Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 30 June 1 >

May 31[edit]

Category:Daredevil Villains[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 and protect against recreation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daredevil Villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete and salt recreation (both with and without the capital V). Doczilla 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt, and maybe salt the reasonable variations of the title as well. - J Greb 07:15, 1 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:Iron Man Villains[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 and protect against recreation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iron Man Villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete and salt recreation. Category also happens to be incorrectly capitalized and incorrectly described (a category is not a list). Doczilla 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt, and maybe salt the reasonable variations of the title as well. - J Greb 07:14, 1 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:Thor Villains[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 and salt. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thor Villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete already been deleted. Brian Boru is awesome 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that suggestion for broad salting. Doczilla 23:33, 1 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:Humanists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Church of BHG. Or keep due to not a whole lot of consensus --Kbdank71 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humanists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Most of these sub-categories group together individuals with little in common - see for instance Category:American humanists. The concept is generally vague, unmanageable and difficult to verify. However, I would not object to keeping Category:Renaissance humanists; I would certainly keep Category:Voltaire. I would also be open to keeping the category set for all self-professed humanists, but many of these individuals are not that. Biruitorul 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American humanists
Category:Australian humanists
Category:British humanists
Category:Dutch humanists
Category:French humanists
Category:German humanists
Category:Italian humanists see below, now renominated here
Category:Swedish humanists
Category:Welsh humanists.

    • I have to say, having looked through the contents of these various subcategories, that some of them make more sense than others - people listed as being Dutch, German or Swedish humanists to seem like actual humanists, but the American and British subcategories, for example, appear more problematic. I appreciate what has been said so far in the discussion and as I've said, I wouldn't mind if we kept the category as a whole, but with more stringent parameters than currently. As I understand it, this is a discussion rather than a deletion vote, so I hope no one feels I've tried his patience or violated WP:POINT by making this nomination. Biruitorul 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does the nominator also intend to nominate most of this category's subcategories for deletion? If so, then I suggest that the nominator list the subcategories in this nomination and tag the subcategories appropriately. (I will vote to delete if the nominator does this.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, along with sub-categories (which have not been nominated) of a significant belief system, which is defined at Humanism. It might be helpful to explicitly restrict the sub-cats to people verifiably self-identified as humanists, but it is just as defining an attribute as someone's religion or professed atheism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but limit to actual humanists per BHG (and per nom's last statement). Xtifr tälk 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I pointed out at the Vegetarian CfD, we have guidelines for belief system categories. The individual has to verifiable identify with the classification, and that identification has to be notable: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty. Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life..." If someone doesn't self-identify as vegetarian, or if someone isn't notably vegetarian, then don't put them in the category. While it is easier at times to simply delete a category, sometimes it is better to go through the cat and do some housecleaning.-Andrew c 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above; may need some pruning of course. See below. Most of these categories are nothing to do with religious belief or lack of it; most editors comments have been completely irrelevant to them Johnbod 09:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article on humanism states that it is "a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality". The key point is that it is a broad grouping philosophies. Humanism does not appear to be defined in a rigorous way, and so it may be difficult to determine whether or not people belong in this category. Because the inclusion criteria are vague, I recommend deletion. (I also recommend deleting Category:Humanists by nationality, Category:Classical humanists, and Category:Renaissance humanists.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Belief systems are commonly heterogeneous, and the same diversity issues apply just as much to to religions. A liberal such as David Jenkins (former Bishop of Durham who questions the virgin birth) and Peter Akinola (the homophobic, conservative, Archbishop of Nigeria) are both categorised in Category:Anglican bishops. They are perhaps easy to group as senior office-holders, but if you look under Category:Christians you will find both Jerry Falwell and Troy Perry, who are at opposite poles on the spectrum. It would be a breach of wikipedia's neutrality principles to insist on a greater homogeneity amongst humanists than we require in defining Christians. The test should be the same in each case: do we have reliable sources to confirm that the person wears the label? