Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Category:Myoxidae[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Dormice, obsolete name (should be Gliridae), but please Keep as redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. --Aranae 21:40, 8 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:African American baseball players[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 merge to Category:American baseball players and Category:African American sportspeople per WP:OCAT --Kbdank71 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Nominator's rationale: ~~'Delete~~ ~~This seems like a pretty broad subject for a category... are we breaking baseball players down by race? Spanneraol 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete, again I doubt the rationale of categorizing people along racial/ethnic lines. --Soman 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:American baseball players. Otto4711 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if necessary. Race could be relevant to other professions but this seems ultra-detailed. Bulldog123 20:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection per WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 05:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Frankly, I am staring at this in disbelief. I was hoping to come back and find that it was really just a bad joke.

"are we breaking baseball players down by race?" - It's not as though this category was just somebody's sudden bit of whimsy. This category has existed for two years, during which time dozens of editors have ratified its value and its validity by adding 342 pages and 2 subcategories to it.

"trivial intersection"?? - Since when is there anything "trivial" about the experience of African Americans in the United States??? Try telling that to Jackie Robinson, or Satchel Paige. Or better yet, try telling that to Hank Aaron, who's still alive. As it happens, I spent several hours editing his article yesterday, with special attention to the parts that speak of his experience as a Negro baseball player in the United States of America. Take a minute and read this section if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Just because there has been real progress in race relations in this country in the last 3 or 4 decades doesn't mean that categories like this are no longer needed. And just because current day black ballplayers aren't generally subjected to that kind of abuse, doesn't mean that this category can now be consigned to the dustbin.

It's real easy to sit back in the anonymity of one's comfortable chair and make these kinds of arguments (for deletion). But imagine, for a moment, the reaction, were you to attempt to justify this deletion in a room full of African Americans. I think it's safe to say that the hooting and hollering would be very intense. And frankly, I don't believe for a minute that the reaction of a good cross-section of Wiki editors would be very different.

Merely because a handful of editors wish the whole "ethnicity thing" would just go away, doesn't mean that their personal agenda should be imposed on all of the hundreds of thousands or millions of Wikipedia readers who would be severely frustrated by the difficulties they would encounter in finding what they're looking for, were this category (and others like it) to be deleted. An awful lot of editors and readers will be dumfounded if this category is deleted. And I suspect they will make some fairly obvious inferences as to what's going on.

I've supported the deletion of categories that are truly trivial. This isn't trivial. Cgingold 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we shouldn't start splitting everything by ethnic background. >Radiant< 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete based on overcategorization guidelines - not on the nominator's rationale. Baseball isn't in and of itself an African American cultural phenomenon (athletics overall, maybe, but baseball specifically?), so we might be looking at a slight overcategorization here. I can see a merge to African American athletes as a viable compromise, and also to American baseball players, but I don't think it's a category that should be removed just because they're sorted by race. I also don't think the nomination is part of someone trying to push a point of view or agenda on the subject. It might be a touch on the nitpicky side if anything, but that's about it. Sidatio 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the basis of their own comments & nominations in previous CFDs, etc., several of these editors are indeed pursuing an agenda of ridding Wiki of as many ethnic categories as possible. This just happens to be one of the more stunning examples. Cgingold 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm more inclined to assume good faith first. I realize people can and do get passionate about their beliefs, but I've always been of the opinion that it's probably best to discuss this type of thing based on technical merits - and while overcategorization guidelines aren't explicitly clear on the topic, it could be construed that this might be a bit of an overcategorization. Now, if baseball in general was an African American cultural phenomenon, then the argument to keep gets a little stronger. The arguments for keep, though, seem to be part of the broader civil rights movement of the time, or perhaps take the nomination personally, rather than just about the merits of the category overall. Yes, African Americans made great contributions to baseball - I'd be ignorant not to realize that. And yes, baseball was once so prevalent in African American culture that we had the Negro League for a while. But consensus can change over time, and while there are certainly notable African American players in the game nowadays, it's just not as widespread in African American culture anymore - which is where criteria 7 of WP:OCAT comes into play. From the lead-in to that guideline:

“

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one.

