Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15[edit]

Category:Gilmore Girls cast members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. This category is already tagged with {{listify}} from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete when replacement lists exist. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum if you disagree with the CFD closing. It looks like List of Gilmore Girls characters fully covers the subject, so the category can be deleted without further debate. If a few actors are missing from the list, it is easier to fix the list than have a debate about it. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. Let's stick to the process. --Samuel Wantman 09:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per closing comments of CFD:Actors by series, cast member categories may be deleted when a suitable cast list exists. The cast lists at Gilmore Girls and List of Gilmore Girls characters are suitable for this purpose so the catageory can be deleted. Otto4711 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nomination. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lists are incomplete, better to delete those and keep the category. Mr. Stabs 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, who would reasonably defined as a "cast member," is missing? Otto4711 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my similar comments for the Alias (TV series) nomination above. Same reasoning. Dugwiki 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep blatantly disruptive nomination "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!". Also, was only renamed on 11 January: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21#Category:Gilmore_Girls_actors Tim! 08:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie. Otto4711 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The result of the Jan 21st debate was insufficient consensus for deletion, not keep. In the light of the Actors-by-series CFD it is eminently reasonable that it be raised again (WP:CCC).

Xdamr^talk 14:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please keep up the good work. Wimstead 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the "Listify" tag on the cat, since the information already exists in list form, Delete. — J Greb 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ugly Betty cast[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. This category is already tagged with {{listify}} from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete when replacement lists exist. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum if you disagree with the CFD closing. It looks like Ugly Betty has more actors listed than does the category, so the category can be deleted without further debate. If a few actors are missing from the article, it is easier to fix the article than have a debate about the category. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. Let's stick to the process. --Samuel Wantman 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per closing comments at the CFD - Actors by series a cast category may be deleted if an appropriate cast list exists. Ugly Betty contains an extensive list of regular cast members, recurring roles and notable guest stars which should assuage any fears of losing the actors' appearance information. Otto4711 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nomination. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom to avoid category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list is incomplete. so the category should stay. Mr. Stabs 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, who would reasonably defined as a "cast member," is missing? Otto4711 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my similar reasoning for Alias (TV series) above (Feb 16th cfd discussion) Dugwiki 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep blatantly disruptive nomination "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!". Also was only renamed on 11 January Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_11#Actors and cast Tim! 08:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie. Otto4711 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please keep up the good work. Wimstead 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the "Listify" tag on the cat, if the information already exists in list form, then Delete if not this need to be put on hold until the list is done. Since the list tooks like it is part of the "Characters" list in the main article, there may be an amount of cleanup and reformatting needed. — J Greb 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alias (TV series) actors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per closing comments of the CFD for Actors by series, cast/actors categories may be deleted with a suitable cast list in place. The cast list in the article along with the article List of characters from Alias should be sufficient to answer any concerns regarding preserving the information. Otto4711 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn on a technicality. Category got renamed and the the CFD tag got removed. Enough time has elapsed so that the new CFD tag now leads to the 2/16 CFD page. Relisted there. Otto4711 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:33, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Will & Grace cast members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. This category is already tagged with {{listify}} from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete when replacement lists exist. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum if you disagree with the CFD closing. It looks like Will & Grace has many more actors listed than does the category, so the category can be deleted without further debate. If anything it seems lik there is an overabundance of lists about this show. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. It certainly doesn't feel like a festival. Let's stick to the process. --Samuel Wantman 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin! Per the comments closing CFD:Actors by series, cast member categories may be deleted once an appropriate list exists within the TV show article. The cast list in Will & Grace coupled with Supporting characters on Will & Grace and List of guest stars on Will & Grace should be more than sufficient to answer any concerns about preserving the information on who appeared on the show. Otto4711 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nomination. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lists mentioned are incomplete. I'm also disturbed by "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!" - the nominator seems to have a death wish or something? Mr. Stabs 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the Alias (TV series) cfd above Dugwiki 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep blatantly disruptive nomination "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!". Also was only renamed on 11 January Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21#Category:Will_.26_Grace_actors Tim! 08:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie. Otto4711 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please keep up the good work. Wimstead 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the "Listify" tag on the cat, if the information already exists in list form, then Delete if not this need to be put on hold until the list is done. Since the list tooks like it is part of the "Characters" list in the main article, there may be an amount of cleanup and reformatting needed. — J Greb 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences to Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, US→United States. —Markles 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename − death to initials! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. Clearly meets speedy criteria. Vegaswikian 03:33, 17 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2006 J. League Division 1 (J1) Results[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used to contain month-by-month results pages. They have now been deleted, rendering this category empty. Punkmorten 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and what the hells is J. League? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the above Bbagot 15:41, 16 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Infectious disease survivors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful category. Lots of famous people in history have recovered from dangerous infectious diseases but this only contains two non-entities who recovered from smallpox. What use is it to categorise them with say Josef Stalin? JBellis 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vague category. I survived a cold. I survived a lot of colds. A cold is an infectious disease. Doczilla 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horribly vague and broad category. -- Scientizzle 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given how often people survive diseases, this is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague and non-defining. --Xdamr^talk 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hanbrook 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Doczilla. JoshuaZ 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague. Kolindigo 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that potentially everyone has survived the common cold. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague and too broad Bbagot 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above discussion. Turgidson 17:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unworkable. Metamagician3000 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are other "survivor" categories, and I would be happy to see the back of the lot of them. Wimstead 13:56, 18 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticisms of Richard Dawkins[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. POV categories. Pointless. Snalwibma 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe calling something stupid is helpful in these sort of nominations. However, one category is for 3 books, only 2 of which directly and exclusively respond to Dawkins. The other category included two individuals. Richard Dawkins isn't notable enough to have his critics defined in this manner. These categories are way too narrow and basically listcruft. -Andrew c 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless subjective categories. Doczilla 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Let's have intelligent critique not make up teams of critics --JBellis 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this might encourage creating thousands of similar categories: "Critics of person X" − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew. JoshuaZ 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective category Corpx 09:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete to avoid a proliferation of similar categories, none of which are defining characteristsics of the people involved; and above all because inclusion crieria are neccessarily subjective (is it sufficient to have once criticised the way Dawkins formatted a footnote, or do you have to acknowledge him as a rationalist fanatic who appears to be on a crusade to destroy all thought systems which cannot be fitted into his empiricist world view?). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
Delete, all arguments from the deletion of Category:Critics of George W. Bush apply here as well.-choster 14:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the understanding that all similar 'critics of' categories should be deleted as well. Bbagot 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster and Bbagot. Lesnail 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and discussion. Turgidson 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't want categories like this. In some cases an article on the topic may be acceptable, but usually that is also to be avoided as a POV fork. Metamagician3000 02:12, 17 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cold War leaders[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is being applied to any person who was a high-level politician during the Cold War. Given that the Cold War spanned several decades and included virtually every country, the category has ended up including virtually all heads of government from the half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the category contributes to category clutter, as seen on the pages of George H. W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher. Because the category is overly-broad, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A category which could include every East/West political leader (and maybe even military leader) over 50 years is far, far too broad.

