvard Divinity School) whereas JS just has the one article - then again, Harvard's enrollment seems to be 18,000 or so and Juilliard's 800 or so, which might give a greater need for subcats. If I've misunderstood the situation, and there should also be other (as yet uncreated) subcats of Juilliard alumni to sort out the mess, apologies. Bencherlite 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a useful distinction to me; at the moment only the musicians seem to have enough for a sub-cat of their own. Johnbod 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The fact that there are not enough dancers, etc., to need side categories militates for, not against the merger. If in a year there are loads of dancer articles too, then subcats might be warranted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the Category:Juilliard School people both these categories seem very incomplete indeed. Do you have to graduate to be an alumnus? Not according to Alumnus. I think the articles exist to make both the main & the Music categories sufficiently full, but the categorizing work hasd not been done - where are Robin Williams, Kevin Spacey, Meryl Streep, Miles Davis, Barry Manilow etc etc? But I don't think these should be strangled at birth. Johnbod 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion now left on talk page of Juilliard School. Bencherlite 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge I'm pretty sure that these just need to be better populated. Having subcategory will then be very valuable. Let's not just delete them now because they haven't been well used. Lesnail 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Subdivision facilities accurate categorisation and navigation without increasing the number of categories on each article. Haddiscoe 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the World's best known music schools, so a category of its alumni is notable.--Simul8 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal I made was not to delete this category, but to merge two existing categories of alumni. Bencherlite 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, cats are small enough to not warrant subcatting. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above please, there are 198 articles in "Cat:Juilliard School people" Johnbod 12:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are 222 names in the parent category Category:Juilliard School people - you missed the second page! Just looking under letter "A", some are faculty (e.g. Samuel Adler (composer)), some are alumni (e.g. Michael Arden (actor) and Emanuel Ax (music)), and some are both (e.g. Baruch Arnon), and so should be recat'd accordingly. There are only 25 in both alumni pages together at the moment - so, whatever happens to this debate, Category:Juilliard School people needs sorting out (and I'll gladly help). The question is whether we need to differentiate between alumni of the different divisions of the School in doing so, when we don't have different articles about the different divisions of the School (Juilliard School of Music, for example, just redirects to Juilliard School). Bencherlite 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It is clear that even after faculty only articles are removed, there would still be well over 100 articles on alumni. Given that, unusually for colleges, there is an easy, significant and very useful way to sub-categorize these, I think the sub-cat (one only for now, but the others could come) is well justified on normal categorization principles, regardless of the technicality of there only being one main article (again, for now) Clearly Juilliard is an unusual case, with ratio of articles to students stratospherically high compared to most colleges (and the number of WP alumni editors correspondingly low I expect) Johnbod 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the ratio is the question, or the absolute numbers? Harvard, to take your previous example, has (to date) 1,357 members of the parent alumni category, 368 in the Law School alumni category, 136 in the Business School alumni category, 109 in the Medical School alumni category, and 3 other sub-cats with lesser numbers. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide how much sub-categorization Juilliard alumni reasonably need. PS Your hunch is probably correct: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Juilliard School and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Juilliard School of Music are both non-existent! Bencherlite 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the musicians & dancers all have to practise I suppose! I don't know the actors' excuse :) Johnbod 18:07, 2 May 2007 (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:Mountains and hills of Meath[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mountains and hills of Meath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Mountains and hills of County Meath, convention of Category:Mountains and hills of the Republic of Ireland. -- Prove It (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2007 (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.

Entertainment cliques[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warhol Superstars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Wack Pack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - neither category is needed for navigation. Excellent lists exist in the articles Warhol Superstar and The Wack Pack, both of which are properly housed in the entertainment cliques parent category. The various articles are interlinked appropriately. We have previously deleted a category for another of these cliques, the "Frat Pack," for similar reasons. Otto4711 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Desperate Housewives actors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Desperate Housewives actors to Category:Two categories
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actors by British television series[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Actors by British television series to Category:Lists of actors by British television series
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - The category formerly housed subcats for cast members of various series, which have been (save one which is now on the Working list) been listified and deleted. The category name should reflect its function as a lists category. Otto4711 19:08, 25 April 2007 (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:First times[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:First times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Unencyclopedic, indiscriminate, too many people qualify for it, therefore it will quickly turn into a complete mess. MaxSem 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I think that this category is able to joint the biographies or the news that sign a new deal in the history of a country or of the world--Gp 1980 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, we will can insert subcategories--Gp 1980 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Will quickly turn into unencyclopedic trivia-fest. Bencherlite 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted, far too many things qualify as the "first time" something has happened or the first person that has done a particular thing. The event or person should be categorized according to the achievement itself and the achievement should be noted in the article as the first. If there is a "History of..." article then that should also mention significant firsts. Otto4711 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a vague category that could encompass virtually any person who has done something strange, trivial, esoteric, or obscure (such as "the first Greek-American quarterback to pass for 300 yards in three consecutive postseason NFL games" or "the first albino Slovenian to climb Mount McKinley"). The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; definitely vague, unencyclopedic and useless. --Angelo 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an interesting idea for a miscellany, but it's of no use here. Sumahoy 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unencylopedic, useless, and confusing, presumably many notable people are the first X to be (or do) Y. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, excessively broad category that could conceivably fit anything -- e.g., the first time Bill Murray and Harold Ramis did a movie together in which they weren't playing Ghostbusters, Ramis played a fat doctor, and Murray punched Ned on a chilly day. Doczilla 06:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tehe exaples used aren't correct. The Community will reprime all abuses. The intent is to marck the principle steps in the history of a country, of a superpopular sport (as European Football il Italy), of an ethnic or racial group. The records are another category.
Is not important that Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are, respectively, the first woman, the firs black man and the first black woman to became U.S. Secretary of State!?
Who know a little of the history of the United States knows that this events are very important in the black and female movement. Is not it?!--Gp 1980 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: the matter of super - population could be resolved by the creation of sub-categories. Example: "First women in the power history"; "First leader of a racial minority" etc.
