Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1[edit]

Category:WikiProject Greek Life 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 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 per conventions. This is a poor discussion, requiring a lot of piece-together work by the closing admin. In the midst of the 'rename per convention' votes, the category Category:Non-article Greek Life pages (which doesn't seem to have had a 'conventional' name suggested), has been overlooked. I would suggest that it form the basis of a speedy nom, after you decide what it is to be called. --Xdamrtalk 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Greek Life articles to Category:WikiProject Fraternity and sorority articles Category:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities articles
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named (by me) in January. Includes other sub-cats. —ScouterSig 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit1: Well, I again misnamed the cat. Most accurate name ever now nominated! —ScouterSig 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note1: Perhaps some of this can be fixed/whatever by editing the Wikiproject template Template:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. I really don't know how it works, even though I made it. (I just copied it from WP:SCOUT.) —ScouterSig 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes all of the sub categories:

—ScouterSig 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a bit more than editing the template, but not a lot more. -- Prove It (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and keep the subcategories underneath the main category as well. M.(er) 04:09, 2 October 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.

York City F.C. player subcategories[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging all the following subcategories to Category:York City F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization Chanheigeorge 22:36, 1 October 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.

West Ham United F.C. player subcategories[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging all the following subcategories to Category:West Ham United F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization Chanheigeorge 22:05, 1 October 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:Americans of English descent[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:English Americans. --Xdamrtalk 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans of English descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:English Americans, convention of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. I'd be ok with changing the whole thing over to the Canadian method, but that's a LOT more work. In any event these seem like duplicates. -- Prove It (talk) 21:54, 1 October 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:Fushigi Yūgi[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. --Xdamrtalk 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fushigi Yūgi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary manga category containing only the main article, one other article, and a template that provides links to everything anyone could possibly want about the manga series. LeSnail 20:30, 1 October 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:Golden Ball winners and Category:Golden Shoe 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 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 Listify & Delete per WP:OCAT. Per BrownHairedGirl, list already exists at FIFA World Cup awards. --Xdamrtalk 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: A more specific name given that every FIFA tournament (Women's World Cup, U-20, etc.) gives out a Golden Ball and a Golden Shoe. Chanheigeorge 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per WP:OC#Award winners. Otto4711 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Snocrates 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename per nomination --Daemonic Kangaroo 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per Otto. Number 57 07:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't listify: the lists already exist at FIFA World Cup awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - the World Cup is the most important football competition in the world. I would argue that therefore the Golden Ball, Golden Boot, etc. are significant enough awards to keep as categories. There are also players who are essentially defined by their World Cup performances (the epitome of that would be Salvatore Schillaci, who scored 6 of his 7 career international goals in the 1990 World Cup en route to winning the Golden Shoe and Golden Ball). At the risk of being accused of violating WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we do have Category:Super Bowl MVPs for instance. ugen64 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ugen64's proposal seems to be based on the assumption that notability is inherited, which has (so far as I know) always been rejected on wikipedia. Yes, The World Cup is very notable, but that does not mean that everything which happens within the world cup inherits the competition's notability, or that it is a defining attribute of the players involved. Football players are that level are usually over-categorised already, and this sort of award category merely adds to the category clutter. If the award rally is a significant point in a player's career, the article should reflect that, in which case readers can easily follow the link to find other award-winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - As per ugen64 - especially since the FIFA world cup is more notable than the Superbowl. Sebisthlm 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be in favor of deleting the MVP categories for all sports, including the Super Bowl one linked here. Otto4711 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - As per Ugen64. Qwghlm 07:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - as per Ugen64. WikiGull 09:05, 9 October 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:Mugar 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. --Xdamrtalk 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mugar family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and biased category. These are presumably not the only people on the planet named "Mugar" and everything is already linked through the main article Mugar family anyway. LeSnail 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can ask whether coverage of the family is divided into multiple related sub-articles that can't easily be interlinked or otherwise categorized. Which is the standard that used to be at WP:OC. If the only articles in a family category are for family members then my feeling is that they should be in an article under the family name with all family members linked, which can explain the interrelationships between the people as the alphabetical category listing can't. Otto4711 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Postdlf, I think the answer is that non-American families shouldn't be there :P
