Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5[edit]

Category:CNBC personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. If the consensus holds to delete these, feel free to add additional personalities categories to this nomination rather then listing each one. Vegaswikian 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and all of my recent similar nominations. Otto4711 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete them. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per our many discussions of this lately. Doczilla 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - People work for multiple networks during their careers. Categorization like this is inappropriate. Moreover, listing all the networks that people have worked for in categories will lead to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 10:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus agains this type of categorization has been pretty clear. Delete, with the proviso that the network parent categories will have to be monitored for ongoing inclusion of people in them if this doesn't exist. Bearcat 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CNBC Asia personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all of my previous similar nominations. Otto4711 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my above comments. Dr. Submillimeter 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Littlerock[edit]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY CLOSE, incomplete and duplicate listing: see CFD for Category:People from Little Rock, which nom intended. Postdlf 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Littlerock, California. People will think that the category means Littlerock, California, so we need to pefer it to Little Rock, Arkansas so it will mean People from Little Rock, Arkansas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LilMane (talk • contribs) 2007 March 5 32:34 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, LilMane. We don't currently have a category called "Little Rock" or "Littlerock." For the Arkansas city, we have Category:Little Rock, Arkansas and Category:People from Little Rock, Arkansas. As it's a pretty small place, it might be best to stick with Category:Los Angeles County, California and Category:People from Los Angeles County for articles about the Littlerock, California. ×Meegs 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Prince of Asturias Award winners[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another award that is given to people who win many awards anyway. As with other award categories that have been deleted, the awards say little about the people's accomplishments while adding to category clutter at the bottoms of biographical articles. The award winners are already listed at Prince of Asturias Award, which is better for navigation anyway. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is already listified. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P199 13:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiProject IRA articles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:WikiProject IRA articles to Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject IRA articles to Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Original name of the Wikiproject was Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army, and the project has since been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Seems eminently sensible.--Runcorn 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:America's Got Talent guest entertainers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an improper categorization of performer by guest-starring role. Otto4711 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absurd cat, totally unnecessary, just list them in the main article. -- P199 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Main article can serve as navigation hub. No need for the category. Dugwiki 17:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Piccadilly 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Polish Composers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Category:Polish composers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish Composers to Category:Polish composers

Merge, Capitalisation fix. Visor 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge of redundant and miscapitalized category. Doczilla 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People who died before the age of 50[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWhy not died before 40? Or 25? Or 62? Or 5? Lugnuts 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've read the category's talk page then. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive 50 as being a young age at which to pop your clogs You've read WP:NPOV then... Lugnuts 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. Also, I'm proud I second-guessed the nomination as well I did. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a cyber-medal to your awards page if I could. Lugnuts 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S'okay - it's the thought that counts, and all that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or rename to an agreed-upon age). I offer as much on the category's talk page.- Dudesleeper · Talk 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization using an arbitrary inclusion criteron, a form of overcategorization. The articles on people who died under the age of 50 have little in common with each other. For example, do John Belushi, Mozart, and Lord Byron have anything in common? This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Submillimeter.↔NMajdan•talk 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear overcategorization. Otto4711 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary cut-off point. That reminds me, is it time to AFD list of tall men again, starting at 198 cm? — coel acan — 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a totally arbitrary category. john k 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thoroughly arbitrary, non-defining, and probably trivial into the bargain. --Xdamr^talk 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 00:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − While 50 might be a significant age to many (the golden anniversary), one half a century is just an arbitrary number of years. Would we claim that since 25 is one quarter of a century, 12.5 is one eighth of a century, and 37.5 is three eighths of a century, that they each deserve categories? I sense a bias toward certain fractions. Why not Category:People who died before the age of 100/π ? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. -- P199 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitary inclusion criteria. Also doesn't distinguish between people who died before 50 in modern times versus people who died before 50 in ancient and medieval times (which was a lot more common than it is now). In fact, you could probably argue that living to age 50 in ancient times was a worthy achievement. Dugwiki 17:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this would include huge, huge numbers of individuals... and why the cut-off point at 50?