Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

June 27[edit]

Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers[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 16:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This subcategory of Category:Jews and Judaism does not need to exist, as its parent category does. While Category:Jews and Judaism treats the Jewish ethnic group/religion, Category:Jewish philosophers is not even directly related to Category:Jewish philosophy (since not all Jewish philosophers dealt in Jewish philosophy). Rather, Category:Philosophers of Judaism is, correctly, a subcategory of Category:Jewish philosophy, as with other philosophy categories. --Eliyak T·C 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me be a bit more specific, as requested:
The category under discussion, Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers contains the un-natural union of both Jewish philosophy, and those Jews who were philosophers of various persuasions. No upmerge is necessary or appropriate, I think. --Eliyak T·C 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unneeded intervening category holding only 2 sub-cats. I think that's what the nom means. (Apparently not) The nomination now seems to be to delete, but does not actually say so. So Delete per nom Johnbod 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Johnbod 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge only two subcats that aren't too connected. Also, maybe the nom can further explain what he means? nadav (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Category:Jewish philosophy into Category:Jews and Judaism, move Category:Jewish philosophers into Category:Jewish philosophy, and delete Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers - The common practice for most categories is to place the people in a specific field of study within a subcategory of the category for the field of study. For example, Category:Physicists is a subcategory of Category:Physics. The same should be done with these categories, as the subject of Jewish philosophy encompasses the people who have studied it. Having the "philosophy and philosophers" category muddles the category hierarchy, and upmerging both subcategories does not seem like an optimal way to organize the information. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean "merge" rather than "move" which may eliminate the current contents at the target? Carlossuarez46 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The "philosophers and philosophy" category only contains the two subcategories, so moving both subcategoies out and deleting the main category has the same effect as merging. I just thought that "move" would be clearer in this case. Dr. Submillimeter 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Category:Jewish philosophers does not belong in Category:Jewish philosophy, since these philosophers, though ethnically Jewish, did not, by and large, contribute to the field of "Jewish philosophy." There is another category, Category:Philosophers of Judaism, which covers that area. --Eliyak T·C 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if you could further clarify what you are looking for in terms of move/delete/merge. Johnbod 15:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I apologize if I've been too long-winded/confusing here. --Eliyak T·C 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as outlined by Dr. Sub (who uses the term "move"). Carlossuarez46 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Jewish philosophers does not contain people who study Jewish philosophy but instead contains Jewish people who study any philosophy (which may or may not be as meaningful). Hence, the "philosophy" and "philosophers" categories should not be grouped together. Deleting the "philosophy and philosophers" category is therefore appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 23:02, 1 July 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:Deaths by hypothermia[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. Richard 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by hypothermia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This seems like a non-noteworthy way to die (as in it would not be a method of death that would be reported in today's news sources). It is also a very commonplace way to die, especially for people in impoversed countries or people who lived before gas and electrical heating). A category for this method of death therefore seems unwarranted. Besides, except for the people interested in obscure connections among people, are readers really going to use this category? Dr. Submillimeter 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a wider system. Peasants tend not to have articles, and it strikes me as a good deal more notable that a British royal duke died of hypothermia in 1943 than it would if he had been one of thousands of notable people who died of cancer or heart failure that year. Brandon97 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in it would not be a method of death that would be reported in today's news sources check the articles for Terje Bakken and James Kim, for example. Quite modern (in the last couple of years) and noteworthty news stories of notable people dying from a direct result of hypothermia. It maybe a common way to die in in impoversed countries, but most of those people wont be notworthy enough to have an article on WP. Lugnuts 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arbitrary nomination. It's no more or less notable to die of this disease than to die of one of the many other diseases with a category. Piccadilly 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to me like a valid subcategory in the Category:Deaths by cause scheme which subdivides all articles on dead people by the cause of their death. Deleting the category would leave the articles orphaned out of teh subdivision. Dugwiki 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the keepers above. Lots of good points. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 29 June 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:Entertainers who died in a road accident[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 16:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Entertainers who died in a road accident to Category:Road accident victims
Nominator's rationale: Merge - It is unclear why entertainers who died in road accidents should be separated from everyone else who died in road accidents. Also, this category goes against previous decisions to not categorize dead people by occupation (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Dead people by occupation). The category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 27 June 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:Competition deaths[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 16:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Competition deaths to Category:Deaths in sport
Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are not quite synonymous, but they overlap so much that should be merged together anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 21:18, 27 June 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:Dead athlete categories[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 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American football players who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Baseball players who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Basketball players who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Footballers who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:National Hockey League players who died during their careers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - These are categories that gather together athletes who died while still active in professional sports (except for Pat Tillman, who is listed because someone wanted to list him anyway). Generally, people in most other careers are not categorized this way, and I really do not see the point in doing this with athletes, especially since these people died so many ways that are mostly unrelated to the sports (from accidents, drug use, murder, illness, etc). Moreover, it was already decided to not categorize dead people by occupation (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Dead people by occupation). The categories should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I can tell, your rationale rests on a "We've always done it that way" justification. Do you have anything else? AJarvis 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, the deaths generally have nothing to do with these people's careers. It is an arbitrary intersection that really is not meaningful. Some of the categories even indicate that very few deaths (if any) are related to the sports. Also, having too many categories in articles can cause navigation problems, as the category lists within individual articles become difficult to read and use. Wikipedia cannot maintain categories for every single combination of factors. Dr. Submillimeter 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sure, death can be fairly arbitrary, but when it ends your career, that seems to me to have something "to do with these people's careers". Daemonic Kangaroo 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's usefull and interesting. --necronudist 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a defining characteristic for the person and over-overcategorization. Vegaswikian 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete Non-defining co-incidental connection. Osomec 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Sorry, but can you put that in plain English. I haven't a clue what you mean. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:OC#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. "Interesting" is not an effective CfD argument, (Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_interesting), nor is "useful" (Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful). Doczilla 05:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm just tryin' to save the "average interested wikipedia consulter" from burocratic/zealous nonsenses... --necronudist 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (to Doczilla) And what's the whole point of the encylopedia then? -- BanRay 10:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The American football one to "American Football Players who died before age 65" as this has become a newsworthy social issue that many readers may find interesting - example. I'd delete the rest. CitiCat 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and would anyone have a problem with List of athletes who died during their careers? Actually, my previous suggestion should probably be a list, not a category as well. CitiCat 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Age 65 is an arbitrary cut-off. Besides, is it particularly notable if anyone dies of natural causes when they get that old? As for the list, that would probably be of interest only if it can show that the connection between the career and the method of dying is not arbitrary. For example, an article describing how American football is related to concussion-related deaths (or just concussion-related illness) would be useful because football players have had many health problems related to concussions and because the topic has been mentioned in the press frequently. However, an article that arbitrarily sweeps up American footballers who died of football-related injuries, murder, drug use, and motor vehicle accidents would not be interesting, as the cause of death does not necessarily seem relevant to the sport. Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you may be right about the 65, but we'd have to pick some age, you can't have the vague title "players who died young". As for the cause of death, it's too difficult to determine what's related. There have been an extremely high number of New York Giants players dying young of cancer, and Andre Waters suicide has be linked (not proven) to his many concussions. And drug use could certainly be argued to have a link to the pro athlete lifestyle, especially with the steroids, pain killers, and uppers commonly used in the NFL. It's best to let the reader draw their own conclusions. CitiCat 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: We have List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career. Punkmorten 08:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I think that Dr. Sub's arguments are ultimately persuasive but to my mind it's a close call, because dying in the midst of what makes you notable is moderately defining in sports and politics (people who die in office) - it isn't for many other things, like professors and actors who tend to have careers that are not well bounded. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this question was discussed previously here where the "verdict" was: "The result of the debate was delete Perhaps someone might create Category:Footballers who died before retiring?" That debate decided that the category had some merit although the original title was not acceptable. Nothing has changed and I consider that such categories are relevant. The whole point is to give a point of reference to find articles about sportsmen who died during their playing career (by whatever cause). If categories such as these are deleted, we will end up with categories becoming little more than boring lists of players who played for Club X, or who were born in city Y. Surely there is room in WP for "interesting" categories as well as plain factual ones. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The previous discussion was about a category named "Footballers who died tragically young". The closing administrators' suggestion was mainly concerned with avoiding the POV language in the title. The discussion did not really address the issue with whether dead people should be categorized by profession, so I do not see it as setting a precedence for having these categories in general. Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: not a defining characteristic, and we already have List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career for those who merely find the topic interesting. We already tried the "lets have interesting categories" approach, and the result was horrible category clutter and grotesque over-categorization. Lists are better for topics of limited interest. Xtifr tälk 10:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Useful and interesting category. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain it any more than as to why people troll the comments of a Categories for discussion page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list will suffice for people who find this interesting. --Alynna 16:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the patronising comment. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Death by cause makes sense to me. Death by time does not.--Mike Selinker 00:06, 3 July 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:Female suicide in war[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 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female suicide in war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete - This just seems like an exotic triple intersection (gender, method of death, and circumstances of death). I also worry that "suicide in war" could be liberally interpreted to include people who effectively sacrifice themselves in combat to achieve an objective. It would be better to delete the category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:52, 27 June 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:Theme parks 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 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 and leave as a redirect --Kbdank71 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Theme parks in England to Category:Amusement parks in England
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Theme parks are amusement parks, but not vice-versa; at least some of the so-called "theme parks" in this category are not theme parks, e.g. Blackpool Pleasure Beach. Korax1214 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominator. Korax1214 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The trouble is many (mostly un-themed) have been put in both cats; really if the duplicates were removed to the most suitable of the two things would be ok. Johnbod 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as a redirect. There was a mass-renaming of these categories to "Amusement parks in" some time ago. Osomec 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as a redirect per Osomec. Piccadilly 17:33, 28 June 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:Gates family[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 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gates family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with many family eponymous categories, the material here doesn't require categorization. The articles are all interlinked and the article Gates family links everything as well. Otto4711 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many precedents. These are not the only people on earth named Gates. Doczilla 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many precedents for employing family categories. No apparent reason why this one has been singled out. Piccadilly 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one was "singled out" because this is the one I found. Can't say as I appreciate the suggestion that there's some sinister motive behind the nomination. Otto4711 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Singled out"? Look at our edit histories. Look at the precedents I referred to. We have deleted many, many such family categories. Doczilla 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prominent family. Cloachland
  • Delete per nom and ample precedent; you can navigate from virtually any categorized article to any other and if you couldn't someone can be WP:BOLD and create a template to find your way around. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- extremely prominent American family and business family. Also very well known for their philanthropy. --User:Wassermann
  • Comment - the prominence of the family is completely irrelevant to whether a category is required. The Trump family is a pretty prominent family in American business too yet the category for that family was deleted. People !voting "keep" need to figure out that there's a difference between notability for purposes of articles and the necessity of a category. Otto4711 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Provides convenient navigation for articles about a very notable family. Greg Grahame 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why exactly is it any more convenient than the article Gates family, which not only links all of the people in the family together but also explains the relationships between them, something a category can't do? Otto4711 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no need to debate which of two navigational systems is best when we can have both. Dominictimms 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not one of the "keep"-ers has addressed the fact that these are not the only people in the world named Gates. Doczilla 06:35, 2 July 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:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes[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 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Categorizing people by career and method of death is generally not done. Moreover, the term "unnatural death" is vaguely defined. Does this include only deaths directly related to drugs, or does it include deaths indirectly related to drugs (e.g. heart problems at 60 caused by steroid use when someone was younger), or does it include accidents (such as what happened to Owen Hart), or does it include other things as well? Would being murdered count? This term is just too nebulous. If the user really wants centralized information on this, then I suggest writing about a specific topic (e.g. drug-related deaths in professional wrestling). Categories are just not the right thing for this type of discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tempted to say speedy, given the number of times we've dealt with variations on the "dead wrestler" theme. Otto4711 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When a term is hard for you to define, there are two possible conclusions to draw. First, you could assume you are ignorant and need further education on the subject. Second, you could assume the term is overly vague or "nebulous". Of course, you opted for the second one. As I noted in my defense of the similar category, the term is actually not that vague. The Tenth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases clearly delineates types of deaths based on natural versus external causes. Murder is clearly external, as is an accident. Heart problems brought about by steroid use would be considered natural. The classes do not look into what may have been the original cause of the cause of the death--only the immediate cause. If one dies of diabetes which came about because of morbid obesity, for instance, it's pretty clear that his cause of death is a natural one, instead of external because of the 300 cheeseburgers he consumed annually. The term is not vague. Moreover, there are numerous categories which are characterized by manner of death - execution, homicide, suicide, etc. This nomination for deletion is clearly without merit based on the reasons you have provided. If you would like to provide a legitimate reason rather than your distaste for wrestling and wrestling fans (even though I am not even a fan of wrestling), I would love to hear it. AJarvis 19:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - OK, a techincal term can be provided for "unnatural death". Still, people are generally not categorized by the intersection of career and method of death, and I see no reason why to start with professional wrestlers, especially since variants of this category have been deleted before. Moreover, by including all unnatural deaths, this category sweeps up a lot of unrelated ways of dying, including death by murder, death by accident (including wrestling accidents, car accidents, plane accidents, accidents with tools, etc), death by drug use, death by drowning, death by fire, death by aphyxiation, etc. Grouping all of these methods of dying together under this one heading is inappropriate. (Grouping togehter Owen Hart and Eddie Guerrero also seems inappropriate.) Moreover, just having a list of names says nothing about why the intersection is at all important. Again, I strongly suggest creeating an article that can explain why this is an interesting topic. Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You'll notice that Eddie Guerrero is not in this category. He died of what is considered a natural cause. So your concern about grouping Eddie Guerrero and Owen Hart together is not a problem. The purpose of this category is to give people an idea of how dangerous an occupation professional wrestling is by simply giving a list of those who have died before their time. If I went any further, I fear that I would run into neutrality issues. If you don't see the connection between Owen Hart - a man who felt compelled to be lowered into Kemper Arena to entertain fans and died in the process - and Curt Hennig - a man who felt compelled to take steroids to better entertain fans and died in the process - then I can't help you. There are categories that are well established (deaths or births by year) that have no apparent utility except their common thread. Here, the common threads - unnatural and happening to a wrestler - are more specific and useful than a common year. I still feel that your criticisms are without merit. AJarvis 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaguely named, incorrectly capitalized category> Doczilla 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not vaguely named, unnatural causes has a clear, unambiguous definition. Have proposed speedy renaming. AJarvis 21:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Multiple nominations for a single category is going to cause confusion. Please just suggest the rename in this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I don't know how to do that. I figured if that was possible, Doczilla would have done it rather than suggesting that it was a rationale for deletion. AJarvis 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Above, Dr. Submillimeter said that the reason why we can't have professional athletes' deaths before retiring is because the deaths generally are unrelated to their playing careers. I would agree with that for professional athletes. However, it's pretty clear that the 27 wrestlers who have died under the age of 45 in the last ten years have died of causes generally related to their careers. Therein lies the difference between this and general death by occupation lists. AJarvis 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Some of these people died in wrestling accidents and are categorized in Category:Wrestling deaths. The other people died for an assortment of other causes that are only indirectly connected to wrestling (if connected at all, as drug use does not need to be connected to wrestling, as could be the case for some people). Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective, non-standard and not worth the effort. Osomec 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Explicitly created to "give people an idea of how dangerous an occupation professional wrestling is", which seems less than NPOV. Category:Wrestling deaths will suffice; this intersection of career and death type is not useful. --Alynna 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alynna Piccadilly 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there going to be a "wrestler deaths by natural causes" or is this going to spread to every profession? D4S 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an unnecessary intersection of occupation and cause of death, which we usually avoid. The main exception to that rule might be a category for "occupational deaths", but that's not what this category is doing. Dugwiki 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move off-site to some fansite. Lugnuts 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 29 June 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:UK Robot Wars series[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Robot Wars series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, seems unlikely to expand. Its only article is a) already in the parent and b) up for deletion and unlikely to continue to exist in its present form. The category is not needed. Otto4711 19:24, 27 June 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:American murderers (speedied)[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 speedy close per all the comments calling for it (bold non-admin action). Bencherlite 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American murderers to Category:Americans convicted of murder.
  • Rename: I think the category name is more precise and based in an objective and legal foundation rather than speculative, prejudicial, and inherently POV. This would also make the category name consistent with its description. If you read the comments on the Talk page, everyone who has commented on the issue since 2005 has suggested renaming the page in this way, and nobody has ever suggested a reason it should not be renamed. "American murderers" is also ambiguous; it could refer to people who murder Americans; it could also refer to people like O.J. Simpson, whom everyone thinks is a murderer but who was not convicted of murder. The new category name is much more clear and precise; there is no ambiguity or POV that would enter into it. csloat 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - this category is already under discussion (nominated by the same editor) in today's CFDs. Otto4711 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Otto Johnbod 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - Creating two discussions for one category will cause a lot of confusion. (Why are people doing that today?) Dr. Submillimeter 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close redundant CfD. Doczilla 20:18, 27 June 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:Number one albums 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 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories contain lists of albums, not individual album articles. If renamed, they would be consistent with other similar cats such as Category:Lists of number-one songs in the United States and other subcats of Category:Lists of number-one songs --musicpvm 18:42, 27 June 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:WikiProject Figure Skating templates[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 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Figure Skating templates to Category:Figure Skating templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename, the templates in this category are used by, but are not specific to, the Figure Skating wikiproject. As such, a more general "Figure Skating templates" category would be better. Mike Peel 18:42, 27 June 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:WikiProject Tennis Templates[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 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Tennis Templates to Category:Tennis templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename, the templates in this category are used by, but are not specific to, the Tennis wikiproject. As such, a more general "Tennis templates" category would be better. Mike Peel 18:17, 27 June 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:Died Smoking In Bed[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 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Died Smoking In Bed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as narrow and non-defining, or Rename to Category:Deaths from smoking in bed. -- Prove It (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People who died in a fire (or wording to that affect) and populate The first article (Jack Cassidy) wasn't even in bed and died from a fire while asleep on the couch. This is overcatergorization at best an ambigous (sp?) category at worst. Did the smoking itself kill them? Lack of ventilation in the room? Or did they ultimatly die in a fire? Change to an overall category for people who died in fires. Lugnuts 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if we're going to categorize by cause of death then there should be a specific cause of death. If they burned to death, put them there. If they died of smoke inhalation, put them there. None of the three articles list a specific cause of death so they really shouldn't be categorized by the cause. Otto4711 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It could go in Category:Deaths by cause. (Mind meal 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete this is too specific; I respectfully disagree with Otto: sometimes a fire is sufficiently bad that Category:Death by fire is all we can say: we don't know whether they were burned to death, suffered inhalation, poisoning from burning stuff, or inhaled hot gas causing their lungs/throat fatal damage, and frankly the distinguishing feature here is death in a fire not the minutiae of how the fire did it. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We do not need categories for every way that people died. Categories for notable deaths (such as deaths in plane crashes or murders) are useful, but deaths for non-notable methods of dying such as this are not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True (per above two), we do not need categories for every conceivable way people die. But then we do have Category:Deaths by cause; therefore such a categorization is not exactly new. There is nothing actually wrong with this type of categorization, aside from feeling perhaps it is not needed. But not needed and meeting an established form of categorization are two different things. It seems to me that if we delete this (or don't rename it), we may as well delete the whole Category:Deaths by cause also, as we have entered POV territory. I personally don't give a crap about actors who play superman for instance, but someone out there may. You know? People do die every day because of cigarette related fires. Call the fire department, they'd have a long list for you.