Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:Monographs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monographs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Basically useless and thus nearly empty category. Half of nonfiction nontextbook books are monographs. The only potentially useful something similar could be category:Monograph series, but I somehow doubt that people will start writing such articles. `'Míkka 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename to scholarly monographs. This is very distinct from ordinary non fiction books. there are not many entries because the people interested in the scientific literature articles have mostly kept themselves to group articles, of "important publications in ", but there are hundreds of fully appropriate titles here, and thousands that could be written, if we ever were to become quite as diffuse as the people who do best-sellers. Of the items in there, there are two that do qualify, Art of computer programming, and Categories for the working mathematician, At the Center of the storm is just a non-fiction book, Enterprise integration patterns is probably not notable, and the Mens Sana series is a monographic series and almost certainly not notable to boot. There is no problem justifying the articles for those that get reviewed and cited. Keep for potential use. I'll see if there are any more articles already written to add, i think there should be at least another few dozen. As for monographic series, yes, I do intend to write as many of such articles as i have time to do and to justify, & I'll start such a category when there are. I know of about 20 in biology and maybe 5 in information science which are referred to by series enough to provide adequate sourcing for notability. (There's a separate meaning of monograph for works about a particular biological family or other group, but that should have a different wording & i'd want to check with the more expert there. ) DGG (talk) 04:22, 26 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Martyred priests[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Martyred priests to Category:Martyred Roman Catholic priests
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This suggestion came up here last week and was not opposed. All the contents are RC priests, and this has head categories accordingly, but some priests of other religions and denominations have of course also been martyred. Fayenatic (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a triple intersection. Vegaswikian 23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for accuracy. Fully justified by its size and the size of its parent categories. Perebourne 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for accuracy. There are undoubtedly enough for Anglicans and other groups, but the Roman Catholic ones are distinct and numerous enough (and easy to add, for they're in the Catholic Encyclopedia). DGG (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname by all means, but you needed to check that ALL are RC. However, I would suggest that this should become a subcategory of "martyred Christian Clergy" or perhaps of "Christian martyrs". Protestant and Orthodox clergy are also martyred from time to time, for example the subjects in Foxes Book of Martyrs. Peterkingiron 16:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Christian martyrs has already been subdivided by denomination and historical period. Without disturbing this, it would be possible to add categories of clergy throughout, as suggested, if there is a demand for this info. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename although it does not seem very complete for older periods - no Thomas Beckett, not to mention Saint Peter. Also I think the distinction made with the murdered priests category on the category page is incorrect. Johnbod 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: St Peter and other figures before the East-West Schism could be placed in the intermediate cat just suggested of "martyred Christian clergy". As for the distinction from murdered priests, which I added after the last CFD linked above, please make your suggestions for correction, either here or on the category talk page. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, I think I said in the recent debate that there was a potential overlap with martyrs, & also that priests killed eg in robberies should be excluded which I think has happened. So you are left with priests murdered for politico/religious reasons, like Salvatore Colombo, but assassinated without the motives of the killers being declared or documented. It would not be hard to see some of these beautified or canonised in the future - I think a process is underway for "Popiewouscko" (excuse spelling). What keeps them in this category is I think therefore some combination of a)uncertainty over the killers' motives, b) not beatified, c) mostly being modern/contemporary. Absp Romero & other modern Latin Americans could easily be in this category also. But there clearly is a bit of an overlap. Johnbod 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a.

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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Star Trek stars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Star Trek stars to Category:Star Trek locations
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category no longer seems to be meeting a need; perhaps all the former contents have been listified at Stars and planetary systems in fiction, for which I have just added a redirect in the category. It currently holds one fictional star, which should be upmerged along with the redirect. It currently also holds one real star, which is included in the named list and should therefore be removed from the category. Fayenatic (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have just removed the real star from it, thanks. Fayenatic (talk) 08:10, 24 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial video games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge zeros, ones, and twos, per discussion. Kbdank71 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Very small category with very little chance to be populated. Relevant articles should just be moved to video games based on films category. RobJ1981 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
zero
one
two
three (note, as of now, no one has suggested deleting these ×Meegs 12:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Frankly I think any with 0, 1 and even 2 should be tacked onto this CFD. RobJ1981 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per modified nom. Vegaswikian 00:23, 27 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Runestones, Danish isles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Runestones, Danish isles to Category:Runestones in Denmark
Nominator's rationale: Merge This is a follow up to the nominations below. Category:Danish Isles does not exist, so unless there is a very good reason to isolate these stones, it would be appropriate to merge them into the national category. Wimstead 20:55, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Runestones, Skåneland[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Runestones in Scania. Kbdank71 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Runestones, Skåneland to Category:Runestones in Skåne
Nominator's rationale: Rename, follow up to the item below, but the parent category and lead article are at Skåne rather than Skåneland. Wimstead 20:53, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Runestones, Jutland[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Runestones in Denmark. Kbdank71 13:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Runestones, Jutland to Category:Runestones in Jutland
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the conventional style for categories of structures. Wimstead 20:51, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Protestant Curch in Lithuania[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protestant Curch in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no single Protestant Church in Lithuania. There's the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, and probably a handful of tiny Protestant churches in that predominantly Roman Catholic country, but even if the article were renamed Category:Protestantism in Lithuania, we just don't seem to have enough articles on the topic to warrant any category for them narrower than Category:Christianity in Lithuania. Delete. —Angr 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, if kept fix the spelling (missing the first "h" in "Church"). Carlossuarez46 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -even if the Prtestants are a small minority, there is no reason why they should not have a category Category:Protestantism in Lithuania. This might encourage the writing of other articles that ought to be included. Peterkingiron 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, until enough articles are written. Category:Lithuanian Christians is also a complete duplication & should be deleted. Johnbod 21:10, 26 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lithuanian priests[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lithuanian priests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Lithuanian clergy. There was only one article in it (ironically enough not a priest at all but a Lutheran minister), but I've now moved that to Category:Lithuanian clergy. Delete. —Angr 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there were many ethnic Lithuanian priests in Protestant Church of Prussia (Lithuania minor). Kristijonas Donelaitis was one of them.--Lokyz 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lutheran ministers aren't usually called "priests" in English, though, because Protestants believe in the priesthood of all believers (not just ordained ministers). But the point remains: there was only one article in this category, which is redundant to another, better named, better populated category. —Angr 06:03, 23 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Supreme Court cases by date[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Supreme Court cases by date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category and it's subcategories for specific years should be deleted. First, the year a case was decided isn't a significant attribute of any case (beyond the period in legal and social history, but this isn't captured by sorting the cases by year). In any case, we already have lists that sort the cases chronologically, as detailed here. These lists are more useful, as most people never remember the precise year a case was decided (but are more likely to remember party names or historical periods).