    I'm not just being sarcastic, and hope that we can come up with a principle which applies more widely, and not just to America. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's Reply:I created the category and really won't be upset if it is deleted, but I am concerned about the logic of some of the comments that have been made. What about the Kennedy family and their category? I'm sure they are not the only Kennedy family on the planet or even in Boston. Also, I don't understand the comment about non-American families being excluded. Are you saying that the Mugars of Boston are not Americans just because they are Armenian-Americans? Would you exclude the Kennedys because they are Irish-Americans? clariosophic 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is suggesting that the family article should be excluded from the American families category or that the category if retained should be excluded. You are misreading the comments. Otto4711 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto - not enough of them, or spread out enough. I don't accept the "not-the-only-Foos" argument of nom. Johnbod 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment --Well, if someone wrote an article about Jimbob Mugar, they would be likely to put them in Category:Mugar family irregardless of whether Jimbob is related to the other Mugars in that category. That doesn't seem like a good thing, but it would be hard to say they were wrong to do so--clearly, Jimbob is part of a Mugar family. There probably are exceptions to this, such as Kennedy family which is so much more notable than any other Kennedy family that it is clear which family is meant, but I don't think that is the case here. LeSnail 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Previous Comment: From the Kennedy family article, it is clear that the category is for the family of Joseph P. Kennedy and is not a list of people named Kennedy. Similarly, from the Mugar family article, it is clear that the category is for the five Mugardician brothers who came to Boston in the early 1900's and shortened their name to Mugar. clariosophic 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) clariosophic 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started out not really caring whether this category got deleted or not, but after hearing all the above, I fail to see the logic or justification for deletion. clariosophic 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Hamilton, Scotland[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 as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hamilton, Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, to match Hamilton, South Lanarkshire. -- Prove It (talk) 15:23, 1 October 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:Ellesmere Port riders[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 CSD G7 authors request. -- Prove It (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ellesmere Port riders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Made in error Hammer1980·talk 15:22, 1 October 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:Earth, Wind, and Fire songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Earth, Wind & Fire songs. --Xdamrtalk 01:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Earth, Wind, and Fire songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Earth, Wind & Fire songs, to match Earth, Wind & Fire. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 1 October 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.

Lord-Lieutenants[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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to use the format "Lord-Lieutenants" per the convention agreed after a long discussion at CfD August 8. This was rolled out for the subcats of Category:Lord-Lieutenants in England, Category:Lord-Lieutenants in Wales and Category:Lord-Lieutenants in Scotland, but the Irish categs were overlooked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 1 October 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:Websites Censored By Myspace[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. Sam Blacketer 13:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Websites Censored By Myspace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't get the point of this category. Looks unencyclopedic to me. Tizio 11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For starters, the category name is misleading: myspace does not censor those sites, it restricts the ability of its users to link to those sites, which is a different issue, and would be better described as a censorship of myspace rather that of the other sites. Secondly, this appears to be an attempt to categorise according to a campaign run by MoveOn.org. If that campaign is notable, then the sites concerned could be listed in an article about it, but it is not a defining characteristic of these sites that another site restricts the use of their content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like an attempt to editorialize by categorization. This would be better handled as a referenced article. -- Prove It (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ProveIt's phrase "attempt to editorialize by categorization" sums up the problem very neatly. That's a form of categorisation to avoid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article about online social networking sites and their content restrictions would be welcome, but a category is not nearly as informative and is much more subject to hidden abuses. --lquilter 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is confusing, (what does "censored by MySpace" mean?), the sites have only one thing in common together, and serves no real purpose. (P.S. I am I violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT?)
