Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9[edit]

Category:Etruscan names for Greek heroes[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 listify and delete. Sam Blacketer 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category contains only two articles, both of which are redundant stubs that I have suggested be merged into larger articles concerning the subject of the said articles. Nkrosse 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unless there is a lot more to be said on his, a list & redirects would cover this fine. Johnbod 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 132.205.44.5 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify would be best with redirects, per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 13 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.

Eponymous musician categories - N[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 all. the wub "?!" 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each category is limited to one or more (and in some instances none) of the subcategories: albums; members; songs; along with in some but not all cases the article for the artist and rarely a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. The category for the youth orchestra does deviate in that it contains a category for conductors, which is nominated further down the page as performer-by-performance OC. Otto4711 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but keep the Nas one only. --Football97 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Otto4711 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because his category looks best and i will make the category look better later. West Coast Ryda and Talk with Me 18:43, 14 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:People accused of crimes against humanity[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a single-member category for people accused of crimes against humanity that does not answer the question: Accused by whom? The category description suggests that accusations must be "factually grounded", but this is not for us (editors) to determine (it would constitute original research). A category for people charged (by a court) of crimes against humanity may be more viable, but there is no evidence that the single member of this category was ever charged. In any case, I don't think a category under this title should exist. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A category for people tried by a court would be ok. Johnbod 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another allegations category without specifying who is making the allegations. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As creator of this category, I acknowledge its flaws and hereby ask that it be deleted. Dudleydooright 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nuff said. Wryspy 00:13, 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:Jungian psychology[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, no consensus apparent at this time. The alternative is to be created as a soft redirect, without prejudice to any future or additional reasoning to rename. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jungian psychology to Category:Analytical psychology

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in accordance with the main article Analytical psychology and Jung's own preference. Samuel Grant 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This proposal would be consistent with the Schools of Thought entry in the Psychoanalysis Infobox. However, the rename proposal should also be extended to include the Category:Jungian psychologists subcategory for consistency? (I notice that one entry in that set - Anthony Stevens (Jungian analyst) - has the "Jungian" label in the article name too.) AllyD 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't know how that would be dealt with. Jungian psychologists are commonly known as "Jungian analysts", so I'm not sure. Looking at other categories, there is Category:Freudian psychology, Category:Adlerian psychology, and so on, so maybe it would be best to keep the category name as is. Samuel Grant 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existing name is much clearer for the general reader. Johnbod 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wherever the category ends up, a redirect from the other is critical, else we will end up with both categories existing. LeSnail 01:51, 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:Criticisms of Medicine[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, vague and ill-conceived. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a catch-all category for any critics or criticism of medicine or healthcare. Moreover, it treats the term "medicine" as an equivalent of "healthcare system", which is not the case. The category included three articles: a biography, which I removed (a person cannot be a criticism); the film Sicko, which is critical of the US healthcare system, not medicine itself; and health care politics, which generally doesn't involve criticism of medicine. Delete as undefined and unneeded; we already have Category:Alternative medicine for 'criticisms' (if that's what you wish to call them) of conventional medical practice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Criticisms of healthcare, Category:Criticisms of health care or, at minimum, Category:Criticisms of medicine. However, I am still convinced that deletion is the better option. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename as per above. User:Hopping ^T 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague catch-all. Wryspy 05:58, 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:Members of the Pershing Rifles[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - membership in student organizations have generally not been seen as defining. An extensive list exists already in the main article. Otto4711 17:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-defining, like freemasonry. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 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:Alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguard[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:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. As pointed out, a merge to Category:Bodyguards is not appropriate, since these are only alleged bodyguards. However I am unconvinced by the deletion arguments since on checking the articles they all have the allegations mentioned and sourced, normally to US documents. Therefore I fail to see the difference between putting these in a separate article, and in a category. the wub "?!" 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguard to Category:Bodyguards