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Diarists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For most people, keeping a diary is not a defining characteristic. Until just recently, it was also an extremely common practice. I am afraid that if we populated these cats fully, they would be far too large to be useful. Further, with the exception of Category:Bloggers (which is significantly different), this hierarchy's peers in Category:Writers by format are reserved for published, if not professional writers. On the other hand, our article (not the best source, I know) points out that more than 16,000 diaries have been published. The are also people that are known solely because of their diary. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but suggest that we either restrict and rename these cats somehow (perhaps published diarists), or deleted them altogether. ×Meegs 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest Samuel Pepys and Mary Chesnut be categorized? Obviously the category should be reserved for people who are notable for their diaries, not to anybody who keeps a diary, just as Category:Novelists is reserved for people who are notable for writing novels, not just to anybody who has ever written a novel. john k 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I would definitely like to see some category clustering them. Adding published to the front would cut things down, but it's a bit awkward as nearly all diaries are published posthumously. I should add that the categories have not yet been terribly abused, and I am open to leaving things as they are. This reminds me of Category:Notable sports spectators, which has similar problems and could also use a better name. ×Meegs 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "published" is necessary. The fact that we are giving it a category implies that it is notable that the person was a diarist, and notability in the case of diarists implies publication. I don't think that any clarification is really necessary. john k 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things: 1. In my experience, most categories, including ones like these and Category:Novelists, do end-up populated as broadly as possible, regardless of whether the people are notable for the activity. There are cases where everyone seems to agree to use constraint, though, like Category:Cyclists. 2. Yeah, published doesn't offer enough in exchange for the extra verbiage. 3. All things considered, I think keeping the cats as they are is the best we can do. I'm going to leave the discussion open, though, just in case there are any other ideas. ×Meegs 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course categories tend to expand rather than contract. But that's no reason to delete an entire perfectly reasonable category, especially since we all seem to agree that people like Frank, Pepys, Chesnut, and so forth clearly need to be in a diarist-related category. john k 06:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're gonna need a writer category for Anne Frank, and I'm not sure where else you can put her.--Mike Selinker 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Diary writing is a significant literary genre that includes some very well known works. Greg Grahame 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thinking of Pepys and Anne Frank. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments Ulysses Zagreb 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but restrict to articles that mention the diary) The key here is, as with all categories, that it should only include articles which significantly mention the person keeping a diary. If someone kept a diary, but that fact wasn't included in the article in a verifiable way, then very likely not an important enough characteristic of the person to include them in this category. Dugwiki 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but for people whose diary has been published, even if it is not their main claim to fame (e.g. Lewis Carroll).--Runcorn 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make sure that only notable diarists get categorized. MaxVeers 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Forms of abortion[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, superseded. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made unnecessary by creation of Category:Methods of abortion. Originally, Category:Forms of abortion held a jumble of articles; it included all of the medical procedures for abortion such as Dilation and evacuation, it also held Mifepristone (the abortion pill), but it also held articles detailing certain circumstances in which abortion occurs, such as feticide, selective reduction and the non-medical term late-term abortion. These aren't really "forms of abortion" so much as circumstances under which abortion occur. I created the category [[Category:Methods of abortion]] and sorted the actual methods into it, and refiled the other articles under the main Abortion category. I realize now that this category could have been merged, but I wasn't aware that categories could be merged before I began; my apologies. Please delete this unnecessary catch-all category. Joie de Vivre 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Late-term abortion, selective reduction, and self-induced abortion are most definitely specific forms of abortion, even if they are not specific methods. Self-induced abortions are abortions induced upon oneself, late-term abortions are abortions performed in the third trimester, or thereabouts, and selective reductions are abortions intended to reduce the number of fetuses in a multiple gestation. These are definitely not "circumstances" under which abortions occur, because a "circumstance" under which an abortion would occur would be something like the motivating factor behind the abortion, as demonstated in this chart. I agree that it's useful to distinguish the particular methods from the more vague "forms" with the creation of a separate category, so I support keeping both, and nesting Category:Methods of abortion within Category:Forms of abortion. The goal of the categorization system of WikiProject Abortion is to shift articles out of Category:Abortion into more targeted subcategories to improve cross-navigation, so that everything isn't lumped together in one place, and because this proposal would spell throwing three or four appropriately-organized articles into Category:Abortion, I do not support the deletion of Category:Forms of Abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severa (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 March 2007