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:Roman Catholics 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 keep. Categorising people by nationality is established and has consensus support; no good argument is made here for this being an exception. Sam Blacketer

Category:Roman Catholics by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Can someone please explain what is this category intended for, if it was intended at all? If it's for Catholic activists and clergy then its title should be along this line. If it's intended for people who are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church by country, as the page says, then it's utterly non-defining and a clear example of WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Its subcategories tend to be tautological to the level of nonsense: Category:Polish Roman Catholics, containing Jaruzelski and Chopin? Category:Italian Roman Catholics, with Dino De Laurentiis and Federico Fellini??? Category:Croatian Roman Catholics, Category:Spanish Roman Catholics???? Why there isn't Category:Vatican Roman Catholics?
In most cases, religion is a non-defining aspect of a person's biography: well, 95% of World population probably belongs to some religious category, and I suppose that the remainder belongs to Category:Atheists by nationality (that's not a redlink???)? By that twisted logic, some 500,000 of our biography articles should fall into this and simialr categories
Note that I did not examine other "Religion by nationality" categories at this time, and the Catholic one is picked up by chance (showed up in my watchlist for Mirko Norac). But please, why do we have this? And Category:Muslims by nationality, including Category:Egyptian Muslims... Duja► 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be challenging whether people should be categorized by religion at all unless it is somehow intertwined with their function in life, their notability. Am I wrong in saying your criticism goes that far? As for the less fundamental question of subdividing people by religion categories by nationality, it makes a lot more sense than other intersections. How a religion is practiced will tend to differ meaningfully from one country to another, such that the average Roman Catholic in the United States would likely have a more similar religious outlook and culture with another American Roman Catholic than with a Bolivian Roman Catholic. Nationality tends to be reflected in all aspects of an individual's identity, and those categories are simply descriptive, not "tautological." The alternative seems to be senseless, coincidental categories like the thankfully deleted Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople, which wrongly imply that there is some connection between the religion and the occupation practiced, as if the athleticism of a Catholic differs from a Presbyterian or whatever. Postdlf 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful and verifiable means of subdividing Category:Roman Catholics. The nominator has a point that being Roman Catholic is not exactly unusual in Poland, but I think it's more useful to step back a little further. There are many people for whom religion is an important attribute, but I think the Polish example illustrates that the intersection of nationality and religion is less significant where the person is part of a massively dominant religion (as in Category:Polish Roman Catholics), but much more significant where the religion is a minority in that country (c.f. Category:Polish Muslims or Category:Polish Buddhists) or where no religion is completely dominant (c.f. Germany, the UK, the United States). So some uses of this category tree will be more useful than others, but I think that it would be next to impossible to agree on a list of country/religion intersections which are non-notable, because the degree of adherence to a religion is not a fixed quantity.
    I also think that the nominator's slippery slope argument is undermined by his own example: apart from the two clergy subcats, there are currently only 11 articles in Category:Polish Roman Catholics. Duja says: "I know that slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but in this case I'm not predicting it, but witness it happening." Not in Poland, anyway: it seems that editors are being quite restrained in using the category, and that theoretical slippery slope is in practice rather flat and not very slippery. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Religion is an important part of ethnic identity. Just because in some countries most all the native people are of one religion is no reason to ignore that religion all together. If you feel that a country is so overwhelming one religion, such as Poland, then you should put the category Polish people in Category/Roman Catholics and make a new category for Polish people who aren't Roman Catholics. Wikipedia should not pretend religion and ethnicity do not exist. 75.32.36.79 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, these religion categories should have tens and thousands of articles in them because they have tens of thousands of notable members. Duja, why should wikipedia ignore something just because it is prominent? 