(Mind meal 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By delete per above do you mean the category Category:Deaths by cause per my suggestion also? Or just this certain death by cause you do not "like", which happens to kill many people every year. If we can have a Category:Deaths from rectal trauma, surely we can have this? Otherwise, I say nominate each one for deletion. (Mind meal 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment I think the rectal trauma one is a joke, containing just two articles (one very famous king and one barley-notworthy tool). Not much room for expansion either...! Lugnuts 07:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use either Category:Death by burning or Category:Death by smoke inhalation as appropriate The overall scheme Category:Deaths by cause is a valid subdivision scheme, so I do not advocate deleting that scheme as a whole. However, this particular subcategory seems a bit too specific. I'd recommend deleting it and moving the articles inside it to either Category:Deaths by smoke inhalation or Category:Death by burning (or some similar name). Dugwiki 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lol! They are ALL too specific, if we are going to critique categories that actually are specific. Should we strive here for being vague and unclear at Wikipedia. I mean, minus my criticism, think of that. (Mind meal 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete This category does not represent an important connection between its members. Dominictimms 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Deaths by fire, and merge Category:Deaths by smoke inhalation into it. All the members in the inhalation category are related to fire, and so are all of these. So together they can form a basis for a new, broader, and more useful category.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 2 July 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:Newspapers in Cape Verde[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. Richard 07:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers in Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Newspapers published in Cape Verde, convention of Category:Newspapers by country. -- Prove It (talk) 16:45, 27 June 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:Mineral Spas in Mexico[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 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mineral Spas in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Resorts in Mexico, or at least Rename to Category:Mineral spas in Mexico -- Prove It (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one entry doesn't require a separate category CitiCat 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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:Fictional bugs[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 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bugs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Fictional arthropods, note bug is a ambiguous. -- Prove It (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The fictional animal categories should use the same scientific terminology as the real animal categories. LeSnail 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to say Merge into Category:Bug Pokémon, because all of the articles are characters from Pokémon. However, all of the articles are already in the category. And because Category:Bug Pokémon is already a subcat of the "Fictional..." tree, this category does absolutely nothing.-Andrew c 00:48, 30 June 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:Chinese thinkers[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 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chinese thinkers to Category:Chinese philosophers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The categorization "thinker" is not consistent with Category:People by nationality and occupation and the vast majority of the 28 articles already in the philosophers subcategory.Andrew c 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename vague category that presently includes all Chinese individuals who aren't brain dead. Doczilla 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Doczilla. LeSnail 02:27, 28 June 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:Films written by Abrar Alvi[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 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films written by Abrar Alvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Screenplays by Abrar Alvi, convention of Category:Films by writer. -- Prove It (talk) 13:39, 27 June 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:Chinese scholars[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 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Scholars by nationality supercategory, as there are for most other of the Category:People by occupation and nationality. Everyone in this category could fit into "Chinese academics", "Chinese educators", or one of the subcats of "Chinese scientists". I'll personally go through the cat and make sure every article has an occupation other than "scholar" attached to it.Andrew c 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Scholars is the common description for these, and probably the best. Many would have been civil servants, judges, and/or landowners, but it would be absurd to so classify them. I felt the lack of a scholars category when tinkering with Category:Renaissance humanists. "Academics" does not work well outside the last 150 years of the Western tradition, nor educators. Frankly the current categories are a clear case of systemic bias It is the same for Islamic scholars (many of whom did teach, admittedly). It would be much better to set up more scholars categories, linked into the same tree in some fashion. Certainly these should be left. Johnbod 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term "scholar" in this context is too general, as it is unclear what these people are scholars of. More specific categories exist to indicate what these people actually studied. Another alternative to this category would be to use Category:Confuscian scholars (which indicates exactly what the people studied) or Category:Chinese philosophers for Chinese people who specifically studied philosophy. Dr. Submillimeter 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange argument. Would you apply it to Category:Academics? Who was Confuscus, btw? I think you will find most of the philosophers and scholars were confuscian; it is not really a subject in the modern academic sense, but a cultural frame of reference. Specific sub-cats are fine, but that does not replace the need for a head-cat. Actually I see we have a number of sub-cats under Category:Scholars (I suppose I'm tempting fate by revealing this here), to which I will add this one. Only a few are national categories, and I would not want to see the full range, but this fits nicely with the Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox etc other categories. Scholars is the term usually used for these people; categories for Western intellectuals do not face these demands to choose the pigeon-hole that fits. Johnbod 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Scholar categories for people of specific religions or philosophies is useful, as it is clear what the people studied. Scholar categories for nationalities, such as "Chinese scholars" is not useful, as it does not indicate what the people studied. I also do not see the "Chinese scholars" category functioning as a useful head category, either. (I also do not think that people should be listed directly in Category:Academics, as this says nothing about what the people did. I can call myself an academic, and this says nothing specific about what I do for a living.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just some background, I think it is important to group scholars. I just do not believe that is the word used in current wikipedia naming schemes. I browsed through Category:People by occupation and nationality, and as I said, there was no Category:Scholars by nationality, while there was precedent with Category:Academics by nationality, Category:Educators by nationality, Category:Scientists by nationality. Rightly so, we have Category:Chinese academics, Category:Chinese:Educators, Category:Chinese philosophers Category:Chinese scientists, while we don't have Category:American scholars or Category:English scholars or Category:Polish scholars. I'm not saying that being a scholar isn't notable, I'm just saying that particular word isn't used in the current categorization scheme, and there is redundancy and more specific cats that all these articles could easily fit under if Category:Chinese scholars was deleted. I guess the issue is Category:Scholars which has "Chinese" and "French" and "Spanish" which could be taken to mean scholars of the language, not People by occupation and nationality (judging by the articles included in these subcats, that isn't the case). Using google it seems like we have Swedish, Pakistani, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh scholars as well, see Category:Academics by nationality. I think I want to list all these to be merged or renamed. What do others think before I make this bold move?- -Andrew c 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still failing completely to see the problem. "Scholar" is in my experience invariably the term used to describe intellectuals of traditional Chinese culture, even in modern works, and even when they are mainly famous as, say, painters. As I'm sure you know, the concept of the scholar was of enormous importance to that culture. A comparable term in the West is Renaissance humanist, which equally covers many actual types of activity. Looking at individual articles, most seem very well-categorized: Zhao Mengfu as painter, calligrapher and scholar; Zhang Yanyuan as painter, calligrapher, historian and scholar; whilst the polymathic & very successful Shen Kuo is in no less than 15 categories beginning with "Chinese". The modern ones are in the "educator" "academic" etc cats as well. If there was a single specific activity that characterised the traditional Chinese Scholar-bureaucrats, it was (as in the Classical European world) the study of literature - something WP categories seem not well equipped to deal with - lets see if there is a Category:Men of letters. We have Category:Classical scholars but of course that means study of the Western ancient classics. This still seems to me likely to force a very distinct Chinese phenomenon into categories that fit Western history. Johnbod 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scholars is the preferred term; ahem, a scholar is different from an academic, and um, do you guys just randomly nominate things for deletion, or do you ever actually research anything? Ling.Nut