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation in the form of "bodyguard by person" (or, more precisely, alleged bodyguard by person). If kept, the category should be renamed Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge if there is only one article, if we get more than three articles in the category I'd favour keeping them separate. Support rename, however. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As of midnight EST the category contained 15 articles, FWIW. Geo Swan 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden -- Geo Swan 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, a disclaimer -- I started this category.
- Second, an admission -- when I started this category, nine months ago, I didn't have much background in the care and feeding of categories. I am going to add a note about this below
- Okay -- is there a reason why we should keep track of OBL's bodyguards when we wouldn't keep track of JFK's bodyguards, or Abraham Lincoln's bodyguards? Yes, absolutely -- because an unique controversy surrounds OBL's bodyguards that doesn't surround other leader's bodyguards.
- One of the most notorious of the Guantanamo captives is Mohamed al-Kahtani, one of the "20th hijackers". Time magazine got access to Al Kahtani's "interrogation log", which documents what practically anyone except John Yoo, or Alberto Gonzales would agree was torture. At the end of his two months of sleep deprivation, supported by forced IVs, forcefeeding, forced enemas, sexual humiliation, Al Kahtani denounced forty other Guantanamo captives. FBI observers said al-Kahtani was reduced to gibbering in a corner, talking to himself. But JTF-GTMO analysts regarded denunciations of other Guantanamo captives, extracted from al-Kahtani, under these circumstances as credible. Credible enough that these denunciations were used to justify the continued detentions of other captives.
- For some Guantanamo captives the allegation that they were an OBL bodyguard is the only allegation that would support the Bush Presidency assertion that they should be numbered among "the worst of the worst".
- For some Guantanamo captives the allegation that they were an OBL bodyguard is at odds with everything else we know about the captive.
Keep & Rename per Geo Swan, as a special case, that is clearly not WP:OCAT. Is there a list or article? Johnbod 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Osama bin Laden bodyguard. But it needs populating. Geo Swan 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "alleged" anything categories are a bad idea. If there are reliable sources about this particular person's being alleged as a bodyguard then they can be noted in an appropriate article. If there are reliable sources that confirm that this guy is a bodyguard for anyone then add him to the bodyguards category. He should not be added to the bodyguards category on the basis of allegations. Otto4711 12:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am told by a fellow contributor that there are now more people listed in the category. There was just the one when I looked at it initally. So please feel free to read "this person" as "these people" in my above comment. My opposition to the category remains. Otto4711 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another allegations category without specifying who is making the allegations. Perhaps I could allege the George Bush's apparent ineptitude in catching or killing Osama is because Bush is actually protecting Osama, so GWB is allegedly an Osama body guard. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit I am a relative newcomer to the care and feeding of categories. So help me out.
  - Can I assume that you clicked on the category? The one sentence description says: "American intelligence analysts assert that dozens of individuals are former bodyguards of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden." -- Are you saying that the cateogry name should itself say who made the allegation? If the category name said who made the allegation would your concern be satisfied? Forgive me then, why aren't you suggesting a rename, rather than a deletion?
  - With regard to your suggestion that George W. Bush should be included in this category... I thought I read it was counter-policy to include any article in a category when their weren't verifiable, authoritative reverences, in the article, that supported their membership in the category? Wouldn't your suggestion breach this policy?
- Cheers! Geo Swan 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "alleged" categories in general is that anyone can make an allegation of anything about anyone. Putting people in "alleged" categories, besides being a WP:BLP nightmare, would lead to ridiculous category clutter. Public figures are routinely alleged to be engaged in any number of acts of varying degrees of heinousness. Slapping an allegations category on them every time an allegation is made would be absurd and unmaintainable. Such a categorization scheme would quickly degenerate into attack categories. Otto4711 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, why are you suggesting delete, and not considering whether a different name would satisfy your concern? What about Category:Captives held on suspcision of being an Osama bin Laden bodyguard?
- How exactly is are the members of this category {{blp}} nightmares? We don't know who initially made the allegations. The most likely candidate is probably Al-Kahtani. And while that remains speculation, there is zero doubt who is taking the allegations seriously -- the DoD.
- If you are sure my argument as to how these guys are different from everyone else's bodyguards, is there any way you can see your way fit to explain your reasoning?
- Cheers! Geo Swan 03:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that categorizing people based on allegations made against them or about them is supportable under any circumstances. Period. If there is reliable sourcing that one or more of these people is a bodyguard, for OBL or anyone else, as opposed to there just being allegations of it, then put them in the bodyguards category. I don't consider a confession extracted under torture or duress to be reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. I don't think it's useful to subdivide Gitmo detainees on the basis of specific allegations against them. Otto4711 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I agree with you that intelligence extracted under torture is unreliable.
  - But that is not the position of the Bush Presidency. Initially they had denied they had been using torture or inhumane interrogation. Period.
  - When the interrogation log was leaked, showing that this was a highly questionable assertion, the DoD issued a statement, asserting (1) that there were special circumstances justifying the extreme measures that had been used on him; and (2) that the use of the extreme interrogation methods was amply justified, after the fact, by the extreme value of the intelligence produced. His identification of dozens of other Guantanamo captives as bin Laden's bodyguards was the prize jewel of the intelligence arising from the use of extreme measures on him.
  - That justification of the use of extreme measures, based on his identification of bin Laden's bodyguards, is still the position of the Bush Presidency.
- Your opinion, which I share, that confessions extracted under torture are not reliable, is not universally shared. You might be surprised how many people think such confessions are useful.
- Whether these particular confessions are reliable is not what counts here. IMO, what counts here is the mere existence of the controversial allegations. Because of the remarkalbe circumstances of the allegations these allegations, IMO, should be an exception to your rule that allegations should not be covered in the wikipedia.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances of the allegations should be discussed in an article which can be cited to reliable sources. Honestly, I do not understand your point at all that the circumstances surrounding the allegations should stand as a reason to have an allegation-based category. Nor do I believe that the Bush administration's beliefs regarding the value of these allegations is relevant and creating a category on that basis strikes me as giving undue weight to the Bush administration's position. This is the sort of information that practically cries out for a list in an article so that a neutral assessment of the allegations from both sides can be presented. That sort of assessment is simply impossible in a category, and the sort of note that would need to be written to explain the inclusion criteria for the category would probably have to be article-like in scope to do it justice anyway, so why not just put this in the article? Otto4711 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "allegations of" categories are generally useless; statements that from time to time may be placed in the category are found to be generally not enough to save either overbroad or blp-issue categories. A clear example would be Category:Alleged mass murderers, and then in the category page I place, "as alleged by Carlos Suarez". Without references and sourcing allegations are cheap - until these people are tried we don't know whether they will ever be convicted of anything at all, much less something even approaching the sting of the allegation. Carlossuarez46 02:00, 13 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 military personnel serving in Germany[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial intersection. Any number of military personnel serve in Germany at some point in their careers and they are not generally defined by it. Otto4711 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Area of military service can be highly variable and is generally not defining. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; a "current" category to boot. Johnbod 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammatically so, but actually not, most of the categorants are dead. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where someone serves their military duty may have relevance but for peacetime deployments it seems too trivial to categorize. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 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:Recipients of the Ranger tab[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. the wub "?!" 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - again feels like overcategorization by award or honor. Otto4711 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a qualification, not an award. Johnbod 01:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. It is as good as any of the alumni categories. I wonder if a rename to something like Category:United States Army Ranger School alumni would be appropriate though. LeSnail 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine by me. Johnbod 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Army Rangers if that's what distinguishes these people - we don't categorize people from their military specialty training do we Category:Top Gun alumni or Category:United States Navy Fighter Weapons School alumni etc.? Carlossuarez46 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, no, that doesn't work, sadly. Being an army ranger and having attended the US Army Ranger School are not the same thing. Alumni might not be the best word though...can't think of anything better. LeSnail 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:US Army Rangers, as other armies also have rangers... Are other Ranger tabs extant in the world? 132.205.44.5 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we're not distinguishing Army Rangers but just those who went to a specialized training, it's trivial and non-defining as I described above and many similar things in civilian life like CPR training, Life Saving/Swimming training, Arbitration/Mediation training, Microsoft developer training, and lots of other things that give one a certification. Carlossuarez46 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not trivial and is defining. To compare it to CPR training or life saving training and refer to it as trivial shows a complete lack of knowledge about what the Ranger tab is and what Ranger School entails. The category is fine as it is - the tab is awarded for the successful completetion of a 2 month, 24-7 course. Overcategorization is Category:Recipients of Distinguished Service Medal or Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Medal or Category:Recipients of the Air Medal, which are all non-defining. Nominate those for deletion, and I'll agree with you. Alumni wouldn't work because alumni doesn't nessecarily mean graduate - the tab denotes graduation.--Nobunaga24 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nobunaga24. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Trivial, especially to non-US Wiki Users. If we let this stay, then why not have a category for people who have passed Selection and can serve in the SAS? It just doesn't seem encyclopaedic or particularly notable to me. --Commander Zulu 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be a good category. No joke, you should create it. The point is that receiving the ranger tab isn't just a minor qualification; it's a major award. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be - I've been out a while) it is the only award in the US Army that you are required to wear on your utilities/BDUs/ACUs (choose your terminology) if you have earned it (when I was in, if you had it, you had to wear it on your BDUs - any other award was optional) The Legion of Merit has a category, and that's basically either a 1) congrats, you are a lieutenant colonel or higher award or 2) an award for a foreign dignitary we want to give a shiny object to. The Bronze Star is even more trivial, despite it's public perception as an award for heroism - without a "V" device, it is little more that an achievement medal for being in a combat theater, yet it has a category. Compared to the number of articles in those two categories, it should say something about how difficult it actually is to get the ranger tab. It is certainly just as encyclopedic as many of the categories for sports players, such as Category:National League batting champions. People who are interested in biographies of US Army personnel might have an interest in seeing who has completed ranger training. And to someone not interested in that subject, it probably has about as much interest to them as National Leage batting champions does to me.--Nobunaga24 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently defining or notable. While I respect that the Ranger tab is awarded after completion of a tough course, there are many 'tab qualified' graduates of the course who did not subsequently go on to perform in Ranger appointments. I would be much happier to see a category based on service as a Ranger (Colonel Charles Beckwith talks about this in Delta Force: The Army's Elite Counterterrorist Unit, 1983). I believe overcategorization by award and non-defining apply. Likewise, completion of the SAS, SASR or Commando Cadre courses is not notable/defining but subsequent service in relevant units may well be. Notwithstanding the justifiable pride with which it is worn, the Ranger tab, as a military qualification badge, is in a subordinate grouping to civil and military decorations. I also consider that decorations below tier three and possibly below tier two level are also insufficiently defining or notable to warrant their own category (hence Bronze Star/Military Medal non-notable but Medal of Honour/Victoria Cross notable). AusTerrapin 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't categorize people by qualification either. >Radiant< 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The presence of the category does not mean that Wiki editors go out of their way to find and compile a list of everybody that has ever received the tab. The category is simply used as a further means of categorizing individuals who have attained some other form of notability to sustain their own Wikipedia article. Earning the Ranger tab is definately more notable than earning a Good Conduct Award, and in many cases, especially within the US Military, says more about the individual than other 'awards' or 'achievements'. As a school graduate, it's definately more notable than a graduate of the Pathfinder School, or Airborne School, or the Jungle Warfare School, and I wouldn't think there would be special categories for those, as while they may be specialized military courses, they don't attain the same amount of personal stamina or perseverence as the Ranger school does. Serving as a Ranger after graduation doesn't really make a difference either, the school is so difficult that merely graduating is quite an accomplishment, so much so that many in the US Army who are thinking about making the militarty their career, elect to subject themselves to the rigors of the course as it benefits their careers. wbfergus^Talk 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the justifications laid out by Nobunaga24 and wbfergus. This is not just a "pretty" that personnel get to stick on their uniform like taping your latest good attendance certificate on your bedroom wall. Earning the Ranger Tab is a distinctive and momentus achievement, something that says something about the individual themselves and not just what they've mangaged to earn during their career. It is exclusive for a reason--not every Tom, Dick, and Harry can get one just for breathing. Unlike most 1st tier awards and honors, the tab is worn prominantly on every Army uniform--that alone should give some indication of its worth. Earning it is more than a checkmark on a service person's career sheet; it is a lifetime achievement. --ScreaminEagle 18:15, 18 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:Recipients of the Order of Saint Maurice[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - feels like overcategorization by award. Does not seem to be among the most notable of awards per the guideline. Otto4711 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & policy. Not a government Order. Johnbod 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Doesn't seem to be notable enough. For one thing, it looks like it has been awarded to ~5000 people. LeSnail 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 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:Nitro albums[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 given precedent. the wub "?!" 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nitro albums to Category:Nitro (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match lead article Nitro (band) reduce possible ambiguity. Otto4711 15:46, 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 Brunswick Youth Orchestra conductors[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 all. the wub "?!" 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:New Brunswick Youth Orchestra conductors, Category:New Brunswick Youth Orchestra assistant conductors, Category:New Brunswick Youth Orchestra guest conductors and Category:New Brunswick Youth Orchestra principal conductors to Category:Canadian conductors