75.32.36.79 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless religion played a notable part in a persons life, i.e. it contributed in some way to that notability it should not be placed on an article. in reply to BHG of course they should have cat's because religion is a part of their notability. The policy outlined here [1], covers my point very well. --Domer48 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contra the deletion votes above, as none of the bottom-level religion categories in Category:People by religion (such as Category:Roman Catholics) have been listed here or tagged for deletion, this can't be a referendum on whether people should generally be categorized by religion. The only issue that can be determined here is whether individuals placed in Category:Roman Catholics should be further subcategorized by nationality. To which I say keep; as long as people are categorized by religion, it makes sense to subcategorize those groupings by the individual's nationality, per my comments above. Postdlf 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful and verifiable means of subdividing Category:Roman Catholics. I echo the above comment of BrownHairedGirl. Jaraalbe 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl and Postdlf. Piecemeal deletion of one sub-category of a legitimate and accepted category makes no sense. What more is there to say? Cgingold 12:26, 6 October 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:University of Wales, Aberystwyth[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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Aberystwyth University
Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:People associated with Aberystwyth University
Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Academics of Aberystwyth University
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Alumni of Aberystwyth University
Nominator's rationale: Rename all the university has today renamed itself. Timrollpickering 10:44, 1 October 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:Characters introduced in 1999[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. After Midnight 0001 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters introduced in 1999 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Specimen test case to see whether there is a consensus to keep the whole sub-structure of Category:Fictional characters by year. "Character" and "introduced" are both ambiguous. I also ask whether people feel fictional characters' "introductions" are worth categorising by year. I imagine that List of fictional characters introduced in 1999 might possibly have a use, where the ambiguity of "introduced" could be addressed in the article, as it can't be in a category. On glancing at some of these categories, "characters" seems to be limited to film, comics and soap opera characters. I see problems if the scheme were broadened to include Beowulf, Tristram Shandy, Tom Jones, Gulliver, Robinson Crusoe, Mr Micawber, Long John Silver, Sherlock Holmes, Percy Jackson, Michael the Warrior, Torak: then I suspect it would be unwieldy at best, and overcategorisation at worst. At the very least, please rename "Characters introduced in foo" categories to "Fictional characters barred in foo" (or, better, split into categories such as "Soap opera characters barred in foo", "Dramatic characters barred in foo", "Comics characters barred in foo", "Literary fictional characters barred in foo", "Characters in children's fiction barred in foo", "Manga characters barred in foo") where "barred" is replaced by a less ambiguous word than "introduced". RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (also all subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by year) for reasons given in my nomination. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm indifferent right now as to deletion, but I support rename to add "fictional" to the category names. However, I don't understand why "introduced" is ambiguous. Postdlf 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. The date of "introduction" of a character is not a coherent form of classification, because fictional characters achieve prominence at different points in their careers, sometimes decades after their introduction in a different medium. If for some resaon the category is kept, then rename to include the word "fictional" per Postdlf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl (and delete the whole Category:Fictional characters by year tree, too) -- this is at best a trivial aspect of characters. Any informative analysis of characters generated in a particular era (Betty Boop & Popeye!) should be recapitulated in individual articles on the topic, not trying to sweep up every character in order to chart its "birth". Plus, it's going to cause gajillions of problems trying to figure out what is a character and what isn't. Look at Jean Grey of the X-Men and all her various incarnations. When were which of them "created"? Is the movie version of Ged equivalent to the book version, when the character and the story are significantly different, or are they different characters with the same name? Etc. These kinds of problems can be hashed out with nuance on individual articles but not in categories. --lquilter 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per lquilter. Superboy (1944) and Superwoman (1947) have similar problems -- multiple, distinct incarnations in the same article, and more recent versions are better known than the "introductions". HalJor 21:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since it appears just now that the final consensus may well be to delete all (and if the closing admin thinks it really necessary to separately nominate and tag all the characters introduced in [year] categories) please ping me on my talk page, and I'll start a separate blanket deletion nomination for the whole scheme. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 3 October 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:UCE Birmingham[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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UCE Birmingham to Category:Birmingham City University
Propose renaming Category:People associated with UCE Birmingham to Category:People associated with Birmingham City University
Propose renaming Category:Academics of UCE Birmingham to Category:Academics of Birmingham City University
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of UCE Birmingham to Category:Alumni of Birmingham City University