All articles are already in the master category Category:United States Supreme Court cases, and keeping them in categories for individual years will encourage editors to remove them from the master category. Organizing cases by year is a good idea as it applies to analysis of the term (comparing one term to another is common for analysts of the Supreme Court). However, we already have quite good statistics on some individual terms listed here. Granted the coverage there is incomplete, but the information is far superior to what categories can inherently provide.--Chaser - T 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (with much reasoning credit to Postdlf)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We already have three forms of list articles that organize case articles chronologically: by the Court (i.e., tenure of each Chief Justice), the term (which lasts from October to October), and by the case reporter volume in which it is published. Doing it by category in this fashion will just unnecessarily hinder navigation and browsing with nothing gained. Postdlf 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chaser and Postdlf. --MZMcBride 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this may or may not be a good idea but referencing the 'by term' category is not proper. It only has a couple of terms in it. A possible help would be to create a Category:United States Supreme Count cases by case name as a subcat of Category:United States Supreme Court cases and put ALL the cases there. There would then be less temptation to delete cases here when they are added to other sister categories, such as 'by term' and 'by justice' and 'by case reporter volume'. Hmains 02:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Organizing by year is useful for finding them, for people who do not remember the exact name, but do remember the historical period--as well as for browsing. This is a case where the importance is sufficient for a category as well as a list. DGG (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By year really isn't a good way to browse by historical period, but categorizing them by Court (i.e., presiding Chief Justice) would be, which I'd certainly favor over by year. Postdlf 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that would be an acceptable alternative--except that a further breakdown would be necessary, since probably all individual cases are notable is someone does the work. DGG (talk) 06:40, 28 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bertolt Brecht dramatic works[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays. Kbdank71 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Category:Bertolt Brecht dramatic works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-standard, unnecessary layer of subcategorization. All of the articles are in one of the other subcategories. There does not appear to be an "[Author] dramatic works" categorization structure of which this is a part. Otto4711 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Rename to Category:Bertolt Brecht plays and merge Category:Short Plays by Bertolt Brecht and Category:Full-length Plays by Bertolt Brecht into it. I didn't realize there's no plain old "plays" category for Brecht and there should be one per Category:Plays by author. Sub-categorizing plays by length is non-standard and unnecessary and if it's significant for Brecht specifically it should be handled by creating lists of the full-length and short plays. Otto4711 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there IS only one Category:Plays by author entry for Brecht. All additional categories are subcategories of the one with that entry. It is only your proposal that is creating the problem of a possible duplication.
Secondly, Category:Bertolt Brecht dramatic works has been placed in the Category:Plays by author precisely because there is no "an "[Author] dramatic works" categorization structure of which this is a part." That is a reason for its inclusion, not deletion. This is also related to (3) below.
Thirdly, Any USER browsing to a category for Brecht's dramas (whatever it may be called) would quite naturally wish to see his entire dramatic output, including Lehrstücke, one-acts, full-lengths, musicals, opera librettos, adaptations, and screenplays. Gathering these subcategories under a dramatic works category provides for this. All of the articles included are currently in translation in the standard critical edition of the dramatic works of Bertolt Brecht (see bibliography). That Brecht wrote drama in many different genres is unsurprising, given that he is the most important dramatist of the twentieth century. If the category were to be renamed to plays, the inclusion of his many 'non-play' dramatic works would be factually incorrect. Their exclusion would compromise the usefulness of the wikipedia categorization (a student is likely to want to see The Threepenny Opera together with Life of Galileo, although one is a musical and the other a full-length play). This issue appears to be related to the ideological objections raised by some in the Opera WikiProject based on a misunderstanding of the genres of opera and the musical (see discussion on the 'Musicals' category below). As I understand it, the design of pages is meant to be orientated towards the needs of USERS, rather than those of a few editors.
Fourthly, you have failed to offer a rationale as to why sub-categorizing is "unnecessary". To say it is 'non-standard' is to say merely that other dramatists have not been organized in that way yet, which is incorrect, not to demonstrate that it is not required or useful. I understand, on the basis of my experience with students learning about this material, that it would be useful, which is why I did it. There are a couple of reasons for this:
With regard to the proposal to merge the current differentiation of plays by length: the majority of Brecht's one-acters are of only marginal interest to the mainstream student (being mostly juvenilia, but not entirely); Brecht produced a great many dramas, however, (see Bertolt Brecht#Dramatic works), which means that any 'plays' category would be crowded with the significant and the much-less-so. The sub-categorization by length distinguishes the important ones from the much less important ones in a clear visual way (one of the main purposes of categories). Creating lists that make this distinction is a far less elegant solution and quite unnecessary outside of this current proposal.
With regard to the existence of subcategories at all: Brecht wrote more than fifty dramas in the course of his career (we have thirty seven by Shakespeare). Of those, their generic distinctions are significant: musicals, librettos, and screenplays are not 'plays', and the Lehrstücke defy easy categorization, being a form of dramatic activity all of their own. To claim that sub-categorization is "non-standard" is incorrect; such sub-categorization functions perfectly well for Shakespeare's plays Category:Shakespearean plays, and the categorization of his dramas does not have the musical works / non-musical works distinction with which to contend. The majority of USERS will only want to see the full-length plays, Lehrstücke, musicals and librettos (not the one-acters, adaptations or screenplays); sub-categorization is a standard means of enabling this.
Fifthly, it is accurate to claim that "All of the articles are in one of the other subcategories" since this was a means of providing both access to his entire dramatic output given in one place and the means to select from the significant ones only. Now that the chronology of dramatic works on the Brecht page has been completed, the first of these requirements has been rendered redundant. The second, however, remains pertinent and is addressed in the sub-categorization rationale given in 4(b) above.