”

I can see it going either way, but the main question that has to be asked is this: Can a lead article be written on the subject that won't get itself merged into the main baseball article? I have doubts that one can be written, but that's a personal opinion. Like I said, this could go either way. The only thing that leads me to cast a vote for deletion are the technical aspects of WP:OCAT - nothing more, nothing less. Sidatio 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:OCAT is used as a rationale to justify deletion of this category, then WP:OCAT has been turned into a strait-jacket and needs to be revisited. On the first point you raised, I'm not suggesting a lack of "good faith", I'm simply pointing out the very simple fact that certain editors do have a personal agenda in terms of eliminating ethnicity-related categories. I think that's harmful and contrary to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. Cgingold 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's a whole 'nother discussion right there. Besides, it appears to be moot - the nominator seems to have stricken out his vote? Can we get some clarification on that? Sidatio 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out here that the Negro League did not exist because baseball was prevalent in African American culture - it existed because the baseball establishment would not allow African Americans to play on the "regular", that is, white, teams. They were classified, categorized if you will, by their race. This category is not a new invention. And a lead article most certainly can be written about it if it doesn't exist already. Tvoz |talk 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - per Cgingold - this nomination is a good example of deletion run amok - there is nothing trivial or random about this category, and I'm afraid some of the commenters above show their lack of knowledge in this area. It is a fact of American life and history that people are categorized by their ethnicity, not a creation of Wikipedia. Sports in particular is an arena where ethnicity and race have played a major role. Indeed, ask Hank Aaron. It is of interest to our readers and useful for researchers. Merging into American baseball players ignores the unique place that African American players have in baseball, and merging into African American athletes renders the category less useful because it is too unspecific. A student researching a paper on the impact of African Americans on baseball will have to work doubly hard to find the intersection of the two areas, for no good reason - this is the point of having categories. The argument that we shouldn't classify athletes by race or ethnicity is naive and unsupportable. It is a fact of life, and deletion or merger of this category is completely wrong. Tvoz |talk 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes. Stating that people who disagree with you don't know what the heck they're talking about. Such attacks really help the discussion. >Radiant< 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't attacking, and I'm sorry if it sounded to you like an attack. I was simply observing that comments that suggest that race has been irrelevant in baseball show a lack of knowledge about the subject. And I have to add that I don't think anyone is "starting" to split "everything" by race - as was mentioned, this category has been around here for years and this isn't "everything". The intersection of race and baseball in America, unfortunately, is the farthest thing from trivial. I also do not understand how this category can be both "pretty broad" and "ultra-detailed". Tvoz |talk 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least as subdivision of Category:African American sportspeople. This whole issue of whether subdivision of enormous categories is desireable in itself needs deciding - see recent musician/porn star debates. This is a useful and sensible way of sub-dividing the A-A sportspeople, but I don't think the baseball cat should be divided by race. Johnbod 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per well reasoned comments by Cgingold and Tvoz. Those who have a problem with all distinctions based on ethnicity -- which is clearly not the approach that Wikipedia has taken, should take that issue up elsehwere, and not on an article by article basis.--Epeefleche 18:15, 9 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.

Comment: Is this discussion even relevant anymore? It appears that the nominator has withdrawn - or, at the very least, stricken out his vote, which could very well be interpreted as withdrawal... Sidatio

Comment: I have the same question. How can this be closed as delete/merge if the nomination was apparently withdrawn? Tvoz |talk 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moreover, it was closed prematurely, before it had even reached 6 full days, at a point when a very intense discussion was in progress. I think people were starting to respond to the (completely neutral) notice that I had posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. If I had even suspected that it was about to be closed early, I would have made a point of requesting that the discussion be permitted to continue. Can you suspend your decision and re-open the discussion for another day or two? Cgingold