I think some wikipedians fear the news--Gp 1980 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable in a wiki. Haddiscoe 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - rather silly and quite unmaintainable. Tarc 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This one will just fill up with trivia, though some of it might make good lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 28 April 2007 (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:Wheaton College alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wheaton College alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Wheaton College (Illinois) alumni, to match Wheaton College (Illinois), but not Wheaton College (Massachusetts). -- Prove It (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teen Apparel[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen Apparel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is a matter of opinion, is fairly redundant, and isn't suitable for WP. Biggspowd 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It also happens to be incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Teen apparel for reasons of pedantry, then delete per nom. (First part optional!) Bencherlite 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Converts to Category:Religious converts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match the parent Category:Religious conversion and remove any possible ambiguity about the sort of converts being categorized. Otto4711 16:06, 25 April 2007 (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:Famous class cutters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous class cutters to Category:USCG Medium Endurance Cutters
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Famous class cutters is a redirect to USCG Medium Endurance Cutter. Famous class cutters is a very mysterious name to those of us who don't know much about coast guard boats. Or maybe I am confused and this should be Category:USCG cutters of the famous class or something like that. Lesnail 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, so we don't have notable truants categorized here. Carlossuarez46 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't rename. I created this category and Category:Reliance class cutters to differentiate between the two types of Medium Endurance Cutters. I believe they are called the Famous class because the cutters are all named after historically important, or famous, Coast Guard cutters. At the time I had no other guidance for a category name except for the other ship class categories mentioned above (Category:Frigate classes, etc). The reason the Reliance class and Famous class are in the same article, is that they were very stubby by themselves. I prefer keeping to the naming convention, perhaps a better description in the category would be better than renaming. As for nominating all the categories, does that mean all subcats listed above, like Category:Frigate classes? I would think one a category such as Category:Type 21 frigates would sound just as mysterious to a reader, but then clicking on the articles in the category would hopefully educate a confused reader. --Dual Freq 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Perhaps Famous class medium endurance cutters similar to this, would be better. The USCG also calls them 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC) aka Famous Cutter Class on this page. That differentiates the Famous class from the Reliance class aka 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC).[1] See also United States Coast Guard Cutter for the reason they are called cutters and List of United States Coast Guard cutters. The USCG seems to use the 270' and 210', describing the cutter's length, to identify classes of cutters as well as the Famous or Reliance names. --Dual Freq 02:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. We don't worry that Category:Destroyers of the United Kingdom will be mistaken for people who have, will, or want to destroy the UK; we shouldn't break our categorization guidelines because at first glance this category looks confusing. I wouldn't be opposed to including USCG in the name of the cat, but for goodness sake, please do not totally break our ship categorization conventions. TomTheHand 12:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in Category:United States Coast Guard ships there are five sub-categories, a "stubs" category and four "$ship class cutters" categories. Of those four, three of them, for Famous, Hamilton and Reliance class cutters, name as lead articles Famous class cutter, Hamilton class cutter and Reliance class cutter. All three of these are redirects to articles following the "Edurance cutter" naming model. So, again, it does not appear that the naming scheme reflected by the current category names is one the is particularly accepted. Category names should match the names of their lead articles and vice versa and in this case the lead article is located at USCG Medium Endurance Cutter. Otto4711 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bo' Selecta![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, based on the fact that it is indeed very small (thus making interlinking feasible), recent precedent on deleting similar cats, and the general notion that "it's useful" is not a valid argument. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bo' Selecta! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the contents of the category (are all extensively interlinked with the show's article and each other. The category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a useful television series category, interlinking every single bo selecta article may not be desirable per WP:CONTEXT and some readers will find this a good way of navigation. Tim! 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:CONTEXT states that among the things that should generally be linked are Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully.... This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question. I am unclear how the guideline can be interpreted as discouraging linking articles related to the same television program together. Otto4711 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that not all the articles will be relevant to each other. An example would be why would one episode need to refer to every other episode? Tim! 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no episode articles in the category. Are you sure you actually looked at the category contents before voicing your opinion? The category contains an article on the show, a spin-off show, one character from the show, a character from the spin-off show, a list of parodied celebrities and an expression popularized by the show. Are you suggesting that, say, the show and the spin-off show should not be linked together? The show and the character article? The spin-off show and the spin-off character article? The show and the expression? The show and the parodies that appeared on the show? Which article is so irrelevant to the others that linking it to at least one of the other articles implicates WP:CONTEXT? Categories are designed to bring together relevant articles that are not easily interlinked. If these articles should not be connected by links because they aren't relevant to each other then why on earth should they be categorized together? Otto4711 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was an example, from which intelligent contributors can make inferences. Tim! 17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would infer, from the examples offered up by innumerable episode articles, that the episodes of a series are probably going to be linked together through a succession box or a navigational template. Otto4711 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also infer that such articles would be housed in a category called Cat:(Name of show) episodes which would in turn be housed as a subcat of Category:Episodes by television series. Otto4711 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or more specifcally then just for you, why would the parody of the original show be linked to a spin-off of the original show? Tim! 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It probably wouldn't because it's not particularly relevant. Anyone interested in parodies on the original show would find it through the article on the original show. Or they would find it through the navigational template that's on the original show and the spin-off show. Otto4711 17:44, 25 April 2007 (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:Famous Ahmadis[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous Ahmadis to Category:Ahmadis
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, If they weren't famous, they wouldn't have articles. Lesnail 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Can't fault the logic! Bencherlite 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename We aren't supposed to use "famous" in categories as I recall.--T. Anthony 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom. Dahn 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional celebrities[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. Define "celebrity" please? The X-Men are well-known in the news. Why is Gilderoy Lockhart considered a celeb if Harry is not? Homer Simpson won an emmy so why is he not a celeb? The answer to all that indicates that yes, it is subjective and ill-defined, despite several commenters who suspect the contrary. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - vague, subjective, POV-ridden category. "Regarded as famous" is not objectively definable and the characters in the category have little or nothing in common with each other. Otto4711 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dahn 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I suppose the gist of the category is people whose fame is as fictitious as they are. Hardly notable or encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suspect it is much easier drawing a line between fictional celebrities and non-celebrities than with real ones. This and the sub-cats are heavily populated; I can't imagine what use they are personally, but as long as we have fictional character categories, I think these should stay. Johnbod 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll surprise myself and argue to keep since their celebrity is always defined within the medium (e.g. "Phoebe, you're a famous columnist!" or "Aaron Echolls? You mean the A-list celebrity Aaron Echolls, he's a murderer?"). This category works in practice and celebrity becomes as definable as any other careers. For example, supposing that Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin or Stan Smith are celebrities would not warrant category inclusion as fame is usually confined within the episodes and these characters are never defined as famous in the way you would a real person at any other point in the series.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Johnbod and Zythe. --T smitts 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really unncessary Sleep On It 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Could be expanded but the chances of that happening are slim. 66.229.120.240
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:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs[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. Zythe's argument that this is "usually almost a permanent status" is disproved by Otto's evidence to the contrary. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is a "current status" category for fictional characters. While it appears that most of the characters currently in the category are permanently confined to chairs, not every character who uses a wheelchair does so on a permanent basis. John Locke (Lost) was included (I removed him just now) despite his not using a wheelchair for the majority of the time he's on-screen. Ben Linus is not categorized there, despite the fact that in his last several appearances he's been using a wheelchair (actually Locke's old chair IIRC). Professor X has been in and out of wheelchairs a number of times in his career. There is a category for people with spinal disabilities and many of these characters are already categorized there, which makes more sense than a category based on using a piece of medical equipment. Finally (and this is a bit silly, but still) the category is capturing characters who use mobility devices that are not wheelchairs, which is inaccurate categorization. Otto4711 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think it saying "use wheelchairs" rather than "confined to a wheelchair" is a recognition of part of what you say. I use a wheelchair for longer distances, but I'm not confined to a wheelchair and I'm rarely in it at home. Still saying I "use a wheelchair" would not offend me.--T. Anthony 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful grouping for portrayal of disabled people. This usually almost a permanent status or ongoing element of the character. Professor X, Locke, Barbara Gordon and the guy from Doom Patrol are all good examples of similar characters. Consider merging with spinal disability category rather than outright deletion.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor X, as I noted, has been in and out of wheelchairs (and alien floating devices and other person movers). The Chief from the Doom Patrol also hopped in and out of his chair on multiple occasions (including becoming a living decapitated head, but he got better, so should he be in the fictional amputees category?). A selective merge to the spinal disability cat is also fine. Otto4711 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful grouping for portrayal of disabled people. Note that spinal injuries are not the only possible reason for wheelchair use (other possibilities are polio and leg injury or amputation), so if there is a consensus to remove this category, a merger would need to be very selective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete - Some of these characters only need wheelchairs during part of their fictional histories (especially Professor X). The category is not an entirely accurate description for some of these characters. Moreover, many characters (and real-life people) are frequently temporarily confined to wheelchairs. Ultimately, the variability of wheelchair use during individual characters' histories makes this a problematic category. (Also, does the equivalent category exist for real-life people?) Dr. Submillimeter 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there does not appear to be a category for real people who use wheelchairs. Otto4711 14:26, 28 April 2007 (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.