  • To Summarize: I am having difficulty identifying the precise objection to the existence of a category called Category:Bertolt Brecht dramatic works in the first place. The prospect of multiple entries in the Category:Plays by author is only raised by your proposal, not by the current category-structure. The solution to merge everything into a 'plays' category excludes or mis-names a substantial part of his dramatic output. The precedent for sub-categorization has been set by Category:Shakespearean plays and, in light of Brecht's greater dramatic output, is pertinent in this case; sub-categorization also addresses the broad range of genre in which Brecht wrote (and between which an imagined standard USER would normally wish to distinguish), including musical and non-musical work, the latter of which is not addressed by a rename to 'plays'. There also appears to be a sense of pique present in the complaint that "there's no plain old "plays" category for Brecht" that does not seem appropriate to the matter. DionysosProteus 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I made clear in my rationale, we are not discussing only 'plays' but works of drama that include musicals, operas, screenplays, etc. To categorize those as plays would be incorrect. Your suggestion to make use of the Works by categorization structure has one major flaw: anyone searching for Brecht's dramas from the Plays by author structure is unlikely to make the kind of fine distinctions between categories of drama that your proposal would presuppose. I would expect to be presented with a collection that included all major dramas when searching from Plays by author. And yes, the original proposal was to delete an "unnecessary layer of subcategorization". The Shakespeare categorization is directly relevant since one-acters and full-length plays are generic categories (just like comedy, tragedy, history) - see the German Wikipedia page on Brecht. As I made clear in my rationale, my assessment of student need in this matter is based on my professional experience teaching the material. And yours? DionysosProteus 18:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A teacher of Germans would, presumably, refer their students to the German wikipedia site, no? The issue was raised with reference to the place of the dramatic works category in the Plays by author category. All of the dramatic works ought to be categorized in the same place, which should be accessible from Plays by author; this is the point, no? The imagined user, in these circumstances, is searching for Brecht's plays (a drama student, most likely, no?). The complete dramatic works are available, then, without requiring any specific volition on a student's part. I presume that any discussion of categories on the site has the facilitation of an average user's experience, not its impediment on pedantic grounds. So far the objection seems to be that the other playwrights might feel put out by the--broader and more precise--title of Brecht's category. DionysosProteus 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there should be one place to access all of a writer's dramatic works. That place should be his "Works by" category, with the different types of works broken down into subcategories. That is what the "Works by" category structure is designed for. The "Plays by" category structure is not designed to hold works that are not plays. Not really seeing what the objection is to having the category for Brecht's plays have the same naming structure as the hundreds of other playwrights' categories do or what the objection is to using the "Works by" and "Plays by" category structures the way they were designed to be used. Otto4711 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The objection, as outlined in great detail above, concerns the expectations of an average user searching under Plays'. To fail to have the musical The Threepenny Opera, for example, in the list when someone selects from Plays by author would be a gross omission. The same goes for Mahagonny and the Lehrstücke; most people would think of them as forming part of Brecht's plays, but they are not plays strictly speaking. The use of the title dramatic works in the Plays by author is a simple solution to this difficulty, requiring no special mental gymnastics on the user's part. At the present moment, there are no separate articles on Brecht's prose or poetry, so the Works category could serve as an umbrella. However, to function in a meaningful way, it would have to be this category that is listed in the Plays by author branch, which has precisely the same effect as the current category structure. The Plays by category structure is designed, I presume, to facilitate user's searches for the dramatic works of a playwright; your proposal actively presents obstacles to that endeavour that offer no benefits in return. The alternative solution would be to rename every other playwright's category to 'dramatic works', which is patently irrational. There are many dramatists to whom this issue applies--it is natural that Brecht is the first in whom the wikipedia category structures encounter it, as he's one of the big three in the field, along with Shakespeare and Ibsen (neither of whom this specific issue applies to). DionysosProteus 22:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The average user shouldn't be expecting to find musicals in a plays category at all because that's not how we categorize musicals. Failing to click on Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht from the plays category strikes me as being a mark of a distictly below-average user. One click is hardly "mental gymnastics." Obviously you're a big ol' Brecht fan, but from an encyclopedia categorization standpoint, there is nothing so special about Brecht as to require that he be treated any differently from every other playwright. Otto4711 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not about the intellectual level of the average user, but rather a flaw in the design of the categories system that, until now, has not come to light. This is only natural in a system that evolves over time; certain issues will not become relevant until particular thresholds are reached. The issue here is the lack of foresight in not terming the category structure 'dramas' rather than 'plays', but that only becomes relevant past a particular stage of growth. I am giving my attention to the Brecht pages because after Shakespeare he is the most important dramatist. Then Ibsen. Then Chekhov. Beckett seems to be one of the few playwrights in the theatre pages to be reasonably addressed; the vast majority of the theatre pages are of a very poor quality indeed. I am prioritizing my attention on the basis of my professional understanding of the field. There are, thanks to English literature, a few people addressing Shakespeare. Go take a look at Drama or Theatre or History of Theatre, and you'll see what I mean. And from an encyclopedia standpoint, there is every reason to give Brecht a certain degree of priority; Shakespeare and Ibsen are the only other dramatists for whom a search under the MLA database would generate anything like the number of entries you'd get for BB. I am just as keen to work on the Konstantin Stanislavsky pages, which are embarrassing to read in a public forum of this kind, and his work is diametrically opposed to Brecht. I would categorize myself as a Beckettian, if anything, in terms of my personal aesthetic preferences. So your presumtuousness about my personal proclivities is dead wrong. That is become a bit of a theme, isn't it? I am more than happy to enter into well-informed debate; that is not what appears to be occurring here. DionysosProteus 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, sorry, there's no flaw here in the system, only in the name of this category. Still not understanding in the slightest why you're so strenuously opposed to using the "Works" category as the container category in the same way it's used for everyone else but after all your verbiage it still comes down to a mis-name of the category that should be fixed. Otto4711 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dramas are written by dramatists. Dramas include musicals, librettos, Lehrstücke, etc. A user browsing from Plays by would naturally expect to be able to access all of those without having to decypher the categorization structure; it should be obvious and built-in. Every drama student would expect to find Threepenny Opera in the same place as Life of Galileo, as they are both dramas by Brecht. That place should be accessible from Plays by author. Dismissing my responses to your proposal to delete the current perfectly workable structure is not an engagement with the argument. What the problem with having a drama category in the Plays by Author structure is, you do not explain. DionysosProteus 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And perhaps here we have the crux of the problem. I have not made a proposal to delete the current...structure. I have made a proposal to rename and simplify the structure and bring it into compliance with every other similar structure. I apparently have more faith than you do in the average Wikipedia user, as I believe that they will be able to locate Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht from Category:Bertolt Brecht plays whereas you apparently believe that upon arriving at a plays category and not finding a musical they will give up. Otto4711 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a Works category would be the most appropriate here? Drama students (or teachers) are not the only people interested in Brecht/Weill/Dessau etc. -- Kleinzach 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already is Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht, which as I've said should be serving as the parent category for the plays category, the screenplays category and other categories for his various works by type. That structure is good enough for everyone else who's written works in more than one genre and it's good enough for Brecht. Otto4711 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether a works category is appropriate, but--whatever the category that is used to collect his dramas together is called--that it should appear in the Plays by author structure, not as the parent to the plays (which requires unwieldy navigation). For whom is the structure you describe already working well? Besides which, how, then, do you propose to categorize the Lehrstücke in this revamp of yours? In addition, the opera enthusiasts are objecting to having a category that gathers his musical works together at all, as if he is not their author. You have not explained what the precise problem in having a title that is suitable to the material it organises in the Plays by author category. Who would be confused and by what? What precise negative effect follows from the current organization? As far as I can see, none whatsoever. DionysosProteus 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, no one is suggesting doing anything with Category:Lehrstücke by Bertolt Brecht so this hand-wringing over whatever will befall it is a false dilemma. Lehrstücke will continue to reside undisturbed in their own category, which will be a sub-category either of the Plays by or the Works by parent category and all Brecht