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - In general, people need to go through specific ceremonies, such as baptism, to join a religion (such as Anglicanism). (The bishops described above also need to be recognized by the Anglican church.) In contrast, people merely need to say that they are "humanists", or they need someone else to say that they are "humanists". For the most part, it is also clear to identify a Christian through their beliefs (they believe in a monotheistic God that manifested himself as Jesus Christ), but the same is not true of humanists, as the article on humanism itself indicates that the term may be applied to people with a broad range of beliefs. Hence, determining whether someone is Christian or Anglican is straightforward, but determining whether someone is a humanist is not. Dr. Submillimeter 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two minutes ago I founded the Church of BHG, which already has 100,000 members. We call ourselves Christian on our website, we don't follow the Nicene Creed, we only use the New Testament; we take no stance on the question of Jesus's parentage (but reckon he was a right good dude), and beyond that encourage a diversity of views among our members. The other churches mostly refuse to call us Christian; will wikipedia categorise us as Christians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didn't actually found any such church, and until you do, Dr. Submillimeter's argument continues to hold more weight, as it deals with existing realities. Biruitorul 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course I didn't, but the point is still clear, and the tenets of my hypothetical new religion are deliberately similar to those of the Quakers, to illustrate that there is a ginormous theological diversity within Christianity, and plenty of its components do not acknowledge each other as Christians. Dr. Submillimeter is wrong: determining whether someone is Christian is far from straightforward, but skirt around the irresolvable and highly POV definitional problems by accepting self-definition. All I ask is that we do the same for the humanists, and accept someone's self-description as a humanist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion is getting confused. There is the parent category Category:Humanists. Then I see listed daughter categories of a daughter category with no indication whether Category:Humanists by nationality is being proposed for discussion, although I suppose it would have to be if all the daughter categories are removed. Then I see reference to deleting the other daughter categories, but they are not really mentioned in the nomination, except that the nom says he is willing to keep two of them. Could the nominator make clear what his intention is? The main difficulty is with the keep votes where I am not clear whether people are proposing keeping all of them and with some deletion votes where it is not clear whether they are supporting deleting all or just some of the categories. I would support deleting Category:Humanists by nationality and all its sub-categories, but I would keep Category:Humanists and its other sub-categories. My reason is that the historic categories have clearer consensus whether someone fits in. The Category:Humanists by nationality is mainly about living people so the BLP issues arise. The nominator appears to agree with me. --Bduke 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am undecided about whether we should keep this category or not, but I can clearly see that it can be quite difficult to both define "Humanism" and define who exactly is a humanist. Making it particularly hard to define is that Humanism is generally not considered a religion, rather a philosophy. I would have absolutely nothing against writing in the article "Mr. So-and-so described himself as a Humanist and lived by humanist philosophies all his life" or something like that if it can be clearly proven that this Mr. So-and-so did describe himself as exactly that, but maybe the category is unhelpful. On the other hand, we have Category:Unitarians and Category:Unitarian Universalists, and those can be pretty broad and hard-to-define as well (especially Unitarian Universalism.) So, I'm not sure what to do. Whatever is decided about this category, however, I am strongly opposed to deleting Category:Classical humanists, and Category:Renaissance humanists, since humanism in all its forms was so integral to the entire zeitgeist of the Renaissance and Enlightenment (and those categories are probably a bit easier to define anyway.) Anyway, random musing over, K. Lásztocska 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Category:Classical humanists, and Category:Renaissance humanists should not be involved in this, as the doctor suggests. Neither is a religious category; they are about Humanists as important figures in the Humanities. The classical one is a rag-bag that might well be deletable, but the Renaissance one should most certainly not be. Johnbod 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment No one, including me, seems to have noticed so far the rather important point that the French, German, Italian, and Dutch categories are almost entirely composed of Renaissance humanists of widely ranging religious viewpoints. The Swedes have 2 members, one a Renaissance humanist, one a modern Humanist. I would suggest the above categories are Renamed as sub-cats of Category:Renaissance humanists by nationality, and the mixed categories (British certainly) are sorted between these totally different types. I have a Very strong keep for the Renaissance humanists, and a keep for the "Religious humanists". A little research might have unearthed this point earlier. Johnbod 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? I am suggesting the German category is renamed to Category:German Renaissance humanists since that is what it contains. I take it it isn't necessary to refer you to the articles on Humanism (and Humanism (life stance)) as opposed to Renaissance humanism to explain that these categories now mix up two totally different animals - at least one leading Renaissance humanist is a Catholic saint - martyr in fact- (Sir Thomas More), several others were Cardinals or strongly Catholic or Protestant. To repeat, as far as I can see all the French , Italian and German categories consist of such people - at some point they have been wrongly mixed in with a religious Humanist scheme. I would have corrected this if we had not this CfD going on. Johnbod 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, I missed the suggested rename part of your comment. Maybe using "Renaissance humanists" for all categories would be better, but I feel ambivalent about the proposal. Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' (per suggestions above) to indicate it is about historical humanists (not in the modern political sense which is just an empty word). Delete all non-renamed categories w/o mercy. The current German subcat looks OK, OTOH the American subcat is farce. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting the two groups