American lawyers by ethnicity[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Category:American lawyers, why would ethnicity be relevant here? -- Prove It (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Sumahoy 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to American Lawyers and to African Americans and Jewish Americans, respectively per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as per Carlossuarez. .V. [Talk|Email] 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge It is POV-pushing to imply that ethnicity is a major consideration in the careers of all African American and Jewish American lawyers (and that it always will be, as inertia means that if these categories aren't deleted soon it most likely never will be). In individual cases where it was important, that can be discussed in the articles. Haddiscoe 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- since this is a triple intersection category, many of the people aren't identified as Jews except for being categorized under this category, so if this is deleted they will lose their Jewish ethnicity (similar to what happened when Cat:Jewish American businesspeople was deleted). We have Cat:Jewish American actors, Cat:Jewish American writers, etc., so why not this one since it is a profession? --Wassermann 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wasserman - while he used this statement to argue for a keep, it should be clear that the presence of people in this category where there is no supporting information in their bio is a reason to be wary of the category. Plus, this is a trivial intersection.A Musing 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's easily fixed - add sources to bios.--Runcorn 20:55, 1 May 2007 (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:Fictional drug addicts[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 drug users as suggested by A Musing. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional drug addicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - for all the same reasons "Fictional alcoholics" was just deleted. Subjective, POV, precedent against such categorizations, etc. Otto4711 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessively broad, too frequently subjective category that conceivably could but practically will not be applied based on stated diagnosis within text. Doczilla 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it is much different than the alcoholics category. Besides, it's a very useful category in my opinion.--Piemanmoo 04:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the same reasons we should have kept the alchoholics category - it is strange that we would categorize fictional categories by what is often irrelevant (such as nationality) in their character's persona, but not what the author explicitly writes as a defining characteristic. I might swap "addicts" for "users" in the title, to address the subjectiveness point. A Musing 12:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a portrayal-in-fiction category. Alcoholism is hard to call, but drug addiction is typically covered explicitly.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A Musing as often a defining characteristic. --16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Drug addiction is often not a permanent status for fictional characters (or real people), so this is not necessarily a defining characteristic. In real life, determining whether someone is a drug addict would requires making clinical assessments about the nature of the drugs and person's response to the drugs. This is not possible with fictional characters; instead, editors would need to make subjective judgments about whether characters are addicted. Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it is indeed often a defining characteristic. --T smitts 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these fictional categories are strange Sleep On It 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this category is strange. 66.229.120.240
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:Keithsburg, Illinois[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. >Radiant< 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Keithsburg, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, A population of 714 seems a little small. -- Prove It (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's only used to house Category:People from Keithsburg, Illinois which again seems like over-categorization, as there's only 1 person in this latter category (and it's unlikely to expand much further based on a population of 714). As this CfD has only just started, can I add that related category for consideration? Upmerge People from Keithsburg, Illinois to Category:People from Davenport, Iowa (which would seem to be the appropriate cat, looking at Keithsburg, Illinois, Mercer County, Illinois and Category:Mercer County, Illinois. Bencherlite 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the reason is, that categories can be created if there is going to be potential future expansion. Just because a village only has a population of 714, doesn't mean it can't be expanded. If someone where to expand the village, they are going to add in schools, parks, etc that are going to have to go into the category. I can think of lots of villlages near me that have several parks in them and schools, historical monuments, etc. I created the category for this reason, potential expansion as stated by Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Narrow intersection.--Kranar drogin 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a search of the Wikipedia, and have found a few places to add to the category for both the town and the people.--Kranar drogin 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone actually writes Kranar drogin's relevant article, then recreate when there's actually more than one page to put in there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is more populated than it was, and it isn't likely to lead to mush category clutter. Lesnail 15:04, 28 April 2007 (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:Phi Kappa Theta brothers, Category:Phi Kappa Tau members, Category:Phi Delta Phi brothers and Category:Phi Beta Sigma brothers[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. Sam Blacketer 10:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These should be the last ones in the groupings of student frat member cats. Per precedent and guideline, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 14:08, 25 April 2007 (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:Fictional deities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Sam Blacketer 10:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional deities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a very subjective, divisive category. One could argue that all deities are fictional. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The term "fictional deity" is the most accurate description for many of these fictional characters (such the gods listed in Discworld gods), and it is also an effective at gathering together categories that contain fictional characters who are gods (such as Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities). The category should therefore be kept (although possibly renamed and cleaned up to remove the characters who can only vaguely be considered "gods"). Dr. Submillimeter 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so maybe Rename although I have no idea what to! -- JediLofty User | Talk 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also note that the category contains a large number of articles on fictional characters who are either loosely or closely based on deities that were worshipped by real people (such as Thor (comics) and Belldandy) but currently does not contain any articles on actual deities currently worshipped by real people (such as Allah or Yahweh) or deities formerly worshipped by real people (such as Zeus or Thor). Most editors can apparently tell the difference between the two types of entries. Dr. Submillimeter 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dr. S., although I don't think Satan (South Park) should be included. -- Prove It (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps there is a way to rename and clean up the category? I can see a use for it, but the current title is vague (and a potential platform for atheists to express their views). All I can think about is "Deities as fictional characters", which I'm not sure is a proper title. Dahn 15:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with that. (I'm not sure how to take "platform for atheists to express their views", though - I've known some religious people who claimed other religions' deities were fictional!) -- JediLofty User | Talk 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, that too. :) Dahn 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - there is a Category:Fictional demons, why delete this one? An example better than Satan (South Park) (which should not be considered a fictional deity) is an article I created, Beelzebub (Sand Land). He is a fictional deity and/or fictional demon (according to what Beelzebub is believed to be depends on the religion), hence, Beelzebub (Sand Land) is portrayed in a work of fiction. ~I'm anonymous
  • Keep. Nom seems more like a religious objection to the category's existence. Legitimate category, best way of grouping these characters, as valid as "Fictional English people", "Fictional witches" or "Fictional demons".~ZytheTalk to me! 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the fictional deity category from the Satan (South Park) article, as it doesn't seem to fit. ~I'm anonymous
  • Keep: Nomination seems POV, category is valid and utilitarian. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no evidence to suggest this is divisive, and it seems quite easy to police the subjectivity.--Mike Selinker 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one define fictional? -- JediLofty User | Talk 09:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same way it's defined in all the other categories: appearing in a work of fiction. The author wrote about it believing it to be false, and believing others would be believe so as well.--Mike Selinker 13:56, 27 April 2007 (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:Centrale[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centrale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Unnecessary category. Created for articles related to the Centrale shopping centre but its contents has only ever included an article which duplicated content in the main article which has been changed to a redirect and Stores inside Centrale which is currently at AfD but seems to be heading for deletion. The main article is in the more appropriate Category:Buildings and structures in Croydon. Main article length does not justify creating separate articles on different aspects of the shopping centre. Adambro 11:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dog breeds recognised by the Canadian Kennel Club[edit]

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per earlier debate on the American Kennel Club, this is not a defining characteristic. Each dog breed does not need a category for every authority that recognizes the breed. The list could potentailly be very long and difficult to read. Suggest listify. >Radiant< 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are certainly dozens of kennel clubs worldwide that are just as notable as the Canadian Kennel Club. This is a bad precedent and not a particularly useful category. -- Satori Son 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've allready objected to this category on it's talk page.Jerazol 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify / Delete in that order. There are probably dozens of such clubs, each with their own "official" list. -- Prove It (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per American Kennel Club precedent. Mangoe 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify / Delete per nom and ProveIt, otherwise we could end up with major dog breeds being festooned with categories from kennel clubs all round the world. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. There are scores of national kennel clubs, and each of them recognises, for example, Dobermans. Hence, overcategorisation. --TheEditrix2 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - per reasons above. ~I'm anonymous
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: Hundreds of Denmark[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep and populate. Sam Blacketer 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hundreds of Denmark Nominated for deletion as unnotable, and containing only one page which holds no explanation as to the category name. Google revealed nothing. Lilac Soul 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rename The corresponding Swedish material has hundreds of articles, but I just haven't had time to make more of them for Denmark. For some reason or another, English likes the word "Hundred" see Hundred (country subdivision). The Danish word is "Herred" so if people feel like it, rename to "Herreder of Denmark". Denmark had more than 150 of them in the Valdemarian era. Valentinian T / C 08:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I plan to. I'm just strapped for time at the moment. Fortunately, editors on the Danish 'pedia have written a lot of material already (da:Kategori:Herreder) This Wikipedia also needs material about the Syssel divisions. Valentinian T / C 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't trying to get on your case or anything, just to explain the direction I thought would be appropriate. Good luck on the work when you get a chance! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And no need to apologize. Valentinian T / C 00:09, 28 April 2007 (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:Laurel and Hardy (film series)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laurel and Hardy (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category was originally Category:Laurel & Hardy films and was originally housed under Category:Comedy films by actor. The category is and was an improper performer by performance categorization, something that through strong consensus and repeated precedent we have decided that we do not want. The category was renamed as a result of this CFD. The closure was listed at DRV here which was closed with the go-ahead to relist.
As noted in both the CFD and the DRV, this categroy is performer by performance. The rename was improper because the films in which L&H appeared together are not a film series, which is defined generally as films sharing a common diegetic world. L&H films do not share a common diagetic world. The films do not carry forward the same narrative. They do not share the same settings or characters. They are for all intents and purposes unrelated to each other beyond being films in which the same two actors appeared.
There is no independent film scholarship indicating that the films constitute a series. A Google search for "laurel and hardy film series" turns up exactly one non Wikipedia/mirror use of the term, and that use does not come from a reliable source. Googling "laurel & hardy film series" turns up multiple references to a single item, a DVD compliation of a number of the films which (though it's hard to tell from the graphic) does not appear to actually have been released under the title "Laurel & Hardy Film Series." There is no L&H film series.
The compromise was offered and accepted at least in part because of the claim of the person offering it that L&H films constitute a "genre" or "sub-genre" of films in their own right. This is not supported by independent film scholarship either. Googling "Laurel and Hardy genre" and "Laurel & Hardy genre" returns a grand total of ten results, five of which are from the same site and which are in the form of describing L&H films as being in the comedy genre, not as their own genre. "Laurel and hardy film genre" and "Laurel & Hardy film genre" return zero hits. There is no L&H film genre.
