Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15[edit]

Germans from Bohemia and Moravia[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 first two, no consensus on last three. Kbdank71 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of potentially conflicting categories concerning Germans from Bohemia. An earlier discussion at WP:CZECH ultimately was inconclusive, so I'd like to initiate a wider discussion here. Similar to the Alsatian German proposal below, Category:German natives of Bohemia and Category:German natives of Moravia would be better at Category:Bohemian Germans and Category:Moravian Germans. Category:Sudeten Germans would remain as a subcategory of Category:Bohemian Germans, and would focus on the 19th and 20th concept of Sudeten Germans.

Category:Czech Germans and Category:German-Czech people also need to be clarified or merged. "Czech Germans" currently contains both Germans born in Czechoslovakia and Czechs born in Germany. "German-Czech people" seems like it could be merged into other categories. Olessi (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename both Bohemian and Moravian ones. "Sudeten Germans" should not be categorized under Bohemian one as substantial part of Sudetes is a part of Silesia. Category "Czech Germans" is a standard category for Germans with Czech ethnic ancestry, same as "Bosnian-Germans" or "Albanian-Germans". "German-Czech people" should be probably merged. - Darwinek (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Czech Germans" makes sense referring to Germans with Czech ancestry; Nicole Vaidišová needs to be recategorized then (Category:German Czechs?). "Sudeten Germans" could easily be a subcategory of both "Bohemian Germans" and Category:Silesian Germans, since the Sudetes overlap regions. Olessi (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no, general English language preference is "ethnicity-citizenship", see e.g. Cat:German people by ethnic or national origin or Cat:European Americans, to name some. I don't think Silesian Germans would be useful category, since vast majority of Silesia was in Prussia (Germany) and majority of its citizens were Germans anyway. - Darwinek (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want "Sudeten Germans" as a subcategory of "Bohemian Germans", then many biographies in the former would have to be categorized in the latter as well, since many of the Sudeten Germans lived in Bohemia instead of Silesia. Olessi (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you understood me wrongly. I am OK with this subcategorization. I just think category "Silesian Germans" is redundant. - Darwinek (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Bohemian and Moravian ones should be renamed, and that "German-Czech people" should be merged with "Czech Germans". Because "Bohemian Germans" and "Moravian Germans" could easily be classified as subsets of "Czech Germans", the latter should apply to "Czech" in the sense of post-World War II Czechoslovakia or its successor state, the Czech Republic, while the former (Bohemian and Moravian Germans) should apply during and prior to World War II, when "Moravian" and "Bohemian" are more accurate and "Czech" potentially misleading, as "Czech" lands were then variously part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, occupied by Germany, or otherwise not distinctly "Czech". HLT (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with the exception of "Czech Germans", this category is supposed to be for German citizens of Czech ancestry, per "ethnicity-citizenship" precedence and general use on Wikipedia. You can't change that, because you would must change hundreds of similar categories. - Darwinek (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with Roundhouse0 below; just because there are some disputed articles does not mean that the baby should be tossed out with the bathwater. Assuming the categories are to be kept, my recommendation is as follows: "German natives of Bohemia" to "Bohemian Germans"; "German natives of Moravia" to "Moravian Germans"; "Sudeten Germans" as a subcategory. I see "Czech Germans" as part of Category:German people by ethnic or national origin and in contrast to the hypothetical "German(-)Czechs" (Category:Czech people by ethnic or national origin); there can be overlap between the aforementioned categories. The current "German-Czech people" cat should be merged into other categories based on each article, not en masse. Olessi (talk) 23:02, 19 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:German natives of Alsace[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. Kbdank71 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:German natives of Alsace to Category:Alsatian Germans
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Earlier discussions ([1] [2]) have indicated that biographies should not be categorized by both ethnicity and location. I have begun categorizing articles at Category:People from Alsace-Lorraine, referring solely to the administrative territory, not the individual's ethnicity (German, French, etc). Individuals not from the 1871-1918 time period should be categorized under Category:People from Alsace or Category:People from Lorraine. To cover the ethnicity angle, individuals (regardless of time period) can be categorized under Category:Alsatian Germans, a subcategory of Category:German people by ethnic or national origin. Olessi (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. This seems like a reasonable change for clarity and simplicity. Hmains (talk) 22:51, 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:Korean diaspora[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: keep. Kbdank71 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Korean diaspora to Category:Korean people by ethnic or national origin
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories basically duplicate each other. I am not wedded to the direction of the merge, but one should be merged into another. I am also not enthusiastic about the names of either of these categories; additional discussion on whether a third name is appropriate would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 18:50, 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:Surf breaks by country[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 all. Kbdank71 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Surf breaks by country to Category:Surfing locations by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am proposing this renaming because I think Locations by country should be a subcat of Category:Surfing locations, and I feel the use of "breaks" or "locations" should be standardized in the clearest way possible. "Location" is, I think, the more encyclopedic term. "Surf break" is more of a surfer's term; people might confuse it as a category for jetties and harbors, for example, which also "break surf." If successful, the sub-categories Category:Surf breaks in Australia, Category:Surf breaks in Indonesia, etc. should be similarly renamed, as well. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 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:Alumni of Freiburg University[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. Kbdank71 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Freiburg University to Category:University of Freiburg alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardize with other categories at Category:Alumni by university or college in Germany. Olessi (talk) 17:54, 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:Georg August University of Göttingen[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 all. Kbdank71 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georg August University of Göttingen to Category:University of Göttingen