Comment: Your proposed nesting scheme does not make sense at all. The category Forms of abortion currently holds Feticide, Late-term abortion, Miscarriage, Selective reduction and Self induced abortion. The definitions for these are "the deliberate killing of a fetus", "a non-medical term for abortions which occur late in pregnancy", "a pregnancy which spontaneously aborts", "a procedure where certain fetuses are terminated but not extracted", and "an abortion which is performed by the pregnant woman on herself". Why should a category which details the available medical procedures for abortion be a subcategory of this ill-defined group? Abortion procedures are not a subcategory of a group of reasons why those procedures may be obtained. Neither are abortion procedures a subcategory of the circumstances under which abortions may be obtained or otherwise caused to occur. This logic is faulty. Joie de Vivre 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Selection reduction" or "late-term abortion" are not reasons why an abortion would be obtained — nor are they circumstances under which an abortion might be obtained. What basis do you have for terming them that? Reasons an abortion might be obtained include if the pregnant woman feels she is too poor to have child, feels that she is too young, has a condition that makes pregnancy a risk to her health, the pregnancy was the result of rape, the woman already has the number of children she wants, the pregnancy was the result of failure of a method of birth control, etc. Circumstances under which an abortion might be obtained include the choice of clinic or the doctor who performs it. -Severa (!!!) 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Late-term abortion" is a non-medical term invented by pro-life activists, used to ban certain abortions based on the length of gestation. It is used to refer to any of several abortion procedures, based on when in the pregnancy it is performed. All of the procedures which may be performed as "late-term abortions" are listed under Methods of abortion. Surely a non-medical term which semi-arbitrarily groups these procedures should not be listed above the procedures themselves. This only illustrates that the "Forms of abortion" category is too vague to maintain. "Methods of abortion" is a clear, concise category. The only reason to place "Methods" within the jumbled "Forms of abortion" category is to prevent the latter's deletion. That doesn't justify its existence. Since "Methods of abortion" has been created, the vague "Forms of abortion" is no longer necessary. I applaud Severa's efforts to streamline the articles into subcategories but I feel that their efforts are misguided in this instance. Joie de Vivre 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Severa has repeatedly replaced the "Methods of abortion" category within the "Forms of abortion" category. I believe that "Methods of abortion" should be placed directly as a subcategory of category "Abortion" and that the vague "Forms of abortion" category should be deleted. Joie de Vivre 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am trying to integrate your suggestion into the established categorization system of WikiProject Abortion. I, at least, am open to attempting to accommodate the suggestions of other editors. -Severa (!!!) 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The articles had already been moved to the apropriate categories.--Dr who1975 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Keralite americans[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Indian Americans, or at least Rename to Category:Keralite Americans. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Indian Americans − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps organize and define people from a particular ethnic, regional, and cultural background. Every region/state in India is almost a different country with different history, languages, people and culture. Do we take away european category for americans and merge them into a "european american" category(Italian-american, German-american) just because they are part of the european union? How about any one of the numerously defined ethnic groups around the world, especially when they lie in a european sphere of influence, their dinstinctions are noted and allowed to be defined, i.e. Basque americans? I think this "merge" has not been well thought out, partially due to ignorance of the diversity of the indian sub-continent.--Kathanar 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you would be ok with renaming it to Keralite Americans? -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Kerala is not an independent country and unless it becomes one, it should not be treated on the same basis as independent countries. Haddiscoe 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that before 1918, Polish-Americans should all have been split up into categories for German, Austrian, and Russian-Americans, because Poland was not an independent country? Your guideline does not seem to form the appropriate basis for a general maxim. john k 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Haddiscoe. I think Indian American will suffice, or else there will be categories like Brahmin-Americans or Nair-Americans, if India's cultural diversity is taken into consideration. If you want people to know they are Malayalees, the category of the same language will work --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note we do have already Category:Tamil Americans. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Keralite is not even a good adjective to describe people. MAlayali would be the correct adjective. Ethnic groups aren't good either, and I suggest both the Keralite and Tamil be merged into the broader Category:Sri Lankan Americans or Category:Indian Americans categories. Btw, lets have "Bodo Americans", "Oraon Americans", "Tulu Americans", etc.etc. if we have any of these cats. By the way Category:Indonesian Americans is not split into "Balinese", "sundanese", "Minang",etc.Baka man 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - People are not notable only for being Indian-Americans. For example Satveer Chaudhary, is an "Indian American", and yet also a "Punjabi politician". Shelly Malil is notable for being an Actor so we can use "Malayali actors" and "Indian Americans" rather than using an utter neologism or hopelessly dividing the Indian Americans cat. Dividing the cat (and I say this for Tamil Americans as well) into various ethnicities in India will smacks of ethnocruft (and btw, I'm Tamil). The ethnocats at least for India, Indonesia,Malaysia,etc. mask the fact that the countries unlike in Europe do not have dominant ethnic groups. Wales is actually a nation in the United Kingdom. The Chinese cat is not divided into "Hui Americans" (of which there are many), "Zhuang Americans", "Han Americans" etc. By this logic and this cat (and cat Tamil Americans) sticks out like a sore thumb.Baka man 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the category for Tamil Americans sticks out