Nominator's rationale: Merge all - improper performer by performance overcategorization Category:Conductors indicates that a template, not a category, is preferred anyway. Otto4711 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. Very impressive WP:OC. LeSnail 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Johnbod 12:18, 16 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:Authors from the Channel 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 rename as nominated. the wub "?!" 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Writers from the Channel Islands, note that Category:Authors is a redirect to Category:Writers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename--suggest Category:Channel Islands writers instead, though. LeSnail 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to Category:Writers from the Channel Islands. Lesnail's suggestion of Category:Channel Islands writers is shorter but ambiguous, because it can also be read to refer to writers about the Channel Islands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, standard usage would require Category:Channel Island writers. Better to go with Category:Writers from the Channel Islands. Man vyi 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An author is not the same as a writer. The proposed "writers" category will be broader, not a replacement. --MacRusgail 11:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but given the current deplorable trend to usage of "author" as a verb, the distinction is becoming blurred; but in any case we don't have any "authors" category tree, and I see no reason to make this category an exception to the conventions of Category:Writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & BHG. Johnbod 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Man vyi 06:22, 16 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:Athens (GA) Neighborhoods[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Neighborhoods in Athens, Georgia, to match Athens, Georgia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. for consistency. LeSnail 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (and several additional reasons). I was going to try for speedy, but found it was already here, so... Hellosandimas 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --MacRusgail 11:20, 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:Stemmini squadre di calcio spagnole[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 "?!" 11:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stemmini squadre di calcio spagnole to Category:Spanish football club logos