Nominator's rationale: Rename all the university has changed its name and the categories should follow suit. Timrollpickering 10:26, 1 October 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:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy[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 by User:Kbdank71 per creator's request. --Xdamrtalk 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has been under revision about its need and use by WP:TIMETRACE after a rename nomination.After some actualization of the project's way of working this category is no longer in use. I request its deletion as the creator of the category and because it is now obsolete and empty Daoken 09:52, 1 October 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:Eruption of Vesuvius, AD79[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. Minus the many improper categorisations, relevant articles can be linked from within Pompeii or Mount Vesuvius (or indeed both). Otherwise this is a form of Overcategorisation. --Xdamrtalk 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eruption of Vesuvius, AD79 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of category. Event articles should be in general topic categories; general topic articles should not be in categories for specific events. Dhartung
Comment - Grouping these articles, on pages related to this eruption, and sites that have one particular thing in common (ie being buried by this eruption), seems useful, whatever those qualms. Is there some other way of doing it? Neddyseagoon - talk 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these aren't "qualms"; they're explanations of how the category system works -- it was programmatically designed around one concept and this is using it in completely the opposite way. It's great you're asking about alternates: In fact, the right way to do it is to simply include links to the relevant broad topics in the article itself, either linked in the text, or if that doesn't work as a list of some sort (e.g., a list of examples on the broad topic page); if there's no good way to fit that into the text of the article, then a "see also" section works. --lquilter 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Imagine what a complete clusterfuck the category system would be if we categorized the general by the specific. Shortly after the category structure was initiated, I saw Agriculture placed in Category:Kansas. That way lies madness. How many eruption-specific categories would general articles like pyroclastic flow be placed in, how many articles on historical events would articles on the historians who may have documented them, like Pliny the Elder, be placed in? That pyroclastic flow is important to the AD79 Vesuvius eruption obviously does not mean the converse must also be true. Obviously the way to group this information is with an article on the eruption that contains internal links to the relevant topics. And if you want to see every possible article that might intersect with another article, click on "what links here." Postdlf 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf and my comments on the Mount Meager eruption category. Someone needs to help out the wikiproject volcano people on categories. --lquilter 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have looked at this individually. If there are lots of articles about Pompei/Vesuvius, archaeological digs, and so on, then this seems like a reasonable potential category. --lquilter 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure about this one. The AD79 eruption seems like a defining characteristic of Pompeii, and I think that the question here is what would be left if the general articles were removed from the category. There might be enough specific articles to make it worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reduced version with the archaeological sites - remove Eruption column, Pyroclastic flow, Pyroclastic fall. There is then a useful cat with one subcat & 12 articles. Johnbod 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod, and Rename to remove "AD" which is POV and differs from the article 79. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This sounds like a topic that would be more suited to an article rater than a category. With a proper article all of these linked to articles would be in the body of the text or a see also section providing the context that is lacking in a mere list. --Burntnickel 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod, and Rename per Carlossuarez. In addition, I would suggest creating a redirect for Pliny the Elder (specifically for this category) with an anchored link taking readers directly to the Vesuvius section in that article. On the other hand, I don't see much point in keeping Pliny the Younger in the category, since it barely mentions Vesuvius, whereas the Vesuvius article has an entire subsection on Pliny the Younger. Cgingold 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod and Rename per Carlossuarez. I agree that the articles on general volcanic phenomena didn't belong here, but there's enough here that does. -- Avenue 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Burntnickel. What's the point about having only one "volcano category" if it dosen't even have its own article? If the Mount Meager category gets deleted, this category should be deleted as well. Black Tusk 06:23, 8 October 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:Eruption of Mount Meager, 2350 BP[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. After Midnight 0001 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eruption of Mount Meager, 2350 BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of category for specific event to include generalized phenomena. Article should be in general categories, not general articles in event category. Dhartung