Category:Echimyidae[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Spiny rats, duplicate, but please Keep as redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. --Aranae 21:41, 8 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:Sciuridae[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Squirrels, this is a duplicate but please Keep as redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. --Aranae 21:41, 8 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 - H[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 per precedent --Kbdank71 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories is limited to one or more of the following subcats: albums; members; songs; along with the article for the artist and sometimes a discography. Per precedent this is eponymous overcategorization. The Bob Mould category is a subcat of Husker Du and it only contains his albums subcat. Otto4711 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All of these categories are valuable, for reasons set out by the nominator. Alex Middleton 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is a nomination for deletion. The nominator has laid out no reasons why the categories are valuable. Indeed, the nominator believes the categories are without value. Otto4711 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, he explained that they group one or more related subcategories. Alex Middleton 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: this has been discussed at great length at numerous CfDs, the broad consensus and precedent are clear, and have been upheld at deletion review. This is a subset of eponymous categories (which is generally considered a form of overcategorization) that contain no more than two articles and are unlikely to ever contain more. Internal linkage at the articles in question is more than adequate, and the subcategories are not being nominated (although they also contain extensive internal linkage, they are generally far larger, and also fit into established categorization schema). So much for any claims that these are "valuable". Arguments for keeping this categories have never amounted to more than WP:ILIKEIT. These are, for the most part, effectively vanity categories. (Not that vanity may not be justified in a few of these cases, but just saying....) Xtifr _tälk 00:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back through recent votes, there is a "broad consensus" between about five regulars, who are simply ignoring any objections, even though a large number of different users have objected. This is just a stitch-up. Why do you even pretend to be following proper procedure? Why not just use admin powers to speedy delete them? That's what you are doing in effect. It's a farce and an outrage what is going on here. Alex Middleton 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once a consensus appears to have been reached, many editors will not comment on each successive nomination. Since each new category nominated has a notice included in the header, different editors become aware of the issue. Unless an issue is raised that affects the general consensus, the deletes will continue. These can not be speedied since there may be some that really should be kept and based on a supportying justification would be kept. Vegaswikian 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per extensive precedents. Wryspy 21:14, 5 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:Fossorial muroids[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 no consensus --Kbdank71 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Spalacidae; note Fossorial muroids is just a redirect to Spalacidae. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should establish whether we want these categories based on taxon name or common name. I think the taxobox establishes scientific names and the categories should be a bit looser in naming, but still apply to the same groups. "Fossorial muroids" is a bit ecological and might be an exception; there are several burrowing muroids that don't fit here such as Ellobius and Hyperacrius. So perhaps the ambiguity might lead to going with the family name. Another point: overall, I wouldn't use what the articles redirect to. This is a neglected topic with a good thousand new (past week or so) messy bot-generated articles that all need cleaning up. There's a lot of work that needs to be done here. --Aranae 16:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into a new category: Category:Spalacid rodents. Considering the ambiguity of "fossorial muroids" and the desire to use a common name, I think this would be the best approach. --Aranae 16:45, 4 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:Bovids[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 rename/merge as nominated, per commons, leave redirect --Kbdank71 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bovidae, as duplicate, to match Commons:Category:Bovidae, see also discussion of Elapids. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Commons category is completely empty, and I would always be extremely dubious that Commons categories are more accurate than ones here. As at Elapids, I would check with the experts. Normally using a plural form for a category is correct. Johnbod 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the plural form is standard, but in this case I think the singular is better, since I expect more people will be searching for Bovidae rather than Bovids. Really, either way is fine, as long as one becomes a category redirect to the other. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. "Bovidae" is plural, no? At least, it is by any standard grammatical rules that I know of. Xtifr _tälk 00:45, 5 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:Ultimate Marvel mutants[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant duplication of Category:Marvel Comics mutants. No need to list these ones twice, no need for this strange intersection... ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Johnbod 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, there is a slight difference between regular Marvel comics characters and the Ultimate Marvel universe. However, given that there aren't many (if any) pages just for the Ultimate versions of these mutants, I don't see a need for this category. FrozenPurpleCube 17:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We don't categorize these alternate versions. Ultimate Marvel mutants are still Marvel mutants. Plus, very few have separate articles from the originals. Wryspy 21:15, 5 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:Elapids[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 rename/merge as nominated, per commons cat and per Elapidae --Kbdank71 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Elapidae, duplicate, to match Commons:Category:Elapidae. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this the correct direction? Some Wiki projects have already set standards agreed to by the community (meaning anybody on Wikipedia who is interested, not just project members) about whether to use common or scientific names. For a bird category, for example, if you merged into the scientific name you would be incorrect. So, have you verified with the snake-folks that this is the correct direction for the merge? Also the categories don't seem to give information that agrees they are the same, one says it contains the taxa, and is the subcategory of the other--maybe the other snake categories are done like this on purpose. It needs to be clarified if that is the case, but please just ask the snake folks. After which, they should be merged, whichever direction. KP Botany 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a wanted category, I created several of them this morning ... I had been assuming that the new name was better, since it matches the commons category, but you probably know better then me which is really correct. Clearly we don't need both; one should become a redirect to the other. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask the snake folks, they should be able to answer it. It's not obvious because there are snake articles with both common and scientific names. In plants, we default to scientific names, so all categories about taxa are simply the taxon's name. It's confusing for everyone in biology, with species, because it is done differently all over, like birders have standardized common names for species, and don't use categories on Wikipedia. Ahhggg. KP Botany 21:55, 3 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:Code Lyoko video games[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 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators rationale: Delete The category only contains two pages, and those two pages are also located on the Code Lyoko Template. Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:58, 3 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:Hindu schools in India[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. I checked the articles that were removed, and indeed they made no mention of being hindu schools. That left one that did say it was. This can be recreated if more articles about hindu schools are written. --Kbdank71 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The scope and purpose of this category is very unclear. The 4 current articles do not shed any light. Loom91 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion, I found the category at Category:Hindu Schools in India and simply made that a category redirect and moved the articles to the correctly capitalized category. I have no opinion on precisely its use or intention. IPSOS (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too empty. Inclusion boundaries are outrageously large. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only one day old, and a cursory look at Category:Schools in India shows there are plenty that can be added. As there is an equivalent RC category, I don't see the problem with this one. Johnbod 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a large and growing number of articles on such schools.DGG (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone define what "Hindu school" means in this context, as most schools in India have mainly Hindu pupils and staff. Is it a school that only accepts Hindus, or one that trains Hindu priests, or one that only accepts Hindu pupils, or what? Alex Middleton 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with Catholic, Muslim etc schools, it is enough that that the school has a professed Hindu ethos, and teaches Hinduism. Johnbod 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: doesn't seem particularly unclear to me. Although I'm willing to defer to those more familiar with the region on this. Xtifr _tälk 00:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there precedent for this? I mean, do we have categories of schools that have professed Christian ethos? This seems too vague a criteria to me. How would you reference such a claim? And what does it mean to teach Hinduism? Hindu School is not a Hindu school, it is secular. Loom91 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This editor has removed all the articles from the category (I have readded the only one on my watchlist). This is contrary to CfD rules (see CfD page). Please repopulate if possible. Johnbod 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply we have a huge Category:Schools by religious affiliation, of which I imagine the largest group is Category:Roman Catholic schools,including Indian (and Indian Jesuit) sub-cats. You could easily have found this out by following the tree yourself, instead of emptying the category against procedure. Johnbod 02:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The emptying was not connected to this CfD. I was removing the current articles from the category because the articles themselves did not claim that the schools imparted religious education, let alone reference such a claim. Since two of them I know to be secular, it seemed quite possible that the others were also mistakenly listed. Please do not readd without providing references showing they do claim to be Hindu. The CfD is about whether the category is needed. Whether certain article are correctly categorised is a different issue altogether. Loom91 08:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I can track had a clear reference in the short text, quoted in my edit summary when re-adding. I sniff POV efforts here. Johnbod 10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why being blessed by a religious leader (conman is a more appropriate description) means the school itself iss religious. Still, that was the only school in the category to mention anything connected with religion. And please refrain from making unfounded accusations. Loom91 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly misreading the passage:" the School is run under the guidance & blessing of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba..... dedicated to the upliftment of the society, and with commitment of serving for the cause for which the school has started." Not very precise, but it is a very stubby article. Furthermore you removed that article saying there was nothing in the article to justify the category. Since I can't now trace what other articles were in the category before your edits, I have only your assertion that they had nothing about religion, when you were clearly wrong in the one case I can verify. Your assertion just now that the Bhagwan in question is more exactly described as a "conman" does not really help demonstrate your lack of POV here!Johnbod 10:22, 9 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:PIRA killings[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 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category seems to be pushing a POV. Almost all of the articles in this category are already listed under Category:Provisional IRA actions or Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA. In addition to those two categories, almost every article falls in the Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom tree, or has a category related to "The Troubles". There may be a case of overcategorization in some of these articles already, and this category only worsens the problem. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - adequately covered by Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA.--Addhoc 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous articles relevant to that category have been deleted on (the spurious but logical) grounds that our Birmingham pub bombings and Warrenpoint ambush articles, for example, refer to places rather than people. An acceptable alternative is to shorten and rename the older Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA to nominated name....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already exists under another heading. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over-categorisation due to overlapping. All the articles are already categorised in Category:Provisional IRA actions or its sub-category Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA. Brixton Busters 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was up before or one very like it, as per above. --Domer48 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brixton Busters.--padraig 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above--BigDunc 21:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but ensure that all articles are in one or other of the PIRA categories discussed by others. We do not need duplicate categories. I assume that there are corresponding categories for the "Official IRA" and for the various so-called loyalists militants. Peterkingiron 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - This is a case of simple redundancy. Given that the category was never assigned the appropriate parent cats, I think it's quite likely that its creator never checked to see if there already were existing categories that covered the same subject. It might, however, be a good idea for someone to propose that Category:Provisional IRA actions be renamed to Category:Provisional IRA attacks. Cgingold 23:54, 6 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:General CVG character subboxes[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:General CVG character subboxes to Category:General VG character subboxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename, WP:CVG was renamed to WP:VG a long time ago. I guess this category just slipped through the cracks. I dunno if this is speedy-able. Axem Titanium 14:37, 3 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:Converts from Judaism[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 no consensus --Kbdank71 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: First of all, I want to note previous discussions People who have renounced Judaism and Former Jews. I'd also note that perhaps this category should be renamed to Category:Former adherents of Judaism. It has been inappropraitely (IMO) placed in the Category:Religious converts tree instead of the Category:People by former religion tree. I'm not opposed entirely to this category existing, but I believe that adding early Christians to the list is inappropriate because there is a dispute regarding whether they stopped considering themselves Jewish or not. We cannot verify as a fact that Mary Magdalene "converted", nor many of the other early Christians. Next, the category included people from Category:Jewish Messiah claimants, which also seems inappropriate (did they stop considering themselves Jewish?) and besides, it is redundant to include individuals on both lists. So if we remove the early Christians and the Messiah claimants, that leaves us with 5 articles in the category (one individual was baptized orthodox Christian as 7 months, so it's strange to include him). So basically should this category be kept? If so what inclusion criteria, and should it be renamed?Andrew c ^[talk] 14:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Rename per Andrew c, below - Category creator's rationale:

This category was inspired by this list-article's AfD, although the inclusion criteria aren't the same as that list.
It seems logical to me that if we have categories such as Category:Converts to Judaism and Category:Converts to Christianity, etc, then we should also have Category:Converts from Judaism and Category:Converts from Christianity. If a person converts to one faith they will normally be converting from another. Therefore it makes perfect sense for a Jewish convert to Christianity to be categorised under both Category:Converts from Judaism and Category:Converts to Christianity. Having one without the other is fairly meaningless. The same is true about converts from any faith to any other faith, as I'm not trying to POV push at all.
Similarly, it makes sense that the "Converts from xxxx" categories share a similar naming convention to the "Converts to xxxx" categories.
One editor I discussed this with objected to it from the biased POV that somehow the term "Jewish converts to xxxx" offends Jews. He said that categories like this have been deleted in the past, and I quote: "due to their controversial or offensive nature as well as how to really determine what the definitive status of a Jew who renounces his faith is according to Jewish law". That user instead suggested moving the list to Jewish heretics. ^{[see here]} Wikipedia is not here to cater to religious sensitivity, but instead to provide unbiased NPOV content. Wikipedia is certianly not bound by Jewish law. The term "Converts from xxxx" is NPOV, and is completely neutral of bias as it is simply sticking to the cold hard facts - the person discontinued their allegiance to one faith and took on another. Frankly I troubles me that previous categories were deleted for such POV reasons, but thankfully WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change, and even if this discussion ends in a delete decision, I'm confident it won't be for the same reasons.
I chose the parent directories as best as I could, but I've got no objections to them being changed if more suitable ones can be suggested.
The nominator makes a very good point about the founding Christians not intending to convert away from Judaism, so it's quite probable that they should be removed from the category. I do feel however that there is a significant number of notable people that have intentionally converted from Judaism over the past 2000 years to make this category worthwhile. Finding the articles of those people isn't very easy, but I'm working on it.
Eventually, the "Converted from xxxx" categories should be created for all of the major faiths (that means all the ones that currently have "Converted to xxxx" categories), as I'm confident that they can all be populated.