Xdamr^talk 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose I created this category to move all these people out of the Category:Cold War where there are 179 non-people articles, even with the subcategories. Will they go back there again? No good. This war took 50 years so of course lots of people were involved and interestingly so. Forget these arguments about 'category clutter'. Look at pragmatic usefulness, not theory. And if a cateogry is 'too broad', then create subcategories, not delete it. Hmains 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. JoshuaZ 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little too broad in my opinion. Does this mean we need a "World Leaders" category? Corpx 09:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmains makes a good point. Whether or not I am personally into Cold War Leaders, the category is specific enough and noteworthy enough to keep. Bbagot 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sounds OK to me, and I used it a few times when editing articles. Turgidson 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xdamr. This could be too vast, and there's already a Cold War template that connects all the major events of the Cold War, if not all the people. Coemgenus 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. LukeHoC 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well defined time period. I can see how it can be useful for someone working on that era.Kinston eagle 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with good faith and common sense this could be workable and useful. Metamagician3000 02:13, 17 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rat-baiting dog breeds[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a minority use of the breeds and not a defining characteristic. See also the previous cfd on Category:Badger baiting dog breeds. the wub "?!" 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rat-baiting is what these breeds were often used for Headphonos 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cover this despicable activity in an article please, and do not intrude it in articles about pets. LukeHoC 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fascinating, are you aware that most dog breeds before establishing themselves as pets were developed as working animals, does this mean all dog fighting breeds or working terrier of guard dogs or any other breed activity that you personally feel you do not like should be deleted from Wikipedia?!... if so, you have no idea about what an encyclopedia is for...ie it reports the facts based on credible citations, not deleting information based on dislike of a topic or emotions Headphonos 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Annandale 00:58, 18 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sub-categories of Category:Christian pastors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Belgian pastors to Category:Belgian Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Canadian pastors to Category:Canadian Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Chilean pastors to Category:Chilean Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:English pastors to Category:English Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Filipino pastors to Category:Filipino Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Finnish pastors to Category:Finnish Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Polish pastors to Category:Polish Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Romanian pastors to Category:Romanian Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Swedish pastors to Category:Swedish Christian ministers

Propose renaming Category:Swiss pastors to Category:Swiss Christian ministers

Nominator's Rationale: In countless other CFDs in it has been agreed that "Pastor" is a job title used by certain denominations in certain contexts, and that "Christian minister" in a more useful generic term, which covers most protestant denominations (see Pastor).
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12#Category:German_pastors, which also proposes upmeging Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers; the categories nominated above have all been created today, while the CFR on Category:German pastors was underway.
--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all (nominator clarifying recommendation). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - The distinction between "pastor" and "minister" has not been clearly stated, and the categories' creator appears to be pushing a specific point-of-view on the definition of "pastor". Splitting up "ministers" and "pastors" like this only creates confusion, and it also unnecessarily divides up the category tree. It would be better to keep all articles on ministers in one branch of the category tree instead of two. Dr. Submillimeter 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Nominator makes a clear case. A Minister of religion covers "Pastor, Preacher, Bishop, Chaplain, Deacon or Elder" designations and Dr. Submillimeter's arguments seal the deal. Renaming will increase NPOV, reduce confusion and nunecessary division of category trees. -- Scientizzle 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all and upmerge Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers roundhouse 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Hanbrook 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for clarity. Coemgenus 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful Information