To summarize, categorizing these films on the basis of the actors who appeared in them is improper performer by performance categorization. The new name of the category is unsupported by any reliable sources and constitutes impermissible original research and impermissible POV pushing. The films are all extensively linked to Laurel and to Hardy through their own articles and the complete filmography. The category is against consensus, against policy and unnecessary as a navigational hub. The category should be deleted.Otto4711 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a character-based category, not actor-based. They played the same two characters, and an inconsistent world doesn't change that. Bugs Bunny and all related characters also lived in a world so inconsistent from one episode to the next that retcon had no meaning, but they still count as a series. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulling up a few films more or less at random from the category: 45 Minutes from Hollywood - the second film in which they both appear, although they have no scenes together; From Soup to Nuts (1928 film) - they play characters named "hired butler" and "hired butler"; The Stolen Jools - they play "Policeman" and "Police driver"; Why Girls Love Sailors - they play "Willie Brisling" and "First Mate" and are not yet a comedy team. It does not appear that your conclusion is supported by the films themselves. Bugs Bunny is of course a cartoon character. Otto4711 05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in which case, getting rid of random inclusions would help. That a category can have bad items added to it isn't a good argument for deleting that category. Anyone can add junk to Wikipedia and we're not going to be able to support an argument that all of Wikipedia needs deletion. That a category will inevitably attract nothing but bad inclusions is a good argument for deleting it. As to non-cartoon characters, did The Three Stooges ever inhabit a consistent world? Nope. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks for pointing out another improper performer by performance category! That Stooges films category wasn't in with the rest. Of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is hardly an argument for keeping this category, but you know that already (or you should, based on the number of times you've argued it and the number of times I've pointed it out to you). Nor does my argument have anything to do with whether this category has "bad items" in it. It is not the "good" or "bad" items which should lead to the deletion of the category; it's the strong consensus against categorizing films by their cast members or cast members by their films and the non-existence of any such thing as a "Laurel and Hardy film series." And regardless of whether Bugs or the Stooges or any other performer's films constitute a series or not, the plain fact is that there has been no independent third-party scholarship presented supporting the notion that the films of Laurel and Hardy constitute a "film series." Your claim that they are a series based on the names of the characters the two played is an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position," in other words, original research. Prove me wrong. Find the independent scholarship from reliable sources that supports your conclusion and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Where are your sources? Otto4711 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, I'm merely stating that a consistent world is not required in order for a series based on related characters to exist. The mere lack of people using very specific phrases such as "Laurel and Hardy film series" or "Laurel and Hardy genre" doesn't change the fact that these two characters are always spoken of together (in or out of scholarship) and that I'm not really getting how you're seeing this as a "performer by performance" issue. I guess I just don't see this particular policy the way you do - but, then again, my jaw hit the floor when I read that you think that "The Three Stooges" category needs to be deleted too. I would never interpret the rules you're citing in that way! It just shows you how two people can read the same policies and guidelines and come away with a different view of what is meant! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no, these two performers are usually (but not always) spoken of together. "Tracy and Hepburn" are often spoken of in the same breath. "Astaire and Rogers." "Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland." "Bogart and Bacall" and so on. Doesn't mean that their films constitute genres or series unto themselves (we've deleted categories for some of those combinations) any more than "films that have Laurel and Hardy in them" constitutes a film series. This whole "they're a series whether there's anything that supports that notion outside Wikipedia or not" business is just bizarre. Otto4711 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you some citations below, but I think the different is in the schtick - there are certain comedic troupes in particular that develop schticks (a technical term) across a number of movies, and these schticks are what make them mini-genres; I'd say that Astaire and Rogers do qualify, but that Rooney and Garland, Bogart and Bacall, and Tracy and Hepburn don't, since they each have work that doesn't cohere through the use of a bunch of similar and reptitious patterns. So, there may be a different argument for a Bogart and Bacall somewhere, or a different manner of speaking of them as a mini-genre, but if you pick up almost any book about Abbott and Costello, the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, or Second City, you'll get detailed discussion about what makes their movies quintessentially unique as a group - and that quintessiantial uniqueness is what the mini-genre approach is all about. I could rip through the books on Laurel and Hardy and find these discussions, but the cites below give you some basics and one of them nicely uses the same "lingo" I've just used. A Musing 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the reliable sources that say so? Otto4711 12:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Mike says, these are films where Laurel and Hardy portray Laurel and Hardy, no need to delete this category. As for interlinking every single film, this may not be desirable per WP:CONTEXT. There is definitely no policy against this, and whether the overcat guideline is relevant is open to interpretation. Tim! 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At no time did I suggest that it desirable to link every single film to every other single film, so why you would conclude that I'm suggesting the sort of overlinking that WP:CONTEXT frowns upon is a mystery. The films should, however, all be linked to the filmography and the filmography should be linked to each individual film article and to the articles for Laurel, hardy and the duo. And I'll ask you the same question that I asked Mike, which has not been answered. Where is the independent documentation of the assertion that any of these films constitute a series? One would think that if this were commonly accepted in film scholarship there would be an inkling of it in a reliable source. Where are the sources? Otto4711 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You tell us that the category is not needed as a navigational hub, but the links to the other films could be anywhere, whereas with the category it will be obvious and easy for readers to find. You question to Mike as to who refers to this a series does not seem particularly relevant. Tim! 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because "See also" sections, which is where the link to the filmography would go, are frequently scattered willy-nilly through articles as opposed to being right at the end where the categories are. And, er, yeah it actually is pretty relevant to provide reliable sources that this is considered a film series outside of Wikipedia because if there is none then Wikipedia's calling it a film series violates WP:OR. Otto4711 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section to replace such a large category would be far too long and would clutter up the article. You point over "film series" is just quibbling over the name of the category rather over the basis of whether it should be kept. We can move it to "Films featuring the characters Laurel and Hardy" if you want to spell it out. Tim! 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Laurel and Hardy films is too long to put on an article? Preposterous. Otto4711 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, you're getting quite strident, and that's becoming offputting. We have all made our opinions known, everyone understands yours, and I'd like you to respect ours. Otherwise, I won't be answering your questions.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, with all due respect, it's not like you've been answering them so far. Otto4711 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I have. You just don't like the answers. I believe that there is a greater category of films defined by the personas of Laurel and Hardy, and Abbott & Costello, and the Marx Brothers, and Cheech & Chong. They're not playing themselves, they're playing broadly defined characters. This is my opinion. You demand independent scholarship to back up the claim, but I don't feel a burden to provide that for you. I'm just going to go with the fact that based on having watched them, all the Abbott & Costello series have the same kind of characters, all the Marx Brothers films do too, and so do Cheech & Chong's films, and so do Laurel and Hardy. If you want to call that original research, go ahead. Your disagreement is noted.--Mike Selinker 07:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you watched the films, and based on your personal observation of the films you have decided that the films constitute a series. Please explain how that is not unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Otto4711 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm done talking about this.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Mike Selinker's more convincing position. I note that I was convinced on the Marx Brothers category because there was a separate category maintained for the films and the work of the Marx Brothers themselves. The idea that the underlying film "mini-genres" like Laurel and Hardy, Marx Brothers, or Abbott & Costello would be deleted is going way overboard. These are useful and relevant navigational aides that should be kept. A Musing 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said repeatedly, there are no reliable sources attesting that "Laurel and Hardy films" constitutes a "genre" or a "mini-genre." If the criterion for inclusion in this "mini-genre" category is "Laurel and hardy are in it" then it's categorization by performer. The arguments offered are for all intents and purposes "this is just different." or "it just is." Without the sources to back it up, it's original research and unsupportable on Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Personality Comedians as Genre by Gehring; the basic idea that there are comedic styles and mini-genres that "troupes" like Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, and the Marx Brothers developed is also in the classic Agee piece on Comedies Greatest Era, though he doesn't use the word genre explicitly that I remember. Not that we need citations to properly categorize, but there they are. A Musing 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete.

