Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Category:Community and social service specialists[edit]

Suggest merging Category:Community and social service specialists to Category:Community and social services occupations

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Conscious (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge, two old categories, but I can't see why this distinction would be necessary. --Eliyak T·C 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems reasonable. "Specialists" is an unusually small and thus less useful category.BrainyBabe (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "occupations" describes the job category, whereas "specialists" describes the practitioners of the jobs. There have been some confusions & problems caused by muddying this distinction in some of the "occupations" categories. Since we have a clear distinction, I think we should try to maintain it, if we can, with whatever terminology is best. --Lquilter (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Venona book[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Conscious (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - a multitude of problems. First, there is no article for the book Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America after which this category tree is named. In the absence of a lead article I don't believe that the category is required. Second, the subcats are a mishmash of allegations about the involvement of a number of people in Soviet espionage. I have not checked whether any of the people in the category structure are still alive but if so there are serious WP:BLP concerns. The intro for Category:Venona Appendix A itself illustrates the perils of the categories, noting that scholars are highly critical of the methodology of this and other recent research into Soviet-era espionage efforts and goes on to note that the allegations made by the inclusion of people in the appendix are "unfair and unproven." This is the sort of material, if the source book itself is deemed notable enough for an article, that demands listification so that the reliable sources for these allegations may be included. Category:Venona Appendix C is, independent of other considerations, overcategorization as it captures a triple intersection of non-Americans who visited America and who had covert relationships with Soviet spy agencies. And ultimately, is being listed in the appendix of a particular book a defining characteristic at all? If retained, the appendix subcategories need a rename as the existing names do not adequately describe the contents. I make no suggestion for a rename as I think they should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. The strong implication of this list is that "all these guys were spies." The reality is not at all that simple. The only blanket assertion that Haynes and Klehr, the authors of the book, make about the names listed in their appendices is that they had a "covert relationship" with Soviet intelligence agencies--a term that they never precisely define. And of course, other scholars have disagreed with H&K about applying even that vague term. The book is considered notable among cold war historians, but not necessarily more so than any of a dozen other books from which lists of known or suspected or accused Soviet spies could be extracted. RedSpruce (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on a number of scores: (1) being mentioned in a single book is not defining - we went through that with Dante and Shakespeare, this book is no more notable than those; (2) BLP issues - although lots of these guys are dead now; (3) people shouldn't be included in non-people titled categories for just this reason: presumably the authors, alleged spies, and anyone connected to the book could get dumped in, we just don't know what's being categorized here; and (4) being an alleged spy isn't a notable trait even were we to treat the book as gospel truth. Allegations categories have routinely been deleted around here, and this should be treated no differently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic in several respects. The first question is whether the book is so irresponsible that it cannot be used -- regardless of any possible clarification of the meaning of its lists. The proper way of discussing that is to write an article on the book and have a widely visible debate over it. In fact, it is quite evident that the main category was set up precisely to get around that possibility--I do not see from a search that there was ever an article attempted on the book itself. I really think a wider discussion here is the way to go--there are multiple conflicting opinions in the published literature, and I am not sure that any of them can be rejected as Fringe. Second, if the lists are in any way meaningful at all, how should the information be qualified. Again, I think the best way would be a proper article on the book. But otherwise I think the qualification in Appendix A is a fairly clear one. The others are inferior to it,and need to be brought up to the same standard. As an aside, i do not really see the problem with Appendix C--these guys were in fact spies beyond any serious question--some of them received Soviet medals for it! B, D and E are the really problematic ones which need a clearer explanation.

Now, if this material usable and can be properly explained, should it go as a list or a category. I think it should stay a category, not a list. I don't see how a list will be better--they would both mean exactly the same thing--that the people were listed in the book, for whatever that may be worth--not that the people had done anything in particular. I don't see how we could annotate the list in any simple manner objectively--the relationships are often debatable. Thus, the category is fairer, because then readers can look up the article and judge the by the full biographical description rather than rely on the one or two words we could give with the list. The category at least means exactly what it says--the objective fact that the person is given in the book.DGG (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This runs very much against current thinking here - though of course we still have the listify/categorize ping-pong. A list would be linked, so the articles can be reached very easily. A category is supposed to reflect "defining" attributes of the subject - very dubious here for many people included - whilst inclusion in a list does not have to pass this test. Especially when there is no main article, initial explanations and individual further comments, groupings etc can be easily added to a list entry, which is not possible in a category. In general there is a strong feeling against having categories that are not essentially unquestionable in what they say, which is not really the case here. I see in fact we have List of Americans in the Venona papers, not as comprehensive as the categories, and already with a neutrality tag. That is another thing - categories do not work well as the subject of content disputes (as if articles do, ok, ok!). Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but this is unquestionable; they have unquestionably been named in the appendices. The other category is problematic because it tries to limit itself to a subset of the people involved--see its talk page--on the basis of the apparent implications of the material (that's why it isn't as comprehensive--it tries to select those who were really guilty)--something which is indeed of very questionable neutrality. And are you saying that presenting information as it appears in the outside world goes "against current thinking here" ?DGG (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning and significanvce of appearing in the appendices is questionable. I admit that looking at more of the articles it does seem to be defining for a high proportion of the members of these cats. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This collection was constructed as a blacklist by a small group of POV warriors. The book will stand or fall on its own merits. This blacklist has no encyclopedic value.--Cberlet (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not listify - My thanks to Otto for taking this on. I have it near the top of my to-do list, but I've been on leave-of-absence from CFD owing to health issues, so I'm relieved and very happy to find the arguments ably laid out by other folks, as they have been. I am in agreement with Cberlet's observation as to the underlying motivation here. I simply do not believe it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be commandeered for this sort of thing.