—gorgan_almighty 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I could live with this category if my issues were addressed (and you seem more than willing to agree to most). However, there is the issue of converts from... vs former... Currently, the way we organize people who used to be of a certain religious is in the Category:People by former religion. We may want to consider changing the name of all of those cats to converts from.. but that is a different CfD completely. If this category is to be kept, I strongly urge that it at least be renamed to match the existing naming convention for similar categories (and if necessary, propose all of them as a group to be renamed to converts from...). Thanks for the thought out, detailed reply.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the early Christians from the category. As far as naming is concerned, I think "Converted from xxxx" is clearer and more to the point, but I think we should get some more opinions on this before taking any action. —gorgan_almighty 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for removing the more controversial figures. Next, all I'm saying is that renaming category:Converts from Judaism to category:Former adherents of Judaism would qualify for speedy renaming based on the established naming convention of Category:People by former religion. Changing the entire established naming convention, while valid, is an issue separate from this particular discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Category:People by former religion (and its Talk page), I agree that this category should, for now, be renamed to Category:Former adherents of Judaism, and be moved whatever parent categories you see fit. Can I ask that you make the change yourself, then close this debate. I personally think that they should all renamed to "Converts from xxxx", but I am unwilling to start a CfD for that in case it is swung to "Delete all", as has happened to individual categories in the past. —gorgan_almighty 11:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that has been done. The two Messiahs are I think ok - especially the earlier who certainly converted to Islam at one point. But Alexander Men should go - he was baptised at 7 months - hardly a conversion. Johnbod 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people by former religion is not really encyclopedic: does Paul of Tarsus have much in common with Bob Dylan and with Sabbatai Zevi and with Leon Trotsky? We should think of who will end up here not just who is already here: we have a list that is quite extensive and categorizing on that without sourcing is also problematic. Carlossuarez46 05:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Paul of Tarsus is not in this category, as he was an early Christian who did not convert away from Judaism (see discussion above). Secondly, how is this not encyclopedic, and what makes you think that it is unsourced? As is the case with all categories on Wikipedia, the sources verifying that the articles belong in this category can be found in the articles themselves. Unsourced articles don't belong on Wikipedia, let alone this category, but well-sourced articles that provide citations for the persons conversion from Judaism can be included in this category without problem. —gorgan_almighty 11:11, 7 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.