Incidental note: DC Comics and Marvel Comics are arguably the largest publishers of comics, and have large stables of characters, including Superman, Batman, and Spider-man. So splitting off characters belonging to these two publishers into sub-categories was deemed to be appropriate and useful for ease of navigation (and has been done in other comics-related categories.)

Therefore, since this category and its Marvel counterpart were merely split from Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds for ease of navigation, if re-nominating in the future, the three should be nominated together as a group nomination.

Also note this previous nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March_14#Fictional characters by power - jc37 09:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no criteria defining superhuman speeds and as such this is lacking reliable sources and verifiability. In addition, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that...according to the previous recommendation to listify...that perhaps this can be encouraged a month after the general decision relating to the overall categories for discussion debate relating to superpowers in general. However, if it is to premature to reopen this debate, an admin may feel free to close it. Please consider, however, that these categories subjectively go against governing guidelines of Wikipedia at their core since this is essentially original research plain and simple. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and listify. When the character is already identified under DC Comics characters, it's overcategorization to break down by both company and power in a single cat. If we have any superpower categories though, I'm not sure lack of defining criteria is sufficient reason to delete speedsters altogether. If they move at speeds faster than any real world human can move, then they move at superhuman speeds. Doczilla 05:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question by 2 actually... Is this nom going to be expanded to the sib and parent cats or limited just to on company? And what about the existent list based on the parent cat? - J Greb 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my understanding that the list, if it is the same as the current collaboration, while including superstrength and various other powers to be listified doesn't include superspeed. If there is a consensus (yes yes, I know) that this nomination would be a useful precedent...either for or against...then yes it could be expanded to include the parent/sib. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as least for now. For anime/manga characters, I was originally planning on making Category:Anime and manga characters with superhuman strength and Category:Anime and manga characters who can move at superhuman speeds, since Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly exists. I then pondered to myself: "how should they be rephrased? They're too long a name..."
  • Any ideas anyone? I'm sorry if this is somehow unrelated to the current CFD. ~I'm anonymous
    • Comment - as you can see, I have created the above categories fairly recently. ~I'm anonymous
  • Keep subcategory system to match strength/flight categories.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Dahn 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Sleep On It 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the other superhuman categories that are out there, this one doesn't appear that different from the others. 66.229.120.240
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Praise[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. Sam Blacketer 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of Praise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've also nominated the article People of Praise for deletion and this category no longer serves a purpose. Theredhouse7 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The AfD of People of Praise was closed with no consensus, however, that does not mean that this category serves a purpose. There is no reason for a category in this case, interwiki links work just fine. Theredhouse7 08:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with the keeping of the main article, the various included articles should be linked through it as a navigational hub. The one subcat is appropriately housed in other parent categories. This category is not needed for navigational purposes and should be deleted. Otto4711 15:18, 2 May 2007 (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:Puppets Who Kill characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puppets Who Kill characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is mainly a procedural nomination for me, I myself an neutral. I know that this was put up for deletion recently and the consensus was to keep, but User:TTN recently emptied the category and has been pleading with me to keep it empty and not undo his work. Rather than go around the previous decision in this way, I wanted to bring it to CFD again, so that I would avoid the suspicion that consensus was circumvented by one user. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - in looking at the character articles before they were redirected to the main article, it appears that they were all unsourced stubs which, had I stumbled across them on my own, I would have either merged into a single List of Puppets Who Kill characters article or merged/redirected back to Puppets Who Kill per the provisions of WP:FICT and then nomoinated the emptied category for deletion. I did that with Category:The Future is Wild species and there were no objections to the methodology. I see nothing wrong with the actions taken by TTN regarding the articles and see no need for this empty category. Should someone decide they want to write substantive and sourced articles on one or more of the characters, I have no objection to recreating the category to house them. But as it stands, the category should be deleted. Otto4711 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your input. I really didn't want to feel like I and User:TTN had been sneaking around behind the back of consensus and policy. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Romanian boyar 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: keep. There is certainly no consensus to delete. Although several recent 'family' categories have been deleted, these categories relate to a different society: human societies often have different family structures. Sam Blacketer 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bibescu family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Callimachi family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cantacuzino family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cantemireşti family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ghica family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mavrocordatos family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Văcărescu family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - several lightly populated categories almost of all of which have a family article already in the parent category. The articles within the categories are interlinked through the family articles and each other. The categories are unnecessary for navigational purposes and should be deleted. Otto4711 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Actually, the categories serve as fine subcategories for the Category:Phanariotes and some other. Let me give you an example: while all agree that Ghica family was Phanariote, few agree when members of the family stopped being Phanariotes - so a category for the family leading to Phanariotes is the most neural way of linking one object to the other. Furthermore, I don't think that the existence of an article on the family should be reason to remove the category (it is not so for the Category:Bayard family, not so for the Category:Rockefeller family, not so for the Category:Kennedy family). In fact, I consider this entire proposal whimsical, time-consuming and counter-productive. Let me add: there are very few genealogies of these families readily available out there, and finding the connections between individual members is a laborious work (for example, the Cantacuzino family article, according to my research, presently covers only about half the notable people in the family); as one to have contributed to these articles, I can tell you that sorting things gets to be a headache, so having the categories there would actually help users and contributors a lot. The fact that the categories are "lightly populated" at the moment means nothing - the current state of things is not an indication of eternity, and, ironically, a category that was deleted once is likely to be deleted twice (even if the original reasons for its deletion no longer apply); the point is not about how they look now, but about what purpose they can always serve, and how big they will get in the future. Dahn 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad I was able to give you an obviously desperately needed moment of whimsy. But, you know what's neat about categories? More than one of them can be placed on an article. So the family articles can also be placed in Category:Phanariotes and any other such category and the result is every bit as "neural" as multiple layers of categorizing. The categories do not serve as the labor-saving devices you envision them to be, as the family articles do a far better job of illustrating the relationships between the members of the family than a simple alphabetical listing within a category ever could. Otto4711 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The point, you see, is about including people who were Phanariotes - try thinking about it from that perspective. 2. I did not say that I "use" categories for a certain effect - I have said that they do serve a purpose. On principle, any category can be replaced with a list and vice-versa - that doesn't mean that they should. The same theory you design above can be applied to n number of existing categories and lists, only some of which relate to "families". As long as both systems exist, I do not see why these categories have become the subject of your interest, other than that you get bored doing something more relevant (especially since, as you may see above, counterexamples abound). If you want to start a wider debate about it, instead of working your way from one vote to another, nominate at least all family categories ever created, and we'll talk some more. Dahn 03:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you had appeared in more than one of these discussions in the recent past you would know that I have been nominating a great number of family categories over the last several weeks, all for the same basic reason (that they are as unnecessary as these are) and with only a few exceptions the categories I've nominated for being as unnecessary as these have been deleted by the consensus of the community. Since a family list which contains some Romanians and some Phanariotes can properly be categorized under both groups, that some of the people in these families were one or the other or some combination of the two is not sufficient to require the categories. Editors of the individual person articles and the family articles should be sure that they have reliable sources establishing that Thatguy Whatsisname is indeed a Whosits before adding Thatguy to the Whosits category, so your inability to establish whether someone is a Romanian or a Phanariote is also not an argument for the family category. Your argument for keeping these categories pretty much boils down to "there's stuff that can go in them" which isn't particularly persuasive. Otto4711 04:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The almost universal trend involves moving from creating lists to creating categories, and, generally, categories are and should be kept as a rule (no matter how small - in fact, I remember reading a wikipedia guideline that indicated some are destined to be small). The point about the usefulness of a category, once that category is known to have been created following an objective and relevant criterion, is the same for any category. In this instance: a. a family article does not function as a list (and, if it may look like a list now, it does not mean it cannot be as thorough as to reach FA-status on its own); b. all categories nominated do follow an objective and relevant criterion ("people of the same family"); c. the arguments you bring against a category work for, well, all categories - they could all be turned into lists, but, to repeat myself, it does not mean they should. As you can see, it is not just "there's stuff that can go in them" - although that is basically how cats are constructed in relation to lists and templates etc. (generally, the systems duplicate each other with no one sitting around to discuss it), the point I am making is that these categories function better than most other categories, and that those most other categories should themselves still exist.