like a sore thumb to who? Apart from the Tamils of Indian origins, what about Tamils of Sri Lankan origins? Or do they not exist in your book. I tend to hear the term "logic" used quite a bit by like minded individuals. My definition: Logic = Nonsense. Wiki Raja 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your you didnt notice that I suggested moving the relevant Tamils to Sri Lankans and the relevant ones to Indian Americans. Lets also add Gujarati Americans, Punjabi Americans, Bodo Americans, while were at it. There is no dominant ethnic group in India, so grouping people as Indian americans and grouping their ethnicities with their relevant profession is hardly controversial. Thomas Kailath is both "Indian American" and a "malayali Scientist", and is in both cats.Baka man 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kailath also is under "Indian Scientists" as well as "Malayali Scientists" someone can have more than one category, as someone can be "British" as well as "Welsh". I support the addition of gujarati, punjabi and other americans, should we be so lazy and close-minded that we can't recognize the uniqueness and celebrate the diversity of different people. --Kathanar 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to Rename to Keralite Americans or even Malayali Americans if it would keep it. To answer a couple of the interesting remarks made, "Polish" subcategories(German-polish, etc)? Polish is the ethno/language group, there is already a Polish-Americans category, so thats not a good analogy, there are no sub ethnic of Polish that I know of or have been called into question. Keralite/Malayali is the same as saying Polish. "Brahmin americans, Nair americans"? Again not the same comparison and irrelevant to this subject as those are Caste designations and not ethnic or language, there is no sense or logic to even making that statement. Baka, what a surprise, I think its a great idea if you say oraon-american, etc. etc., its good to know peoples backgrounds to reveal the diversity of different ethnicities and cultures than just under one Indian Americans category. Some of these reasons against are really not logical. How do you explain Basque-Americans hmmm? They don't have a country, why are they allowed to have a category? How about Welsh-Americans, Wales is part of the United Kingdom, should they get their own category? How about Scots-Irish Americans? What country is Scots-Irish? There is no reason to oppose this category as similar categories from the european arena have been allowed, do not allow ignorance of other peoples and countries to marr your decisions. Keep and Rename. --Kathanar 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convincing analogy with Basque, Welsh, Scots-Irish, Polish cats. Kerala is a distinctive region of India, with its Muslim, Christian, and Zoroastrian communities. As far as a rename goes, why is Keralite used instead of Keralan? --Groggy Dice T | C 21:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If someone is not born in India that does not make their nationality Indian. If they were born in India, then their nationality would be Indian. Erasing someones ethnicity for the sake of false nationalistic pride is immaturity. Wiki Raja 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ethnicites being erased. Since nearly all the people are actors a simple move to "malayali actors" or the relevant "malayali people" category, can easily remedy any such "nationalistic subjugation of ethnic groups".Baka man 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Kerala is not a seperate country and Keralite is not at all an ethnicity. Creating unexisting ethnicities for the sake of false pride is very much immaturity. Gnanapiti 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - with the existence of Cat:Indian American, Cat:Malayalis and Cat:forwhateverprofession etc., this cat is superfluous. Sarvagnya 02:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - How can you merge and delete a page at the same time? Your posts are getting more and more superfluous. Looks like both sockpuppets Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are at it again. Wiki Raja 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete means merge the category into Category:Indian Americans and then delete Category:Keralite americans. :) - KNM ^Talk 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Indian Americans. - KNM ^Talk 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The logical argument made has shown how this ethnic naming of categories is not new to wikipedia, again i.e. Welsh-Americans, Basque Americans, Scots-Irish Americans. You will call into question why these other categories are allowed and not this, meaning these categories and others will have to go up for deletion or merge if a negative decision is made on this. This category highlights a distinctive culture and region and people and this recognition is not any less deserved than some of the european american categories. --Kathanar 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Malayali-Americans. Praveen 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Malayalee-Americans. If a Tamil-Americans category exists, then I don't see why there is opposition to Malayalee-Americans. I do agree that separating Indian-Americans into separate categories could make it hopelessly fractured though. If the consensus turns out to be Merge and Delete, then please make sure that this is applied across the board with the different x-American categories. --vi5in ^[talk] 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Voicing stronger support for both the categories on the basis of categories like Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans and such. Each state in India has a very distinct culture, ethnicity and language. --vi5in ^[talk] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all - The Tamil Cat has been Cfd'd.Baka man 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or just delete. This just shows how out of hand things can get once ethnic categorisation takes hold. Piccadilly 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - Category:Indian Americans is good enough, no need for extra categorization. Sfacets 07:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment - User:Wikiraja has been canvassing for votes. (Contributions)

Does that go against Wikipedia policy? 68.108.208.158 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and change name to Malayalee Americans. Dravidian Warrior 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Note: This is user's 5th edit. The user may be a sock of another user above. This vote was from a now indef-blocked user.[reply]

*Strong keep: Bakasuprman stop deleting people's votes, just because their's differs from yours. Tamilguy07 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC) — Tamilguy07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This vote was from a now indef-blocked user.[reply]