Further comment I don't object to the reclassifying of the French and Spanish articles, or the articles in the main scholars category. But these should be emptied "by hand" and the empty national sb-cats then put up for deletion. This is fiddly work - where should Baltasar Alamos de Barrientos go? We can't just sit here waving our magic wands. The other sub-cats should certainly stay. Johnbod 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I see where you are coming from Johnbod. If we can set up some criteria, and actually write what the category is supposed to classify on the actual category page, that would help. It seems like this category could be helpful in classifying a historical category of people that were the learn'd of Chinese society. I could accept keeping this category if it was limited to non-Modern scholars (or at least, structure it so that people who have post-graduate degrees, and work in research or at universities don't qualify as "scholars" i.e. Liang Shih-Chiu). Perhaps there is a better name we could use so editors won't be tempted to put your average scientist or academic in this category?-Andrew c 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm fine with removing those with university degrees (unless there are odd transitional individuals, as there may be) to the normal cats. Renames might include "Chinese scholars (traditional/classical/pre-modern...) but I think I'd rather leave it plain & define the category contents on the page. Chinese classical scholars might be ok. Or Chinese Confucian scholars per the Dr., although I don't know if that is wholly accurate for the Taoists etc. Johnbod 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To the best of my knowledge, the term "Chinese scholars" is used to refer to historical figures in Chinese history as well, whereas neither "Chinese academics" or "Chinese educators" are not normally used for historical figures. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have said, the concept of the scholar holds a special place in Chinese culture that it does not in other cultures. I would support restricting the category to only historical figures, and not modern academics or educators. We could call it "Chinese scholars of antiquity" or something like that.--Danaman5 05:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several "keep" votes are saying that this category should be used for "historical" people. Could these people provide an objective definition for "historic"? This term generally causes problems, as it is subjectively defined. Dr. Submillimeter 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to cause some people problems, cetainly. I have suggested above that having a modern university degree would be a straightforward cut-off point for exclusion. The other side of that coin would be to include only those who had taken the traditional Imperial examinations for the Civil Service, abolished in 1905 . No doubt a few individuals held both kinds of qualification, and should be categorised in both ways accordingly. Johnbod 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the same type of people in modern Chinese history (past 100 years or so) and in the modern day are called "intellectuals" in English, not "scholars". I don't know if there's a specific date where we can say that a "scholar" becomes an "intellectual". But it's pretty safe to say that educated people that lived before the events that eventually led to the fall of the Qing dynasty generally wouldn't be called "intellectuals" by English-language academia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. Though many of the figures included here would fit better in other categories (e.g. "Academics" for those involved in modern-style university/research/education settings, or "Painters" for scholar-bureaucrat painters), there are those who, as others have said, are most commonly and best described as "scholars". It seems quite common for the "scholar-bureaucrats" of Imperial China to have been not only bureaucrat administrators, but also poets, painters, and writers, as well as being involved in a number of scholarly disciplines. As for the "historic" question, we are lucky in Chinese history to have a fairly clean break between Imperial China and "modern" China in 1911, a convenient date I think for splitting "historic" from "modern". LordAmeth 08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -"Imperial" could be used instead of "historic" for Imperial China. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following many of the good arguments for above. I was considering delete when I saw this here earlier, but it seems this category could prove very useful. (Mind meal 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment is there really a genuine need to rename the cat, or is this a fig leaf for the pride of those who Oppose? Ling.Nut 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I am the nominator of this, I believe a number of my concerns have been addressed. If we can agree to some concrete designation to put on the top of the category page, and if this category keeps out the contemporary and modern academics and educators, then I'd support keeping this category.-Andrew c 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Imperial exam/modern degree criterion is the simplest for C19/20 figures, as it relates to the individual. I can't see how one based on 1911 would be applied in practise. Johnbod 17:15, 30 June 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:Photographs by year[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 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are only 30 photographs with articles at the moment, and there is no need yet to subcategorise them. In any case, all the articles should remain in the main category, and not be migrated to "by year" subcategories". It is not necessary to subcategorise everything "by year", and this just encourages excess subcategorisation. Carcharoth 10:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the less useful categorisation criteria. Pavel Vozenilek 21:15, 1 July 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:Australian soccer 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 Close, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Australian_soccer_players. -- Prove It (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian soccer players to Category:Australian football (soccer) players
Nominator's rationale: Rename - I propose that this category be moved back to Category:Australian football (soccer) players. This category was moved 2 days ago. No one from the Australian football community knew this was happening, nor was given any chance to comment on it. Following on from discussion at the Deletion review I have relisted it here. Tancred 10:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - It would have been appropriate to finish the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review first. The deletion review discussion has only been open for one day, so people have not been given enough time to comment. I suggest that Tancred just be patient. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 27 June 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:Vocalese musicians[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 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vocalese musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename Category:Vocalese musicians to Category:Vocalese singers, as that is the only variety of musician pertaining to the genre; aside from composers, which would belong in another category. (Mind meal 07:07, 26 June 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:Brazilian jazz musicians[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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Brazilian jazz musicians to Category:Jazz musicians of Brazil

  • Rationale The problem with how this category currently operates is that it serves dual purposes, in some instances. Brazilian jazz is a musical genre, but the way it has been used prior to some work I've been doing on it is also for Brazilian nationals who play jazz, and not always within that idiom. This poses a dilemma and welcomes confusion. If the category would be renamed, then Category:Brazilian jazz musicians can be restarted to serve the purpose of genre only. (Mind meal 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose. The standard way that musicians are categorized (see WP:MUSCAT) is "nationality+genre+instrument", with parent categories of "nationality+genre musicians". Category:Brazilian jazz musicians accords with this standard, and is matched by e.g. Category:Brazilian classical musicians and Category:British jazz musicians. It should be reserved for Brazilian nationals who play jazz, rather than for the purpose of genre only. This proposal would put jazz musicians from this country out of line with the rest of naming structure and mess up the usage of sub-categories, existing or to be created, of jazz musicians by instrument from Brazil. I see the difficulty here, that you want to create categories for the jazz sub-genre of Brazilian jazz, but I think that it would create more confusion to use what is the standard MUSCAT classification naming approach for this sub-genre. Bencherlite 08:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the argument against this proposal is that we need to preserve the sanctity of commonality, and not clear UP confusion by making a Category:Brazilian jazz musicians and a Category:Jazz musicians from Brazil? If anything, the confusion comes from how the category functions RIGHT NOW. It educates nobody, because it may very well be people assume there is no "Brazilian jazz"! I guess I'll just have to create a Category:"Brazilian jazz" musicians. I could even put on the Brazilian jazz musicians page that they are musicians of the Brazilian jazz genre, and not just nationals. Mind you, Charlie Byrd be,longs in this grouping, but will not have a home there due to categorical mistakes. But he did play Brazilian jazz, as well as bossa nova and other genres. Any ideas on how I can create a category for players of the genre, while still meeting requirements? Category:Brazilian jazz musicians could have something that says "This category is for Brazilian nationals, and not performers of the actual genre. For musicians of the Brazilian jazz genre, please Click Here." Something like that. Thoughts. I can't contribute