These national categories are mainly Renaissance humanists, & should be renamed as sub-cats of Category:Renaissance humanists: Rename:
Category:Dutch humanists to Category:Dutch Renaissance humanists (1/9 is modern)
Category:French humanists to Category:French Renaissance humanists(4/9 are modern, counting Voltaire as such)
Category:German humanists toCategory:German Renaissance humanists (1/20 modern)
Category:Italian humaniststo Category:Italian Renaissance humanists

These seem all to be "religious" Humanists, which are what (see nom) this debate is supposed to be about:
Category:American humanists
Category:Australian humanists
Category:Welsh humanists

Mixed:
Category:British humanists - mostly modern
Category:Swedish humanists - one of each
There also English (mostly modern) and Scottish (3 modern, 2 Renaissance) sub-cats of the British cat.

The easiest thing might be if the nominator were to remove the Renaissance categories from the nomination, & another renaming one is done (I can do). The Category:Humanists description rightly says the category should not be used for Renaissance humanists, but at some point they have been added as a sub-category, which also needs correcting. Johnbod 23:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a very sensible proposal, but I'm not quie certain how to proceed. Do make those changes, and I'll be sure to support the revised proposal. Biruitorul 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've struck-through the Dutch, German, French and Italian categories at the top of here, & set up a new nom here. Thanks! Johnbod 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe I am correct in saying that all of the entries in Category:Australian humanists are alive, so BLP issues may arise there. I agree about splitting off the Renaissance humanists. --Bduke 00:34, 3 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:Crumb 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crumb family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - as is the case with so many family categories, the material here is easily interlinked through the text. There is no need for the category to navigate it. Otto4711 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep changed - see below. Having just tried, I found this took about 5 minutes - too long. There seems to have been an article Crumb family, recently deleted at AfD. No doubt they all said it was better dealt with by a category. If the family article was still there, I would support the nom; as it is it is actually too difficult to find the links, in the Robert Crumb article anyway. The Crumb movie article should be added. Johnbod 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see Crumb family in the deletion log, nor any sign of an AfD. If there was such an Afd, please could you post the link?. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the links to the family members are all in the "personal life" section of Robert's article. I didn't see the Crumb family deletion either; I'd be strongly in favor of such an article as the preferred manner of detailing family relationships. Otto4711 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by the redlink in the merge notice at Sophie Crumb; I didn't investigate further, I'm afraid (I felt I'd spent long enough on Crumbology), & from comment below, it seems I may have got the "tense" wrong. As I said above, if there was an article, this category could go. Johnbod 09:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Modernist 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are not the only Crumbs in the world. Doczilla 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this category for easy navigation between articles about members of the artist family Crumb. There is a proposal to merge several of these articles into a Crumb family article, in which case, this category would become superfluous. However, I suggest this category be kept for the time being. Peter G Werner 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now (not much room for expansion), but rename to Category:Crumb family of artists to stop it filling up with everyone called Crumb. I'd prefer it to be replaced with an article and/or a template, and would support deletion if either are created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now it's been speedily deleted and put up for review. Otto4711 13:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion of article now overturned, so I am changing here to Delete per above. Johnbod 23:39, 4 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:Greater Binghamton[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greater Binghamton
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:Greater Syracuse, New York[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 Category:Greater Syracuse, New York to Category:Syracuse, New York. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greater Syracuse, New York to Category:Syracuse, New York
Nominator's rationale: Move. See my reasoning at Category talk:Greater Syracuse, New York. I saw no article about "Greater Syracuse", so a category named as such doesn't make much sense. Any articles for places outside the city should already be in Category:Onondaga County, New York. Vossanova o< 19:52, 31 May 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:List Of Number One Singles[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.