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Category name should be in English on English Wikipedia, I believe. Ebyabe 14:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NOT to "logos" - badges, insignia? - there must be a standard term. Same for the ones below. Johnbod 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Johnbod, but stemme is translated differently for different uses: for municipalities, it's likely to be "coats of arms" for sports probably badges or insignia. Probably should enlist some wikiproject Italy folks to give insight on the most common translations. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, other sports categories do seem to use "logo", I am rather disgusted to discover. Johnbod 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional sports is, well, a capitalist enterprise and logos are part and parcel of brand identity: sports and McDonald's both have franchises. :-) Carlossuarez46 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US only! Johnbod 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, although ideally all sports categories should use a more dignified name. Johnbod 12:20, 16 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:Italian football club stemme[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 "?!" 11:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Italian football club stemme to Category:Italian football club logos

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Category name should be in English on English Wikipedia, I believe. Ebyabe 14:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, although ideally all sports categories should use a more dignified name. Johnbod 12:20, 16 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:Stemmini squadre di calcio italiane[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 "?!" 11:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stemmini squadre di calcio italiane to Category:Italian football club logo patches

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Category name should be in English on English Wikipedia, I believe. Ebyabe 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, although ideally all sports categories should use a more dignified name. Johnbod 12:20, 16 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:The Clash singles[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/rename, as nominated and by precedent. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:The Clash songs, see discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per previous discussions, and rename following ×Meegs 22:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per both. Johnbod 12:21, 16 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:Esperantists[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was originally deleted through an August 28 CfD. DRV overturned, with the consent of the original closing admin, for several reasons, including a revision in the Wikipedia's entry for Esperantist. Please see the DRV before commenting here. Deletion is on the table. Xoloz 14:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the revised definition at Esperantist an Esperantist is "someone who knows Esperanto and uses it for any purpose." This is categorization on the basis of speaking or using a language, which is a poor basis for a category. Taken to its absurd extreme, someone who knows Esperanto and uses it for the purpose of trying to discredit Esperanto would be categorized as an Esperantist. It is also supposedly someone who participates in Esperanto culture. This is a vague and subjective inclusion criterion. What constitutes "participating in Esperanto culture"? This is prime list material, because a list can cite reliable sources as to why the person so listed is properly considered an Esperantist. Otto4711 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revived category. The speaking/use of an auxiliary language differs from use of standard native languages. It is a non-trivial like any other learned and applied skill and a legitimate attribute to connect using Wikipedia categories. The category is also embedded properly under both the Esperanto and Speakers of international auxiliary languages categorisations. AllyD 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning any language, whether it's a constructed language or a natural language, is a learned and applied skill. Are you suggesting that categorizing anyone who speaks more than one language as a speaker of that language is a good idea? Doesn't seem like that good of an idea to me. Otto4711 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend CfD listing until category is repopulated and discard the comments above (or any added before the category is repopulated) - seriously, I asked for this at the DRV and I'm not sure why repopulation wasn't done. How can people be expected to seriously discuss a category without seeing the articles in it? The people who have already commented can re-comment once the discussion is restarted. I'm now going to manually repopulate the category by undoing the bot actions that depopulated it. Carcharoth 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. There were a few more articles in that category than I remembered. 83 to be precise. As not all those should have been in there (if I followed the Deletion Review properly), I'm going to list them here instead. What is the normal procedure for relisting a category deletion overturned at DRV? Is it to repopulate the category? Rather worryingly, both WP:CFD and Wikipedia:Category deletion policy fail to mention WP:DRV at all! Wikipedia:Deletion review itself doesn't mention categories at all, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy also fails to mention any process for how to handle overturned and relisted categories. This is most strange! Surely Wikipedia's sprawling bureaucracy doesn't have a gaping hole in it? :-) Am I missing somewhere where the issue of whether an overturned category should be repopulated before it has been properly overturned, is discussed, and following on from that, how that issue relates to relisting an overturned category deletion? Is it possible that overturning of category deletions is so rare that this has never happened before?? Carcharoth 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous contents of the category (and possibly the current contents, depending on the above):

David Healy (Irish politician) Daniel Bovet Dalibor Brozović Claude Piron Christopher Fettes Charles Roden Buxton Charles Robert Richet Cezaro Rossetti Boris Kolker Billy Ray Waldon Ba Jin Antoni Grabowski Alexander Nedoshivin Agnes Baldwin Alexander Adelbert Mühlschlegel Renato Corsetti Reinhard Selten Qian Xuantong Petr Ginz Olav Reiersøl Nitobe Inazō Nikolai Vladimirovich Nekrasov Nadija Hordijenko Andrianova Małgorzata Handzlik Maurice René Fréchet Matthew McLauchlin Martha Root Marjorie Boulton László Polgár Ludwig Renn Louis de Beaufront Lou Harrison Lidia Zamenhof Leonardo Torres y Quevedo Leo Tolstoy Leena Peisa L. L. Zamenhof Kálmán Kalocsay Kazimierz Bein Kazimierz Badowski Julio Baghy Joseph Mary Plunkett John Eyton Bickersteth Mayor John Edgar McFadyen John C. Wells Jan Fethke James Connolly Humphrey Tonkin Henri Lurie Henri Barbusse Hendrik Bulthuis Harry Harrison Gerrit Berveling George Brinton McClellan Harvey Gaston Waringhien Futabatei Shimei Frigyes Karinthy Franz Jonas Franko Luin Forrest J Ackerman Eugène Lanti Esperantist Emanuel Reicher Ebenezer Howard Don Harlow Émile Boirac Árpád Szakasits Yrjö Väisälä Wladimir Köppen William Thomas Stead William Edward Collinson William Auld Willem Drees Wilhelm Ostwald Vladimir Varankin Teodoro Schwartz Sándor Szathmári User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion Susan Polgar Rudolf Mosse Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood Ric Berger