Delete and Merge with Category:Indian Americans. -- Naveen ^(talk) 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - Merge with existing Cat:Indian American or delete it. There is no shortage of ethnicities in India and the world in general. We dont want thousands of ethnic "cats" running around.Dineshkannambadi 02:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or rename). The problem is that this will cause many other cats to be created like Bengali Americans, Gujarati Americans, Tasmanian Americans, Lancashire Americans, Lombardian Americans, Americans from Bretagne (I hope I made my point clear). Maybe if more people can added, but I don't think eleven is enough. Perhaps at a later stage. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Bakaman and Gizza. Another problem with these "micro categories" is that it is very difficult to establish membership based of external trustworthy references, and IMO people are simply categorized by surnames based on Indian editors' person knowledge (original research ?). Example: M. Night Shyamalan was born in Pondicherry to a Malayali father and Tamil mother - does that make him a "Keralite American"? Does he refer to himself as such ? Another example: Neither Joy Cherian wikipedia page nor any of the three cited references even utter the word Malayali/Kerala/Keralite (he well may be one, but where is the attribution?) And those are just two I clicked randomly. Abecedare 07:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Kathanar RaveenS 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about Keralite American's to make an informed vote on this. Some have incorrectly pointed to Wales, Scotland and Irleand as Ethnicities when they are in fact countries that are part of the United Kingom. Having said that... I want to point out that there are categories for Sicilian-Americans and Basque Americans, both of which are sub groups of an existing nationality. I realize one is a clearly defined Isaland but the statement above still holds true. Just some food for thought.--Dr who1975 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition and a reminder to Dr who1975 comment, not only do sicilian-americans and basque americans, peoples with no officially recognized countries have categories, but also Scots-Irish Americans. No country exists for specifically scots-irish. Keralites and more so Tamils cultures and languages are more individually distinct, as are all the regions of India, than even some of these other "x-american" categories allowed, especially the european ones. Its not about dividing, but recognizing the flavors and varieties that exist and helping people learn of the different peoples of the world. We should shy away from the tendency of making a monolithic identity just for convenience. If we allow european americans to differentiate themselves even if their ethnic group does not constitute a country, how much more so can we deny peoples from Asia with longer histories and more distinctions than a scotch-irish and a scottish american, or a sicilian american and italian american.--Kathanar 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ringvaart[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Too narrowly defined category. -- P199 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment − What is it supposed to be used for? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty Category appears to have no articles. Dugwiki 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being empty and no prospect of filling. It's a dutch word/name see: Ringvaart --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Texas Longhorn Athletics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texas Longhorn Athletics to Category:Texas Longhorns athletics

Nominator's Rationale: Rename for consistency with other categories within the Category:College athletic programs hierarchy. Also, the correct nickname is Texas Longhorns. Dale Arnett 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Texas Longhorns athletics − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I originally nominated it for speedy, but I reread the criteria. They specifically state that if a nomination meets two separate "speedy" criteria (here singular/plural and capitalization), it should not be a speedy, but instead a regular nomination. — Dale Arnett 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - when the UT WikiProject originally created an article on the sports programs of the University of Texas, we debated whether to use the singular (Texas Longhorn) or the plural (Texas Longhorns). We found that the University websites used both terms interchangeably. Google was not helpful either as their are plenty of references both ways. At the time, we named the article Texas Longhorn Athletics to encompass both varsity and intramural sports. There were not a lot of precedents to consider at the time as this was the first or one of the first Wikipedia articles on such a topic. The category was named after the article. Later, the article got moved to Texas Longhorns. If we re-name this category at all, I think it shoould be renamed to Category:Texas Longhorns to be consistent with the article. If we do that I think it is important to keep the plural to avoid confusion with the cattle breed; Texas Longhorn. Johntex\^talk 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated to conform with all other such categories.--Mike Selinker 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not even consistent. It includes Category:Georgia Institute of Technology sports (sports vs athletics), Category:University of Hawaii athletics (no mention of team name), Category:College soccer (not even restricted to a team), and others. None of those have been nominated for renaming. Johntex\^talk 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact Texas Longhorns does not even belong to Category:College athletic programs. It belongs to Category:University and college sports clubs. The nomination is supposing a naming scheme that has neither been agreed to nor adhered to. Johntex\^talk 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, those do seem redundant. I'd support merging Category:University and college sports clubs to Category:College athletic programs.--Mike Selinker 01:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge. I think that some postings should be made to publicize discussion over the best name for the category. There are numerous wikiprojects related to college sports. Johntex\^talk 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- The reason why there's no mention of a team name in the Hawaiʻi category is that the school doesn't have one nickname. In 2000, the university gave each of its teams the right to choose their own nicknames. All women's teams took the nickname Rainbow Wahine. The football team chose Warriors, as did the men's volleyball and golf teams. The baseball team chose Rainbows, while the men's basketball, swimming and diving, and tennis teams chose Rainbow Warriors.