fans will sleep easy knowing just where to find them. Otto4711 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is precisely my point--you have not grasped the generic issues. Take a look at the page for Der Jasager, for example. This is a Lehrstücke, which is a dramatic work that is both a 'learning play' and an operatic piece. They belong in a dramatic works category, not in a plays category. Your proposal would create an unnecessarily complicated structure. The current one is more straightforward and accurate. DionysosProteus 15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't followed the argument closely enough. The Lehrstücke are both plays and musical works, hence the appropriateness of housing them under dramatic works as the most meaningful umbrella term; under your scheme they would have to be doubled under Plays (which they are) and Musical works (which they also are). Your recognition that Musical works is being challenged exposes the flaw in your Works proposal, since it would be bizarre to have Plays, Lehrstücke, Poems, Novels in subcategories of Works without the Musicals also being there. Your proposal for the structure only looks simpler to you because you are not familiar with the works in question and so have not grasped what the categorization would involve. The accessibility from Plays by author remains an issue as well. DionysosProteus 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have followed the argument fine. I understand exactly what you're getting at, and you're simply wrong. Your insistence that there's some actual meaningful distinction between "works" and "'dramatic' works" is ridiculous. "Works" serves just as well as "dramatic works" and there isn't one goddamn reason on this earth why everything you expect to accomplish wouldn't be accomplished by housing the Lehrstücke category under "works." They would not "have to be doubled" under both "plays" and "musicals" because they're housed in their own freaking category! You want one place to categorize all of the dramatic works. Well guess what, Perfesser, "Works by" has worked for every other dramatist on Wikipedia and your demand that Brecht the Magnificent be treated all special smacks of intellectual snobbery. Otto4711 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which dramatist, specifically, you know of for whom this is working. And you've missed the point about the lehrstucke - they are plays and so should be found in the plays category and they are musical works. The issue is actually one that the Category structre on wikipedia has already recognised, with reference to the authors rather than the dramas - see the note at Category:Dramatists and playwrights. It is exactly the same issue being played out at the level of the art works themselves. Quite why wanting the categories to be precise and factually accurate constitutes "intellectual snobbery" escapes me; perhaps you can enlighten? DionysosProteus 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, Merge the short & full-length plays into a plays category. I have suggested in another debate that the "dramatic works" formula be used for Gertrude Stein also, so if that was accepteed BB would not be the only one. I think it is a useful formula for some writers & can't quite understand the passions unleashed above. Johnbod 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tried to get an answer out of the Perfesser, but maybe you can offer up a simple one for me. What, functionally, is gained by maintaining a "dramatic works" and a "works by" category instead of simply renaming this one for plays and bumping everything here that shouldn't be in a plays category to the parent works category? What exactly has to be housed in a "dramatic works" category instead of a "works by" category? What is so vital about the presence of the word "dramatic" in the category name? Otto4711 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above (in extensive detail) DionysosProteus 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've read your noise, that's why I'm asking someone else. Otto4711 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a much larger issue, that should not really be initiated here probably, but I think for many prolific writers, especially modern ones, who wrote or write all different kinds of works, "dramatic works" would be a better intermediate category to separate plays, dramatic scenes, libretti, musicals "books", film/tv/radio scripts & other Lehrstucke etc off from novels, non-fiction, poetry etc. Personally I would include the dramatic works category in the "Plays by" tree, with the actual "Plays by" etc as a sub-cat, or they could just be mixed in. The opera & music people seem to me to rather neglect librettists, and the film people scriptwriters. For example even Harold Pinter's film scripts are uncategorised as such, which is plain ridiculous, though at least his "plays by ..." category takes a more liberal approch than many, with 2 short sketches included. Johnbod 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Pinter's or anyone else's screenplays aren't categorized as "Screenplays by..." and housed in "Works by..." then that's an error in that categorization. None of the things you've mentioned can't go in a "Works by..." category. Otto4711 01:14, 28 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:In other media[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In other media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - mish-mash category with no clear inclusion criteria and no clear purpose. Has everything from character lists to a discussion of Edgar Allan Poe's influence on pop music. Otto4711 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete terribly named, vague category. Wryspy 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vote from creator. This was ill-conceived on my part. –Unint 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, it's speediable - Unintended category problems, Unint ended discussion of them :) Grutness...wha? 01:21, 23 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:County Durham Valleys and Dales[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:County Durham Valleys and Dales to Category:Valleys of County Durham
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to correct the capitalisation and to match the parent Category:Valleys of England. Oliver Han 16:01, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adaptations of Work by Bertolt Brecht[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Work by Bertolt Brecht to Category:Adaptations of works by Bertolt Brecht
Nominator's rationale: Rename - incorrect capitalization and plural but there's no wide-ranging structure of similar categories to use as a basis for a speedy rename. The only similar "adaptations" category I could recall is Category:Adaptations of works by Oscar Wilde which is as good a form as any. Otto4711 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category has only three items of which only one is a straightforward adaptation (the second is a musical setting and the last a complicated work relating to more than one original writer). Maybe 'adaptation' is difficult to define? I don't see this category fulfilling any useful purpose. -- Kleinzach 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kleinzach — it's also too specific and has very few entries; in cases like this, linking among articles can be more than sufficient. -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kleinzach - non need for this - over categorisation. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kleinzach Michael Bednarek 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per proposal. Incorrect capitalization is a reasonable objection. However, to say that there are not similar categories is incorrect. There is a Adaptations of Shakespeare category functioning perfectly well, and both categories can expect further articles in the future, since Shakespeare and Brecht are the most-adapted dramatists on the planet. There are a few more articles awaiting development from the Heiner Müller project that would belong to this category, at the very least. The use of "of the work of" makes sense, at it is the work not the author that is being adapted (one minor point, too: the renamed category should be Category:Adaptations of the work of Bertolt Brecht, as that spelling of his name is standard [see German wikipedia article [and all English-language editions of his work]). As for the objection that one of the articles is for a "muscial setting", this is factually incorrect. The article refers to a musical that is an adaptation of a Brecht Lehrstuck - go take a look at the article for yourself. The objection relating to the other article that is referred to is based on ignorance; if you were familiar with the piece, you would know that it is an adaptation of Brecht's Lehrstuck; the description of the field of intertextuality in the article is making a different, though related, point. While whole-heartedly endorsing wikipedia's egalitarian principles for contributions, I think that the criteria for removing material ought to include some form of expertise or acquaintance with the material and subject area in question. DionysosProteus 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the spelling issue, I simply misspelled it in the nomination and have corrected it. Re the similar categories issue, what I said was that there isn't AFAIK a wide-ranging categorization structure for adaptations from which a standardized name has been established to allow for a speedy rename. Otto4711 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent with Shakespeare, however, was an important omission, as the two dramatists are the most performed in the world. DionysosProteus 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I didn't know about the bloody Shakespeare category. The Wilde, as I said, was the only one I remembered. Otto4711 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is not a category for Brecht's dramas but is instead a category for adaptations of then, the number of Brecht's dramas is irrelevant. Otto4711 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake. I have become so used to irrational and unverifiable objections, I get confused. See precedent with Shakespeare adaptations; good few articles awaiting development would belong here from Muller (at the very least). DionysosProteus 00:56, 28 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musicals by Bertolt Brecht[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, these plays are already categorized in existing Bertolt Brecht categories, and per nomination. Kbdank71 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicals by Bertolt Brecht (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Brecht didn't write musicals! He wrote the words. These musical works (actually operas) were by Weill and Dessau and are covered by appropriate existing categories. -- Kleinzach 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - misleading category, per Kleinzach. Moreschi Talk 15:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but not per nom. Happy End (musical) would properly fit in a Brecht musicals category. Instead, delete because we don't have a "musicals by author" structure. They are under the "Compositions by" structure, e.g. Category:Compositions by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The Brecht categories are a mess, by the way. I've put one up for renaming above and the rest should be looked at to try and simplify them. Otto4711 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In fact four of the items are in "Operas by (composer)" categories (and one or two of the others arguably should be as well). -- Kleinzach 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - misleading category, per Kleinzach. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - The problem here is the name. What all of these compositions have in common is that Brecht wrote the words. The solution is to rename, possibly to Category:Librettos by Bertolt Brecht. The only concern I have is whether each of these works is technically considered a libretto, or do we need to come up with a somewhat broader term? Cgingold 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Libretti by XYZ would be viable (see List of opera librettists in which Brecht is included). However we would have to consider where to draw the line between his libretti and his plays and IMO renaming is the wrong way to go about this. -- Kleinzach 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hardly think there's a danger of misleading anyone into thinking Brecht wrote the music and "prima la musica" shouldnt be a WP policy: as has sometimes been pointed out, Opera Project has its own way of naming which has worked well so far because we've avoided collisions with the outside world. A problem with "Librettos" is that it excludes interesting settings that were not nessesarily concieved for music; a problem with "musicals" is that in one case it has been confused with musical settings". Sparafucil 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about that. If I see that someone "wrote" a musical (or, indeed, an opera) I automatically think they've written the music. Moreschi Talk 14:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The categories should be based on objective and impartial criteria, such as those provided by the Oxford English Dictionary when it defines a musical in the way given below, not subjective and partial misunderstandings about the nature of authorship. DionysosProteus 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator - with one proviso: the work Der Jasager needs to be included as a separate entry in Template:Brecht_plays and in Bertolt_Brecht#Dramatic_works, otherwise that article is never referenced in any Brecht-related list. Michael Bednarek 11:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There are two distinct issues at work here. The first is perfectly reasonable and relates to the nature of the works in question: some of the texts are musicals (Happy End and The Threepenny Opera, the latter of which, despite its name, is a work in spoken prose dialogue with songs), some are for operas, and one for a ballet (see: Willett, 1967). In this respect, a rename to Category:Musical works by Bertolt Brecht is a reasonable correction. The second issue is unreasonable, and represents an attempt by some in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera to impose a factually-incorrect and ideological perspective on the nature of opera and musical theatre on to the wikipedia community at large. "Brecht didn't write the musicals. He wrote the words." While you are entitled to hold whatever distorted and limited views on the nature of the media you wish, you are not at liberty to impose them on the encyclopedia. I refer you, in all seriousness and without irony, to the relevant entries in the Oxford English Dictionary: "opera: a dramatic musical work in one or more acts, in which singing forms an essential part [...]; a libretto or musical score for such a work."; "musical: A film or theatrical piece (not opera or operetta) of which music is an essential element". As you can see, the most objective or ideologically-neutral description we may find defines an opera as an inherently multi-medial art form; it is both the drama and the music. The second sense given for opera makes this explicit: opera refers both to the musical score created by the composer AND the dramatic libretto created by the dramatist. With a musical, it is even more clear: it is a drama, with spoken dialogue, that also has a musical score and songs; often significant proportions of the musical is not under-scored at all. To say that Brecht is not the author of these musical works, then, is ridiculous. I understand that this issue arose from my creation of a page on the Lehrstuck He Said Yes and my request to correct the red link present at that time in the Operas of Kurt Weill template. You have failed to engage with my presenting of objective, primary-sourced evidence that this piece is, at the very least, not straight-forward in genre terms (since Weill himself calls it both 'learning play' and 'school opera'). I have not responded to the most recent discussion about this because I have been waiting for the opportunity to consult the secondary source you recommended, as I like to speak from an informed position. In the meantime, you created a German-language title page, in contravention of the Wikipedia policy of naming opera--if that is what is is--after the standard English translation when a piece is known as such (and the Amazon sales figures indicate that the single volume of Brecht plays that includes the piece has roughly comparable figures to the Grove Guide to Opera, which is a general work with one brief article on the piece; besides the fact that every A-level theatre studies student in this country knows it under its English-language title). Your objections about this appear to be based on a lack of familiarity with the work itself; specifically, that the English-language title offered by your secondary source, "The Affirmer", is an appropriate rendition in English - when familiarity with the work would inform you that this is simple a crude transliteration; the boy in the text is not an "Affirmer", like some nodding dog on the back window of a car or Bush's 'the Decider', he is someone who makes a singular, punctual decision just once, at the climax of the piece; it is for this reason that the standard critical edition of the works of Bertolt Brecht (recognised as such at least in universities both in Britain and the US, in my direct experience) renders the title as He Said Yes (He Who Said Yes has also been used in the past). As I say, though, I have not followed through on this discussion because I wanted to consult the article to which you referred. I could give you an extensive bibliography substantiating the standard nature and familiarity in Britain and the US with this English-language title, just on the basis of articles on my bookshelf. With regards to the inclusion of a link to the new German-language article, I have placed one on the Brecht page; the German is already covered in the Weill Operas template, however, and so should not replace the current link in the Brecht Plays template. DionysosProteus 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of us are puzzled by your creation of this series of categories. Can you summarize your views, keeping in mind that we are an international, not an exclusively English, group here ("every A-level theatre studies student in this country knows" etc. . . .) with Americans, Australians, Canadians and many other nationalities present. . . . And please spare us these rambling essays. No-one has time to read them. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I specified the area I was referring to by stating this country. I respond to the issues as they are presented. I have kept that in mind with the result that I have qualified all my statements with their relevant field of reference; your implication that I have not is rhetorical and misleading. I find your hostility to a basic level of categorization of a large and complex subject deeply puzzling; not to mention the understandings of authorship factually incorrect. They may be covered by existing music categories, but they are also and in some cases mainly dramatic works. DionysosProteus 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Librettos by Bertolt Brecht or similar per Cgingold. The fact we don't currently have an Operas by Librettist tree is no argument for deletion - we should have one - see the mess that is Category:Works by W. S. Gilbert. Equally, as Moreschi says, calling them "Musicals/Operas by BB" will inevitably lead many to think he wrote the music. The category will fit nicely into the the "dramatic works" category discussed above (if it is kept). Johnbod 21:00, 26 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a convoluted and misleading category that is bound to cause more confusion than anything else. It labels itself "Orthodox" and "Jewish" when most Orthodox and Jewish groups actually strongly support Zionism either actively or passively. So far, it has had a few articles connected with Haredi Judaism and in particular Hasidic Judaism tossed into it. The way it's headed is that POV ways will be found to put all of Haredi and Hasidic Judaism into this "category" making them appear to be based on a one-horse issue of "anti-Zionism" even at the same time that many of the groups in these articles live, work and flourish within the modern State of Israel and the Zionist establishment, including running for its Knesset and sitting in its governments. How "anti-Zionist" is that? And if what is meant is extreme fanatical die-hard fringe groups, then they are certainly not worthy of "categories" as such. Thus, the category is not well thought out and violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and probably more. IZAK 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. IZAK 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Negative and non-central positional definition. Where it matters, the respective views towards Zionism of these Jewish groups, newspapers and whatever should be discussed in the articles. gidonb 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we are to keep the category, I suggest that it will be renamed to the clearer "Haredi Anti-Zionism": Haredi is always Jewish and there are no non-Haredi Orthodox Jewish (i.e. Modern Orthodox) organizations or movements listed. gidonb 19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But Gidon, even "Haredi Anti-Zionism" is too nebulous because the very nature of Haredim and "Haredism" is to move on many tracks at one time, so that that they appear to be both "pro" and "anti" many things politically when in fact they are none of the above since Haredim are essentially apolitical! IZAK 09:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - completely NPOV. These movements all characterize themselves as anti-Zionist and are WIDELY known for that. I am not going to bow to Zionist heretics who are being controlled by the Soton, having succumbed to the despicable yetzer horo of supporting the impure Zionist lie, may it quickly evaporate and dissolve. IZAK, I had truly not expected you to turn out to be a Zionist. You appeared to be a regular frum Jew who had some yiras shomayim and who was always involved in maintaining NPOV on Jewish subjects. As it turns out, you have sold out to the disgusting traitors and you are working to defend the reshoim. I don't know what to say.