Pastor is a primary occupation, more so than "minister" or "leader," etc. Those are more generic. Pastor is definitive. Bishop is similarly definitive. Clergy is NOT an occupation, but a status, like Priest. A priest can do any of a number of occupations. Clergy can too. Clergy and Priest imply ordination, which is status or achievement, not occupation. Pastor does not necessitate ordination, though often these coincide. Therefore, Category:Christian clergy should NOT be a subcat of occupation. But Pastor cats SHOULD be under occupation. "Priest" cats and "clergy" cats are still good cats, just not as occupations. They make good subcats of Category:Christian ministers and Category:Christian religious leaders, which again are not exclusively occupations, either.

A Pastor IS one kind of minister (thus Pastors as a subcat of Ministers is entirely appropriate). But a minister is NOT always (or just) a Pastor. A Minister can be and do any number of occupations. "Pastoring" is only one of these occupations. The Shorter OED's lengthy definition of "Minister" includes "4b. A person officially charged with spiritual functions in the Christian Church."

The purpose of subcating "Pastors" from "Christian Ministers" is self evident. i.e., why do we split Bishops and Archbishops? Why do we split various types of teachers, academics, etc.? They are basically the same occupation. Ministers is inclusive of many, many occupations, Pastors being one of them (Bishops/Archbishops, in fact, could be another). If Presbyterians (e.g.) do NOT call their pastors pastors, then I suppose that could be a problem. Though my guess is, from an occupational standpoint (not just job title), pastor would still be correct -- if that is the occupation such a minister occupies. Afterall, wikpedia seeks to describe what is, not just report various nomenclature. Pastor IS a primary occupation of many Christian ministers. One of many such occupations. In my own case, though I dislike using any one unimportant person (such as I) to prove anything, I do not simply have the job title "Pastor." It IS my occupation. Indeed, my title is more properly "ordained elder," or "member in full connection" of the East Ohio Annual Conference of the U.M. Church, or you might even call me "reverend" -- believe it or not, some people do! There are ca. 600 of us. Most of us are "clergy," but THAT is NOT our "occupations," either. Most of us occupy the occupation of Pastor. Some occupy other occupations: teacher, professor, district superintendent, Bishop, Director of the Conference Council of Ministries, etc. But I don't want to bore you with all this. Hope this helps. Pastorwayne 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all cats. Pastorwayne 13:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all The length and complexity of the explanation above shows why the current names are not a good idea; one shouldn't need to be a theologian to work out who is likely to be included in a category and who is not. Annandale 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen to that! Category names should, where possible, be self-evident. PW's lengthy resonse doesn't even give us clear guidance about who within his region of his own denominaton should be categorised as a "pastor" and who shouldn't: how on earth is an ordinary editor gong to know whether "pastor" is the correct term to use? Much better to stick with the simple, generic term "christian minister". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 18 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian saints[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category was created today for the purpose of creating a list of saints "recognized by the majority of Christian churches which recognize saints." I guess it was stemming from the category "Saints by denomination" which lists saints which are unique to Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. However, "Christian Saints" itself is redundent because by definition a Saint is Christian. Furthermore, the categories "Saints" and "Saints by country" serves the same purpose as this category. I suggest, instead of creating this new category, be stricter about "saints by denomination" and move any saints that are only recognized by a specific denomination out of the parent category "saints" (if any are there).Andrew c 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the creator of the new category, and it is intended to eventually be used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints as a more specific category in which to place the majority of the articles relevant to that project. There already is a Category:Non-Christian saints which is a subcategory of Category:Saints, and this category is intended to be a complement to that Non-Christian Saints category. Right now, the Saints project works exclusively with Christian saints, although the Category:Saints includes non-Christian saints as well. This new category is intended to be the main category for the project. John Carter 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. The way the category was organized, I thought it was going to be a new category added to the majority of Saints' article, in addition to the existing category. But correct me if I am wrong, but what you are proposing is actually more like renaming Category:Saints to Category:Christian saints. Anyway, my point is that the Saint category should be the category for what you are proposing. If a saint is non-christian, move them out of the parent cat and into the non-christian saint category. I think the solution to this problem, isn't a matter of changing categories. What I think should be done is a) move all of the non-Christian saints out of the parent category and into the non-Christian saints category b) go through the non-Christian saints categories and make sure that these religious figures primarialy go by the title "saint" and if not, change the cat to say "Hindu Gurus" or whatever title is more appropriate c) open the focus of WikiProject Saints to cover the handful of non-christian saints (assuming that there are articles left on that list after step b). I think we both agree that there are some categorization issues: namely that the Christian saints are hanging out in a category with non-Christian saints. My solution is to just move the non-christians into their own category (that already exists), and your solution is to move the Christians into their own category (that was created today). Hmm, I feel I am repeating myself, so I'll stop here. Thanks for your comment and consideration.-Andrew c 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project has been open to the possibility of taking on non-Christian saints as well, but so far no one has taken it up on the idea so far as I can tell. Also, here I reveal my ignorance of some of the other faiths, I can't tell right off if those called saints by other faiths are recognized as saints in their own faiths, or whether in some cases someone might be expressing a POV which I can't disprove. This has to date seemingly been a bit of problem, particularly with the Category:Indian saints, which has more non-Christians than Christians in it. It's pretty much because of that that I decided to at least initially leave them alone and try to regroup under the more specific Christian saints category. As soon as I finish the Lutheran and Anglican categories, which I think are the only Protestant faiths who recognize saints very much (I could be wrong, of course), then I'll know what all is out there and have a better idea how to fix the categorization. Sorry for any heated language I may have used earlier, by the way. Unfortunately, it is kind of hard to defend your actions when you don't really have a plan in place yet, and until I'm done with the subcats I can't be really sure what all the final results will look like, and I have been known to take an arrogant tone when I don't actually have a good defense for my actions prepared yet. John Carter 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I took your words to be civil through this whole discourse so far. Looking briefly through the non-Christian Indian saints, I found out "Sant Used in India, it is derived from the Sanskrit sat, its root meaning being "one who knows the truth". It differs from the false cognate "Saint" as it is often translated." I'll spend some time digging through the non-Christian saints and see what I come up with, but I have a feeling that there is going to be little need for the Christian saint category.-Andrew c 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something. Look down the page a bit where someone nominated "Indian non-Christian saints" for deletion. -Andrew c 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per John Carter. A great deal of thought has obviously gone into this and it is part of a larger, and extensive project. Latitude should be given to complete this project for those kind enough to donate their time and resources. Bbagot 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - could serve a useful purpose. Metamagician3000 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Saints are found in all religions.Baka man 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have done some cleanup in a few of the saint catch all categories and I'm glad that someone is working towards a logical arrangement of these categories. Vegaswikian 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. "Saint" is a purely Christian word, derived from Ecclesiastical Latin by Christians for their own purposes. There's no such thing as a "Hindu saint" by definition -- the point has already been made that "sant" is a false cognate, instead being cognate (more likely) to words like the Latin "sapiens". To be truly NPOV here we ought to be calling these people by their proper titles: "bodhisattva" or "arhat" for Buddhism, "sant", "avatar", "alvar", etc. for Hinduism, "tzaddik" in Judaism, "wali" for Islam, etc. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Csernica. Saint=Christian. Goodnightmush 18:20, 22 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts to Orthodox 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category referes to a subset of converts to Judaism. It's being proposed for deletion for the following reasons:

The distinction between "Orthodox" and "non-Orthodox" is meaningless until relatively recently
In any event, it's a small category, as most converts do not specify whether they converted under Orthodox or other auspices
It has little practical relevance
It draws a distinction that most of us are uncomfortable drawing.

Leifern 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination --Leifern 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The distinction is unnecessary. Beit Or 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary and historically meaningless distinction. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Leifern. 6SJ7 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolindigo 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like to hear the rationale for keeping the category from someone of the Orthodox faith. Perhaps there are distinctions to the Orthodox themselves that make this noteworthy that those outside of the faith would not be aware of. Bbagot 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why we give this a week. How can you be sure that none of those who have responded aren't Orthodox? --Leifern 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I'm not going to assume it without some indication in that area. No reason has discussed Orthodoxy itself. Bbagot 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merge into the larger "converts to J" category. Elizmr 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is of interest of because 1)they are accepted as Jews by all jewish groups 2) Orthodox Jews do not consider people who've not converted with Orthodox Judaism to have really converted so this category is really important for them 3) there is a Category:Converts_to_Shi%27a_Islam which has even less articles 4) Orthodox Judaism is a more involved religion more than 95% of them go to synagogue every week 5) it is Judaism true to the torah

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

Category:Methodism in Ohio[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These categories are being used to collect any articles on anything or anyone in these states that are remotely related to Methodism, including any Methodist minister who may have been in the states at one time or another and any institution that is vaguely associated with the Methodist church. To some degree, this looks like an attempt to recreate some of the "Methodist Bishops by state" categories that were deleted previously (see this discussion, for example). As discussed multiple times in the past, categorizing ministers by state is inappropriate, as it leads to an overly-complex category tree and severe category clutter. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dr S, categorising ministers by state has been agreed to cause category clutter ... but I think that there could be a useful purpose to categories such as this if they were used to group institutions (such as congregations and seminaries). Unfortunately, the category creator is unlikely to stick to any such limitation, so I have to say delete. I probably wouldn't oppose a category along the lines of "Category:Methodist churches, schools, seminaries, colleges and other such non-people stuff in Ohio/Iowa" ... provided that a more snappy name could be found which excludes people. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Methodist institutions in state X" would be appropriate, with subcategories for schools and churches and other such things. I just do not like the current categories, where it looks likes the category creator is trying to game the system. Dr. Submillimeter 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good, that's just the sort of name I was hoping for. No reservations, then about deleting this one, which I agree apperas to be an attempt to game the system. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree that "Methodist institutions in state X" would be appropriate. roundhouse 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These cats are sister cats to similar Roman Catholic state cats (and potentially to one for Lutheranism and Congregationalism, etc., etc., etc. in those states, too). Or is there an anti-Protestant bias being shown??? (edit: not occusing, just wondering) Indeed, why do we allow all sorts of Roman Catholic cats, but similar/sister ones for Methodism or other Protestant denominations get deleted? Why have "Christianity in X State" at all if we are not to fill it with articles and subcats about CHRISTIANITY in that STATE?