Reto Rossetti

83 articles. List obtained from the contributions list of User:Cydebot. Carcharoth 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly, I have worked a careful definition of Esperantist. If you would like to have any influence on who will stay and who will go, please note that on the Category:Esperanto discussion page. Secondly, I am carefully repopulating the category right now, making sure there is solid justification for every member of the category, to make sure they fit the definition. I will try to note this in the member articles themselves. -- Yekrats 13:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Otto says "categorization on the basis of speaking or using a language [...] is a poor basis for a category" - this is an overgeneralisation. Category:Literature by language is one of many examples where the particular use of a language is a defining characteristic. Category:Categories by language shows more examples (some are admittedly poor categories), but the prime example here for people is Category:Writers by language. That deals with "using a language". Harder to refute is "speaking a language". In most cases, speaking a language is not a defining characteristic, but in the case of speakers of auxillary languages it can be a defining characteristic. Finally, Otto says "taken to its absurd extreme", which is hyperbole. I have every confidence that this category will be carefully maintained and will not reach any absurd extremes. We should not be deleting categories on the basis of hypothetical "absurd extremes". If, after the category has been cleaned up, Otto has a problem with any of the articles having this category tag on it, that should be a matter for discussion on the article talk page, not CfD. Carcharoth 23:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Esperanto-language writers already exists then that makes this category largely duplicative. If it doesn't exist yet then it should be created and populated. That still does not address the notion that Category:Language speakers by language is a spectacularly bad idea. Otto4711 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have far more confidence than I that the category will be adequately maintained should it be retained, since additions to categories don't register when the category is watched. A list article, on the other hand, will register changes for purposes of monitoring, and has the added advantage over the category of being able to include reliable sources for the inclusion of the person on the list, something the category can't do. Otto4711 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to maintain a category adequately. The "can't watchlist it" argument applies to any category. What you can do is have a bot periodically take snapshots of the category, or visually review it. As for the writers, the category you are looking for is Category:Esperanto literature. I'm not sure why you mechanically constructed the category name of Category:Esperanto-language writers. Why not the less clumsy Category:Writers of Esperanto literature? Carcharoth 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-language writers is the standard format for subcats of Category:Writers by language. Category:Esperanto literature should be for things written in Esperanto, not people who write in Esperanto. Still not seeing why a list, which can actually include sources which explain why a person is on it, is meeting such resistance. Otto4711 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, have a look at Category:Culture by ethnicity and Category:Culture by nationality. Where does Category:Culture by language fit into this when, as in the case of Esperanto the defining characteristic of the culture is its language. Esperanto is not an ethnicity. It is not a nation. It is a language. Can't you see that, Otto? Carcharoth 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: "the notion that Category:Language speakers by language is a spectacularly bad idea." - please can you provide some support for this notion, rather than just asserting it. Please find other CfDs where "by language" categories were deleted. Carcharoth 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. On the subject of categories of speakers of certain languages, Wikipedia clearly makes an exception for speakers auxiliary languages. See: Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages which Category:Esperantists is a part of. Esperanto is the largest, most popular aux-lang. If a person with an interest in aux-langs went there, the lack of "Esperantists" in that category would be a glaring and ridiculous hole. -- Yekrats 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages should also be deleted, since categorizing people based on the languages they speak is a bad idea. Otto4711 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you recognise that Esperanto is a culture (see Category:Esperanto culture), what would satisfy you as a name for a category for people involved in that culture? Category:People of the Esperanto culture? Category:Esperanto people? Maybe even, Category:Esperantists? Carcharoth 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what, exactly, constitutes being "involved in Esperanto culture"? How involved does someone have to be in the culture to be considered "involved" in it? Might perhaps a list, that can included information that explains the person's involvement in the culture, be superior to a bare alphabetical listing? Otto4711 14:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, please stop being intentionally dense. It will normally be obvious if someone is involved in Esperanto culture, just like in many many cultural categories here in Wikipedia. For a bunch of them, see: Category:Subcultures. If there is a gray area, that should be debated on the individual page. Normally, if someone speaks Esperanto, they do it for a particular reason: often to foster worldwide communication, making them a part of our culture. Often, Esperanto speech and Esperanto advocacy are intertwined, and have been so since book one. The important rule is: "Do they speak (really speak) Esperanto?" The second rule -- "Are they involved in Esperanto culture?" -- is a qualifier to make sure that they really do speak Esperanto. It's a good rule of thumb for any subculture, not just ours. -- Yekrats 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please remember WP:CIVIL. Secondly, Esperanto culture is rather a slender reed on which to hang an argument, considering that the article does not include a strong definition as to what constitutes "Esperanto culture" and has been tagged as unreferenced for months. The definition of "Esperanto culture" is vague and the definition of "Esperantist," which relies heavily on the vaguely-defined "Esperanto culture," is itself vague. Otto4711 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Otto, I want to say that I apologize to you for being uncivil. That being said, respectfully, I think your argument is starting to fall apart and become existentially absurd. Take, for instance, a category like Category:Skateboarders. How do we decide who goes into that category? Anyone that has ever been on a skateboard? Only professional skateboarders? Who decides who is appropriate for Category:People associated with the hippie movement? Who decides what films go into Category:Space Westerns? I'll tell you the answer to these and more: It's determined by a bunch of individual decisions -- based on incremental consensus and discussion on the pages -- in each individual page. Most of them are not even as well-defined as we have done in Esperantists! -- Yekrats 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continually pointing to other categories and saying "what about this?" is not a particularly compelling argument. It could very well be that the category you're pointing at is just as bad as the one you're seeking to defend. I have not examined this crop of examples, but off the top of my head Skateboarders should probably be renamed and restricted to professional skateboarders. Otto4711 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you completely ignore the argument that I was making... ie: the last couple of sentences: I'll tell you the answer to these and more: It's determined by a bunch of individual decisions -- based on incremental consensus and discussion on the pages -- in each individual page. Most of them are not even as well-defined as we have done in Esperantists! I wasn't trying to discredit the others, but I was trying to elevate Category:Esperantists by example. Despite your accusations, our category is pretty well defined. Esperanto culture (to Esperantists) is equally recognizable. If you were a part of it, you would know. I'm not sure what nationality you are, but you probably recognized that something is domestic and something is "foreign". Something being a part of Esperanto culture is understood by us to be a part of our culture, and it may be difficult for outsiders to recognize that. -- Yekrats 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a bonus for you Otto... Here is a good translated article about what constitutes Esperanto culture. You might be surprised! -- Yekrats 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't defend Yekrats characterization of you as "intentionally dense". I think he owes you an apology (and he has done so while I wrote this). But it is worth pointing out that it is also considered rude to use an abbreviated term to ask someone to be civil. It is politer to to use the word "civility" somewhere in your response rather than the abbreviation "WP:CIVIL". The terse use of such abbreviations to criticise someone's behaviour can itself increase tension. Even better is to let others call people out for incivility (as I have just done to Yekrats). That is always much better than doing it yourself, as that can often become confrontational. Getting back to the matter at hand, consider Category:Macedonian sportspeople which is a subcategory of Category:Sport in the Republic of Macedonia, which is a subcategory of Category:Macedonian culture. Effectively, Macedonian sportspeople, a group defined by playing sport for Macedonia, are being categorised under Macedonian culture. Categorising those that speak or support Esperanto in a subcategory of Category:Esperanto culture, or Category:Esperanto is no different. Whether Esperanto is a culture or subculture, I'll not comment on at this point. Carcharoth 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments last time & at CfD, & those above. The category is much stronger now.Johnbod 01:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as Yekrats above. Chuck SMITH 14:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck SMITH (talk • contribs)