Next, your allegations are pure nonsense. Because a category MIGHT become a subject of dispute later on, it should NOW be deleted?! What disgusting nonsense is this?! All of the groups in this category are VIRULENTLY anti-Zionist. Satmar and NK I don't need to explain. Dushinsky and Vizhnitz need no explanation either. Nor should the CRC, Edah, or Shomer Emunim need an explanation. And Mishkenois HoRoim - they recently held a yortzeit tish for Reb Amrom Bloi. --Eidah 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eidah: Considering that we have never met, either in real life or as editors (in your incarnation as User:Eidah here at anay rate) I do not wish to fall victim to any type of useless flame war with you over this. Kindly calm down. You should not be attacking anyone, least of all me. (Note: I was probably the only person who put in a good word for User:Daniel575 in his time of trial/s but alas, my words of advice were not heeded, and the identity at that IP address is still banned.) I can't really get into a complete answer to all the tangents you fling up, but let me assure you that I have not changed my views from the time I began editing on Wikipedia in 2002. At any rate, your attempts to explain "anti-Zionism" actually do more damage to some groups you wish to speak for, since they have better and more sophisticated ways of explaining their opposition to a secular Jewish state. (Often, they, unlike you or I, choose to remain SILENT, which is the smartest strategy of all because as you see from this discussion, the deep Torah notions "get lost in translation" and even worse are mangled beyond true meanings.) But to throw terrible accusations, such as: "Zionist heretics who are being controlled by the Soton, having succumbed to the despicable yetzer horo of supporting the impure Zionist lie, may it quickly evaporate and dissolve" and "you have sold out to the disgusting traitors and you are working to defend the reshoim" is totally out of line. Do you truly know who you are writing about? Have you ever stopped for a minute to consider that neither you nor anyone have the "monopoly" on absolute chochma or on definitive hashkafa or on the totality of the Eibishter for that matter. Maybe another yid has thought these things out a lot better than you have and knows how to "package" the emes a lot better than the way you keep on trying to do it, but keep on falling flat on your face each time, as you gravely insult anyone who does not do things your way. (Oh, I am sure that the crazies in Iran or Lebanon or Gaza "love" what you write and do on the Internet, it's free propaganda for them after all, and yet that does not seem to bother your conscience, but let's not go down that road my boy, ok!) What happened to shivim ponim laTorah? Or is that reserved for different varieties of Chasidim and Israel-bashers, be they Yidden or Goyim, rachmana litzlan!? At any rate, even your examples are flawed. For example, Vizhnitz is huge in Israel, lives off the fat of the land and is heavily involved in its politics and sitting in the Knesset in Agudat Israel. Indeed all the groups have family and friends living very well in Israel and enjoying it to, in more ways than one, if you know what I mean. Oich mir "anti-Zionists"! At any rate, as I have stated in my nomination above, the way the category is worded is misleading and the way it was populated could only add to a mistaken impression that the "only" thing that made these groups tick was one issue, which is just not true. Let me also comment on your statement: "IZAK, I had truly not expected you to turn out to be a Zionist. You appeared to be a regular frum Jew who had some yiras shomayim and who was always involved in maintaining NPOV on Jewish subjects." It's quite funny actually, because if either of us were "regular frum Jews" who had "some yiras shomayim"" (sheesh, are you now measuring that as well on Wikipedia? What a lost cause!) we would not be wasting our time on Wikipedia or surfing the net pitching our penny's worth to the cyberworld, but we would be in a Bais Medrash somewhere learning another blatt or enjoying a sefer. Take care, IZAK 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next, Orthodox Jewish left-handed (itur yad) anti-zionistic residents of Benei Brak and Petah Tikvah who wear Reb Arele bekishes during the week but black frocks on Shabbos and who daven nusach Ari? There comes a point where too much specificity is unhelpful. Add that in to the fact that the nuances of the relative positions of those entities who would be considered for this category are different enough that it is a gross over-simplification to lump them all together makes this category distinctly unhelpful at best, a vehicle for pushing a POV pro- or against various entities at worst. So it should be deleted in my opinion. -- Avi 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. "Eidah", this is Wikipedia, not a beis din or something like that. Izak may very well have sold his soul to the Devil, but it's irrelevant to Wikipedia. I would also urge you to tame your personal attacks/rhetoric. Otherwise, people would be tempted to just report you once again, instead of having you on here as a constructive editor. Yossiea (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yossiea: Et tu, Brute? IZAK 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? I think there's a disconnect somewhere. Yossiea (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • IZAK, I think Yossiea was talking U'L'taymech (ULTaymech, d'Reb Eidah, SheIZAK Mochar Nishmoso L'Satan, Mikol Makom Wikipedia Ayno Bes Din…) -- Avi 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep that is indeed how I meant it, I don't know if you sold your soul or not. I don't know much about the Devil other than he can't play fiddle.Yossiea (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yossieea: Avi got the point I was only kidding with you in light of Eidah's histrionics... IZAK 08:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category in no way implies that all Orthodox Jews/Orthodox organisations oppose Zionism, it is simply a category grouping those that do. Nor does not imply that opposing Zionism is the sole purpose of these groups. Given the importance of and controversy over Zionism among Orthodox, and especially Haredi, Jews this category is in no way too specific. Perhaps it needs to be spelt out that it is for groups actively opposed to Zionism as, per IZAK, it would be highly misleading to include Lubavitcher and others who only nominaly oppose Zionism. But this can fixed by discussion & editing, deletion does not seem to be justified.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. The category is only meant to include groups that are actively opposed to Zionism, whose leaders hold speeches denouncing the impure Zionist state and praying for it to be dissolved. Does anybody really think that I am planning to include Chabad in that category?! Come one! We're talking about the Edah, the CRC, Satmar, NK, Dushinsky, Munkatsh, Vizhnitz-Monsey, Nitra, Puppa, Toldos Aharon, and such groups, which are known for their virulent anti-Zionism even amongst chareidim. I absolutely do not understand why this category should be controversial at all. --Eidah 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eidah: POV comments like "the impure Zionist state"; "praying for it to be dissolved"; "virulent anti-Zionism" are controversial satements in-and-of themselves and should not be acceptable, and then you have the audacity to turn logic on its head by saying that "I absolutely do not understand why this category should be controversial at all"! Think now, besides "hating" Zionists morning-noon-and-night aren't there lots of other things that Haredim "hate" and is there nothing else, according to you, that occupies these groups besides "hating Zionists" which makes it sound as normal as having a Category:People who hate bed-bugs all day as if they have no other personal, familial, working and community problems? Some Haredim may blame "Zionism" for all that ails them, which is not far different than the Arabs blaming the Israelis for all their problems. Don't you see that it's a cop-out and a lie that covers other truths: That Haredim are so huge today that Zionism is the LEAST of their challenges!? On balance, the Zionist state gives Haredim (and all Israeli citizens) MONEY through all sorts of grants, an economy open to invest in and build unlimited dwellings for frum families, free medical care, exemption from army service, lets it run its own communities and schools, freedom of travel internally and abroad, freedom of speech (so that people like yourself can say what they want -- not like what will happpen when the Haredim will take over the state) and PROTECTS Haredim (with its army, police, and politically), just see the photos of the Satmar Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum on last week's visit to Israel being PROTECTED by the secular Zionist Israeli police!!! Don't you get that this is 2007 and not 1907!!! In any case, Haredi Judaism is "anti" many things on the theoretical and the not-so-theoretical level! Do you wish to create categories for all those things that are assur? Let's see now: Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Modernism; Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Feminism; Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Secularism; Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-college education; Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-media with sub-categories of Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Internet; Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-television; Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-cell phones and Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-popular music if the list could go on and on it really could, but it's just that Jew-bashing, in the guise of "anti-Zionism" has greater acceptance in the general media giving the words "anti-Zionism" a "sex appeal" that other issues opposed by Haredim have not received (yet) but I am sure that you are working on it... IZAK 09:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or possibly rename) - After giving considerable thought to the arguments advanced by Izak (and to the countervailing arguments, as well), my conclusion is that there is no compelling reason to delete this category, which properly groups in one category those Orthodox/Haredi groups which are, in fact, opposed to Zionism. I took the time to look over all of the various sub-categories in Category:Orthodox Judaism, and there are four other sub-cats that follow the "Category:Orthodox Jewish xxxxx" naming formula. There is also a Category:Religious Zionism which consists entirely of Jewish religious support for Zionism. (perhaps it should be renamed to reflect that?) Lastly, I note the pertinent article/section, Haredim and Zionism#Groups which are generally opposed to the State of Israel.