Neighborhoods in the United States[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Situation with "Neighbourhoods" categories is another example of big Wikipedia categorisation mess. We have categories named "Neighbourhoods in XY", "Neighbourhoods of XY" and "XY neighbourhoods". Subcategories of Category:Neighbourhoods by country are all already named in "Neighbourhoods in XY" style. It seems that this convention is more modern and popular. Many "XY neighbourhoods" categories were started in the time, when categories like "XY lakes" or "XY buildings" were made, now all renamed long time ago. So I propose making a standard of "Neighbourhoods in XY" to clean up this mess. Above nominated are only American neighborhoods. All related Canadian categories were renamed week ago [1]. P.S. As for the "in", "of" issue, "of" is supposed for geographical categories, "in" for human settlements and buildings. This is generally accepted naming convention. - Darwinek 11:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all I think I meant to do this like a year ago but it was just too much work. --W.marsh 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, I think this is a good idea, and will bring consistency to Category:Neighborhoods in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. For consistency's sake. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per above. Good one ;) Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, with two amendments. Category:Boston neighborhoods should be moved to Category:Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts, as per Category:Boston, Massachusetts. The same for Cleveland: Category:Neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Gilliam 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made one amendment to the proposed names — I think it was pretty safe to assume that the Columbus, Ohio category was intended to be renamed Category:Neighborhoods in Columbus, Ohio rather than "Neighborhoods in Calgary". That out of the way, rename all per establishment of a consistent standard for neighbo(u)rhood categories. Bearcat 00:09, 8 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:English students' unions[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 keep --Kbdank71 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Entries in the category are almost entirely non notable. Individually, the articles could be AFD'd but there are hundreds of them, for every minor college in the UK. Well, nearly every college in the world has a student union, it's just expected. Not every college in the world, however, deserves an article on their student union. The category does nothing IMHO to build an encyclopedia, doubly so given the lack of notability of the individual articles. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. There are actually 47 of them. The fact that the articles exist means that they have notability or they have not yet been nominated for AfD. Whatever the case, as long as the articles exist, this category seems to be a reasonable one. Vegaswikian 08:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, unless a majority are deleted its a useful navigation tool. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The UK and Scottish students' unions were just up for renaming here. No consensus on whether to change it to Great Britain or leave it as UK, but nobody wanted to delete the cats. --Kbdank71 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With many articles on individual students' unions, the category is a natural distinction for collecting the articles together. AfD not CfD is the place for article notability; categories should not be deleted whilst articles exist and are clearly notable. Timrollpickering 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Nate1481. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Timrollpickering and Nate1481. --Bduke 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note to folks that there's no actual evidence that these unions are actually notable simply from them having pages. There are many pages which exist for non-notable subjects on Wikipedia, therefore, the mere existence of an article isn't proof of anything. I don't believe CFD is the place to resolve the question of these articles, but I do feel some of the arguments asserted here are actually quite flawed. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every UK university (or nearly so) has a students union. If they have articles, the category is an entirely rational one. They act as an umbrella organisation for all other student societies, some of which are NN, and some of which are notable, but I think the students unions are notable. If they are not the correct course is an AFD for those that are NN. If this leads to a depopulated category, it can be deleted, but I do not think that will happen. Peterkingiron 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Student unions in England. The current name is grammatically incorrect, as it infers that the members of the unions are all English. Alex Middleton 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename That would put the category name out of sync with the others in Category:Students' unions - e.g. Category:United Kingdom students' unions, Category:Scottish students' unions, Category:Welsh students' unions, Category:Australian students' unions, Category:Canadian students' associations, Category:Irish students' unions, Category:Swedish students' unions andCategory:Vietnamese Students' Associations. Timrollpickering 13:50, 6 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:Actors with advanced academic degrees[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 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as trivial intersection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 16 entries, which I don't see as trivial. DGG (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, why is having an advanced degree, that 'excludes actors whose involvement in film/television is related to their field of study', important to their performance as actors? Vegaswikian 04:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of these actors is that they have signifiant training in a field unrelated to acting. In retrospect, this should have been a list, right? Kneague (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can offer up reliable sources that attest that the intersection of "actor" and "advanced academic degree" is notable. Otto4711 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection. Addhoc 08:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irrelevant intersection. Timrollpickering 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a random intersection of facts as described in WP:OCAT, and also one that isn't likely to be used for navigating articles about these actors. Plus I don't see a reason why acting with advanced degrees are significantly different than any other profession with advanced degrees outside the profession (eg sportspeople or businesspeople or politicians, etc). It's not done for those, so why do it for actors? At best it would be a list, but either way it's not a good category. Dugwiki 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly named trivia. Wryspy 04:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category is both random and trivial. There