- I'm not going to oppose what everyone else decides to come up with. I do believe that it's time for some kind of standard to be established with college sports categories. Do keep in mind, however, that a substantial number of schools apart from Hawaiʻi have different nicknames for men's and women's teams. Most often, the women's nickname is a matter of adding "Lady" before the men's nickname, but some nicknames are quite different — for two blatant examples, Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters, and Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks and Westerwinds. Also, there are at least two schools, namely Montana and Texas Tech, where only the women's basketball team uses a "Lady" nickname (respectively Lady Griz and Lady Raiders), while other women's teams use the men's nickname. :::: getting off soapbox :::
- If no one objects, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination until there's a real consensus on what to do with categories in this hierarchy. — Dale Arnett 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pitaten[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this category there were a lot of character pages. The pages have now been merged into a single article and the category is unneeded. It only has 2 articles in it. It is incorrectly named now anyway as per a requested move in 2006. Squilibob 10:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnecessary category. Otto4711 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − no longer useful − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:JSHAA[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category, contains only to a link which is a current deletion candidate and a sandbox entry for a user. thewinchester 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —Moondyne 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large national organisation, deserves to be kept SM BarnZy 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The purpose of categories is to group like elements - the only thing some entities in this list have in common is their membership of this association, which is not a key part of their organisation's raison d'etre. Once again, this is not a debate about the notability of the organisation - that solely relates to its having an article, and has been established. Orderinchaos78 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DanielT5 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Orderinchaos78. -- P199 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WA JSHAA Members[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WA JSHAA Members to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia Member Schools in Western Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Category does not correctly identify it's subject and is abbreviated in a manner inconsistent with category naming policies. thewinchester 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree to speedy rename SM BarnZy 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia member schools in Western Australia. May as well get the capitalisation right. —Moondyne 11:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Delete per P199 below. —Moondyne 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Moondyne Orderinchaos78 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia member schools in Western Australia as suggested by Moondyne. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If Category:JSHAA is proposed for deletion, why just rename this one and not delete as well? -- P199 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we only need one category and not two to contain the list of member schools. Vegaswikian 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia member schools. No reason to split the schools out by region given how few are in this subcategory. Vegaswikian 09:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:JSHAA Member Schools to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia Member Schools

Nominator's Rationale: Speedy Rename, Self nomination from creator of the category. Does not correctly identify it's subject and is abbreviated in a manner inconsistent with category naming policies. thewinchester 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree to speedy rename SM BarnZy 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia member schools. May as well get the capitalisation right. —Moondyne 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Delete per P199 below. —Moondyne 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Moondyne Orderinchaos78 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Junior School Heads Association of Australia member schools as suggested by Moondyne. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If Category:JSHAA is proposed for deletion, why just rename this one and not delete as well? -- P199 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we only need one category and not two to contain the list of member schools. Vegaswikian 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comcast personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inappropriate personality by network categorization. Otto4711 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and another YARGH curdles up my throat from my bowels. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CTV television personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inappropriate personality by network categorization. Otto4711 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − Who keeps making these categories? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were created a year or more ago, before there had ever begun to be even a whisper of CFD opposition to this type of categorization. Nobody "keeps" doing anything. Bearcat 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per repeated precedents. Doczilla 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus agains this type of categorization has been pretty clear. Delete, with the proviso that the network parent category will have to be monitored for ongoing inclusion of people in it if this doesn't exist. Bearcat 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:TSN personalities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inappropriate personality by network categorization. Otto4711 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − Who keeps making these categories? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most have been around for a while, it's just a matter of searching for them and then listing them. I'm trying to find a few each day if I have some time. If someone wants to do a search and find all of them, feel free to do so. Vegaswikian 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous, related CfDs. Doczilla 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus agains this type of categorization has been pretty clear. Delete, with the proviso that the network parent category will have to be monitored for ongoing inclusion of people in it if this doesn't exist. Bearcat 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution to Category:Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

Nominator's Rationale: Move from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution to Category:Proposals to amend the United States Constitution - Darwinek 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, to bring it in like with the main (list) article, and to improve the grammar slightly. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Proposed amendments..." per Grutness. Otto4711 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness Orderinchaos78 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested by Grutness. − Twas Now ( talk •

contribs • e-mail ) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per Grutness as in line with higher category Hmains 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Complete List of Rappers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Impossible to have a "complete" list. Better to make a supercateogry of other rapper lists, if we really needed it. Mikeblas 05:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, There are already several sub categories in which music artists should be added to. --Zimbabweed 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply because lists and categories are not the same. Otherwise it's the same as Category:Rappers. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, and poorly titled. zadignose 13:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is based on confusion as to the difference between lists and categories. The appropriate categories already exist. Craig.Scott 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Category:Rappers and its subcategories. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is needed or wanted, it should be in article space as List of rappers, not in category space. And, hey, look at that: it's already there. Delete. Bearcat 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Just because there are several people who wish to impeach them does not mean they are "grouped" as a movement. In fact most of those people are unrelated. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title of this category is misleading. It makes it sound like the people on the category are part of a concise, organised movement to impeach george bush. Even the related article Movement to impeach George W. Bush says that

"The movement to impeach George W. Bush refers to actions and commentary within the public and private spheres tending towards support for the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush. The phrase is also used in a broader sense to refer to a social movement and public opinion poll data that include both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush.".