Category:List Of Number One Singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be an attempt to categorize the number one singles at Popfusion, a site which doesn't appear to be terribly notable at first glance. --Finngall talk 19:47, 31 May 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:Lao Monarchy[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 Category:Lao Monarchy to Category:Laotian royalty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lao Monarchy to Category:Laotian royalty
Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with similar categories. All the articles are about individuals (but not all of them are about monarchs). Dominictimms 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, without prejudice to the creation of the broader correctly named category Category:Lao monarchy if there is other material suitable to be added to it. Greg Grahame 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Chris 21:34, 6 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:Natural family planning[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 Category:Natural family planning and Category:Fertility awareness, as they were both empty; I think that takes care of everything; let me know if not. --Kbdank71 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*****NOTICE:***** The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural family planning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, duplicate with Category:Fertility awareness (articles about identifying the fertile period of the menstrual cycle) and Category:Theology of the Body (articles about Catholic theology regarding the human body, especially sexuality and birth control). Lyrl Talk C 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let interested folks know that a relevant discussion is ongoing at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. Until the people involved decide what to do, no decision should be made here. Joie de Vivre 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the "fertility awareness" and "natural family planning" categories were created out of a renaming dispute at Category talk:Periodic abstinence that has failed to reach consensus. While there is ongoing disagreement about including two specific articles in the "fertility awareness" category (Natural family planning and Rhythm Method), there does seem to be consensus that "fertility awareness" is a good category. There does not seem to be consensus for "Natural family planning" as a category. Lyrl Talk C 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? I asked you at Category_talk:Periodic abstinence to please explain what you want. You refuse to answer, then 48 hours later you announce that the discussion has "become inactive" and so you're nominating this category for deletion. The ball was in your court, Lyrl! I had made my views clear and had asked you to please clarify yours so we could come up with something. I am honestly disappointed in you for this. Joie de Vivre 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not consensus to lump everything in Fertility awareness, because most fertility awareness teachers do not consider Rhythm method to be fertility awareness, and also, stripping Billings ovulation method and Creighton Model from their roots in Humanae Vitae and rebranding them as "fertility awareness" is not right. The term NFP was used first, and is still used by the majority of people using these methods in conjunction with Catholicism. Joie de Vivre 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe a dispute about how to categorize Rhythm Method is best discussed on that article's talk page, not here. As Andrew suggested, it can stay in Category:Behavioral methods of birth control while discussion is ongoing or if no consensus is reached. Regarding the Billings and Creighton articles, they are already in Category:Fertility awareness, this proposal does not require moving them to that category. Lyrl Talk C 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category is basically redundant with the FA category. I think there is a big difference between the generically used term "fertility awareness" and the more specific "Fertility Awareness Method" of Toni Weschler. It is confusing, and there has yet to be a solid consensus on what do exactly name the categories. Should we simply keep all the articles in the less specific parent Category:Behavioral methods of birth control? Should we find some more accurate, but verbose name like Category:Birth control methods that observe or estimate fertile periods? NFP has religious connotations, and the methods described in the category do not necessarily require religious observation and abstinence. I believe this category is unnecessary, and I also think that Category:Periodic abstinence is poorly named and should be merged with the FA category. We don't need 3 subcategories to classify less than a dozen of similarly related articles.-Andrew c 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I tried at length to come up with a neutral name, but Lyrl shot down all of them. Joie de Vivre 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheat sheet: The term Natural family planning specifically refers to the methods of birth control approved by the Roman Catholic church, which are periodic sexual abstinence during the fertile period, and the period of infertility associated with breastfeeding. No contraceptives whatsoever are allowed. Natural family planning first existed as the Rhythm Method starting in the mid-1800s. The Rhythm Method involves estimating the date of ovulation based on the length of past menstrual cycles; it does not involve detection of bodily signals, and is considered obsolete by many fertility awareness teachers. John Billings and his wife Evelyn , devout Catholics then developed the Billings ovulation method, which relies on the observation of cervical mucus to detect fertility. A later version is the Creighton Model, which is a modified offshoot of the Billings method. The term fertility awareness appeared later, and it refers to the generalized use of methods which track fertility, not in the context of Catholicism. FA methods include charting the shift in basal body temperature which occurs at ovulation, or charting the changes in cervical mucus that signify the same. The term "Natural family planning" is also used to refer to generalized use of FA methods, but the Catholic groups generally stick to the term NFP. The other main difference between NFP and FA is that NFP as practiced by Catholics never involves barrier contraception as their religion forbids it. FA users frequently do use condoms or other barriers during the fertile period.