And though Methodist Bishops, etc. by states and by Episcopal Areas have been deleted previously, we continue to allow similar cats for Roman Catholic Bishops, dioceses, etc. Dioceses are the primary way or categorizing R.C. Bishops. In the exact same way, Episcopal Area is the primary way a United Methodist Bishop is categorized. But the dioceses get to stay, and the Area cats have to go? It makes NO sense!!

And all these arguments that get made regularly about "how small cats are" seem never to be made about these (though many Roman Catholic cats have very, very few -- sometimes only ONE -- articles in them). Understand, I think the Roman Catholic cats are good ones, and am glad to see them continue. But to be consistent, they should be deleted even as the ones for Methodism have been! No "gaming" here. Just honest questions and observations!! Pastorwayne 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment PW, first thing: please read WP:AGF. Accusations in bold type of anti-protestant bias are offensive and unfounded, and I hope that you will promptly withdraw that assertion.
  As to bishops-by-area, I suggest you refer back to the lengthy discussions at CFD: the reasons they were deleted were that the episcopal areas had changed significantly over time, and that the average size of the categories was tiny, so that they impeded navigation. If you want to nominate other category series which suffer from that problem, feel free to do so.
  Now, to the substance: have you actually looked at Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Cincinnati? It's the only other denominational sub-cat of Category:Christianity in Ohio, and it is not being used as a back-door way of categorising Roman Catholic people by area: it is being used solely for institutions.
  Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Dubuque is the only other denominational sub-category of Category:Christianity in Iowa; it has some people in it (5 of 38 articles), but is primarily being used for churches and dioceses etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AnswerCategory:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Cincinnati also has people in it, as seems entirely appropriate! Just as appropriate for Methodism and/or any and all other denominations, in Ohio or (in the future) other states. Moreover, Episcopal Areas IS an official designation of The Methodist/United Methodist Churches, and have NOT changed hardly at all over time (only slight changes in the names of the Areas), and these cats were only small because only those articles had yet been written. Over time these cats would/will fill up. I have no interest in nominating similar R.C. diocese cats (even if small) because I find them useful and appropriate cats, as useful and appropriate as Episcopal Area cats. But the fact that you'all have deleted ONLY U.M. cats of this type must at least be wondered about. And, in fact, the U.M. Church now DOES now basically organize by U.S. state (and more and more so), so it IS entirely appropriate and ACCURATE to organize the U.M. Church, and Methodism generally, by state (both as to institutions as well as people). Yes, U.M.C. organizes by Jurisdisctions, too. But that is not the primary organization. State and Annual Conferences are (which increasingly coincide). Pastorwayne 13:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, I have faced accusations of anti-Catholic bias for nominating categories such as "Roman Catholic scientists" and "Roman Catholic musicians" for deletion. I reject any accusations of being biased towards a specific denomination of Christianity. (Heck, I don't even want to sort birds by state or country, but I do not receive accusations that I am discriminatory against sparrows.) Second, Pastorwayne does appear to be using these categories as a surrogate for the "Methoidst minister by state" categories that were previously deleted (because the divisions by state did not reflect the church's organization system realistically and because the system was too complex for so few articles). The recreation of deleted content is a disruptive activity that may lead to disciplinary action. Third, a realistic compromise proposal (division by jurisdictions that are officially designated by the church) has been made for sorting articles on Methodist ministers. This should be sufficient for sorting people by geography. Dr. Submillimeter 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there are similar Catholic ones, propose them for deletion, too. Coemgenus 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 13:57, 18 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pottery in England[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Pottery in England to Category:English pottery, Category:Pottery in Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish pottery, and Category:Pottery in Staffordshire to Category:Staffordshire pottery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pottery in England to Category:English pottery