Simplifying this down to the term movement in a category full of people is misleading. This category was created by a user who has since been banned.--Dr who1975 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This sort of hateful political propaganda is an insult to politics. Cosmetor 04:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to see how anyone but a Bush supporter could feel that strongly, and Bush supporters are in no position to cast stones about "hateful political propaganda" and "insults to politics". Craig.Scott 13:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, clearly Cosmetor is a Bush supporter... that's why he/she wants to delete a misleading category that makes it look like there's a conspiracy against Bush. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CRAIG?!?!--Dr who1975 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you take this to mean there's a conspiracy. The impeachment movement is right there in the public eye. It's on C-SPAN, even.[1] Hardly a "conspiracy". — coel acan — 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an organized movement but instead a multitude of people acting independently. Grouping them together gives the false impression that they form a cohesive group. It also does not seem appropriate to group people together according to political opinions on specific people or topics. Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not all acting independently. Many are acting in tandem. To expect them all to be working together with each other fails to recognize what a movement is. Malcolm X didn't work with Martin Luther King. Most black people in America didn't work with each other, and were not organized under some single great umbrella. Yet there was still a Civil Rights Movement. — coel acan — 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd. zadignose 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very irreversible and undeniable keep the fact this category suddenly is opposed by ONE editor seems highly suspicious. Especially in light of his need to make massive numerous unilateral edits to this and related articles. Why has he not engaged in debate on the talk page? Further, the fact he coincidently attracts sockpuppets and then to attack me and to try and get me banned is completely unwarranted.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominator conveniently forgot top place a tag. Does an incomplete nomination not invalidate the process? Not sure, but as long as there is no tag there can be no deletion.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio.... Reverting my edits because you disagree is one thing. But calling me a vandal and asking for me to be banned (which you did FIRST). And then having a sockpuppet convieniently agree (which you now ADMIT above)... is that engaging in debate? You first came to my page to call me a vandal... that was the first you tried to debate me in this. BTW... what we're doing here now... this is debate. There is no rule that says I have to put something on the discussion page first. Also, you may recall I DID put something on the dicussion page of the related article which was handily reverted (reverting discussion pages is a violation of wikipedia rules).--Dr who1975 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the main article for the category is a legitimate topic, this category is unfortunately ill-defined. Most of the people listed in the category have no mention of the "George Bush impeachment" in their main article at all, and even if they support the idea it's not apparently significant enough to include in their article. As a general rule categories should only use information included in the articles so categorized. This category is attempting to classify otherwise well known figures by a particular political opinion they allegedly hold. On top of all that, if these people are important to the main article for the category then their article links will in fact already be available there. Dugwiki 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the ones that don't make mention of it in the articles should be reliably sourced or removed. I've no quarrel with that. But this is not an argument against the category itself. Lots of categories require good sourcing and the articles don't always have it. This happens all the time and it's never an argument for deletion, only for maintainance. The article is already pretty huge. I don't think it's a good idea to list everyone there and make note of their participation. It makes more sense to split this across the various articles and provide reliable sources there; in some cases the info could span over a screenful. Best to keep that kind of quantity in the articles. — coel acan — 03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category was missing a CFD template. I have now added one. Dr. Submillimeter 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - criteria for inclusion is ill-defined. Also, I agree with the nominator that the category makes it seem as though these people are part of some well-organized movement, which is not the case. The category is POV. Johntex\^talk 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've answered all of this in my "keep" argument below. Feel free to reply there. — coel acan — 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johntex. Arkon 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Dugwiki, and Johntex. -- P199 13:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. The Category name is the same name as the article it encompasses. Since the article title is simply a placeholder and not a statement of fact, and explains itself in the lead section, the Category doesn't have that option, so as to avoid any ambiguities it should be renamed to something more neutral. Suggest "Category:Supports of impeachment of GWB" but could be anything like that. -- 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs)
Delete Not a useful category. --Habap 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously:

Regarding POV: There's nothing POV about the fact that these people are working toward his impeachmet. It's just a fact. Where does this argument come from? Discomfort?