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I moved the article from Georg-August University of Göttingen to University of Göttingen according to WP:GERCON. Related categories, such as Category:Georg-August University of Göttingen alumni and Category:Georg-August University of Göttingen faculty, should also be moved. Olessi (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar situations: Category:Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg to Category:University of Heidelberg, with Category:Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg alumni and Category:Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg faculty. Olessi (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. (That is, the 3 Göttingen ones, and the 3 Heidelberg ones.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment related Göttingen and Heidelberg categories have been tagged. Olessi (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, rename them but don't forget the redirects! Fred Plotz (talk) 22:04, 16 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:Binary asteroids[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 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Binary asteroids to Category:Asteroids with moons
Nominator's rationale: 'Binary asteroids' is an outmoded term, as several asteroids are known to have two moons, including 87 Sylvia, 2003 EL61 and 2001 SN263. 'Asteroids with moons' is more open to future discoveries, and fits the main article, asteroid moon. Rubble pile (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Travtim(Talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the asteroid's moon is also an asteroid... and if the two components were similar in size, would it be a moon? Though this would mean what goes in Category:Asteroid satellites won't appear here, which is good. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending suggestion of a better name. Whilst "Binary asteroids" implies there are only two objects, "Asteroids with moons" is no better, as it implies that the secondary body is a satellite, which is not always the case. Proposal is a good idea, but needs a rethink. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the page asteroid moon, it seems that 'multiple asteroids' might be the only appropriate term in that case. Either that or create a new category 'triple asteroids' to go alongside 'binary asteroids', but that seems overly divisive. Rubble pile (talk) 14:01, 18 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:Indian costume designers[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: keep for now, provided more articles are found/created. Kbdank71 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Indian costume designers to Category:Costume designers
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only 3 articles in this category. The only nationality which is subcategorized, this seems unnecessary to me. Rtphokie (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
decline move While I would be all for merging generally, costume design is a major part of the Indian film industry and there is likely to be a far greater number of biogrpahies which are important in design in Indian film which could be covered. At present a merge seems plausible, but if costume design was covered in more detail there are likely to be many personalities in the Indian film industry which are prominent designers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
decline - Costumes constitute an integral part of the Indian film industry, and everybody is very aware of this. The problem with it being very short in terms of available names is temporal. We will create more articles about Indian designer. Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, as per Shahid above Travtim(Talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Costume design varies considerably from country to country. Far from eliminating this sub-category, I would strongly encourage creating many additional sub-cats by nationality! Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 16 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:Dürer paintings[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 to Category:Dürer paintings and prints. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dürer paintings to Category:Dürer paintings and prints
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Only one of the articles in the category is a painting. Mats Halldin (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We keep that for authors - and Durer did write books, but we don't have articles on them, nor are we likely to have. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is this an instance where the first name of the artist should be included in the category name? Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last discussion, I personally don't favour this for big name artists where there is no likelihood of confusion, Category:Rubens paintings etc, and most such cats don't do this, but there are arguments for it - matching main article etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way is fine with me, just throwing it out there for consideration. Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 20 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:Visitor attractions in Greater Tampa[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 to Category:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area. Kbdank71 14:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Tampa to Category:Visitor attractions in Tampa Bay Area
Nominator's rationale The term "Greater Tampa" is not used at all in this area. The area is known as the "Tampa Bay Area" and even has its own article to prove it. "Greater Tampa" gives the impression that the area is dominated by Tampa (like NYC, Chicago, Philly all dominate their areas, but oddly enough, none of those are referred to as "Greater x", either), but there are the large stand-alone cities more than 1/2 the size of Tampa itself of St. Petersburg and Clearwater that are also included in the Tampa Bay area. So, I think it would be more apropos to have the category reflect the real name of the area. EaglesFanInTampa 13:49, 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:People who entered the Witness Protection Program[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 14:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who entered the Witness Protection Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Obsolete. Only Sicilian mafiosi are mentioned. Category is already covered by Category:Pentiti. - Mafia Expert (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Only set up today, so the fact "only Sicilian mafiosi are mentioned" is not the end of the world. Not the same as Pentiti, but whether it should be a sub-cat of that may bwe an issue later. I notice Henry Hill, probably the most widely-known example of both thanks to Goodfellas, is not in either category; you guys need to organize your crime a bit better maybe? Cent' anni! Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You are entirely right that the categories about crime are a terrible mess. Moreover, they are growing like wildfire. They should be re-organized before any new ones are created, adding to the confusiom. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a category worth having, and there must be non-mafiosi WPP alumni we have articles on, in which case it should end up detatched from the pentiti. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 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:Aztec people[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 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aztec people to Category:Nahua people