I'm sure there are other, comparable compilations, from various sources, of names of individuals accused or suspected of one thing or another, that could also be turned into Categories or Lists. Let's see, we could have Lists/Categories of people "named" in books or reports as suspected Freemasons, members of Opus Dei, CIA agents/assets (viz. Phillip Agee's books), members of WACL (the World Anti-Communist League), and on and on. But that doesn't mean we should do so. Nothing wrong with articles on these subjects, and nothing wrong with NPOV discussions in individual BLP articles, where warranted. Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Venona[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Venona to Category:Venona project

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Venona project. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, for increased clarity.DGG (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to help the reader find stuff.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Actors in The Archers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Doczilla _RAWR! 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, performer by performance overcategorization. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, overcategorisation as performer by performance. --Beloved Freak 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per overcat. Lugnuts (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Supercars[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Doczilla _RAWR! 07:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As a result of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Car Classifications this car classication is deprecated, and it was removed from article texts an infoboxes (e.g. here and her). Hence this category shouldn't exist either. 79.212.210.176 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per project discussion - too vague a term for categories certainly. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/project consensus. --Beloved Freak 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the term is vague and its "definition" changes over time and as technology advances. — CZmarlin (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, like the now removed list of supercars, too difficult to define and all it does is, simply causes more edit wars. Willirennen (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Recipients of the Légion d'honneur[edit]

Suggest merging Category:Recipients of the Légion d'honneur to Category:Légion d'honneur recipients

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Conscious (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge, X-recipients is the norm. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge per nom, if one can. Just a lazy mistake. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, suggest leaving a category redirect. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Agree that a category redirect may be appropriate. --Beloved Freak 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. Doczilla (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People acquitted of sex crimes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting

Nominator's rationale: Smacks of name, shame and "no smoke without fire" sensationalism, even after judicial systems indicate that there may be no future case to answer against any of the included names in the Cat. Also inherent potential to libel, thus Wikipedia should correct its position as soon as possible, just as it would on an individual biographical article basis where possible defamation is concerned. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. Delete indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It smacks of nothing except the person having been acquitted of something. Any potential to libel is in the corresponding article, not the category; eg there is no doubt that Michael Jackson or Jacob Zuma were notably acquitted of sex crimes. In any case the parent category Category:People acquitted of crimes is the one to target, rather than this particular subcat. Carminis (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this is a test case then. If this one goes, the others may domino. I have tagged this one due to its sleazy sensationalist nature, and its tendency to support possibly libellous content in biographical articles, which Wikipedia says should be removed - call it incitement, if you want. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly support deletion of the other categories. Conviction of crime is a far different matter than being charged with a crime, although "sex crimes" is certainly broader than many categories. --Lquilter (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The acquitals themselves do not seem controvertial. Any objections to article content should be discussed in the specific articles talk pages. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I hardly think defamation is a concern (although I do see some slight potential for misuse), being acquited of a crime is not a defining characteristic that needs to be categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As so often, Otto has greatly helped to make my mind up. It is clearly defining for William Kennedy Smith, and is now the only thing most of us know about Roscoe Arbuckle, and so on. Also per Dimadick and Carminis. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why I'm to blame for your ignorance of the life and film career of Fattie Arbuckle. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strange. I find Otto's argument is probably better than all of my own. And I don't know the chap. BTW, defamation/libel, even if generated by indirect means, should always be a concern for editors of Wikipedia, as per Wales. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need not bring defamation into it. The problems of verification apply to any category and any fact in wikipedia, and there is nothing in particular unique about being acquitted of a sex crime in that respect. In fact, acquittal of a crime is quite verifiable so we don't even have to worry about judgment calls. --Lquilter (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711 and Refsworldlee. --John (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ref and Otto4711 and my strong sense of annoyance. I can conceive of no reason why being charged with and acquitted of a crime is the sort of concept by which we need to define people or provide structured indexes, and I can see many problems with the category that prevent it from being useful or systematic. For instance, given (a) the varying things which have been or are considered "sex crimes" -- anything from rape, romeo-and-juliet laws (consensual sex between youths separated by as little as a year in age that nevertheless is criminalized as "statutory rape"), same-sex sexuality (e.g., my relationship with my lesbian partner), distributing or purchasing dildos in some parts of the US, various marriage offenses (bigamy, marriage of cousins), breastfeeding in public, soliciting for prostitution, being gay in public, distribution of "obscene" material (including birth control information as well as pornography) -- and (b) the varying reasons for charging (witch hunts, moral panics, inter alia) and (c) the varying reasons for acquittal (lack of evidence, lack of will to enforce, bribery by well-off defendants, jury nullification, etc.), this category is entirely too variable to be appropriately definitive. --Lquilter (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Otto and Lquilter. I don't think that this is a defining feature of the category members. Also, it gives me the impression of "people who got away with sex crimes." Just a thought. --Beloved Freak 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what I meant by "no smoke without fire". Sniggering and whispering behind the back of a hand, that sort of caper. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, only because the entire Category:People acquitted of crimes should be dealt with as a whole. The "domino effect" is not good policy, I think. --Eliyak T·C 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The domino reference is not an aim, I merely point out that it may happen as a result. I only have objection to this particular Cat because of the nature of the alleged and unproven crime, which I will tag as "sleazy and sensationalist" just once more, as I seem to have to repeat myself. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and limit by specific definition to those for whom the acquittal is defining. I think it's difficult to argue that such an acquittal is not defining for, for example, William Kennedy Smith. Others, particularly living people, for which it's not defining should not be included. If this were done and effectively implemented the problem with the category pretty much goes away. Snocrates 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the maintenance headache worth it? How many people have this as their only defining characteristic? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not enough, and anyway, who are we to make the absolute final decision as to who is tarred and who isn't? No-one should be - in basis of law, they did not do it, and it should not be defining. If they have nothing else which contributes towards their notability, other than an acquittal, why do they merit articles here in the first place? Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most common law countries, the "acquittal" verdict is "not guilty"; it's not "innocent". A number of courts have pointed out that a finding of "not guilty" does not mean that "they did not do it". Typically it means the allegation could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. An acquittal could also result from a finding of insanity, which by no means suggests the person "didn't do it". In fact, in many jurisdictions, proof of an acquittal may be used if the person is charged with a similar crime in the future, for example. In some civil law countries, there may be 3 possible verdicts: "guilty", "innocent", and "not proven". An "acquittal" results if the verdict is "not proven" or "innocent". This is a knotty legal problem and it's not as simple as simply saying "in basis of law, they did not do it, and it should not be defining". Unfortunately for some individuals, it is defining for them. Snocrates 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why there are Category:People acquitted of international crimes and Category:People acquitted of murder either, but this one seems especially inviting of misuse, as per nom. Per Eliyak, I think the parent category Category:People acquitted of crimes should be deleted as well. What point is there to categories of people to whom something (perhaps) notable almost-but-not-quite happened? How about Category:People who almost won the lottery? RedSpruce (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete variation on "allegations of" categories; I agree with Johnbod and Snocrates that it is defining for some of these people, but having a big nose was defining for Jimmy Durante, but we don't have a category for that either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How many WP:BEANS could you stuff up Durante's nose? I think you just gave some editors an idea, Carlos. :) Snocrates 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vote per Eliyak. All "acquitted of..." categories should be considered as a group. If we are going to have "acquitted of..." categories, I we ought to have one to match every "convicted of..." category. The other option is to have no "acquitted of..." categories, none at all. I don't consider individual decisions to be an option, as this opens the door to aimless navel-gazing about "which ones are okay to have" and "which ones are defamatory to the 'innocent' defendant", based primarily on the nature of the crime which, according to the jury, was never actually committed by the article's subject. All or nothing, please. I really don't care which. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pillar of Fire Church radio stations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Christian radio stations in the United States and Category:Pillar of Fire Church. Conscious (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pillar of Fire Church radio stations to Category:Christian radio stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a three-station Christian radio network with no prospect for growth. Dravecky (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion, but I would note that this category is not only parented by Category:Christian radio stations in the United States, but also by Category:Pillar of Fire Church. As a consequence, I'd suggest that there are two options here: either keep, or ensure that if it is upmerged, it's upmerged into both of its parent categories and not just into the radio stations category. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That's an excellent point and, yes, it should be upmerged to both categories should consensus agree that merger is warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both parents per nom & Bearcat's comment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Russian cellists by genre[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Russian cellists. Conscious (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Hierarchy: [C:Russian Cellists] -> [C:Russian cellists by genre] -> [C:Russian classical cellists]. I am nominated the middle one: I think all the people in the locale of this category should be in Category:Russian cellists, but I moved them all to Category:Russian classical cellists because the latter seems very integrated with the categories itself is in. ALTON .ıl 08:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MUSIC guidelines on the categorization of musicians (found at WP:MUSCAT) have required this intermediate level of category for a long time and so there are hundreds of such categories around. Some, like this one, contain only one sub-category; others, such as Category:American singers by genre contain more. I drew up a list last summer (User:Bencherlite/list of (nationality) (instrument) by genre categories) when there was some discussion about rejigging the guidance (see here, here and my attempt to redraft the guidance here). Discussion rather tailed off, unfortunately. This CfD would be a good opportunity to see what others think. My view is that where there are only a few sub-categories in the "by genre" level, then the genre sub-categories might as well miss out the middle layer; however, examples such as Category:American singers by genre should continue to exist where they help keep the top category (Category:American singers) tidy. So, after all that, my view in this case is upmerge. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as test case - I agree with Bencherlite's summary & suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea. That sounds good. ALTON .ıl 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as part of a larger change. I would like to see that middle layer go away, and just put "(nationality) (genre) (instrument)ers" under "(nationality instrument)ers".--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Thank you to Bencherlite for discussing the background. I'm relieved to know that I'm not the only one who's been concerned about the proliferation of nearly pointless intermediate musical performer categories. I had noticed a bunch of them recently, but felt that dismantling such an extensive array of categories was simply too much to take on. We most definitely should proceed with other similar CFDs as we locate and identify them. Cgingold (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Preserving of Judaism[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what this was intended to be but it clearly was not meant to be a category. Pichpich (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as an empty category and we already have an article on Yochanan ben Zakai. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another user confusing categories with articles. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Phone thriller/horror movies[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. This is not a notable sugenre of horror or thriller movies. Could perhaps be listified but the category is meaningless as the movies have little in common but a plot element.Pichpich (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorisation. --Beloved Freak 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Definitely not a notable enough subgenre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoporific (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the same maladies of "films about" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category that attempts to be excessively specific category (a.k.a. overcategorization) and yet is too vaguely defined. Exactly how much phone do you need? Doczilla (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Organized crime theorists[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Organized crime writers. Conscious (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Organized crime theorists are known as criminologists. The Category:Criminologists already exists. Mafia Expert (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The parent category Category:Criminologists needs to be split up. Category:Organized crime theorists are the authors of Category:Non-fiction books about organized crime, Category:Organized crime novels are written by Category:Organized crime novelists. Stefanomione (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Writers on organized crime Merge per Otto below - many in this category would not recognise a theory if it came up and shot them in the head. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Organized crime writers. Otto4711 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. I don't think the people in this category are "theorists" in the strict academic sense. The name of the category is a bit misleading judging from who is included in it right now. Snocrates 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. Doczilla (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles Summaries[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. It's already transcluded in the template. Kbdank71 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what the purpose of this category is, and its name is screwy to boot.Father Goose (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Articles with article summaries or similar ... looks potentially useful. Carminis (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and move to talk where it belongs. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's only on about a dozen labour-related articles, and what is an "article summary"? Articles with ledes? That's practically all of them. It looks like an aborted idea; a cluster of articles were added a year ago, then nothing more was done.--Father Goose (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. It looks like it's meant to be applied to any article that has an {{article summary}}. At a minimum, the category should be renamed per Carminis and removed from the existing articles and instead transcluded via the {{article summary}} template. However, the concept still has many problems: the summaries are meant to be stored in article subpages (a practice generally frowned upon); the idea shouldn't be limited to Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour; and the implementation of the idea appears to have been abandoned anyway.
So, I propose Rename and move into {{article summary}} and someone else can sort out whether that template and/or concept should be buried or resurrected.--Father Goose (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or that. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or repurpose to talk page this is a maintenance cat, for whether or not a WP article has a summary is certainly not defining for the article's subject. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have dozens (hundreds?) of maintenance cats on article pages, such as Category:Articles with trivia sections or Category:Wikipedia proseline cleanup. I'm not saying we should have maintenance cats on article pages, but their use is routine.--Father Goose (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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