Comment - There's nothing wrong with this or the category above. These categories are part of the WikiProject Volcanoes. Grouping articles related to this eruption is useful. Black Tusk 04:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Delete, because there aren't that many specific Mt. Meager eruption articles in the category. Five of 11 are clearly misuses of categorization -- if the volcano project doesn't understand that, then they need to look on the categories pages more. (In brief -- you shouldn't categorize the general phenomena with every instance of the specific. It's the eponymous category problem.) These five -- Eruption column, Lahar, Plinian eruption, Pyroclastic fall, and Pyroclastic flow -- are all generic volcanic phenomena; Mt. Meager eruption is listed in a couple of them as examples. Of the remaining six articles, I think that five of them are only slightly more justifiable incidents of the same eponymous category rule. Two articles (Keyhole Falls and Pebble Creek Formation) were caused by the eruption & thus if the issue really needed a category could arguably be put here. Lillooet River is linked because its geologic history was affected by the eruption; arguable but again I think it's not necessary. And then there is 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager, Mount Meager itself, and Plinth Peak (the part that erupted). The eruption again is a specific example of something that happened to MM & PP, and I don't think category is necessary. That leaves one article -- not enough. --lquilter 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the specific Mount Meager eruption articles have not been made yet (i.e. Keyhole Falls, Pebble Crek Formation, Mount Meager, Plinith Peak). Black Tusk 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles by those titles in the category currently. Are you saying that you are going to write new articles, like for instance, "Mt. Meager eruption effects on Keyhole Falls"? If so, and there really is a need for a half-dozen articles about the specific aspects of the Mt. Meager eruption, then it would be a reasonable category. But if the category is just being appended to every article with any connection to Mt. Meager eruption, then that is not an appropriate use of categories. --lquilter 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm the one who made and expanded most of those articles. I may create more in the future since the eruption effected all of southern BC and Alberta. The articles that are in the category currently are close to the volcano. Keyhole Falls was originally a dam created by the eruption and soon eroded from water activity, because there used to be a lake behind it (could make an article about the dam and the dammed-lake). I'm pretty sure I could make articles about the affects in Alberta as well. Black Tusk 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then those articles should be in the category; but articles about general phenomena reflected in this particular eruption should not. I hope that distinction makes sense to you. (That said, I wonder if it doesn't make more sense just to lengthen the article about the eruption itself? If I were reading about the eruption I think I would rather have all the information about the effects on various local geological features included in sections of the article, rather than in separate articles.) --lquilter 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I added the pyroclastic flow, plinian eruption, eruption column, pyroclastic fall and lahar articles because the Mount Vesusius category had the same thing. But I'm not the one who created that category. Black Tusk 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Lquilter, and per my comments on the related CFD. Postdlf 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike Vesuvius 79, if the general articles go, there is not enough left to justify this one. Johnbod 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lquilter. I'm a member of the volcanoes project and the first I heard of this was her note on the project's talk page, so I wouldn't give much weight to the argument that it's part of the volcanoes wikiproject. -- Avenue 11:49, 3 October 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:Articles keeping update[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 deleted by Kbdank71. After Midnight 0001 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles keeping update (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I was the creator of this category, the WikiProject guidelines have been reviewed following a category rename proposal. This category is now obsolete, please deleteℒibrarian2 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could be WP:CSD#G7, but generally frowned upon to delete cats currently in CFD (it's here twice by the way - once for renaming above, and again for deletion here). Carlossuarez46 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per request of creator. Timrollpickering 09:25, 2 October 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:Spin-off comic book superheroes[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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, vague and necessarily OR. The category description is completely arbitrary, as it's not a necessary, exclusive, or obvious meaning of the term "spin-off," nor a documented one. "Spin-off" could mean anything in relation to whatever "original" character is impliedly referenced from being "patterned after" (Superboy from Superman) to "debuted or featured in prior to solo series" (Punisher in Amazing Spider-Man, Wolverine in The Incredible Hulk and Uncanny X-Men), "former sidekick of" (Nightwing) to "assumed the name/role of" (any of the Robins, Green Lanterns...) So what we'd be left with is a category that