further to that category knowing full well it is not clear and not educating anyone. (Mind meal 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • As there are scores of categories such as "Fooian jazz musicians" for jazz musicians from Foo, "Fooian classical musicians" for classical musicians from Foo, etc, then it is likely to be very confusing to have "Brazilian jazz musicians" to mean anything other than jazz musicians from Brazil. Since that would be expected to be the meaning of those words in that order on Wikipedia, in the light of the categorization guidelines, using those words in that order to mean "players of a jazz sub-genre called Brazilian jazz" is not something I think will be a good idea. I'm not calling it the "sanctity of commonality", just pointing out that it potentially creates much more confusion to do it as you suggest. As for alternative suggestions, let's do some thinking aloud. (1) Not have a separate sub-genre category classification for players of Brazilian jazz, but use e.g. a list. (2) Category:"Brazilian jazz" musicians, but inverted commas tend not to be used in category names, so that may not work; (3) Have a category of Category:Musicians playing Brazilian jazz or some such wording, into which all players of Brazilian jazz can be put and, if appropriate, thereafter sub-categorized. Not ideal wording, I know, and further suggestions welcome. You could then use your "click here" wording, or something similar, on Category:Brazilian jazz musicians Bencherlite 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I just ran into this propblem AGAIN with Category:Latin folk musicians. Now, while there is not [[Latin folk article on here yet, it is a genre. This has become somewhat retarded. Perhaps we must rethink current categorization practices of musicians entirely, since they obviously have discrepencies. I would think we would want to clear confusion up and create coherency and accuracy, and to hell with "precedence" if it just doesn't work in a certain instance! (Mind meal 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Not sure why you'd have the same problem with Category:Latin folk musicians since "Latin folk" doesn't have the same problem of double meaning (nationality+genre vs specific name of sub-genre) as "Brazilian jazz". Discussion is taking place at WP:MUSCAT if you want to take part - probably best if we avoid turning this page into a general discussion about your views on the current system! Bencherlite 17:27, 28 June 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:Smooth jazz[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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Smooth jazz into Category:Smooth jazz musicians

  • Rationale The category itself is not a problem, but how it is being used is. This should be a category devoted to articles somehow devoted to Smooth jazz, and only if there are enough to justify it's existence. I am proposing the merger to make my life a bit easier, also. I don't want to physically move all of them into the latter category which I created myself. However, if they are merged I will categorize them to their respective instruments; thus making the category what it is supposed to be: a category filled with sub-categories, not a dumping ground for smooth jazz musicians. (Mind meal 07:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Category:Smooth jazz also contains Smooth jazz and Category:Smooth jazz albums, which are not musicians. Category:Smooth jazz should continue to exist to house them, and Category:Smooth jazz musicians, and to be a subcat of Category:Jazz genres. If you don't want to move all the musician articles by hand, you can use AWB or somesuch to automate the process somewhat and get them all moved in 5 minutes. LeSnail 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per LeSnail - category should stay as it is to be a parent for categories that wouldn't fit in a merged category of Smooth jazz musicians. Bencherlite 10:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Smooth jazz should not house the musicians, which makes up 98% of that entire category. I don't get any of this. But, whatever. I'm not for eliminating a Smooth jazz category, I just want all those musicians in a Smooth jazz musicians category, and not placed incorrectly as they currently are. Does anyopne oppose having a bot move them into a Category:Smooth jazz musicians, or are they supposed to go under a non-specific heading? Otherwise, I'll just include Category:Smooth jazz under Category:Jazz musicians by genre and not worry about being technically correct. I'm seeing tweaking little things is not really welcome at Wikipedia, and the things like precedence tend to beat down factuality. Mind meal 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Please don't be over-dramatic by saying that "tweaking little things is not really welcome". Don't take discussion of your suggestions as a personal attack. By all means move the musicians into a Smooth jazz musicians category. If you agree that this is the way to go, and that Category:Smooth jazz can remain, then you can withdraw this nomination. Bencherlite 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well what i am asking you, really, is whether the Category:Smooth jazz is actually serving the purpose it has been designed for? That is the whole reason for the proposed MERGER. Because the vast, vast majority of articles in that category are MUSICIANS, not articles concerning "Smooth jazz". Please don't tell me how to be, btw. Please move them yourself you say. I just wanted some help in achieving that end. Where do I go to propose moving all the musicians into a proper musicians category if not here? I don't know where to go to propose such a thing outside of here. That task is far more laborous than just merging the two now, and moving the few pertinent articles back to the smooth jazz category that exist within it correctly. I mean I've been categorizing my butt off, and will continue to do so. But if there is a much easier way to achieve an end, I'll mention it. Just as you are doing, I am attempting to serve the community at large here. Let us not get personal in our interpretations of what the other's motive is.(Mind meal 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy close as Bencherlite has been kind enough to move the musicians using AWB. Great thanks to Bencherlite. (Mind meal 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • No problem. As nominator (Mind meal) has now withdrawn the proposal, would somebody else care to close this discussion for us (to avoid any COI problems)? Bencherlite 19:32, 28 June 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:Dead Pro Wrestlers[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 13:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead Pro Wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category in unnecessary. There are no other profession-specific subcategories of Category:Dead people. Mike Dillon 05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, as it is redundant. (Mind meal 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - People are generally not categorized by status ("alive", "dead", "retired", "active", "former", etc). Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not not not categorize by alive/dead/current/former status. Doczilla 09:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't need a cat of dead people by occupation. Lugnuts 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Deceased_Professional_Wrestlers -- Prove It (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Postlebury 13:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no other category or article on Wikipedia that conveys this information in one single location. As you can clearly see from the page itself, this is for wrestlers who have died of unnatural causes, not just a list of dead pro wrestlers. Some of you need to understand the point of an encyclopedia--to help organize information. There is no redundancy if the category page is conveying information that is otherwise unavailable or very difficult to gather. AJarvis 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, it was on CNN last night, they were talking about how so many of them die young. I can see there's plenty of good reasons to create an article on this subject. However, that doesn't mean we want to start categorizing dead people by occupation. -- Prove It (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can understand the rationale behind not wanting to create categories of dead people by occupation in general. Like I said, though, the category page itself states that the page is intended only for those who die of unnatural causes. Perhaps my problem was in titling the page ambiguously. I have created a new category--"Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes"--which should avoid this problem. This page should conform to the standards for Categories, no? If so, I will change my vote on this particular afd debate to "delete". AJarvis 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think an "unnatural causes" category would cause too many problems anyway, as determining who died of "unnatural causes" could be tricky. (Does Owen Hart count? He did not die of drug-related problems.) If centralized information is desired on this topic, I suggest writing an article on drug-related deaths in professional wrestling. I have seen this topic discussed in general on news websites, so I am certain that enough information can be brought together to justify an article. Dr. Submillimeter 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AJarvis created Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes, which is more or less a duplicate of this category. This is actually very disruptive, although I do not think AJarvis intended this to be disruptive. In the future, I suggest that AJarvis just suggest renaming a category nominated for deletion rather than creating a duplicate. Note that the new category is nominated for deletion up above on this page. Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did not intend it to be disruptive. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought attention to it before you did. I did not realize that categories could be renamed - I will do this in the future. AJarvis 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-standard, unwelcome and a recreation to boot. Osomec 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Delete as recreation of previously deleted category Dugwiki 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, we should not be creating a living/dead dichotomy for all people categories (and yes I know Category:Living people is here to stay, but for an entirely different reason WP:BLP, I cannot imagine anyone using that category to navigate through - looking at a biography you see Living people as a category and say "wow, they're alive, I wonder who else is alive..."). Carlossuarez46 21:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can see the point of having such a category, and if I'm not terribly mistaken, a [[Category:Professional wrestling deaths before the age of 65]] once existed, and that got thrown out for the arbitrary choosing of 65 (someone could easily die of natural causes in their early 60's). The point is to show young deaths in wrestling, but if there is a way to do that, this category is not it. Nosleep1234 14:43, 1 July 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:Singers by style[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 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Singers by style into Category:Singers by genre

