Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Mennonite Church[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 pending the 3 examples. I would not be opposed to a relisting if the examples that didn't fit were given (though perhaps there would be another option besides creating a new cat, or renaming, given that this category is part of an established category tree).-Andrew c [talk] 01:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Mennonite Church to Category:Educational Institutions affiliated with the Mennonite Church
Nominator's rationale: Now has more than Universities and Colleges. The three school need to be put somewhere. Samuel 22:12, 5 September 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:Organizations designated as terrorist[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 reverse merge. the wub "?!" 14:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Organizations designated as terrorist to Category:Designated terrorist organizations
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. One Night In Hackney303 22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure completely Does it really make sense to have a blanket category like this? The criteria one country uses to classify a 'terrorist organisation' frequently differs from that of another country, indeed an organisation might well be designated 'terrorist' in one country but be regarded as inoffensive in another. Surely given that this is not an objective judgement, but rather a subjective one heavily coloured by politics, the only logical categorisation is to develop a by-country classification scheme?
This would not only make sense for the reasons outlined above, but would also be far more informative. At present this blanket category (and its duplicate) simply make a bald assertion that an organisation has been classified as 'terrorist'. That's it. Nothing more. Is this really of much help? Would it not be better to be a little more informative and let the reader know exactly which country/countries have decided this? At the moment the criterion for both categories is that "[the organisation has] been designated as a terrorist organization by a suitable body." - that's it. This is rather a vague criterion, isn't it? Surely it is far more verifiable and informative to have Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by -insert country here-?
I'm really throwing this in here for discussion. One possible flaw that I can foresee is that certain articles (ie Al-Quaeda) will end up with an awful lot of categories, but even so, is not the defining characteristic exactly which country is defining an organisation as terrorist?
Xdamrtalk 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "which country is defining an organisation as terrorist" is not a defining characteristic for most terrorist groups and most countries. That South Africa considers 17N a terrorist group (I just made this up and I'm not certain that it's true) is not a defining feature of that group. The fact of being designated by at least one government is both more defining and easier to maintain. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a whole swathe of conflicts, from Israel and the Palestinians, China and Tibet, South Africa and the ANC, to name but a few, where the country doing the declaring is the defining characteristic. To take the last of these, the ANC - is it defining that South Africa/Rhodesia etc declared it to be a terrorist organisation while the West did not? I think it pretty much is. Is this important distinction served by the present structure? I don't think it is. We really ought to bear in mind the old canard 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' when we consider this area.
Xdamrtalk 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm pretty sure the United States designated the ANC as terrorist.
Lapsed Pacifist 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that many governments designate even non-violent opposition groups as terrorist groups... Jacob Haller 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree regarding the ANC example. What you mention is an important part of the ANC's history and should be mentioned in the article, but I don't view it to be a defining characteristic along the lines of "formed in 1956". Another issue is that terrorist groups are not active in the 200+ countries of the world; so, a lot of country-group dyads will consist of a country designating a group as 'terrorist', where the group has little or nothing to do with the government (e.g. almost all European group/non-European country dyads, Asian group/African-country dyads, and so on). Black Falcon (Talk) 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have two subcats - Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations and Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland. With the rest it might be tricky to classify them by country, as for some groups you'll end up with 10 or more categories with the word "terrorist" in them. On the flipside I'm more than aware of the problems you face from editors if there aren't enough categories with the word "terrorist" on a particular article. The only thing I can confidently say is that we don't need both of the current categories. One Night In Hackney303 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, or the other way (added). We don't need "by designating country" categories - how many categories would that put Al Qaeda in? Johnbod 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge (added) as redundant, per nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the reason I created the category is that I'm not happy with the wording of the original, [Designated terrorist organizations]. It reads to me like a category for terrorist organisations that happen to have been designated, rather than organizations that have been designated as terrorist (which I presume it is meant to mean). Lapsed Pacifist 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lapsed Pacifist meant that he wished to move the category (to avoid title bias), not to create a POV-fork. I agree with this concern. And suggest merging both into this title. Jacob Haller 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've hit the nail on the head, Jacob.
Lapsed Pacifist 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is redundant. Tarc 13:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, which would clarify that wikipedia is not making a judgement on whether an organisation is terrorist, merely recording that governments have attached that label to it.