Keep for the same reasons as Yekrats above. I do not have an account in the english wikipedia, but use it rather often. Bea Allée --86.195.246.213 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Esperanto is not just a language. It's an ideology, it's a culture and an identity. --Sonjaaa 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So are Spanish, Estonian, Japanese, Polish, Albanian, Breton, Apache, Quechua, and 6000 others. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of those examples have a national identity to fall back on. A person that is from Japan, generally speaks Japanese, and is a part of Japanese culture. We have a Category:Japanese people for those people. That would be non-notable. But if a person is notable because of Esperanto culture, we should have a group to categorize that. -- Yekrats 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many cultures/languages do not have a country: Breton, Basque, Quechua, Apache, Chechen, Tatar, Kurdish, Yiddish, Hawaiian, so that really doesn't address the issue. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed it does address the issue and you just proved my point. You are confusing "country" with "nation". The two are not necessarily the same. Many of those places have (or had) national identities: Category:Apache tribes, Category:Basque people, Category:Chechen people, Category:People from Hawaii. With 80+ members being in the Category:Esperantists, do we deserve our own cultural and identity in Wikipedia? I think so. Certainly if 80+ Apaches had articles here, they would certainly deserve their own category: Members of the Apache tribe. -- Yekrats 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you show a reliable source that anyone categorized in this category self-identified as Esperantist as his/her cultural identification to the exclusion of other cultural identities? If so, we can place someone like that in a category Category:Esperanto people like Category:Basque people. For those classified here whose experience with Esperanto is as a language, social movement, or hobbyist, but still feels a nationality and cultural identity elsewhere it's a disapproved-of category of people by opinion. Esperantists may feel themselves a community but so do Macintosh users, Linux users, video gamers, naturists, who-dunnit enthusiasts, groupies, overeaters, 12-step program participants, book clubbers, sewing circles, campers, and people who stop by a bar on their way home from work - these shouldn't be categorized either. Carlossuarez46 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure why you think that native Esperantists must forgo other cultural identities. The few native Esperantists I know are all proud of their Esperanto roots. For example, people can be born under one ideology -- eg. Jewish -- and still retain elements of the surounding culture. 2. Google says: I've said it before, there's lots of ~~ideologies~~ unpopular hobbies represented by categories here at Wikipedia: Anarchists, Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, and Communists; loosely joined communities like Christians, Jews, Muslims, Neo-Pagans, Atheists and finally Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages! -- Yekrats 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all my arguments and reasons at The original CfD and subsequent DRV. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, the category is not being limited to either those who speak Esperanto (which would be a triviality) or those who promote it (a cat of people by opinion), but is a mish-mash of the two, we will now expect that biographies will be polluted with Category:Fooian speakers for every possible language all without any regard for how well one speaks it and what RSes tell us that the person speaks it that well. Imagine how many new categories get added to polyglots like Pope John Paul II. Carlossuarez46 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Untrue! It's an AND requirement, not an OR requirement. They must speak the language AND be a member of Esperanto culture. That's a pretty narrowly defined and easily definable group. Also, I don't buy the "nose of the camel in the tent" argument that we keep getting, that we will have dozens of bogus cluttered categories for every language. This is categorization just like the other aux-langs, like the categories for Idists, etc. -- Yekrats 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliable source that provides this definition of "Esperantist," that it requires the speaking the language AND being a "member of Esperanto culture" (however that vague term is defined)? The Declaration of Boulogne defines it only in terms of knowing and using the language. In the absence of reliable sourcing, this requirement that the person also participate in "Esperanto culture" has the smell of original research about it. And it still does not answer the question of what constitutes "Esperanto culture" (Esperanto culture does not offer any sort of succinct definition, instead simply noting various instances of Esperanto usage in various circumstances, and is unsourced to boot) nor does it offer any guidance as to what constitutes "participating" in it. Otto4711 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking us to define something - culture - which has a slippery definition to begin with. What makes something a part of American culture? Would you know American culture if you saw it? Really, an American culture would immediately recognize American culture, but may have trouble recognizing other cultures, like British or Australian or Czech. The definition of culture must be "If it quacks like a duck..." and let the editors hash it out. -- Yekrats 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(continued) I am also annoyed and concerned that you keep attacking and belittling my culture (albeit my chosen one). You've been verbally attacking us ever since you put this up for deletion. Yes Otto, I'm primarily talking to you here, please be civil and stop attacking our culture. Stop putting "Esperanto culture" in quotes like it's a figment of our delusions. The sarcasm drips off the words when you do that. You attack us because you do not understand us. But there are some people I speak for that were born into Esperanto culture. Yes, there are several people that are born Esperantists (denaskaj Esperantistoj). Indeed, I've even met a few of them while working on the Esperanto Wikipedia! I keep showing sources that describes Esperanto culture and you keep ignoring them, doubting that it exists! -- Yekrats 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(continued) I think we all want the same goal: a high-quality Wikipedia. That is a chief goal in the Esperanto Wikipedia as well. We take great pride in our work, in spite of being a small minority. But I think you should at least judge us on an even keel with other cultures and ideologies. I don't want special treatment of Esperanto. I want even treatment for the Esperanto ideology. I want even treatment for the Esperanto culture. -- Yekrats 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for your projections or your decision to read sarcasm into the proper use of punctuation marks. Nor am I responsible for your assumptions about what I do or don't understand. My opposition to this category is and always has been based on its overly vague and subjective inclusion criteria. Your, shall we say, interest in this topic is leading you to make judgments which are unwarranted and are completely your own responsibility. Otto4711 12:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, do you have time to repond to my request earlier on this page? ""the notion that Category:Language speakers by language is a spectacularly bad idea." - please can you provide some support for this notion, rather than just asserting it. Please find other CfDs where "by language" categories were deleted." I'd be grateful if you could respond to that, either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that categorizing people by the languages they speak is a spectacularly bad idea. I am unaware of specific CFDs in which language speakers by language have been deleted because I don't know if any such categories (other than for the constructed langauges) have been created. I do not think that slapping a language category on every person for each language they speak is in any way useful. Otto4711 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that categorizing people based solely on languages is a bad idea. I'm glad we agree on that. Sonja above put it well. Esperanto is also a culture and an ideology. Wikipedia categorizes many, many cultures; Wikipedia categorizes many, many ideologies. It deserves to ba a category for those reasons. -- Yekrats 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent)*Nothing "deserves" to be a category. Categories are not rewards or entitlements. And for all of this back and forth, the point still stands that the inclusion criteria for this category are vague because there is no reasonable definition being offered for what constitutes "participating in Esperanto culture" or what degree of participation is required to qualify. Otto4711 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that you are thinking that if anyone who is part of Esperanto culture is included, then the category would become unmanageable. But in fact the criteria is "anyone who participates in Esperanto culture who has a Wikipedia article". In other words, the notability bar will keep out most members of the Esperanto culture as non-notable, while the small size of the Esperanto culture means that the total number of people that can be a member of this category (both past and present) will remain manageable. Maybe Yekrats could give an estimate for how many people could be in this category once the notable members of the culture have had articles written on them? Carcharoth 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - About 83 or so were in the category before. Have no fear: we're not going to start typing in every Joe Esperantist. They must be otherwise notable. -- Yekrats 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, the point still stands that you continue to ignore the fact that Esperanto is a language, culture, and an ideology. As for which pages should be included in the category, and which should not, that is an argument for the individual pages. Most of them are no-brainers. Since you keep asking the question, participating in Esperanto would constitute some combination of the following:
- Speaking Esperanto to other members of the Esperanto community
- Writing Esperanto literature.
- Writing and performing Esperanto music.
- Attending World Congresses of Esperanto
- Celebrating Zamenhof Day
- Participation in Esperanto associations
- Using the Pasporta Servo
- Using Esperanto forums
- Being an Esperanto activist (trying to recruit other Esperantists)
- Being a member of the Academy of Esperanto
- Coming "out of the closet" and declaring yourself publically to be Esperantist.
- and so on! (You get the picture? Using Esperanto usefully with other Esperantists.)
You want us to declare "what degree of participation [in the Esperanto movement] is required to qualify"? You can't be serious. This is culture; this is not math, chemistry or engineering. What a ludicrous and impossible expectation! There is no scale of 1 to 10 showing how much a person is involved in an ideology or a culture. Gimme a break! -- Yekrats 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, of course categories are only going to contain Wikipedia articles. The idea that this is some sort of argument in favor of the category is bizarre. Second, at no point did I suggest creating a mathematical formula to calculate level of involvement in Esperanto culture. Indeed, if such a formula were possible it still would not address the fact that there's no objective criterion as to what constitutes involvement in Esperanto culture. Is writing a single article in an Esperanto-language magazine sufficient involvement? Is attending a single Esperanto-language gathering? Is there some reason why people who do something in Esperanto can't be categorized as that? Esperanto-language writers, Esperanto-language composers and the like, the way that every other language is done? No. Is there some reason why this culture-based category is necessary when it does not appear that any other similarly-situated culture category has a people-by-culture category? No. The only reason this category is being defended this vociferously is because of zealotry. Zealotry doesn't justify categorization. Otto4711 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.) "First, of course categories are only going to contain Wikipedia articles. The idea that this is some sort of argument in favor of the category is bizarre." You must have misread me somewhere, or I mistyped and can't find it. I have no idea what you're talking about here. 2.) I think writing a single article in an English-language magazine is enough to qualify you as an Esperantist. But I knew that once I started listing them, you would deconstruct the list and say "Is this enough?" 3.) I see that most (or all?) of the culture groups in the Category you linked have a corresponding "People from _____" category or somesuch. For example, the first culture in your category I clicked on, Category:Andorran culture has a corresponding category Category:Andorran people. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in that "Culture by nationality" category that did not have a corresponding people category. Are you arguing in favor of a Category:Esperanto people? After all, there are people that speak Esperanto as a FIRST language, raised in an Esperanto home. Hmmm, I think you're on to something, but I think Category:Esperantists is more concise. -- Yekrats 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the most important reason of all - there are a large number of pages on Wikipedia on people that wouldn't be present here were they not Esperantists; IOW, being an Esperantist is the only reason for their notability. Removing the Esperantist category would leave them in general categories like Scottish writers, communists, etc. that give no clue as to why they're here in the first place. And yes, to preempt any questions about whether other languages should apply, there should be a category for promoters of other languages if being one is the only reason that they're notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Mithridates 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be in a specific Esperanto-related category that describes what they do with Esperanto, the same way that every other language is handled. Category:Esperanto-language writers and the like. Rather than this vague and ill-defined category. Otto4711 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the same way that every other language is handled..." Untrue. Languages in Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages are handled differently, because they are also an ideology. -- Yekrats 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Narvalo 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arno Lagrange ✉ 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some reasons for that are listed above; besides, the category is present at some respected Wikipedias like the Russian one, where deletion of articles and categories is a routine thing. A probable compromise could be renaming it to "Esperanto activists", though naming "an activist" an author of a textbook or a writer could be strange thing... Slavik IVANOV 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category is for me of those which has to be respect and keep on the english wikipedia for a lot of reason. For example, the fact, that esperanto is living tongue with practicant with more than 3 people--Jonathaneo 09:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category makes sense to me. I agree with user Yekrats Yvesn 18:48, 14 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:Current political office-holders[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All "current office-holder" categories have been deleted at CfD except Category:Lists of current office-holders, which is the sole remaining entry in this category. This has become an unnecessary intermediate category, and its continued existence will only encourage the (re)creation of "current office-holder" categories against a fairly strong consensus and precedent that current office-holders should be documented through lists, not categories. The lone subcat should, of course, be reparented under Category:Political office-holders. Xtifr _tälk 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, such categories require continual maintenance, and are unsuitable for CDs, printed editions, or mirrors. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 01:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ProveIt, and salt to prevent recreation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block recreation. Ample precedent based on good reasons why current categories are unwise. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 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:War crimes in the United States of America[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 for now. the wub "?!" 11:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War crimes in the United States of America to Category:War crimes in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Naming conventions. Tim! 10:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete : "war crime" is a legal term and today is generally understood to be so. None of the events included in this category have ever been judged by any sort of court or tribunal to be a "war crime". Results in POV categorizations—what goes in here and what is excluded?—it's not based on objective facts or the finding of a court but is left to the whim or opinion of editors. Simple example: at the time I am writing this, note that Category:Massacres of Native Americans is included as a subcategory but not Category:Massacres by Native Americans. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, although I agree this whole category tree is very dubious. The main article War crime starts with the Hague convention of 1907, but most articles for several countries pre-date this, and are a somewhat random collection of articles about earlier events that might be considered to breach whatever the rules of war were at that time and place. Needs either clearly (looser) defining, or renaming. Johnbod 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now, but suggest nominating the entire tree for deletion based on the above remarks. >Radiant< 14:15, 18 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:Articles with unsourced statements[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 with no renaming. Sam Blacketer 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Articles with unsourced statements to Category:All articles with unsourced statements