Event sequence: I initially started categorizing the contents of Category:Birth control by grouping the actual birth control methods together. There wasn't a category for the methods which do not involve chemicals or devices, so I created Category:Behavioral methods of birth control, as the term refers to all the FA methods, the Rhythm method, LAM, as well as the withdrawal method of intercourse. I later noticed that Category:Periodic abstinence existed, containing all the FA methods. I saw this as strikingly inaccurate and slanted towards NFP, because many users do not engage in periodic abstinence. I started moving the methods to Category:Behavioral methods of birth control, but this didn't fly. I tried coming up with many names for a possible category that would appropriately group all the FA, NFP and Rhythm methods together, but no one could agree on anything. So then I created the NFP and FA categories, which differentiate the two concepts.
Outcome: Now Lyrl is trying to delete this category; even though she was the person who recreated the NFP article when its contents were merged to FA (in 2005). She specifically stated that NFP was a Catholic concept in the new article that she created. Now it seems like this is the initial step in lumping all the methods together again. I see this as counterproductive because NFP and FA are two separate concepts. NFP is based in a specific religious tradition. FA is entirely secular and used for many different reasons. Please view Category:Natural family planning and Category:Fertility awareness.
Request: Lyrl should state her intentions for where the categorization scheme is going, before we should decide on whether to delete this category. If the intention is to group them all together, then we need to agree on a plan. I don't see that this will be easy because we already tried and failed to find a name that would not do any of the following:
  • make FA sound like it involves sexual abstinence (i.e. "Category:Periodic abstinence")
  • make Rhythm sound like a fertility awareness method (i.e. "Category:Fertility observation/charting/tracking/detection"
  • exclude Rhythm entirely (see above)
  • annoy Lyrl (i.e. "Category:Methods which detect or estimate fertility")
In the meantime the NFP category is serving a useful purpose and I see no reason to get rid of it. If anything, Category:Periodic abstinence should go; its scope is so narrow as to be almost useless. Also, the reason Lyrl gave for nominating this for deletion is that the discussion "stagnated" at Category talk:Periodic abstinence (after a grand total of about 48 hours). I think that this is a lousy thing to do. The last thing I said on that page was "What do you want to see happen here"? Lyrl didn't answer that question AT ALL, they just nominated this for deletion. I am having a really hard time with this because I have made direct efforts to figure out what Lyrl wants to see happen so we can all come to an agreement. a much more community-friendly response would have been to try to revive the discussion first, particularly because the ball was in Lyrl's court. Joie de Vivre 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until local dispute over this & "FA" resolved. now changed to Delete per Andrew c/talk page below. /: The category is clearly not a "duplicate" of Category:Theology of the body as nom claims; it is a reasonable sub-cat of that.