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match Category:British pottery and the convention used in category:Pottery. This category relates to pottery of English pottery rather than pottery that has been imported to England. Nathanian 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also rename Category:Pottery in Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish pottery and Category:Pottery in Staffordshire to Category:Staffordshire pottery. Nathanian 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remame per nom, to match the conventions of Category:Pottery. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:26, 16 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Senate candidates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was duplicate discussion as below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose keeping this categoryAnonymous4 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12#Category:United_States_Senate_candidates. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:33, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disney voice actors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the mega-nomination from the 25th. "Disney" is not a series, it's a studio. I have no particular opinion on whether we should cat voice actors by studio, so I'm listing it here. >Radiant< 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no particular reason why one would prefer to jump from an article about an actor who had done one small voice job for Disney to another article about an actor who had done one small voice job for Disney, as opposed to say another actor who had done one small voice job for Dreamworks. Choalbaton 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actors work for a wide variety of studios in the course of their careers. Categorizing them on this basis is pretty worthless and generates category clutter. Otto4711 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voice actors are very prolific. Articles on them could easily be overwhelmed with "actor by studio" and "actor by performance" categories. The resulting category list would be unreadable. Dr. Submillimeter 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, actors by studio are generally discouraged due to their size and the fact that most actors work for multiple studios in their career. Very difficult to maintain and it doesn't seem to offer any practical benefit to the reader. Dugwiki 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be clear, we are debating whether to delete this before a list is created to replace it. I agree with everyone above, but certainly someone could make a list out of the category before it is deleted if they want to keep it around. If you don't have AWB, and you want to make a list out of this, leave a message on my talk page, and I'll put it in your user space to work on. -- Samuel Wantman 09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not a category of "actors by movie" or "actors by TV show". This is "actors by company", which is much less useful. Dr. Submillimeter 23:32, 19 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Show participants[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the mega-nomination from the 25th, basically the oddballs in the group. If I understand correctly, these are categories of people who participated in some kind of show. As I recall, we don't usually have such cats, just like we don't cat for guest stars. But I'm unfamiliar with these series so it needs some discussion here. >Radiant< 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-defining characteristics and as a reflection of the overall need to cut down the number of categories on articles. Choalbaton 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MGM musical actors, singers and dancers as categorizing performer by studio where they happened to work. Even under the studio system actors worked for a variety of studios; Whose Line Is It Anyway contestants as performer by performance which is a fine topic for a list; TDS correspondents also as performer by performance and there is already a list.
*Keep Crisis Command participants as this appears to be a reality show and we do categorize notable reality show participants. I would not be averse to visiting the entire reality show participant structure but for this single nom I go with convention. Otto4711 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through them individually... 1) Crisis Command only has five articles. All of these can easily be linked in a "cast/participant" list in the main article. 2) The MGM category is similar to other actor-by-studio categories, almost all of which have been/are being deleted due to problems with maintaining such categories and the fact that actors normally work for multiple studios so it's not clear that categorizing by studio is useful. 3) The regular cast of Whose Line can be linked within its main article. The remainder of this category are guest stars, and we normally do not categorize guest stars. So even if the category were kept (which it shouldn't be), the guest stars should be removed. 4) The Daily Show already has a cast list sub article set up, which provides all of these correspondent links in a more usable form. So the category isn't needed. Dugwiki 16:47, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. (And after only seven days, Dr!) --RobertG ♬ talk 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is made with good intention - to conveniently show admins and non-admins alike which articles are ready for deletion under WP:PROD after five full days. However it fails to achieve this purpose and thus is misleading; per RockMFR's comment here, the category links table is not refreshed automatically after five days, thus some old PRODs are always excluded from this category. The only way to update this category completely is to make null edits to each and every PROD'ed article older than five days which generates more work than checking the individual dated categories in the first place. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am going to guess that this proposal will sit for fourteen days before it is closed. If consensus is reached to delete, then it will take longer than fourteen days to delete this category. :) Dr. Submillimeter 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It usually updates by itself without mass null-edits, albeit sometimes not right away. The category is useful even if it doesn't update immediately. I'd say the category updating slowness is a bug/misfeature in MediaWiki - that the index from category to members is not updated at the same time the category appears on the target page (this also affects, for example, adding a category to a template that's already transcluded in many places). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-15 19:05Z
Keep Its purpose is to be useful to admins, and it is. Does anyone know how to create a category for "Proposed for deletion for over four days"? Given the current lag times, it would be good to have a link from this category to the four-day one. Kla'quot 08:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it makes life easier. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 17 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian Non-Christian saints[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete (category had been emptied anyway). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category is biased towards Christianity. There is no reason to classify saints by whether or not they are christian. Sfacets 10:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename non-christian is a poor choice of words (and "Non" shouldn't be capitalized). Perhaps "Hindu saints" could work instead? Are there enough Hindu saints from places outside of India to specify geography? I'm also currently researching whether the word "saint" is the most used term to refer to these individuals, because to me saint has a Christian connotation, and surely "Saint" isn't the Tamil or Hindi or Bengali word for these individuals. This category was created because wikiproject saints currently only deals with Christian saints, and its confusing to have the one Catholic saint from India in the same category as a number of individuals with a number of different Hindu titles. Saint may not even be the best word for the category. I am currently conducting research on this.-Andrew c 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I've also heard of Muslim saints, maybe even Sufi saints. Names should be positive in form (rather than contain a negative) wherever possible. Specifying the religion sounds like an excellent idea. Noroton 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename having categories for Hindi saints is fine, but it doesn't need to be named what it is currently. Darth griz⁹⁸ 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category Category:Hindu saints, Category:Indian saints, etc. should fill them up. And the hindi word "santh" is a false cognate of saintBaka man 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Baka man Shyamsunder 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary category. Metamagician3000 05:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Use positive names for categories, and this one is too general to be useful as a subcat of "Saints". --Blainster 18:59, 21 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by city or town in Italy[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Arezzo to Category:People from Arezzo (city)
Category:Natives of Assisi to Category:People from Assisi
Category:Natives of Bari to Category:People from Bari (city)
Category:Natives of Brindisi to Category:People from Brindisi (city)
Category:Natives of Carrara to Category:People from Carrara
Category:Natives of Castellammare del Golfo to Category:People from Castellammare del Golfo
Category:Natives of Cesena to Category:People from Cesena
Category:Natives of Corleone to Category:People from Corleone
Category:Natives of Cortona to Category:People from Cortona
Category:Natives of Foggia to Category:People from Foggia (city)
Category:Natives of Forlì to Category:People from Forlì (not prominent enough a place to have an established English name, thus the non-English diacritics)
Category:Natives of Gaeta to Category:People from Gaeta
Category:Natives of Genoa to Category:People from Genoa (city)
Category:Natives of Lecce to Category:People from Lecce (city)
Category:Natives of Macerata to Category:People from Macerata (city)
Category:Natives of Monza to Category:People from Monza
Category:Natives of Naples to Category:People from Naples (city)
Category:Natives of Anagni to Category:People from Sulmona
Category:Natives of Palermo to Category:People from Palermo (city)
Category:Natives of Perugia to Category:People from Perugia (city)
Category:Natives of Pesaro to Category:People from Pesaro
Category:Natives of Rome to Category:People from Rome (city)
Category:Natives of Sulmona to Category:People from Sulmona
Category:Natives of Syracuse to Category:People from Syracuse (city), Sicily (Note both Syracuse, New York and Province of Syracuse, Sicily)
Category:Natives of Todi to Category:People from Todi
Category:Natives of Treviso to Category:People from Treviso
Category:People associated with Turin or Category:People from Turin (likely page rename) to Category:People from Turin (city)
Category:Natives of Urbino to Category:People from Urbino
Category:Natives of Venice to Category:People from Venice (city)
Category:People by city in Italy to Category:People by city or town in Italy (a fifth of the places in this list are towns and see Category:Cities and towns in Italy)