Taking all of this into account, I would support either keeping the category as currently named, or renaming to something like Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism. Cgingold 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as renamed by Cgingold. The current version is a little unintentionally POV, for it could suggest to those who do not know that all Orthodox groups are opposed, which is of course not the case. The suggested rewording , [[:Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism], seems the clearest. DGG (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested by Cgingold or perhaps Category:Haredi groups opposed to a secular Jewish state. The category creator's incivility and trampling of NPOV notwithstanding, there do happen to be groups that warrant such a category, at least under a less POV name. Yet IZAK makes a good point that there is danger of mischaracterizing these groups. The category implies a political grouping when the reasons for opposition by these groups have more to do with deeper, nonpolitical issues. --MPerel 09:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misleading and doesn't deserve it's own category. --89.138.198.50 12:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with IZAK. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname as suggested by DGG. I have not considered the material, but I am aware that there are non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews, or at least there have been. Since the view exists (or did), why should it not ahve a category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
  • Delete not worthy of a cat to rename. --Shuki 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hold a separate vote on deciding on whether and what to rename it. --Ezra Wax 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename to Category:Orthodox Jewish groups opposed to Zionism per Cgingold & DGG above. Johnbod 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as per IZAK et al) or at least Rename to Category:Haredi groups opposed to a secular Jewish state as per MPere above. the current name and Cgingold's / DGG's suggestions are either misleading or inaccurate or both. Nahum 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our opposition to Zionism has NOTHING at all to do with the Zionist state being 'secular'. Zionism of any type, religious or secular, is completely false. Even if the state were a theocracy led by so-called 'rabbis', it would be totally forbidden. It would be even worse, for the transgression of the so-called 'religious Zionists' is even worse than that of the secular Zionists, because through their actions they aim to justify the acts of the Satan. The 'religious Zionists' will face their punishment for that in Gehinnom. --Eidah 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, by the way, if this category gets deleted, I'll be nominating Category:Religious Zionism for deletion and I expect all of those who voted 'delete' here to vote 'delete' there as well. --Eidah 09:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Rename; Most orthodox are not opposed to Zionism, they may not be enthusiastic about it, but far from opposing it actively. Chareidim and particular the satmar Hasidim are indeed more into this opposing stuff, so lets make a new category of Hariedim.--יודל 12:47, 28 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dizzy Gillespie[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dizzy Gillespie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category does not meet the exception to the guideline as Gillespie's life is not covered by multiple subarticles that can't otherwise be categorized and interlinked. Otto4711 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guideline is only a guideline, not policy, and it is biased towards deletionism. This category has two subcategories that belong together. Alex Middleton 13:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most musicians do not require their own eponymous category because their main article serves as a sufficient navigational hub for their songs and albums (which is all that's included here). Also, saying that something is "only a guideline" is a misunderstanding of what it means for a document to be a guideline. Guidelines are built on editorial consensus and are therefore something that most editors apparently agree with. WP:OCAT in particular has been in place for quite a while and also has been supported by hundreds of cfds over the last year. So it's not just an essay or opinion page - it's something that a good number of editors agree with, and referring to WP:OCAT is a shorthand way of saying "here is how this should be handled". Dugwiki 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gary Moore[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gary Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception stated at the guideline as coverage of Moore's life is not divided into multiple sub-articles that can't be interlinked and elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 13:01, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:George Strait[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Strait (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategroization. Subject does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline as he does not have multiple subarticles that are not easily interlinked and elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 12:58, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Eponymous musician categories - G[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete all per precedent. Kbdank71 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G. Love & Special Sauce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rosie Gaines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Serge Gainsbourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ginger Baker's Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gogmagog (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Goldfrapp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Googoosh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Goon Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Grandaddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Amy Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gravity Kills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:David Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Green River (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Grinspoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Guess Who (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gym Class Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories consists of one or more (in some cases none) of the subacategories: albums; members; songs; along with the band's article and in some cases a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Otto4711 12:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of those with two or more subcategories. This group nomination is inappropriate because the nature of the categories varies in regard to the amount of content. Alex Middleton 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two or more subcategories is not a sufficient condition to keep eponymous musicians categories. Categories that consist solely of articles and subcategories for albums, songs and band members in particular are not normally enough justification for having an eponymous category because navigating these items are already amply handled by the main article and other categorization schemes like Category:Albums by artist. So unless I'm overlooking something, all of these categories only consist of the main article and album/song/band member articles and therefore can be safely deleted as described in WP:OCAT. Dugwiki 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, power down the Wiki servers, nuke them and destroy the planet while you're at it Pointless even nominating these as they all go down the delete pan, even if there are cast-iron reasons for keeping. Too much red tape anyone? Lugnuts 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly are the "cast iron reasons" for keeping any of these categories? They certainly don't seem to differ from the numerous previous deletions, and there are good reasons for such deletions in general. How do any of these categories differ from the previous ones we've deleted? Dugwiki 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You completly missed the point. Oh well, never mind. Lugnuts 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's absurd not to group closely related categories, such as songs and albums by the same band. The only motivation for doing so seems to be a desire to eliminate categories as an end in itself. These categories alone were created by 15 different users, but it is always the same handful who push through the deletions. It seems to me that it is the many who use these categories that represent the consensus of the community as to what is valuable, rather than a handful of active deletionists. Postlebury 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Category:Googoosh. Googoosh doesn't seem to fit the pattern; a very brief browsing makes me think this person is more of an actor than a musician. The category may be deletable, but doesn't match the reason given in the nomination. It should be discussed separately. The rest all meet the criteria we've agreed form the boundary between criteria that would include 99% of all musicians/musical groups and criteria that will only result in eponymous categories in exceptional cases. The boundary between what's being nominated here and what's not really is a major one, and