I'm sorry if I do not take for granted your expertise on the Phanariotes, but I can point out some of the issues one deals with here: determining whether someone was "Greek" or "Romanian" in the 18th century is not like determining whether someone was blond or black-haired, not like determining whether someone has a Turkish passport or an Austrian one, etc. The question to which I have seen several very different answers is actually: "do people present in Romania count as Romanians?" And, if they count as Greeks, how many generations apart is that? It would be ridiculous not to consider the Cantacuzinos Greek in origin, but it would also be absurd to present Constantine Cantacuzino as a Greek (or even a Greek-Romanian), when the last speaker of Greek in his family had died a couple of generations before he was born. (Oh, btw, if your answer to this "it means Constantine Cantacuzino is Romanian and his forefathers were Greek", you'd be missing my point, which is about all the Cantacuzinos in the middle.) If you wouldn't just be speculating on what I could and should do, you would also be aware that, while the Cantacuzinos and Constantin Brâncoveanu were cousins, part of the Cantacuzinos were considered "foreigners" in their time. Additionally, there is a similar question about the meaning of "Phanariote" - one historiography tends to designate as Phanariotes only those Ottoman clients who were physically in Fener, while another one (and Romanian tradition in general) have also used the term to refer to people living in the 1870s and 1880s.
I'm also genuinely sorry if you have been able to rally votes for similar procedures in the past - not only because I consider it disruptive, but also because, instead of provoking the larger debate and posing all people in front of the full issue, you have concentrated voters' attention on details as a means to push an arbitrary "norm" about what should and shouldn't be a category. Dahn 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the tendency at least here has been to recognize that not everything is worthy of being a category and that in many instances articles, because they can be interlinked and annotated, are superior. I am not suggesting that you categorize dear Constantine under any ethnicity or nationality of which he is not a member, so throwing that up as a concern is a bit of a red herring. I do though have to ask why, in the midst of your accusations of disruption you neglected to explain why, if it's so necessary that these categories exist as a subcat between the articles on the families and the ethnicity categories, pretty much all of the family articles are already housed directly in the ethnicity categories. Seems to me that the family articles can go into each of the appropriate ethnicity categories and the individual articles can go into the ethnicity categories that are appropriate for them and anyone interested in reading about the various family members will do it by following links in the family's article. All these categories are is an unnecessary layer of categorization, which has already been rendered redundant by placing the family articles in the category next up the line. Otto4711 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me break it down for you: as the Constantine example will show, as countless others in the said categories will, and as I have been trying to indicate in all my replies so far, "the individual articles can go into the ethnicity categories that are appropriate for them" is virtually impossible. I understand you consider the categories unnecessary, but you seemingly do so without being aware of what the topics are, and based on what you consider should be worked into categorizing rules. And no, I have never heard of articles replacing categories - what I have heard about are categories considered pointless due to their subject nature, and of categories replacing lists. Dahn 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the ethnicity of an individual can not be determined through reliable sources, then that individual should not be categorized by ethnicity at all. That fact really has nothing to do with this discussion. Otto4711 05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because, as I have said, the issue is that sources and historians draw various conclusions about the facts, and that the terms in use at a particular time meant something else. This is not about pinning down, it is about deciding. Which means that a category yields both the narrow and the wide meaning of the word "Phanariote", without deciding on one. So, instead of people fighting about which Cantacuzino was Greek and which one was not, about which Ghica was Albanian or Greek or Romanian etc., the category simply clarifies connections to x ethnicity through the family, and not [erroneously] tagged on the individual. This is aside from other merits of the categories - it just a particular merit. Dahn 05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, if it's about you "deciding" what ethnicity to use, then by synthesizing the published information to draw an unpublished conclusion about someone's ethnicity you're engaged in original research which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. And if people are fighting about what ethnicity someone is then that should be addressed as a content dispute within the article, not circumvented by slapping a couple of layers of categorization on it. Otto4711 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wasting my time here, but I will try and communicate this plain issue one final time: when it is known that the family was x ethnicity in origin, and some of its members during y period continued to be of x ethnicity, but there is a debate about which criterion to use in determining whether a person from y+1 period was also of x ethnicity (with the only neutral result being "maybe, maybe not, depending on what you consider x to be"), then the category proves to be a fortunate solution. As for the circumventing issue, I believe wikipedia welcomes all solutions that move past content disputes (even more so when the issue is not about content!). And no, never did I say the conclusion is "unpublished" - in fact, I have said that several conclusions are published. Dahn 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dahn. I object to disruptive processes that seek to dismantle, by stealth, well-established, useful categories that are the result of carefully-considered work. At least in this instance, though, ¡No pasarán! Biruitorul 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is the second time in the course of this nomination that I have been falsely accused of disruption. It was a lie when Dahn accused me of it and your accusation is also a lie. Dahn has already said he will not retract or apologize for his lie. I hope that you will retract and apologize for yours. And I hope that the closing admin will take note of the lies and will disount the opinions of those telling them accordingly. Otto4711 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this nomination is disruptive. You may as well hope for a purple unicorn. Biruitorul 06:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- per reasons given by Dahn, and more. To give a concrete, recent example of the usefulness of these categories, let me mention specifically Category:Ghica family. I worked a few days on expanding the article on Alexandru Ghika. Using the info from that category, I was able to find a genealogy tree out there, which in turn allowed me to trace the ancestry of this mathematician—founder of the rather well-known Romanian school of functional analysis—to Prince Grigore IV Ghica. By the way, the ancestry of Alexandru Ghika was previously an object of discussion here, so this solved a question debated by two other users about a year ago. (For better or worse, I put this connection in a nomination here.) At any rate, I could give more examples, especially for the Bibescu family, in which I have had occasion to make use of these categories, but let me stop here, and say again: Let's keep them, they are useful! Turgidson 05:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what information in Category:Ghica family is not available in the article Ghica family? The article actually has more links to related articles than the category does and the article includes information that the category can't, like order and dates of reigns, and can explain how the people in the category are related in ways that the category never can. WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive argument. All sorts of things that people find useful get deleted every day. "Useful" does not equal "include in Wikipedia." Otto4711 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let no one be dissuaded from the fact that the main, nay, the only purpose of category is to be useful to users and editors in navigation. The problem with stuff getting deleted is not that they are considered useful, but something else altogether - that something else altogether cannot be attributed to any of these categories: they are not subjective, they are not absurd, they are not redundant to other categories, they are not misnomers, and, as Turgidson has kindly indicated, they are not useless. Dahn 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look, all I did is to recount the way I went about it -- I probably could have done things differently, yes (the human mind is adaptable, after all). But the fact of the matter is that, after some 5 months of editing here at wiki, and >5K edits, I've come to rely more and more on categories such as these ones that have been proposed for deletion -- and not on lists or other ways to structure data. Why? Because. It just works better for me, that's all I can say. Turgidson 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with similar categories for other countries. Membership of a notable family is one of the most fundamental of defining characteristics. Haddiscoe 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N(per nom); ... all of which have a family article already in the parent category. The articles within the categories are interlinked through the family articles and each other. and presumably many other articles. Categories are useful, to state the obvious, and these apparently are. 