Regarding "movement": I wonder what these editors consider a "movement"? Do they all have to be members of some 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) for you to consider them "organized"? You realize, don't you, that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King did not work together, and yet they were both part of a Civil Rights "Movement"? Decentralization and autonomy do not equal disorganization, nor does organization equal mobilization (movement). I suppose that Category:Supporters of impeachment of George W. Bush is a plausible renaming, but actually I think this would be indiscriminate. That includes a large portion of the population, whereas these people are actually actively doing something (different things) toward it. — coel acan — 03:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for an impeachment in and of it self is not work. It takes no work to do that. Where's Bush's Arkansas Project? Where's the group that's going out of it's way to dig up new dirt on Bush? The press maybe (still fairly ridiculous)?
MLK and Malcom X were self avowed members of the civil rights movement. They spoke of it as a movement at great lengths. I've never heard any of these people on this list reference this 'movement' that you speak of. Where's the speech where they talk about being a part of it?--Dr who1975 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's his Arkansas Project? Well, After Downing Street is one such example. As I said above, anyone who's not verifiable for this can be removed. It would take some digging to find out who belongs in the category and who doesn't. That issue's just about inclusion of articles though, not the category itself. You know, it's not a horrible thing if this category gets deleted. But I don't actually see anything wrong with it to warrant deletion.
Now, if you just want cites with the words "impeachment" and "movement" in them to demonstrate that it is being referred to as such, well, here's Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, and Tim Carpenter self-identifying as being in a movement.[2] CNN is calling it a movement,[3] and so is Reuters.[4] Also smaller outlets like the Burlington Free Press,[5] and the John Birch Society [6] are calling it a movement as well. Need more? The term is pretty widely adopted. So there's no original research here, if that was your concern. — coel acan — 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing against the category, not the article. None of the people in this category were at that Vermont meeting. Also... the CNN link is to a site that is not affiliated with CNN. It's iironic you should mention Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, and Tim Carpenter because (at the time I'm writing this) none of them are in this category. I checked Shehan's history... she's never been in this category. After downing street isn't in the category. You talk very intellectuly about facts but what have you done to police them. This category is clearly rife with opportunities for abuse that people will take advantage of. Surely you must agree from your previous posts.--Dr who1975 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that they (Cindy, ADS, ect.) aren't in the category. I'm just saying they ought to be. And there clearly are people in it who shouldn't be, given that their articles don't cite it. If you want the category inclusion fixed right now then I'm willing to work on that... it's usually worth waiting until after a CFD so as to not do potentially unneeded work (should it be deleted). But if you'll change your vote contingent upon the category being stringently applied, I'll go do that over the course of the next few hours. The link I gave about CNN is indeed a conservative watchdog site, that contains a CNN transcript. What's the problem with that, exactly? It still shows that CNN was using the term. There are always problems with categories being used as vandalism. That problem exists with, for instance, Category:LGBT people, all the time. It's not actually an argument against the category's existence, though; rather it's an argument for monitoring. As for the Vermont thing, what is the issue? Does everyone have to have shown up in Vermont to be part of the movement? — coel acan — 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you take away all the invalid names there's really not enough items to make it a viable category. I'm pretty sure we're not going to change each other's minds at this point. Nice sparring with you though. I think we should just agree to disagree.--Dr who1975 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too fuzzy a "movement" to be a category.--Mike Selinker 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine you could say that about every movement in history. — coel acan — 04:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Movement to impeach George W. Bush has been kept several times, so consensus is that the movement exists. That article lists supporters, so the category is valid. Whether they are working independently or not is irrelevant. –Pomte 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are, indeed, widespread calls for impeachment, from mainstream sources, and it isn't the job of Wikipedia to pretend otherwise. Carlo 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If some of the people who wnat to keep it here can;t even agree with the categories progentors as to who should and shouldn't go in this category than how can it be considered a stable, well defined category. --Dr who1975 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also... I have been looking around. I don't see any other category about a "movement" that has a lot of people in it. Such categories on wikipedia only have articles about historical movements... since there is only one article on this, there is no need for a category. That is another reason why this is a misues of a category.--Dr who1975 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rural Ireland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irregular, vague and unnecessary category type. All the contents (Category:Agriculture in Ireland and four highly random articles) have adequate categories without this category. LukeHoC 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 13:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category may not be well populated, but there's nothing inherently wrong with categorizing articles relating to rural Ireland. zadignose 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion criteria are vague, and the other categories are already adequate. Dr. Submillimeter 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Dr. Submillimeter. Any article about a non-urban topic could be included here. Yet those articles should be categorised by county. -- P199 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and unneeded. Piccadilly 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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