    In theory, I think that the most NPOV solution is to categorise by the country designating as terrorist, per Xdamr's comment here, but I think that would become unmanageable with organisations like Al Quaeda. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per BHG. The new title makes more sense, grammatically, to me.-Andrew c [talk] 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per John - the entire reason for this category is to avoid possible POV from a general terrorist categorisation. TewfikTalk 00:21, 12 September 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:Wittgenstein[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 and rename Non-administrative close Greg Bard 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wittgenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous overcategorization. If retained it should be renamed to Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Otto4711 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:Gregbard has just set up Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein, with I think the same contents, and emptied the nominated category. Johnbod 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)- Back to status quo ante, thanks kdbank71! Johnbod 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would have been a curtesy for the nominator to either list this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, or to inform me as the creator of this cat. Banno 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if kept, rename. This is essentially a category for anything affiliated with Ludwig Wittgenstein, his writings, and his philosophy. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. You say it like that was a bad thing. In philosophy, eminent philosophers quickly become a subject unto themselves. This category is nothing like a category for John Wayne or Barbra Streisand, which is what the eponymous categories for people rule is designed to avoid. It is a category for a body of work. Banno 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, their philosophies become a subject unto themselves. Otto4711 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't touch the subcategory Category:Wittgensteinian philosophers; it is viable in Category:Analytic philosophers, which is currently a parent to both. GRBerry 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, no intention of doing anything with the subcat. Otto4711 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename - I am getting the sense you just never heard of him. There are two major traditions in philosophy. This guy is the founder of one of them. He is a major philosopher by any standard. Furthermore, the category is slated to be used for the purpose of bot tagging the articles. Rename as appropriate, but don't even think of deleting it altogether. Gregbard 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, but I have indeed heard of him. I don't nominate categories on the basis of my never having heard of them. Otto4711 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename With a long main article, 9 in the main cat & 14 + 3 in the sub-cats, this justifies itself. May well be expanded in the future. PS Category:Books by Ludwig Wittgenstein had not been included - added 3 from that. Johnbod 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the 9 in the main cat don't belong there, but rather in categories like Category:Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein or Category:Books about Ludwig Wittgenstein. They should not all be lumped into this eponymous category. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If so, you would still need this category to hold what would then be 4 sub-cats, plus the main article. Johnbod 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue is that I don't think we should categorise by person. I support categorisation by TV show, by music group, by corporation, and so on, but I think categorisation by person should be avoided. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reconsider that idea. Especially in the area of philosophy. In most cases a philosopher has terminology, and literature associated him or her. Many such as Category:Aristotle, Category:Søren Kierkegaard, Category:Martin Heidegger have wonderful categories. Hopefully many others will be expanded into categories as well. Your notion is going to run up against WP:PHILO at some point. Gregbard 05:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I dont propose to tell people in other fields how to organize their material. But just on general principles, for material about a person and his work & subsequent related developments, the plain name of the person would seem the way to go. Is there a policy against eponymous categories? If there is, I suppose the thing to do is to reconsider it. The simpler wording is usually the best. DGG (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are discouraged - see link in the nom. But the policy admits there are times when they are needed, without (contrary to what is sometimes claimed) actually defining what those exceptions are. There are many valid eponymous categories like this one, and the convention is to use the main article title for the category. Johnbod 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a breach of CfD rules and most unfortunate. Please don't do this again. Your speedy is invalid, since there is an open debate here. The rename is only a minor issue in this debate. Johnbod 14:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In philosophy, the philosopher is more significant than in most academic fields. Sometimes philosophical schools are defined without reference to an individual name, such as Scholasticism, sometimes by reference, such as Neoplatonism. (See Template:Philosophy topics for a list of major schools; of those currently listed 9/40 =22.5% have a name that is eponymous. Even schools such that aren't defined by a person's name, such as Utilitarianism may be "generally credited" to a specific philosopher. This leads me to a belief that philosophy is going to be a field in which exceptions are definitely appropriate at times. I'm going to ask the folks over at the Philosophy wiki-project, to help us determine if this is one of the cases where an epynomous category is appropriate. GRBerry 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent: for full disclosure, I declined the speedy request on this category; if kept, the full name category is better not condoning how it was accomplished. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename We have Category:Bertrand Russell, Category:Isaac Newton - this seems quite the neatest way of dealing with a substantial corpus of material related to a person. -- roundhouse0 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newton's category contains numerous sub-articles that cannot logically be categorized anywhere else, including but not limited to Isaac Newton's early life and achievements, Isaac Newton's later life and Isaac Newton's middle years. Neither Russell nor Wittgenstein have any such articles (and in fact I was looking at nominating Russell's as well). The lead articles for Wittgenstein and Russell serve as appropriate navigational hubs for everything in the categories and everything in their categories are appropriately categorized elsewhere. Regardless, WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not compelling arguments for keeping categories. Otto4711 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is far too long to be described as an "appropriate navigational hub". Are you even sure all the philosophers and books in the sub-category are linked to in the main biography? Several of the other articles are just as closely related to W as Newton's sub-articles, although they may not make this clear in their titles. If, as Black Falcon suggested, many of the articles are sub-categorised as "the philosophy of W" and "books about W", you would then have four sub-categories all about W, yet would still presumably oppose these having the natural head-category. This is just peverse, and not supported by WP:OCAT. Johnbod 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length of the main article is completely irrelevant to whether it can be used as a navigational hub. That's just bizarre. I'm less than convinced of the utility of a "philosophy by philosopher" category scheme. Otto4711 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the article is highly relevant. The "navigational hub" argument, so often invoked, means that the user has to read through the article until he finds the link he is looking for. In the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein that is no light task. In some cases, but not the majority, the TOC will speed the process, but really this is an impractical suggestion. No one is suggesting a string of such categories, but, as in other fields, there are a handful of key figures where they are justified. Johnbod 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the user has to read through the article until he finds the link he is looking for - if the user is looking for a specific link,in other words an article on a specific topic, he is likely to type that specific topic into the search box. If a reader is looking for, say, Private language argument, he is going to find it by typing "Private language argument" into the search box. He is not going to think "hmm, let's see, the private language argument is associated with Ludwig Wittgenstein, so I'll find it by typing 'Category:Wittgenstein' in the search box and that will turn it right up!" Otto4711 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As often, you have wonderful confidence in predicting the mental processes of all possible readers. If everybody knew what they were looking for, and how to spell it, we wouldn't need categories at all. Johnbod 12:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, so if they don't know how to spell "Wittgenstein" they're going to find a category called Wittgenstein? That makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, duh, they find Wittgenstein, then go to the bottom to find which ever of the 30 odd articles in the category they can't quite remember the name of, or how to spell. That is how I navigate in WP, & I'm f***** if I'm having you tell me I can't. What do you think categories are for exactly? Apart from giving you fun deleting them? Johnbod 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename if there are other significant Wittgenstein figures who might have categories named after them. If you are a philosophy student or engaged in philosophical research, then there is a reasonable chance that you will, or ought to be, interested in one particular philosopher's life, works, works about his works, works inspired by his works, people inspired by his work or life, and so on. This is, therefore, a useful category for philosophers. The title could be changed to 'Wittgenstein, his works, biographies, closely related philosophical theories, etc.', but that is quite a lot to go at the bottom of a page, and for those of us who are typing-challenged and work on cats, would be painful! And, we would also have 'Descartes, his works....' Are you seriously proposing to also get rid of 'Cat:Descartes', 'Cat:Immanuel Kant', 'Cat: Karl Marx'. Could we just acknowledge that WP:Philosophy is an exception to the general rule? I really think that unless categories like this are shown to do some harm, if the members of a large project group, especially one that contains so-called 'experts' find them useful, they should be allowed to remain. What is the harm?Anarchia 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I note that the reason for not having such categories is to avoid overcategorisation. A qyick check seems to indicate that the articles that are grouped by philosopher do not have an excessive number of categories attached (and, if you check my wikiwork you will see that I am definitely of the less is more variety). Anarchia 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is exactly one category under discussion here, and that's Wittgenstein. Not Marx, not Kant, not Descartes or any others. "If you delete this then that will be next" is a terribly flawed argument. It's not doing any harm is also a very poor argument. If you are interested in a particular philosopher, then you are likely to find that philosopher by typing his name in the search box. This will bring you to his eponymous article, which since it will (or should) contain links to such items as the philosopher's books, works, relatives, colleagues, influences etc. will allow our hypothetical reader to find anything he might want regarding the philosopher with no need for a category. Otto4711 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto and johnbod. You have obviously not achieved consensus for your proposal on this issue, nor will you (WP:SNOW). At the very least we should close this discussion, and focus on the other one concerning Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Gregbard 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously been reading this debate very carefully! Johnbod 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Johnbod, you are correct, you have been supporting the renaming which is the prevailing view so far. Be well,Gregbard 05:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep renaming is fine also, one category or another, there is no reason for deletion that does not conflict with notability, WP:COMMON and WP:BURO. tell me it is not notable, tell me it is unfixable, but don't tell me the bureaucracy has decided they don't like it. --Buridan 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This category has been repopulated. Please continue the discussion. --Kbdank71 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The reason given, eponymous overcategorization, does not apply in this case. The category exists to bring together quite disparate philosophical works, something that will not be obvious to those without a background in philosophy. there