Nominator's rationale: "Aztec" is an ambiguous name, and usually avoided in scholarly sources. "Nahua" is what the category is already being used to mean, and renaming it makes it more appropriate for including the modern people, who are rarely called "Aztec". Ptcamn (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rarely by specialized academics maybe; absolutely always by everyone else, and by the main article Aztec. Maybe a redirect could be added. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod. Also none of the articles listed under the present category are of contemporaneous people. If more articles of modern Nahua are created, perhaps it would be appropriate to create another category. — Zerida 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod and Zerida. And note that the parent cat, Category:Aztec, also has six other sub-cats that use the term "Aztec". Cgingold (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd reckon that Ptcamn has created more articles on Aztec and Nahua personages, both pre- and post-conquest, than any other, and raises here some quite valid points. Popular usage and (mis-)conceptions notwithstanding, there are important distinctions to be drawn between 'Aztec', 'Nahua', 'Mexica', &c.; it's just that we still do an imperfect job of making these distinctions clear in our coverage here. Also, I suspect the main reason there are no modern people in this category is not because they're not out there, but because as Ptcamn notes it would be incongruous to do so. And yet, it's going to be hard to avoid using 'Aztec' completely in some precolumbian context, as ambiguous as it may be. How about, we go ahead and create Category:Nahua people regardless, which could hold those (both ancient and modern) for whom 'Aztec' would be ill-fitting. Retain Category:Aztec people as a subcat, with an option open to revisit this in separate discussion on how best to categorise individuals from late postclassic and conquest-era central mexican states and groups. --cjllw ʘ

TALK 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if anyone objects to Category:Nahua people for post-Conquest people. That doesn't in itself need discussing here. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just a problem for postconquest peoples, but very much so for preconquest Nahuas some of whom were decidedly non-aztec.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The category as it is used would also include people of Nahuan affiliation that are decidedly non-Aztec, such as for example the colonial Tlaxcaltecs who were enemies of the participants of the aztec triple alliance. Either separate categories should be created for every nahuan ethnicity such as "tlaxcaltec people", "Huexotzinca people" "texcocan people", "Tepanec people", "colhua people", "Huitzilipochtec people", "chalcan people" etc. or a more inclusive nomenclature should be used for example "Nahua people". Anything else is like using the term "American people" to include both Mexicans, Canadians, U.S. citizens, or "Arab people" to include persians. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subcats by nahuan polity/group should be fine, I think. It may even help to make clearer distinctions that should be warranted. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But then the highlevel category should be Nahua people and not aztec people. And then the aztec category would become superflouous because the people who could be called aztec would be in the categorys of "mexica people", "tlatelolca people", "texcoca people" and "tepanec people"·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed that Nahua ppl would be the natural highest-level cat. We might still retain Aztec at the next level, which in turn could contain further subcats for these polities/groups; other groups that do not sit comfortably with an Aztec label can have their subcats at the same level as Aztec ppl, under Nahua. Or something like that. Probably are not going to be able to finalise Aztec-scope question here, before this closes; suggest continuation at WT:MESO or talk:Aztec.--cjllw ʘ TALK 12:15, 21 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:Transit agencies in Canada[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 to Category:Public transportation in Canada. Precedent is to use "transport" or "transportation", whichever is used by the country in question. Unfortunately, a quick view of Category:Transportation in Canada fails to indicate which is used more often/frequently, outside of the name Category:Transportation in Canada. Kbdank71 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transit agencies in Canada to Category:Public transport in Canada
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category serves de facto the same role as all the categories in Category:Public transport by country. Probably all the provincial subcategories should also be renamed. We could always create a new category for public transport in Canada and place the Transit agencies as a subcategory but this would just create a superfluous level of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 05:21, 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:Bring It On actors[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) 05:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bring It On actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Should we really be categorizing actors by film series? We could easily have hundreds of categories like this, but it seems very much like over categorization to me. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - performer by performance overcategorization by overwhelming precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should probably close all such debates when they pop up. The precedent is indeed overwhelming and people commenting here (like, say, me) are just wasting time. Pichpich (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Travtim(Talk) 17:47, 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:Famous androgynes[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: speedy delete: recreation of deleted content, empty, pure vandalism, WP:SNOW – take your pick of closing rationale. BencherliteTalk 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Famous androgynes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category really puzzles me. How does someone define that a specific person is androgyne? Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no possible objective inclusion criterion. For those who are alive, WP:BLP concerns are evident. Otto4711 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because we do not do "famous X" which is a recapitulation of notability, and "androgyny" is subjective. --Lquilter (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with all three above. In the end, this requires a subjective assessment. (on both counts) Pichpich (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above Travtim(Talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was amused to see some the name of Annie Lennox? Why, I wonder? Because she wears her hair short and sometimes -- though by no means exclusively -- performed in men's attire? So did Marlene Dietrich. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. This is borderline vandalism.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Unless an individual verifiably identifies as being androgynous, their categorisation as such would be subjective and possibly contentious. In view of WP:V and WP:BLP, this category seems ill-considered. Error -128 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category is now empty as well. All entries were put by the same user in a single day. the same day the same user added misleading information in many articles of Lost TV series characters which were all reverted. -- 13:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_15&oldid=1147871658"