Johnbod 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this article was created 3 days ago, without consensus, during a content dispute. I agree with Johnbod that the content dispute should keep going until we reach a consensus. We shouldn't create new categories before that point is reached. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened with this category.-Andrew c 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Johnbod, I would be interested to hear more of your reasoning on "natural family planning" being a reasonable sub-cat of "Theology of the Body". Would making Category:Fertility awareness a sub-cat of "Theology of the Body" serve the same purpose? Lyrl Talk C 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although it's a slightly less comfortable fit, as it includes trying to get pregnant, as well as not. Johnbod 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let interested folks know that a relevant discussion is ongoing at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. Until the people involved decide what to do, no decision should be made here. Joie de Vivre 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the afformentioned discussion has reached a conclusion. We would like to rename Category:Fertility awareness to Fertility tracking. And the remaining two categories will be merged/deleted.-Andrew c 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:35, 13 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:African Beatboxers[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 upmerge to Category:Beatboxers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African Beatboxers to Category:African-American beatboxers
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete, erroneously created by non-native English speaker. Had been nominated for speedy, but suggest CfD instead. See talk page. User:Superbfc - 15:45 UTC 2007.05.31
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:Forever Knight[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forever Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - after moving all the episode articles to the subcat, the remaining material (show article and subcat) don't require the category for navigation. Otto4711 14:31, 31 May 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:Family Matters[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family Matters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one subcat, thre interlinked articles. Category unlikely to expand, not needed for navigation. Otto4711 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a category of articles about the television show Family Matters. The articles are relavent to each other since they are all about the show. Some characters of the show have articles and some do not. It is likely that articles about more characters will be made so it is likely that the category will expand. Q0 03:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the articles about the show can easily be linked to each other through wikilinks within the articles. If new articles about characters are written, then they should be placed in Category:Family Matters characters rather than in a general show category. Otto4711 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A category is not needed to link those 4 articles; a "see also" section on each page would be a perfectly adequate replacement.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 1 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:Gabriel García Márquez[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gabriel García Márquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people: "As a general rule most people should not have their own eponymous category." --jbmurray (talk contribs) 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Category not needed for this material. Otto4711 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not a necessary eponymous category. Good call. Dugwiki 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is an unnecessary eponymous category. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, surely the general rule allows for categories that have subcats, as this one does? At any rate, there are over a hundred categories in Category:Categories named after writers; either most of them should be deleted or they should be kept, but this one should not be singled out.
  • Comment - a number of categories named for authors (and actors, musicians, etc.) have been deleted. It's an ongoing process as people find and nominate them, and the existence of other similar categories is not automatically reason to support this one. Otto4711 22:01, 4 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.

Various categories about African Americans[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-all. I mean keep all. --Kbdank71 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:List of African-American inventors and scientists#Requested move and Hyphenated American. When used as an adjective, African-American should be hyphenated. When used as a noun/substantive it should not. I.E. compare "I am an African American" and "I am an African-American politician". Although it is acceptable to omit the hyphen, there is currently a mixture of usages in categories on Wikipedia. I therefore propose to make the following multiple category re-namings for consistency.