are separate bodies of work for the Tractatus and the Investigations, for example, and for Kripke's reassessment of the private language argument. You can expect this category to grow and to be well-used. Banno 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disparate works relating to a particular philosophy should be categorized by the philosophy. Not the philosopher. Otto4711 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename - Category brings together articles related to the work of one of the most notable philosophers. Badagnani 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creative works are organized by the works, not by the creator. Using an eponymous category to bring together works means that every single person who creates something would need an eponymous category. That would result in thousands upon thousands of unnecessary categories. Otto4711 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Otto, they wont. Only you think black and white in this regard. We are perfectly capable of deciding between the reasonable and unreasonable (as the overwhelmingly prevailing view here confirms). WP:PHILO is not overpopulated with eponymous cats. However, it is exactly this black and white thinking by some that necessitates a policy change. Gregbard 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may only be thinking inside your own limited bailiwick. I'm not. Take a look at Category:Categories named after musicians as just one example. Hundreds of instances of eponymous overcategorization that are only now finally being pruned. Don't act like it won't happen, because clearly it has and it will. Why do you think there's an eponymous guideline in the first place? Or did you not consider that there might be a reason for the guideline in the midst of your defensiveness and ownership issues? Otto4711 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alternatively, you might wonder if there is a reason why other eponymous categories are regularly deleted here in large batches with few objections, but this one has aroused great opposition. Johnbod 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It caught the attention of a couple of fans who are wrapping up an WP:ILIKEIT argument in different paper. That's all. Otto4711 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement is a major misdescription of what has happened, and reflects the makers failure to realize that philosophers are not very similar to musicians. Otto - you are just plain wrong here. The folks from the philosophy wikiproject are good encyclopedists trying to make sure we cover a major field of academic study. This ain't a pop culture topic are with fanboys dropping by. GRBerry 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Sound enough. Circeus 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category: Ludwig Wittgenstein - As an avid Wittgenstein reader, I can say confidently that attempting to categorize the results of his influence into anything other than Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein or something similar is a futile effort. Unlike the majority of notable scientists, this is actually true of most notable philosophers -- Bertrand Russell is the obvious example. The alternatives (Category:Philosophy of language, for example) are too loosely connected to be similarly useful to readers. — xDanielx T/C 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I've commented above, in philosophy, a topic of study is often eponymous. We should have categories for all sufficiently significant topics of academic study, whether the naming is eponymous (Darwinism anyone?) or not. Any topic we have for the study of the philosophy of Wittgenstein and his main ideas and followers is going to involve the use of Wittgenstein's name. So the eponymous argument is clearly wrong here - philosophy is not music, and the comparison is invalid. We should follow the Wikipedia experts in covering philosophy over the CFD specialists. The question then becomes what the right name to use is. Nobody has proposed a superior alternative to the full name, so renaming to Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein appears the correct decision. Should we later decide that something more like Category:Wittgenstein studies (which sounds awkwards to my ear) is appropriate, we can handle another renaming then. GRBerry 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The general concerns against overcategorization raised at WP:OC (as opposed to the directions given in regard to eponymous categorization) do not to my mind tell against eponymous categorization in this case: a Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein would seem both relevant (to those who like me can scan a category quicker than read a long page) and rather easy to find. As someone who's tried to use the category system to find lists of people (as opposed to other sorts of things), I find eponymous categories annoying for encouraging category confusion rather than clutter. Category:Wittgenstein is at present a subcat of (a subcat of...) Category:People by occupation - which misleadingly suggests members like family resemblance to be people. But perhaps Wikipedia categories will always be loose like this. Dsp13 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a mistake - only the main article (and the W-ian philosophers sub-cat) should be in the "by occupation" tree. Easily fixed. Johnbod 15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with sports and hobbies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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:Sportspeople and prune. No clear consensus emerged, but everyone wants a change from the current name. I moved five of the subcategories to category:Hobbyists, and changed that from a redirect, but I would also have no objection to a deletion of that category.--Mike Selinker 20:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with sports and hobbies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "associated with" categories are vague and generally best avoided anyway, but this one is just a hodge-podge of somewhat random categories that look to fit under more specific category structures for businesspeople, broadcasters, sportspeople and the like. Otto4711 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce and rename (see below) to Category:People in sports occupations, dumping the Collectors, Philatelists, amateur radio people, pranksters and I suppose streakers. The ancient Roman athletes too I suppose. Johnbod 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggested rename would appear to make the category redundant to Category:Sports occupations and its various subcats (some of which are duplicated in the nominated category). If the nominated category were pruned of the non-occupations then a merger would be in order to bring the errant occupation cats into that structure. Otto4711 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The occupations category is, or should be, for Football manager and the like. But biographical sub-cats have crept in. This is for biographies, and merge to Category:Sportspeople would seem best, although there is a case for turning this into an intermediate sub-category for non-competitor/participator people. Johnbod 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all vague "associated with" categories. Wryspy 07:18, 9 September 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:Mark Beauchamp Taylor[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 per CSD G7: the category was populated and emptied by the creator. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mark Beauchamp Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is not needed. Even if the subject was notable we do not categorise in this way. • nancy • 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - since sending this cat to CFD the category's creator has removed all pages from it so it is currently also an empty category • nancy • 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since the cat creator emptied it, does that qualify as speedy? Otto4711 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, an empty category can be speedied • nancy • 18:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#C1 requires the category to have been empty for 4 days... Since the emptying happened since nomination, that criteria will only apply in about 4 more days. GRBerry 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - how can one tell how long a category has been empty for - is there a way? - or does the four days apply from the time someone noticed it was empty? Not that this applies in this case, just curious. • nancy • 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way (that I'm aware of) to be certain that a category has been continually empty for four days, but deleting four days after someone notices it's empty is mostly accurate. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a case could be made for speedy deletion per CSD G7: the category was populated and emptied by the creator. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:36, 5 September 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:Novels by Mary Wollstonecraft[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 -Andrew c [talk] 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by Mary Wollstonecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - There are only two articles that could ever be placed in this category and they are easy to access from any page on Mary Wollstonecraft using the Wollstonecraft navbox. Awadewit | talk 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when a category is part of a larger organizational structure like Category:Books by author then the number of articles in it is not relevant. Otto4711 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to nominate "Category:Works by Mary Wollstonecraft" for deletion as well. It is unnecessary since there are so few works by MW (7 that would merit articles - I have written six of them and am working on the seventh) and they are all accessible using the navbox at the bottom of the relevant pages. I thought I had to start with the smaller categories. I am not very familiar with this process. Also, please note that the current categorical organization of MW's works makes little sense: books, novels, works. Awadewit | talk 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is little functional utility in separating "novels" from "books" but a proposal to merge the two category structures was not approved. The works category is a subcat of the Category:Works by author subcat (which itself is a child of Category:Works by artist. I find myself agreeing that if an artist only has one kind of work then a "works by" category may be unnecessary since the category for the works itself will be in an appropriate subcat (novels by, plays by, paintings by, etc.). The works category is useful, though, for those artists who work in multiple media (see for example Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht which contains subcats for plays, screenplays and theories). Otto4711 22:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three points:
  • 1) I think that the number of articles is relevant. 7 articles do not have to be categorized at all. They are easily accessible through the navbox. Who wants to click five times to find seven articles? "Works by Bertolt Brecht" makes sense to divide since he wrote many works, but here there are only seven worthy of an article. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Both of the "novels" listed in the "novel" category can only questionably be called novels. The first, Mary: A Fiction, is deliberately titled a "fiction" by Wollstonecraft and much Wollstonecraft scholarship discusses its challenge of the genre of the novel (see article). The second article, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, is about an unfinished work. It seems to me that we are using categories that we are comfortable with and trying to force these works into them.
  • 3) This categorization scheme is unhelpful at best and misleading at worst. Telling readers that Thoughts on the Education of Daughters is a "Book" but that Original Stories from Real Life is a "Work", for example, is only confusing. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto. Consistent & predictable schemes are important. If there is a serious ambiguity over the class of a work it should go in both categories. These are not there so people can look at MW and say "now what novels did she write?", they are so people can look at the novels category & find MW. Johnbod 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But my point is that classifying MW as a novelist is somewhat suspect, as her first "novel" she specifically did not call a novel and her second "novel" is unfinished. Listing her as a novelist is misleading. Awadewit | talk 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is serious danger of people thinking particular works are novels, they should be so categorised, as well as going in other categories if necessary. Johnbod 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that consistent and predictable schemes are important. That is why I have pointed out that the scheme used to classify the works of MW makes no sense. If we must retain the category "Works by Mary Wollstonecraft" (and I've seen no good argument for why a category with 7 articles in it should exist at all), the nonsensical "works", "books", "novels" division must be rectified. What, exactly, is the difference between "works" and "books" and why is the one "work" not listed as a "book"? Awadewit | talk 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I agree about Book & works, but this is really something to raise at the Books project. Obviously not all works are books, but I think having both categories is excessive. Treating each author differently won't help in the meantime. Johnbod 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I don't understand the difference between "Books" and "Works" - please explain.