Comment Is there some way for a bot to make that process happen without conflict? (Mind meal 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not as many as perhaps you thought, Xtifr: just Category:American singers by style, Category:British singers by style, Category:Canadian singers by style, Category:Greek singers by style, Category:Norwegian singers by style and Category:Venezuelan singers by style. see my sandbox for a lot of redlinks! Bencherlite 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xtifr. Johnbod 13:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So we have two reluctant keeps so far. Why the hesitation to endorse Johnbod? I am merely curious. From what I've learned so far, the category was "kept as is" and in retrospect constitutes an error. That is why we have these discussions. To fix them. Is this a major issue? Not really. But every little bit counts, and since all musicians are categorized by "genre", I can't see the reasoning still for why we keep "Singers by style"? Can someone who knows why this rule is that way comment please? (Mind meal 13:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • In the absence of someone actually being able to say "this is why" as opposed to "it's been like that for ages", I'll say rename per nom on the basis of consistency with other musician categories, but I reserve the right to change my mind in the light of subsequent information. If this goes through, I'll tag the six affected sub-cats for renaming next week. Bencherlite 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The only reasons to leave it as it is are that it has always been that way and it will take work. But really it ought to be standardized with the other musician categories, and the longer we wait, the more categories there will probably be to move. Category redirects would be nice too. LeSnail 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (replacing opinion above): after further investigation, it turns out that this was only an exception because it already existed when the guideline was written, and I'll happily fix the guideline if these are renamed. Xtifr tälk 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. There are only a couple that aren't exactly genres (Category:Yodelers, for example), and if those cause confusion I'm sure we can rename them to fit.--Mike Selinker 16:01, 2 July 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:American murderers[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 to Category:Americans convicted of murder to match the category intro. Readers shouldn't have to navigate to a category to find out what it means, it should be evident from the name itself. --Kbdank71 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete this inherently prejudicial, unnecessary, and POV category. If we are going to keep it at all it should be relabeled "Category:Americans convicted of murder to make clear from the category name that it includes people if they have been convicted of murder whether or not there is substantial disagreement about whether they committed the murder they were convicted of (e.g. Leonard Peltier), and does not include those who are widely considered "murderers" if they were not convicted (e.g. O.J. Simpson). csloat 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Americans convicted of murder. It's concrete, legally based, and more clear. "American murderers" could mean "People who murder Americans." Whenever I hear a term like "child killer", it's used to refer to people who murder children. "Mass murderers" - people who murder masses. "Wife killers" - guys who murder their wives. "Dragonslayers" - guys who murder dragons. Doczilla 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one out of 45 national categories, which I suspect have been discussed here before. The category definition makes it clear it is a "Category for people convicted of Murder". Do a group nomination if you want to pursue it. Johnbod 02:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? There is apparent unanimity on the category talk page that it should be renamed. csloat 05:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not. Look how old those comments on the category talk page are. It's not like that's a current discussion. I also think the name should be changed, but let's not overstate the case. Doczilla 05:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a single comment against renaming the page. It looks like unanimity to me. The fact that the unanimity goes back months (even over a year) indicates that the renaming is long overdue, not that the case is being "overstated." And you even said you agree with changing the name. Seriously, what are we waiting for? csloat 10:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to the nominator's claim that it is "prejudicial" - it is exactly the opposite of that. It is a category of people who have already been judged (and convicted) - it is post-judicial. There is hardly any convicted murderer who does not claim innocence, and in many cases the murderer has his apologists, fans and other supporters who claim he didn't do it - that's why we have a judicial system. Peltier is no different in this respect from Lee Harvey Oswald or Mumia Abu Jamal.
  • Keep as per the opening line of the above unsigned comment. Lugnuts 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description now on the category (see above) makes it clear the category is already only for those convicted. Johnbod 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description is then inconsistent with the category name. Mind meal's understanding of the category shows exactly why its name should be changed. csloat 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per Johnbod's suggestion, I have re-nominated this category for renaming rather than deletion; it should appear above on this page. csloat 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was a bit different, & you can't have 2 open at the same time on one cat. I think this one is well underway & the options clear, so I suggest this one is continued. You can amend the nom here (just strikethrough), but add a line at the bottom to show the point in the debate you did this at. Personally I would leave it - keep or rename are clear enough.Johnbod 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information:I have speedily closed the re-nomination: 4 editors had already called for that to happen, and rather than be the 5th, I thought I'd do it. Bencherlite 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My error - sorry; this is probably the first time I've made any suggestions for changes in categories here, and I am not clear on the proper procedures. csloat 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, the point must be made that the categorization is not consistant. It should not need to explain what it "really is intended for" on the category page. What if people do not actually follow that category link? They will leave assuming they are, bonafide fact, a murderer. Meanwhile, this may not be entirely true. Perhaps the person should have been categorized in Category:Unconvicted American murder suspects. O.J. Simpson would even fall into that. As the category stands now, it will not lead to "confusion", but "wrongful assumption". (Mind meal 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This urge to add "convicted" to these categories comes up from time to time. Many good reasons have been given for rejecting it. Osomec 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard a single such reason yet - can you please expand? Thanks. csloat 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would just be a pain to include all the criteria for every category in full, like adding "who have played professionally in a foo league team" to sports categories, and so on ad infinitum. Johnbod 00:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's advocating that. What I'm advocating is that for this specific category, not including that particular information makes the category extremely ambiguous, inherently POV, and potentially incendiary. I don't think that is the case with the example you gave. csloat 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why POV and incendiary? Like any category, if the wrong people are added, they can be removed as not meeting the definition. Johnbod 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because calling someone a "murderer" is a subjective value judgement whereas saying someone is "convicted of murder" is an objective statement of fact. You're right it can be removed, but this sort of thing makes endless back-and-forth on some pages (e.g. Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, O.J. Simpson, perhaps even Ted Kennedy) a virtual certainty. I don't understand what you have against clearing this matter up with a more specific and unambiguous category name. csloat 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, not a single good argument has been made as of yet as to why the word "convicted" would somehow detract from anything. If anything, as Johnbod states, it makes it more specific. If that is viewed in a negative light, that is one thing. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias get SPECIFIC. They don't just assume readers understand your imaginary meaning. You MUST explicitly state it or not bother trying at all. (Mind meal 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is the umpteenth time this issue has been raised. If they people who want to add convicted want to see all the old arguments, they can look them up. In any case the claim that "not a single good argument has been made as of yet as to why the word "convicted" would somehow detract from anything" is simply untrue with regard to this debate, never mind the whole history of such debates. Piccadilly 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umpteenth? I see no evidence this has ever been raised before on this category, and every single comment in the category talk page going back two years supports the change. You claim it is untrue that no single argument has been made why the word convicted would detract from this category, yet you don't offer one and you don't point to one. I'm really confused as to why you would say that. In fact the word convicted is in the category description; what motive could there be for hiding it in the title? csloat 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Americans convicted of murder People who are only alleged to be murderers obviously shouldn't be categorized as such, and renaming the category to make that distinction clear is a good idea. An umbrella nomination of other similar categories is also a good idea, to keep the category naming conventions consistent, but you don't need an umbrella nomination to rename this particular category. Just rename this and then also do a separate umbrella nomination for the rest to make them match. Dugwiki 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep “substantial disagreement” is very subjective, and open to POV interpretations. If an individual is indicted, tried, found guilty and loses all of his/her appeals, then it is fairly safe to say that the authoritative POV on the matter is that they are indeed guilty. This is not to say that who oppose the conviction don’t make up a significant POV, but it has to be determined why they oppose the conviction: was it a question of guilt or a question of procedure, and at any rate falls under the minority POV. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the intro defines the category, but it could do with a little tweaking. Lugnuts 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Americans convicted of murder . The current category flouts NPOV rules as wikipedia does not source from th american justice system alone or to put it another way links the category to whatever rulings that justice system produces. The U.S government, law enforcement and justice system overrides all other parties to the issues concerned. Definately POV considering other bodies (e.g Amnesty International, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Right) views on the validity of the convictions of thousands of US prisoners. -- maxrspct ping me 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all known murderers are convicted. Cloachland 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the category description says only those convicted of murder are included; are you proposing a change in the category description to include people as "murderers" who have not been convicted? csloat 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not all muderers are convicted." Well, that's just it! By law, if you have not been convicted of something, you are in fact not guilty of it. That must be proven in a court of law. Otherwise, you are begging for a lawsuit from these individuals that get lumped in there that in fact were NEVER convicted of murder. But if you want to slander others, be my guest. Your pocketbook. (Mind meal 02:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The law is not the only or the highest form of truth. Greg Grahame 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Americans convicted of murder per Doczilla and others above. It's Verifiable. You may quibble whether the person's conviction is just, unjust, fair, unfair, right, wrong, or will be, ought be overturned, quashed, vacated, but the fact remains that the person in question has been convicted of murder, which is how the category should read rather than "murderer" which is a level of abstration that we need not take. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just the other day a high profile pair of murders occurred in the United States which will certainly not lead to a conviction as the murderer killed himself. Apart from those who dies or took flight, there are also those who confessed when they knew they would not be tried or retried, those who lived in societies without an effective legal system, and murderers of unknown identity such as Jack the Ripper, murderers who made confessions that were discovered posthumously, those that were identified to general satisfaction by historical researchers. and probably several other categories of unconvicted murderers that don't occur to me just now. Greg Grahame 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the current definition, but would agree it should be extended to those declared by inquests to have committed murder (ie when the murderer has died), which I presume is what happens in such cases. Johnbod 17:18, 30 June 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:School massacres in Australia[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 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School massacres in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:School massacres in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is currently empty and there is insufficient content to populate it. -- Longhair\talk 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty category and I doubt there will ever be sufficient content to re-create it in the foreseeable future. Thewinchester (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I hope it will NEVER be populated.--Flamgirlant 06:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Monash University shooting article is currently within the School schootings in Australia category, which I've also added to this discussion. It's effectively the same thing. -- Longhair\talk 10:49, 27 June 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:Batman characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization. Per many precedents, this is not how we categorize fictional characters. (Why can't Wikipedia stop this guy from creating new sockpuppets? He has a static IP.) It's also redundant to Category:Batman. Doczilla 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is bypassing precedent to avoid "supporting cast" and "Foe of..." cats. And it can't even be argued that the cat would hold more than that since, by name, it's only the characters. - J Greb 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a List of Batman characters, as it does have 26 characters in it already. This would be ideal for a list that could then be placed on relevant Batman category pages with a See also:. (Mind meal 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Categorizing comic book characters by their relation to specific characters is a messy and impractical in practice, especially for characters associated with many other characters. I suggest not even listifying, as it could just become a useless list of anyone who ever appeared in a Batman comic book (or in the same comic book with Batman). Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 27 June 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:Pianists by style[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 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category:Singers by style. Musicians perform in both styles and genres, but I accept there are more WP categories with genre in the title. Johnbod 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American pianists by style is a category redirect to Category:American pianists by genre, so we don't need to worry about it. Bencherlite 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The overwhelming majority of categorized musicians use the "by genre", not the "by style", format: see my list of 220 "by genre" categories here. This one seems to have slipped through the net of the WP:MUSCAT guidelines. Bencherlite 08:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for consistency with the wider scheme. There is no merit in making this an exception. Greg Grahame 14:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Dominictimms 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This one doesn't even have the exceptions of Category:Singers by style, so it's a clear merge.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 2 July 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:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder[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 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - I can't believe that this category is inclusive as it contains only ~20 members and I can't believe that it is a defining characteristic for those who are. After Midnight 0001 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Some of you who read this will think, "Of course it's defining." You may be thinking of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. That's not the same thing. Doczilla 01:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you sure? Links please. From Obsessive-compulsive disorder, to which the catgory description refers, I think it is. Johnbod 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I sure of what? That OCD and OCPD aren't the same thing? Check their articles. Oh, boy, are they not the same thing. OCD is an Axis I anxiety disorder, a state disorder not considered inherent to one's core personality. OCPD is an Axis II personality disorder, a trait disorder considered a relatively permanent set of features in one's personality. The symptoms differ too. OCD can be severe, but it does not define who you are as a human being. Notice the lack of categories for personality disorders. Antisocial personality disorder is more defining than OCD, but we don't have a category for it, for a lot of reasons. OCPD comes closer to defining one's life than OCD does, and yet there's no category for it. Doczilla 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have deigned to supply links, I have indeed checked the articles. Johnbod 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The problems with these minor pshychological disorder categories is that they can only be used properly if references to the people's psychological records can be found. However, the categories are almost always populated either by editors who use poor information as references (e.g. a tabloid guesses that someone is obsessive-compulsive and that person gets added to this category) or editors attempting to guess whether these people have disorders (a form of original research). In either case, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter and because its just a fad to convert all negative character traits into diseases. They are no more defining than they were before certain people invented all this extra work for themselves, eg no more defining than Category:Rude people or category:Confused people. Postlebury 13:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is trivial and unreliable. Little more than tabloid tittle-tattle in fact. Osomec 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as non-defining. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27&oldid=1138388416"