Nominator's rationale: Merge - there is absolutely no rational reason for maintaining both categories. This category has been through a number of CFD actions (all linked to the category talk page). Even after reading through them I'm still not seeing any reason for both categories. Otto4711 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose merge, because both categories are needed. They have different purposes, which are best understood by examining the templates.

{{fact}} takes a date parameter (e.g. {{fact|date=September 2007}} places an article in two categories: Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Articles with unsourced statements since August 2007
{{fact}} without a date parameter places an article in two categories: Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Articles with unsourced statements

... so Category:Articles with unsourced statements is simply a holding category for articles with {{fact}} tags which have not yet had a date parameter attached. It is emptied by the bots add a date parameter, dispersing the articles to the appropriate subcats, and as such it serves both as a aprent category and as a maintenance category.

On the other hand, Category:All articles with unsourced statements exists to provide a catchall category for all the articles which are also in the by-month sub-categories. This is useful for editors (or bots) which want to check through a complete list of articles requiring further referencing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BHG, would support a rename to eg Category:Unsorted articles with unsourced statements for clarity. Johnbod 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps a date unknown should be added to the category name. Then split the undated ones off into that subcategory, and keep this as an umbrella. 132.205.44.5 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming (note separate oppose merge above). A clearer category name like Johnbod's suggestion makes sense, but per 132.205.44.5 I think it would be better to create Category:Unsorted articles with unsourced statements (or whatever it is to be called) as a new category, because Category:Articles with unsourced statements is parent to a dozen or more subcategories. It would make no sense to have the by-month categories as subcats of an "unsorted" category, and that would be the effect of a renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Johnbod 03:42, 13 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:Colin Powell[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material does not require a category. Otto4711 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if that is all there is. Johnbod 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eponymous overcat. Wryspy 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough material here. Carcharoth 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering that there are 2 articles with Powell's as last name, it is obvious that the links to Colin Powell in those two articles are more then enough so the cat is not necessary.--JForget 00:29, 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.