  • I really don't think you need me for that. Johnbod 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is much less clear than you might think. What is a book? A work that is bound? Well, in eighteenth-century Britain, most texts were printed and sold unbound. Readers then paid to have them bound (or not). Were these texts books? Awadewit | talk 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlet is a play. Which is why Hamlet is categorized as a play. Otto4711 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is also, or should be, a work. But probably not a book. Johnbod 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, aren't all of MW's works "works"? Awadewit | talk 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have still not answered my question: what is the difference between a "work" and a "book"? Awadewit | talk 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't a clue. Probably it is a mistake. Actually I see Kevin Lewis set the category up, probably because it was an FA, and did not get round to moving the other Books, or didn't choose to. At least she has a Works category, and is findable that way. [User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, please explain the benefit to having a category for a writer who wrote so few works. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • so that people looking at a category can find a particular writer (especially, one might add, one whose name is not the easiest in the world to spell). Categories are partly flexible indexes to WP. Johnbod 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find it highly unlikely that someone would begin with "British writers" just to get to "Mary Wollstonecraft", for example. The search bar is far more effective. Awadewit | talk 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is assuming they knew it was MW they wanted, and could remember how to spell the name, and didn't have it in their head she was Julia Wollstonecraft. Johnbod 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find it highly unlikely that a user who did manage to negotiate their way down to MW would want to click several different times through multiple categories to find a listing of her works. That is not very helpful. Awadewit | talk 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Otto that consistency is important. The utility of any navigational device is much greater if it is predictable. The user should not have to remember that this author only wrote two novels, so they're together with her other books, and this one wrote 6 so they are categorized separately. In organization one tolerates a little inefficiency in order to get usefulness. and in order to avoid debating these separately for every borderline instance--much better to establish a principle, and stick with it. DGG (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main points are being missed here. What is the difference between books, works, and novels? What does that distinction mean to the user? And why are books that are not exactly novels being put in a category entitled "novels"? How does that help anyone? Awadewit | talk 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A novel is a novel, is a novel. I can be delivered in book for (the norm) also a book is not always a novel (obvious). Works is the over arching descriptive of authorial efforts (work) which can take number for forms, (essays, short stories, novels, letter etc. etc.) these can be produced differently (e-book, book, periodical, pamphlet, chap-book, newspaper etc). If these particular examples are not exactly novels then that is a different issue and should be discussed as such, they might then be justifiably be uplifted to the "Works by" category. Hope that helps. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nom appears to be attempting to invoke Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small wih no potential for growth, but that guideline has a well-known exception for categories that are part of a broader scheme such as Category:Songs by artist or Category:Novels by author. Xtifr tälk 11:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as part of a broader scheme, Category:Novels by author -- Prove It (talk) 12:37, 6 September 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:Rappers currently in prison[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 14:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rappers currently in prison to Category:Incarcerated rappers
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the naming of the parent category, Category:Incarcerated celebrities. I also think it's worth considering whether this particular intersection is notable. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent cat. Not really seeing the need to subdivide incarcerated celebrities on the basis of the source of their celebrity. Otto4711 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Crime among rappers is surely a notable topic. Johnbod 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (Person should not have to be curently in prison.) Since rappers gain a level of "credibility" by serving time in prison, I think this subcategory of the more general category is appropriate, since it directly relates to their artistic work and its level of credibility among some. Ubi Terrarum 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge parent cat per Otto4711.- Gilliam 07:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent per Otto. Current categories require continual maintenance, see discussion of July 27th. -- Prove It (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Otto & Prove It. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to avoid the problem with "currently". I agree with Johnbod & UbiTerrarum's rationale for keeping. Rich Uncle Skeleton 11:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Oppose merge as the child category is a decent size and has greater specificity. — xDanielx T/C 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, as while I sympathise with the idea that it serves as a functional subgroup, and while I realise that there is some specific relevance between incarceration and rappers, the lack of some verification that incarcerated rappers are a unique topic separate from other rappers (perhaps in the form of incarcerated rappers means that this still appears to categorise based on an intersection, which if not arbitrary, is not far from it. TewfikTalk 00:42, 12 September 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:Slovenian Lamas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 12:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian Lamas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an unneeded category of one. No other Lamas by nationality categories exist. GlassFET 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* It is not my fault if for the moment there is only one Lama in Slovenia. But given the fact that the Slovene government granted to this monk the Slovene citizenship on the basis that he is the only Lama in Slovenia doesn't deserve a category? I thought Wikipedia tries to be as precise as possible. If nobbody else has created such category does it means it shall not be done? I agree, we could set "Lamas by nationality" categories, but I have not time for creating all of them...
Now that you have deleted the tag Category:Slovenian Lamas" from Shenphen Rinpoche's page, it looks like there is not page in this catgeory; but it's not true, there could be one.