African American to African-American (adjectival usage)
Category:African American academics -> Category:African-American academics
Category:African American art -> Category:African-American art
Category:African American artists -> Category:African-American artists
Category:African American baseball players -> Category:African-American baseball players
Category:African American basketball players -> Category:African-American basketball players
Category:African American boxers -> Category:African-American boxers
Category:African American classical composers -> Category:African-American classical composers
Category:African American culture -> Category:African-American culture
Category:African American engineers -> Category:African-American engineers
Category:African American films -> Category:African-American films
Category:African American football players -> Category:African-American football players
Category:African American governors -> Category:African-American governors
Category:African American hip hop musicians -> Category:African-American hip hop musicians
Category:African American inventors -> Category:African-American inventors
Category:African American literature -> Category:African-American literature
Category:African American magazines -> Category:African-American magazines
Category:African American Medal of Honor recipients -> Category:African-American Medal of Honor recipients
Category:African American memoirists -> Category:African-American memoirists
Category:African American mobsters -> Category:African-American mobsters
Category:African American museums -> Category:African-American museums
Category:African American musicians -> Category:African-American musicians
Category:African American newspapers -> Category:African-American newspapers
Category:African American non-fiction writers -> Category:African-American non-fiction writers
Category:African American novelists -> Category:African-American novelists
Category:African American novels -> Category:African-American novels
Category:African American philosophers -> Category:African-American philosophers
Category:African American poets -> Category:African-American poets
Category:African American politicians -> Category:African-American politicians
Category:African American press -> Category:African-American press
Category:African American professional organizations -> Category:African-American professional organizations
Category:African American professional wrestlers -> Category:African-American professional wrestlers
Category:African American radio-TV personalities -> Category:African-American broadcast media personalities
Category:African American rappers -> Category:African-American rappers
Category:African American religious leaders -> Category:African-American religious leaders
Category:African American soccer players -> Category:African-American soccer players
Category:African American sportspeople -> Category:African-American sportspeople
Category:African American stubs -> Category:African-American stubs
Category:African American styles of music -> Category:African-American styles of music
Category:African American tennis players -> Category:African-American tennis players
Category:African American track and field athletes -> Category:African-American track and field athletes
Category:African American writers -> Category:African-American writers
Category:Clergy of predominantly African American Christian denominations -> Category:Clergy of predominantly African-American Christian denominations
Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations -> Category:Predominantly African-American Christian denominations
Category:United States communities with African American majority populations -> Category:United States communities with African-American majority populations
Category:United States counties with African American majority populations -> Category:United States counties with African-American majority populations
African-American to African American (substantive usage)
Category:Fictional African-Americans -> Category:Fictional African Americans
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge baseball players, basketball players, boxers, football players, soccer players, tennis players and track and field athletes to Category:African American sportspeople. For the same reasons that sport-specific LGBT categories have been upmerged in the past.
  • Upmerge academics, artists, classical composers, engineers, governors, inventors, Medal of Honor recipients, mobsters, philosophers, professional wrestlers, religious leaders and rappers to the corresponding "American foos" parent category. This is overcategorization by race.
  • Split radio-TV personalities into radio personalities and TV personalities and upmerge to Category:American radio personalities and Category:American television personalities as appropriate. Otto4711 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without hyphen Whatever the result of the upmerge suggestions, I'd argue that "African American" is very seldom hyphenated, even when the phrase is used as an adjective. Though it may once have been strictly grammatically correct to emply the hyphen, usage is changing, it is now as you say (and Bartelby agrees[1]) at best optional, and the predominant trend is to omit hyphens in this instance. (Cf. also "Latin American" where a hyphen is nowadays hardly ever used for the adjectival form.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Latin America is a geographically-defined region, so does not require hyphenation when used as an adjective. Having consistency is key, and so is eliminating ambiguity. Other cats exist with a hyphen, and as this is the grammatically usage, even if not necessarily colloquial, I suggest that is the best way to proceed.
      — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The fact that Latin America may or may not be a geographically-defined region has nothing to do with it. People used regularly to write Latin-American; now they don't. Likewise with African American. And we're not talking about "colloquial" usage. We're talking about usage. See for instance the eminently uncolloquial Museum of African American History or PBS's African American Lives, among zillions of other examples. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it correct. Or unambiguous. Or consistent. An encyclopedia should be an unambiguous and correct record of fact.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, accepted usage does make it correct. An encyclopedia is a record of fact, as you say, not a determination of fact. It reflects the world, rather than shaping it. On that basis, and agreeing that consistency is desirable where possible (while recognizing that the world is not always consistent), I suggest rename Category:African-American artists -> Category:African American artists and Category:African-American films -> Category:African American films --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African Underground 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 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Underground rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, this category no importance, has one or none articles, there is already Category:Underground rappers, we don't need a sub category of another sub category Bazel 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think the person who originally created the category had in mind African American rappers rather than ones from Africa. Badagnani 07:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were a valid subgenre of rap, I would be strongly tempted to argue keep, but it turns out that "underground" in this context means "self-published". Since being self-published is usually a fast route to non-notability, I think it's going to be quite a while before the parent cat gets over-populated enough to need subcategories. (For that matter, if I were a deletionist, I'd probably be sorting through the parent category even now.) Xtifr tälk 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:19, 31 May 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:Command and General Staff College alumni[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 to Category:Non-U.S. alumni of the Command and General Staff College --Kbdank71 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Command and General Staff College alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. This is an almost pointless category. This is a U.S. Army school, but half the people in the category are former South Vietnamese officers. Anyone above the rank of major in the U.S. Army is going to have attended this school, either as a resident or by correspondence - it's mandatory. It's one step short of having Category:Generals who used to be 2nd Lieutenants or Cateogry:Soldiers who attended basic training. Next will be categories for Advanced course alumni, and for the Air Force, Squadron Officer School alumni. Is every army officer an alumni or this school? No. Lieutenants and Captains are not, and neither are enlisted. But this is definitely over-categorization. We could also have a category for army officers from Kentucky, or blonde-haired generals, but we don't need to overdo it.Nobunaga24 06:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as a non-defining attribute of US army officers; but consider creating a category for alumni of the Command and General Staff College who serve in armed forces outside the US. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to:Category:Foreign alumni of the Command and General Staff College - new choice below/: or similar, and remove the Americans. This is a useful category for the foreigners but, as nom explains, not for the locals. Johnbod 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: foreign to whom? It is not clear from the category name what country this college is associated with, so I see a strong potential for confusion here. Perhaps "Non-US alumni of..." would be better? I'm not entirely sure. But please, keep in mind the international audience for Wikipedia. Xtifr tälk 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would support something like Category:Non-U.S. alumni of the Command and General Staff College. It's just for U.S. Army personnel that it is a pointless category. I should have made that distinction in my nom. --Nobunaga24 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps::Category:Foreign alumni of the U.S. Command and General Staff College is more elegant, but "Non-US" would be alright. Johnbod 12:51, 2 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:Wife of Malaysians Prime Minister[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 Category:Wife of Malaysians Prime Minister to Category:Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Malaysia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wife of Malaysians Prime Minister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Malaysia, convention of Category:Spouses of national leaders. -- Prove It (talk) 04:08, 31 May 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:Humanists by nationality[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 and relisted by nom see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 31#Category:Humanists. Andrew c 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humanists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, because the concept is vague, unmanageable and difficult to verify. Biruitorul 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the intention to delete all the sub-categories such as Category:American humanists? If so, I agree. If not, I disagree as if the sub categories are OK, there is nothing wrong with a parent cat. --Bduke 08:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems perfectly useful cat, linking the various humanist cats together.--Red Deathy 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, along with sub-categories (which have not been nominated) as a useful sub-cat of Category:Humanists, which is defined at Humanism. It might be helpful to explicitly restrict the sub-cats to people verifiably self-identified as humanists, but it is just as defining an attribute as someone's religion or professed atheism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nationality is not vague, unmanageable or difficult to verify! Did you mean to nominate Category:Humanists instead? Because as long as that category exists, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest deleting this one. (I'd probably recommend keeping Category:Humanists as well, but since it hasn't been nominated, I shan't bother to defend it at this time.) Xtifr tälk 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as we still have Category:Humanists (which I personally would *not* recommend deleting, it's a perfectly valid concept even if it is a little vague) having "Humanists by nationality" is as good a way as any to organize the sub-categories. K. Lásztocska 19:18, 31 May 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:Piergiorgio Lucidi albums[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 delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 05:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piergiorgio Lucidi albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable guitarist's album page which is empty Tainter 02:18, 31 May 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:Artists who have performed at the High Sierra Music Festival[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists who have performed at the High Sierra Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as inappropriate performer-by-performance category, per WP:OCAT#Performers by performance (and in particular, WP:OCAT#Performers by venue). May even be a recreation; I seem to remember a very similar category being deleted before, but I'm not completely sure that it was for this festival. Note that all the performers are already listed at High Sierra Music Festival, so listification is unnecessary. Xtifr tälk 00:11, 31 May 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_May_31&oldid=1142606387"