rename all. prominents cities share names with provinces they are the capitals of. Mayumashu 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think natives creates less clutter because people move around but they can only be born in one place, or we could have both natives and people from categories, that way we can include both types. Ulysses Zagreb 09:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does "Natives of" create "less clutter", but it is WP:CITEable! "People from" is highly subjective, and prone to WP:POV. You are either born in a place, per WP:RS, or you are not. Very, very straightforward. "People from" is way too open to individual interpretation. How long do I have to have lived and worked in a place before I am "from" there exactly? Can you provide a reliable external source to support your answer? I have not lived in Edinburgh for well over half my life now, and probably never will be again, but it is the only place on earth where I am "from". --Mais oui! 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"People from" is supposed to be open to individual interpretation isn't it? Editors can use their judgement as to what is most useful and relevant. AshbyJnr 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per my comments on the regional categories listed separately. AshbyJnr 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per the other discussions. Choalbaton 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all "People from" is more adaptable. Hanbrook 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all I created Category:People by city in Italy and I aprove of this change. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:32, 16 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by Italian provinces[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. another option would be for example "People from Viterbo (province)" but I choose this naming pattern as it reflects the offical names in Italian eg. Provincia di Viterbo. Mayumashu 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't they just be named "People from (province)"? --Wafulz 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each province's name is also the name of a substantial city Mayumashu 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and stop, stop, stop!!! Please, please, please can we all just stop this higgeldy-piggeldy ad-hoc renaming nominations of various "natives of" to "people from" categories. WE NEED A PROPER BLOCK NOMINATION. Until then I will be opposing every single one of these types of nomination. Please stop wasting everybody's time with tens (actually probably in the hundreds now) of these random renaming noms.

And please note: simply citing some sort of perceived precedent is not a substantive case: you need to properly motivate CFD nominations. --Mais oui! 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if this were indeed the case I won t be making what is a proper block nominations. first, this is as much about whether it should be "the Province of Verona", "Verona (province)", or just "Verona". an approximate 80% of some 20 voters voted to change "Natives of" to "People from" for English counties and that is why I ve taken this initiative. Mayumashu 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addressing your comments you ve made below concerning this debate, first it is just as easy to cite where one has lived as it is to cite where one was born - admittedly there is one imperfection in doing so - how long does one to live in a place to be from there? and deciding this is POV. users are perhaps not stating it, but there is an acceptance that a certain amount of POV should exist as nothing of substance is ever totally devoid of it. (on this point someone more pedantic than me perhaps should go about changing WP:POV page description of policy or whatever.) a greater question than the absence or presence of POV is whether the majority of people are in agreement or not. in the case here more users agree that it is more significant to note that a person has lived a substantial amount of time somewhere than where the hospital they were born is located. finally, as for Alexander Graham Bell - you re saying one isn t even also from the place he or she em/immigrates to? Mayumashu 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]