But ok, delete it if you are disturbed by it; it is definitely not worth fighting for.--Alencek 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. You can see where this was headed from Shenphen Rinpoche, but he was born in France and only lives in Slovenia. Johnbod 19:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* No, Shenphen Rinpoche is Slovene citizen. Verify your sources before to state something like that. --Alencek 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - categories for 1 person (and this person seems most notable for being a one-off) are rarely keepers. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is not particularly useful because no other lamas are categorized by nationality. The Slovenian lama currently assigned to this category can be included in a category such as Category:Slovenian religious leaders instead. --Metropolitan90 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A list of lamas by nationality might be ok, but a category with only one entry and none others likely to be added is not a good idea. John Carter 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It makes no sense to create categories just to cover every country. Pavel Vozenilek 01:08, 9 September 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:New Zealand born AFL players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. This isn't a strong delete by any means, but all editors were leaning towards delete, and no one for keep.-Andrew c [talk] 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand born AFL players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete ... place of birth is rarely notable. -- Prove It (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Place of birth is rarely notable means that there are some rare cases where it is notable. Overseas birth of a player of a sport only played in one country may well be one of those cases - and AFL is virtually unknown outside Australia. Upscoping it to Category:AFL players born outside Australia may be a reasonable compromise, however, since it is perhaps a more useful category than one just for one country. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - if it's kept, it will need a rename to add in the missing hyphen between "Zealand" and "born". Grutness...wha? 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are a number of organizations called "AFL" as well, That dab page lists nine sports leagues alone, seven of which have articles. I think Australian Football League players born outside Australia might be the best bet if the category is kept (which I am far from convinced is necessary). Xtifr tälk 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as while I appreciate Grutness' comments, I don't see a clear criterion expressed which can be maintained across WP, TewfikTalk 07:21, 12 September 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:Acipenseridae[edit]

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 16#Category:Acipenseridae. the wub "?!" 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business and Financial Journalists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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:Business and financial journalists and merge others. the wub "?!" 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business and Financial Journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Business journalists and Category:Financial journalists, or Rename to Category:Business and financial journalists, and merge the others here. -- Prove It (talk) 14:49, 5 September 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 Dinubans[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Dinubans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Dinuba, California, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both for consistency and to avoid the subjective, POV term "famous". (Anyone with an article on Wikipedia should have enough notability to loosely qualify as famous in any case.) Xtifr tälk 08:23, 7 September 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:Anti-Americanism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 12:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is populated primarily with articles whose inclusion appears not to be attributed to reliable sources. It seems that, for a highly controversial topic such as this, labelling a country, political party, or individual as Anti-American should be handled in article space. Placing it into a category makes it too easy to abuse Wikipedia policies. For instance, Culture of France is listed in Anti-Americanism. However, until quite recently France was very pro-American. Similarly, the article Costas Simitis (a former PM of Greece) was included in the category, despite the fact that his article doesn't even mention America and, conversely, the Anti-Americanism article doesn't mention him. Silly rabbit 11:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category should not be deleted. Anti-Americanism is a relevant phenomenon in most present-day societies. It is worth a study of its causes and its effects. If anyone is offended by it, it should be well explained the reasons why. Mohonu 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Culture of France is pervaded by a defensive streak of Anti-americanism. I have French friends and one of their favourite subjects of conversation is attacking Americans. Costas Simitis is one of the co-founders of PASOK, an anti-American Socialist party. Anti-americanism is a contemporary and relevant social phenomenon. Mohonu 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What you say is not attributed to reliable sources and may constitute original research. In order to call living persons such as Costas Simitis or political parties such as PASOK Anti-American, it is necessary to specify who is labelling them in this manner. Wikipedia cannot be the originator of such a label, unless it is completely uncontroversial. It may be worth list-ifying the Category so that you can work on these sourcing issues. Silly rabbit 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ongoing attempts by Mohonu to populate the category shows the POV problematic. Listing all political organisations that ever issued a statement of criticism against US policy as 'anti-American' is grossly POV. Moreover, inclusion of religious philosophies (like Wahhabism) just shows that large sections of Americans considers Muslims generically as enemies, not the other way around. --Soman 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soman. Mohonu put under this cateogry whole countries, many left and communist parties, etc. The category would be usufull only if we had to handle with many articles related to Anti-americanism itself. -- Magioladitis 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Far too problematic and it is being used far too broadly to slur those that have ever been critical of US policy or actions. Tarc 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not used to slur. Religious philosophies (like Wahhabism) or French culture, have a genuine reason for Anti-americanism, in order to protect their cultural values. If in a certain country it is OK to go to the street with a "Death to America" banner, then Anti-Americanism is prevalent in that country.