are no other similar sub-cats for other professions to be found among the categories for advanced academic degrees. Cgingold 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little different than actors who have blackbelts, actors who are eagle scouts, and actors who have allergies to penicilin. Carlossuarez46 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think that categorizing actors with advanced academic degree is trivial. In contrast, this issue is of notability because most of actors hardly got any academic degrees, let alone that many of them even didn't finish high schools. The academic degree is often noted as a notable characteristic of the actor (if they have), maybe for its rarity. Natalie Portman is known not only for her role in Star War series but also for her bachelor's degree in psychology at Harvard. Unlike the trivial intersection examples stated on WP:OCAT (red-haired and gamers) or the super trivia alleged by Carlossuarez46 (blackbelts or something), all of which make no sense and appear stupid to readers, this intersection is suitable and worth looking up. @pple 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To the contrary, I know of lots of actors who have such degrees, and there are undoubtedly many others who do as well. I find it interesting, personally, but not sufficiently noteworthy that it deserves a category -- especially when there is not a single other occupation which has an equivalent subcategory in Category:Academic degrees. Cgingold 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have you done the research that "most actors hardly got any academic degrees? That seems like a very difficult supposition to prove. Lots of actors went to school and got degrees.. "Many of them didnt finish high school"?? Again, research? Sources?Spanneraol 21:14, 8 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:Curb Your Enthusiasm[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 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Material doesn't require a category. Otto4711 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 entries onlyDGG (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - empty category. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. @pple 15:02, 8 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.