'Family' might be a very important connection, it clearly is in Dynasties, I fail to see the harm or the problem. Comment Any articles included would, of course, be on notable people and therefore a superior 'list'. Categories on any families should be deleted with caution and, hopefully, consensus from associated projects, IMO. Fred 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. No real reason given for deletion. Johnbod 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Places related to anti-Mormonism[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. Sam Blacketer 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Places related to anti-Mormonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This is another orphaned subcategory from the deleted smear category of Anti-Mormonism. Most of the links point to current locations, and the reasoning to belonging in the category is typically unrelated to the body of the article. Not just vague and POV subjective, but entirely useless. Anon166 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the parent was. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons above and because I don't know of anything like this. We don't have Category:Places related to Antisemitism and this could be too easily misused or misunderstood.--T. Anthony 05:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just plainly a strange way to categorize places. Dr. Submillimeter 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining for the places from a non-Mormon perspective. Haddiscoe 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. --Blue Tie 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kind of a bizarre category. -SESmith 23:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. POV, subjective, unencyclopedic, and wtf. --TheEditrix2 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. BRMo 02:20, 29 April 2007 (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:Organizations related to anti-Mormonism[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. Sam Blacketer 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations related to anti-Mormonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This is an orphaned subcategory from the deleted category for Anti-Mormonism. The list is not only a blacklist, but contains the mainstream news publications in Salt Lake City not owned by the Mormon church. Anon166 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator is wrong about this being a blacklist. Although the City Weekly probably ought not be included, the Tribune, for example was an Mormon apostate, then anti-Mormon newspaper. I could quote their stunning obituary of Brigham Young, if desired. That said, this category must be deleted because its parent was. Makes no sense to keep the organizations hanging around. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a subjective category without WP:RS nor WP:V. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Netkinetic. Dahn 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective and silly --TheEditrix2 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with some regrets. Unlike the categories, "People related to anti-Mormonism," and "Places related to anti-Mormonism," I think there actually could be a case to keep this category, since anti-Mormonism can be a defining characteristic of an organization. Looking at the articles included in the category, apparently the Liberal Party (Utah) was largely organized in opposition to Mormonism. Articles on several religious organizations shown in the category also indicate persistent opposition to Mormonism, though it's hard to say whether it's a defining characteristic since most of them also oppose lots of other groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Unification Church, Christian Science, etc.) as well. The Salt Lake City Weekly and The Salt Lake Tribune pretty clearly don't belong, which shows how this kind of category can be abused. Since there is only one article on an organization for which anti-Mormonism is clearly a defining characteristic, and there seems to be some subjectivity in what is categorized here, I'll support the nomination to delete. BRMo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (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:Theorized continents[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:Theoretical continents. Sam Blacketer 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Theorized continents to Category:Theoretical continents
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - "theoretical" appears to be the preferred construction for category names and this looks like the only "theorized" category. Otto4711 01:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed per above --Java7837 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Theoretical" is a better choice of words than "theorized". Dr. Submillimeter 08:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Dr S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain (keep) Theorized is a more appropriate description of some members of Category:Continents, which also contains fictional ~ and historical ~. Terra Australis or Amasia (continent) would not fit in either. Theoretical (e.g. Theoretical physicists) means something a bit different, IMHO. I am not sure how many members it would have, Atlantis probably should not be one of them. I will leave someone else to decide if Category:Supercontinents should be within this Category. Needs a projects opinion perhaps? Fred 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Fictional continents should be in a category called Category:Fictional continents, not this category. "Fictional" is not the same thing as "theorized" or "theoretical". (I also did not understand why "theorized" was supposed to be preferable to "theoretical" based on the above comments.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification I have not contended that Fictional is the same thing. Within the category Continents there are 'sub-categories', two of them and this one (theorized) contain continents 'not-existing' for one reason or another. I have proposed that Theorized is not the same thing as Theoretical. I believe our article can explain that better, so it was linked. I also believe a WP:Project could probably tackle the naming question more sucessfully than a this discussion page. No reason has been given for renaming it. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "I don't agree with the reason given" does not equal "no reason has been given." Otto4711 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I misunderstood Fred's comments regarding fictional continents, and I apologize. However, Fred has given no reason to keep the current name. Everyone else has indicated that "theoretical" is the standard word to use in category names on Wikipedia. I do not understand why Fred thinks this category should be an exception. Another word that may be appropriate would be "hypothetical", but "theorized" should not be used. Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Thankyou, but Apology not necessary or appropriate to discussion. Withdrawn comments can be struck, apologies go here.) Hypothetical and theoretical would describe fewer 'continents' than theorized. I believe this can be best illustrated by the examples I have given and discussion of supposition etc., is linked. I think a reason has been to be given to rename it. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't this require a mythological continents, for Mu, etc? 70.55.201.213 13:36, 30 April 2007 (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/2007_April_25&oldid=1144513160"