includes unrelated characters for completely unrelated reasons. Postdlf 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has a frighteningly large potential to become a completely convoluted and uncontrolable mess. Its best to nip it in the bud. Stephen Day 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and discussion on Talk page -- no clear definition, seems to include and exclude characters needlessly. HalJor 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective and incredibly broad category without clearcut definition or inclusino criteria. Depending on how it's defined, every comic book character could be included in this. Even Superman was derived from an earlier character Siegel & Schuster had created. Doczilla 05:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "spinoff". Much better to include a list of "spinoffs" on relevant character/title pages, add examples to "spinoff" article, or write articles about historical development & progression of particular fictional universes. --lquilter 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inclusion criteria is too loose and being a category it is impossible to police. The consensus seems to be that when a category would require debate on inclusion it'd be better of as a list and the definition is so broad I can't see it lasting long even in that form. It may be possible to make a few sub-lists along the lines given by Postdlf but in the end you'd have to question the use or value of collecting these together at all, that wouldn't be better done (with sources) within the relevant entries. So delete the category and think very very hard before trying to listify it as it strikes me as being a waste of time. (Emperor 00:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as overly broad and useless. As stated above, the linkages for the articles in tenuous, at best. - J Greb 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 09:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons above -- 69.182.73.240 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category is too broad and vague. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 19:57, 6 October 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:Famous motorcyclists[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. After Midnight 0001 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous motorcyclists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, usually this would be considered a hobby. Also, most current members are just actors who played motorcyclists. At least Rename to Category:Motorcyclists. -- Prove It (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a clear rationale for deletion here. Furthermore, motorcycling isn't a hobby, it's a lifestyle to many people and famous people who live that lifestyle. The generic "motorcyclists" category was already deleted for being too broad—this is more specific. Category is for famous people who are/were notable motorcyclists. Seems legit to me. The Parsnip! 01:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we don't use words like "famous" in categories. And if these people aren't professional motorcyclists, then it's WP:OCAT#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. I could see an umbrella Category:Motorcyclists, but it would have to be limited to professionals; people for whom motorcycling (not, e.g., acting or singing) is a defining characteristic. Calling it a "lifestyle" doesn't make it defining. Bob Dylan is a singer, no matter what his preferred mode of transportation may have been at one time. This might marginally be material for a list (though it would need a more neutral name), but it absolutely inappropriate for a category. Xtifr tälk 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xtifr Jklamo 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify if material is deemed worth keeping. Snocrates 06:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Motorcyclists should include people like Evel Knievel & pro racers. If a "list of notable people who are avid motorcyclists" can survive AFD then that should be how this information is stored in wikipedia. --lquilter 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if kept remove "famous" which I assume is a synonym with notable and is therefore superfluous. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 09:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't understand the people saying that this should be made into a list. Aren't categories much easier to keep up to date than lists? Just my 2 cents. The Parsnip! 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Lists can be sorted in ways that make it easier to visually tell if content has been deleted or added; they can be watchlisted so you can tell if content is deleted or added; their layout is visually easier to look at so you can see if content is deleted or added; they can fit all their contents onto one page instead of only 200 at most; deletions are MUCH easier to see on a "list" (article) with the change history; and lastly, in a category if you need to take something out of the category that was added it requires going to a separate article, and if you need to add something that was deleted then it requires going to search and THEN to a separate article -- both much harder to do than simple reverts or adds on an article/list. --lquilter 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename as Category:Motorcyclists. The lives (and sometimes deaths) of the people in this cat have been defined by their passion for bikes. Ephebi 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (However the prefix 'famous' provides a function in that it separates them from people who have had a more casual or less defining relationship with biking.) Ephebi 12:45, 3 October 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_October_1&oldid=1144516087"