I always check Otto's nominations, since he has a tendency to go a bit overboard. I just created new members categories for two of the groups nominated here, to ensure that the members didn't end up uncategorized. The current compromise was hammered out at great length, and while some people on both sides of the debate may remain disgruntled, it is the best compromise we have been able to come up with, and has extensive precedent and review behind it at this point. (And to answer Lugnuts's implied question, why do we even both to list these? It's so that someone like me can check for exceptions that should be kept, as I have done several times in the past.) Xtifr tälk 13:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Googoosh as well Note that Category:Googoosh has only three items: the main article, a discography article and a filmography article. Both the discography and the filmography are easily accessed from the main article and from Category:Discographies and Category:Filmographies. So Category:Googoosh can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Category:Googoosh already has good sub cats. This nomination follows previous consensus and the keep votes do not appear to raise new points to justify changing th well established convention. Vegaswikian 00:33, 27 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dark Angel (band)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was delete per precedent. Kbdank71 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dark Angel (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus, the members and albums subcats plus band article do not warrant an eponymous category for the band. Otto4711 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no such consensus. Guidelines are not policies. Alex Middleton 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guidelines represent consensus. Moreover there has been ample precedent and agreement on deleting eponymous band categories which only include songs, albums and band members since the main article and other existing category schemes already amply handle navigation. Therefore delete. Dugwiki 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the delete votes come from the same three or four users each time. Oliver Han 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFD is not a vote. It is not relevant who makes the arguments. It is the arguments that are relevant and the arguments against these categories have prevailed repeatedly and been endorsed at DRV. Otto4711 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guideline does not represent a consensus. Oliver Han 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. It's been in place for a fairly long time now, and we've had hundreds of deletions along these lines, almost all of which have been supported by the admins. Plus even if this were a brand new guideline (which it isn't), there are good reasons behind the guideline being the way it is for eponymous categories. My suggestion is that if you have a problem with something in the WP:OCAT guideline you might want to bring it up in the guideline's talk page. Dugwiki 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by the above comment you mean "Keep because guidelines aren't policies", you'll probably need a better rationale than that. So far that misleading statement is the only reason given for wanting to keep this category. Dugwiki 18:01, 24 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Haskell compilers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Haskell compilers to Category:Haskell implementations
Nominator's rationale: Rename, the category contains not only compilers but also at least one interpreter (Hugs). The proposed new name would also be neutral wrt. the implementation techniques. Tobias Bergemann 12:12, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parsers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parsers to Category:Parser generators
Nominator's rationale: The category contains software tools known as parser generators (i.e. tools used to create parsers based on a formal description of the syntax of a language) not parsers itself. —Tobias Bergemann 11:40, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bandini[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bandini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has existed for 6 months and has only ever contained a single (nearly eponymous) article. DH85868993 10:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. The lone article is appropriately categorized and there is no justification for this category. Otto4711 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia editing advice[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While well-intended, I think this is not such a good idea. This category essentially holds {{essay}}s that are considered "good advice" by some. Like earlier discussions on Template:Featured essay and the like, it is not such a good idea to give the impression that the opinions presented in some essays are more valuable than others, for some arbitrary or subjective reason. Note that pages with "good editing advice" tend to be (or become) {{guideline}}s to begin with. I suggest merging this back into CAT:E. >Radiant< 08:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A very large proportion of all essays convey editing advice, so categorizing all of them together would not be terribly useful, and Radiant is correct in pointing out the problems of categorizing just a favored subset. Small sets of essays are better showcased in userspace lists, or in links from other essays. Note, this cat contains more than essays, and as of right now, all of the true essays remain in CAT:E, so there is no merge necessary. ×Meegs 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many essays discuss or propose policy, and that is somewhat different from the ones that primary give not particularly controversial good advice. DGG (talk) 04:34, 26 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science fiction Westerns[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was no rename/withdrawn. If I understand the nominator correctly, it was originally intended to recategorise a number of entries in one to the other, more appropriate category; the nominator has since performed this recategorisation by hand. Since the two cats cover different topics and are viably separate, then no futher action is required. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Science fiction Westerns to Category:Space Westerns
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Science fiction Western and Space Western are two different things (please read the definitions in the respective articles). Most of the articles listed in this category are for Space Westerns. It's easier to rename this category and remove those that don't fit than to do the reverse. Sorry, I created Category:Space Westerns before thinking of this solution. SharkD 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate (though not preferred) solution would be to rename the category Category:Weird Westerns after the Weird West article. This genre is all-inclusive but maybe too broad. SharkD 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively keep both - If "Science fiction Westerns" and "Space Westerns" are two legitimately recognized and separate genres, then there should probably be genre categories for both of them. I would defer to someone who is more knowledgable regarding the genres. Otto4711 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that the vast majority of articles (all of them except for a few) are in the wrong category. It is easier to rename the category than to manually move all the articles. The remaining few that were in the correct category to begin with may then be moved manually.
  • Since both categories exist, what you're really proposing is to merge SF Westerns to Space Westerns and then re-create SF Westerns and recategorize anything improperly in Space Westerns. Which, if from a workload perspective that's easier, then that's fine. But it may actually be less work to simply recategorize the existing articles rather than merging/deleting/recreating/recategorizing. Otto4711 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the editor it would be "easier to rename", but that's just because an admin would be doing the work required. I suggest using WP:AWB, or asking someone who is registered to use it, to move all articles from one category to the other; then manually revert those that were in the right place already. Fayenatic (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind. I edited the category by hand. SharkD 04:45, 24 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G.[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suggest Delete This category contains one page and one picture. I also do not believe it is appropriate to categorize articles/images based on who uploaded them. User are free to create a list in their user space.-Andrew c [talk] 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Eastlaw 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; functionality duplicated by upload log. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:13, 23 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User galleries[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User galleries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suggest Delete This category contains one page and one subpage (nominated also for deletion above). This category is redundant with Category:User page galleries, and the one article in this category isn't even a "gallery" so no sense in merging.-Andrew c [talk] 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. gidonb 14:08, 22 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judges of Northern District of New York[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Judges of Northern District of New York to Category:Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
Nominator's rationale: Rename in order to be consistent with the current subcategories of Category:United States District Court judges. User who created this category is no longer active. Eastlaw 00:50, 22 August 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 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_August_22&oldid=1142606450"