I guess this situation hinges on whether there's a wide consensus as to what "People from X" is usually taken to mean. Personally, when I hear something like "Oh, s/he's from X", I think I take it to mean that's where the person was raised (i.e. had their formative years, assuming the speaker is correct to identify a single and/or significant place). Might differences in what's taken as the meaning of "People from X" relate to which version of English is being used...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it does to some extent and think there is something in having on wikip categorizing and language style editing on wikip pages on subject matter related directly to particular English-speaking countries being restricted to users "registered" of that particularly country. For the time being though, the matter here it is more about where one grow ups as you suggest than where one is born, and one is native to which?? "people from" allows the flexibility to include both while removing those simply born somewhere (with the POV debate that this includes in a few cases). I don t see the advantage of maintaining both kept separately though as suggested below Mayumashu 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about having both natives and people from categories Ulysses Zagreb 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!!! Well said that man! Which is precisely what we have done in Scotland, with "People associated with" categories, with the actual "Natives of" cat being merely one subcategory among many!!! I fail to see why this must develop into an either/or polarised debate, when "natives of" somewhere and "people associated with" somewhere are two different things!! --Mais oui! 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the simple reason that being born in a place is not always notable and may not contribute to the notability of the person. Vegaswikian 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always? Perhaps not, but it is frequently included in the lead: "Stefanie Maria Graf (born 14 June 1969, in Mannheim, West Germany)"; "Zinedine Yazid Zidane (IPA: [ˌzineˈdin jaziːd ziˈdan]; born 23 June 1972 in Marseille, France)". If place of birth is important enough to be mentioned along with the date of birth, it seems worth categorising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per my comments on the two other block nominations. "Natives of" categories are a bad idea because for people who were born in places that their mothers just happen to visit around the time of their birth, and with which the family had no major connection, they imply the presence of a strong connection with a place which simply doesn't exist in reality. AshbyJnr 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per the previous discussion. Choalbaton 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all "People from" is more adaptable. Hanbrook 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Amazingly long and useless naming.Baka man 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so how would you name them then?Mayumashu 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all for reasons already stated. Annandale 00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. The process was started and these changes are needed to complete the process. Vegaswikian 08:02, 18 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand caddies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With only one entry, and literally only half a dozen others in all of Category:Caddies, I think it is safe to call this overcategorization. choster 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not so safe. All sportspeople are categorized by nationality. This includes coaches, horse breeders, and even caddies.--Mike Selinker 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Caddies. Yes, we generally categorize sportspeople by nationality, but come on, first off, is anyone really going to go looking for a category for New Zealand caddies, and second, with a total of seven caddies in the two sub-cats, I don't think thre's a pressing need at this time to break down the Caddies category. Should at some time in the future the number of caddies with articles swell to, say, double digits, we can revisit the issue. Otto4711 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ulysses Zagreb 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All articles should be categorised to the same standard. AshbyJnr 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as above If, as you say, other extremely small categories are subdivided by nationality, then those categories should likewise be deleted and merged. Subdivision by nationality is only actually ever necessary when the category is sufficiently large that having everything lumped together is too unwieldy. Note that deleting this category does not prevent the corresponding articles from still being categorized under other nationalized categories, so you'll still have category tags indicating nationality in the articles. Dugwiki 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is the best possible home for the article about Steve Williams. Annandale 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the best possible home is in both Category:New Zealand sportspeople and Category:Caddies. I do not see why sportspeople should be any different from astrophysicists, friars, flight attendants, or indeed the vast majority of occupational fields.-choster 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the system is currently more specific than that of flight attendants. Baseball players do not mix with bowlers or jockeys, meaning there aren't supposed to be any individuals in category:New Zealand sportspeople. It is built on an intersection system: (nationality) (sports profession). The category that is unwieldy is category:Sportspeople, and since there are many thousands of articles feeding into that, this is the structure that works. You can suggest we change the structure at its core, but it doesn't make sense to change it solely on its edges.-- 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Mike Selinker
Keepper Mike Selinker. Categories don't cost much, if anything, so there is no need to ration them. LukeHoC 19:09, 16 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek caddies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created to hold the article about Angelo Argea but so far as I can establish he was really a Greek-American caddy (see his talk page). Craig.Scott 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this category on the supposition that he was actually Greek. If not, kill the category.--Mike Selinker 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Caddies. Yes, we have such a thing. -choster 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per choster. Otto4711 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy delete empty! Ulysses Zagreb 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as above Also see cfd for Category:New Zealand caddies above. Dugwiki 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 22:10, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

City[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Category:Cities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category:City is basically blank. I can see it could be useful maybe but it isn't in the current state. Artybrad 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to Category:Cities (redirect has been implemented). Craig.Scott 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Ulysses Zagreb
Redirect per Scott. Doczilla 10:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect Bbagot 16:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't need to be deleted, just redirected to Category:Cities, that way it won't be recreated by accident. Darth griz⁹⁸ 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Metamagician3000 05:24, 17 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Badlands[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To distinguish from Badlands (U.K. band), which has some coincidentally close connections, such as the members of Blue Murder coming from both bands.--Mike Selinker 01:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Ulysses Zagreb 09:58, 15 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.