  • Delete - Not necessary, not helpful, and has so far been mostly misapplied. The Behnam 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you guys may contribute to the deletion of the article in the end and bury it. But I still find the theme a top one in contemporary culture. If an ET would come to earth now he would wonder why we are so afraid and so PC about this all-pervading theme. This theme is vox populi, it is not necessary to specify who is labelling the person, doctrine or nation in question in this manner. Even if you bury your head in the sand and hide it with all the fear and PC, the stones will shout it. Besides I my own relatives are Muslim and many are anti-american and they would not get offended at all if it comes out into the light. Nothing more to say. Delete it if you wish.Mohonu 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The category is used to slur - note Mohonu's attempted inclusion of anti-globalization in the category. diff Jacob Haller 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the present use of it is so erratic both in what is included and what is not included as to make the POV pushing evident. DGG (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion and exclusion = POV & OR & V violations. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Carlossuarez46, and as per previous CfDs on anti-X or critics-of-X. Without some reasonably clear and objective inclusion criteria, this category will simply create edit wars between editors who draw the boundaries in different places, or (as discussed in the article Anti-Americanism) have completely different understandings of what the term means. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the category is vague, meaningless, and the particular phenomenon discussed in it will generally have articles of its own, e.g. flag desecration, or particular political movements. Bsharvy 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a category provides simplistic and incorrect view on a complex phenomenon.. Pavel Vozenilek 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Mentioning anti-Americanism is ok in some cases. Let's do that directly in articles, where appropriate, itself. Then, if it turns out that you have sizeable group of articles in which anti-Americans is mentioned, then think about making a category. Count Iblis 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Japanese people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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, except Category:Canadian Japanese people which can be deleted as empty. the wub "?!" 12:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Japanese people to Category:Japanese people of American descent
Nominator's rationale: See below

Standardise Category:Japanese people by ethnic or national origin along the lines of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin. The case for a rename is even stronger here than for the Canadian case; terms like "Iranian Canadian" (former category name) are actually used in academic literature, while using "Danish Japanese" for referring to former Danes who naturalise in Japan and their kids is an entirely invented convention (by analogy to "Italian American") which isn't used in Japan or by people studying Japan.

The categories should contain people with naturalised ancestors, or people who naturalised themselves. Expatriates lacking Japanese citizenship should be removed from these categories and put in Category:Expatriates in Japan, but that's a separate maintenance issue.

To make life easy on the closing admins, can I request that we focus on the merits of this rename request first and not derail the discussion with individual votes to delete one or the other category but keep some others? I'm agree that some of these categories are probably non-notable intersections of former and current nationality, but this obviously doesn't apply to all the categories (Iranians in Japan, Chinese people in Japan, Russians in Japan, etc. are clearly notable groups). Also per the guideline WP:CATGRS, "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted ... subcategories by country are permitted", so a "delete all" probably doesn't comply with guidelines. After this discussion ends we can create more discussions to address which categories don't deserve to be here. Thanks, cab 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename Proposed changes are easier to understand and more consistent with actual use. Ubi Terrarum 05:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all renames We need more changes to these very confusing categories. Johnbod 19:07, 5 September 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:King's Highways in Ontario[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 12:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:King's Highways in Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Everything here is already in Category:Ontario provincial highways, and is sorted better there. It wouldn't be useful to empty the latter of them, since they don't overload that category, and are the primary system. NE2 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Mostly_overlapping_categories Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as it is the same Although King's Highways should be mentionned in the category page to show that it is the altername name to the province-controlled highways.--JForget 00:24, 11 September 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:Madeira Islands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 no consensus, defaulting to the status quo. Editors should feel free to create the parent category mentioned below. Sam Blacketer 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Madeira Islands to Category:Madeira
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a bit of a thorny one. Madeira is the main island of the Madeira islands, which together make up the Madeira Region of Portugal. At some point the article in the Madeira islands was redirected and merged with Madeira. In common usage both in the English speaking world and (I think) in Portugal, the term "Madeira" is used for the whole chain of islands and the region. Renaming this to agree with the article would make sense on those terms - if any disambiguation is needed at a later date, "Madeira (island)" would be a fairly logical choice. A second option would be to rename this category and the article to "Autonomous Region of Madeira" Grutness...wha? 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename either way 'round, just so long as the result is consistent. Alai 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Madeira. Seems to be the most logical change to make as article seems to have adopted most common English usage. Ubi Terrarum 05:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but create a new parent category named Autonomous Region of Madeira and move those articles about the Desertas and the Savages to there. Give the new category the Subdivisions of Portugal parent instead of this one. I'll grant that because the Madeira Islands are the only inhabited ones in the Region, they are subject to popular confusion, but since any popular, as opposed to specialist articles created will concentrate on the inhabited ones, I don't see that as causing trouble with categorization. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 6 September 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:Circle of Outlaws[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circle of Outlaws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary and rather trivial overcategorization of a handful of poker players, several of whom are apparently not notable enough for their own articles. Since the membership is currently limited to ten, it is also small with little potential for growth. We don't need categories for every little poker team and clique. An article that lists them all, if the group is notable, is the way to go here. Otto4711 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does seem a mid-notable group, and apparently so unnotable as a grouping that we don't even have an eponymous article for said Circle of Outlaws. Delete until such time as the latter changes (at the very least.) Alai 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article on the ringleader can handle this. Johnbod 15:28, 10 September 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:Self help books[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 rename It's been 48 hours since nom, qualifies for speedy.-Andrew c [talk] 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Self help books to Category:Self-help books
Nominator's rationale: Rename, punctuation fix. —tregoweth (talk) 01:00, 5 September 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_September_5&oldid=1144513462"