Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Category:British nobility[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category overlaps with all the specific categories fr the different orders of nobility. It has no parent. It is quite unnecessary as all the others are sufficient. Bduke (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I considered it a possible parent category for all the others, like Earldoms, Baronetcies etc.CharltonTillIDie (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Peers of the United Kingdom is the parent category and in any event if it was a parent it should not be populated with articles as it is, but only with sub-categories. This categories is redundant and should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are already categories for groups of peers under Category:Peerage, so this one is rather redundant. Technically we don't have a 'nobility' anyway. Craigy (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I accept all above comments, and their wisdom, but can't there be a list of all nobles/peers? CharltonTillIDie (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many thousand cats do we need for the same thing? Also, can SE7 refrain from placing it in articles, esp. in pre-1707 guys for whom British doesn't apply. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above. We already have Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom above the peerage cat. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all comments accepted and i agree deletion is the best policy - however, I really want to implement the scheme suggested by Sardanaphalus, but obvious the attraction with a category is how it is easily added to a list, whereas the nobility's preference to keep names in the family means it would be very confusing maintaining a list with not way of checking if an article has already been included - PLEASE HELP!!!! XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand all that, sorry... could you explain again, maybe with an example? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:22, 21 March 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:UK Deaths in Custody[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:People who died in prison custody. Kbdank71 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK Deaths in Custody to Category:People who died in police custody in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarity and naming conventions. Tim! (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - although the category does need to be renamed to correct the capitalization issues, the lead article is not limited to deaths in police custody. It also includes deaths in psychiatric custody. The suggested rename doesn't address the scope of the lead article. Otto4711 (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deaths while in custody in the United Kingdom" (assuming there could be/already are "Deaths while in custody in (country)" categories)..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent category. Only four articles at present, and not even that many in the parent category. Compare with it's sister category Category:People who died in prison custody, which isn't broken down by country. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:People who died in police custody per Lugnuts...only 11 articles in this, no need to cull out the 4 in the UK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 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:Characters resulting from Ontolodox Paradox[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters resulting from Ontolodox Paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This newly-created category is a duplicate of Category:Ontolodoxical characters, which is currently under discussion for either deletion or renaming. In that CFD I have patiently explained to the category's creator that invented terms (i.e. "ontolodox") simply cannot be used in Wikipedia Category names, and repeatedly asked him to suggest an alternative name for consideration. Rather than joining the discussion, he responded to the situation by creating this new category as a sort of "end run" around the CFD process. If possible, this new category should be Speedy deleted (though I'm not sure it technically qualifies). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "In that CFD I have patiently explained to the category's creator that invented terms (i.e. "ontolodox") simply cannot be used in Wikipedia Category names"? Huh? That was never the issue. *I* proposed that if the name was the problem, then we should change the name rather than delete the category. And, yes, I have no alternative name, but there are a lot of smart people here. The term "ontolodox" exists on a Wikipedia page. Thank you for completely misrepresenting the discussion there. I didn't invent it, someone else did. Perhaps it is an invented word, but we should correct the page I got it from too. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked you over and over to help us come up with an acceptable name that might permit the category to be retained. Now that you've finally decided to engage in a serious discussion we might actually get somewhere, Duggy. Cgingold (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's very definable. A character who is their own ancestor. Useful, well, I think so. But that's for the consensus to decide. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Kbdank. I see no reason to continue this particular discussion any further -- it really should be closed & deleted forthwith, since even its creator now appears to agree that there's no need for it. Cgingold (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated the category for renaming here but as always deletion is also on the table. Otto4711 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 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.


Members of girl groups and boy bands[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of girl groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Members of boy bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't have "Members of heavy metal bands" or "Members of R&B bands," so these two hard-to-pin-down categories, created before Category:Musicians by band was fully populated, seem to have outgrown their usefulness. I've made sure that any band with three or more member articles has been categorized under "Category:Foo members" and put those under Category:Musicians by band. What remains is a few stragglers whose bands have not gotten that many member articles. (There are also some complete duos, but we haven't been categorizing those with members categories.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Taking a look at Category:Puffy AmiYumi members, Category:Big & Rich members, and Category:Dos members, I note that in some places we do have categories with two-member groups. So I categorized those with only two members, which will drop the number of straggler articles down to those where only one member has an article (5 "boys" and 10 "girls").--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like over-tidying to me. These categories are logical parent categories for their constituent "members of" categories, if nothing else; but they also seem like useful category-navigation aids for articles for those people for whom there isn't a "member of" category (taking Luke Goss as an example, if this category is deleted, there is nothing else in the categories list to link him to his membership of a boy band). That boy-band / girl-group are ill-defined terms is easily dealt with in our standard fashion - if we can find a reliable source which says it is one, it is one, else it isn't. SP-KP (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "girl group" and "boy band" are subjective and being a member of any-ole-one isn't defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carlossuarez46. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 20 March 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.


Sugarland categories[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 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Category:Sugarland members to Category:Sugarland (band) members
Category:Sugarland albums to Category:Sugarland (band) albums
Category:Sugarland songs to Category:Sugarland (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: I don't know how to do multiple CfD listings (or if that's even acceptable), so here goes. Rename to match naming conventions for the band's article, which is Sugarland (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-factored these into one discussion for several reasons which should be obvious. The most important one is that all three proposals should have the same result. The curiously empty <span/> tags at the top are to avoid breaking any incoming section links. — CharlotteWebb 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There doesn't seem to be a need to disambiguate from the candy or the upcoming De Niro film, and the similarly named locations aren't spelled the same way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if a parent category existed for these subcats (which it probably should, for navigational ease, but that's another story), it would undoubtedly be titled Category:Sugarland (band) to match the article. The counter-argument here is that the words in the second half of the sub-cat titles ("...members", "...albums", "...songs") make it obvious that the first half is the name of a band. While convenient, this realization generally doesn't scale to other situations. Weak support renaming to "Sugarland (band) [foo]". — CharlotteWebb 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename for clarity and to match the main article. While the potential for confusion is less in this case than in various others, I think the addition of the "(band)" disambiguator would be a net positive. Incidentally, Sugarland members could be taken to refer to cast members of the upcoming film Sugarland, and Sugarland songs could be interpreted as being a category for songs that are present in the film's soundtrack. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:09, 26 March 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:Companies of Russia by location[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies of Russia by location to Category:Companies of Russia by city
Nominator's rationale: To fit in with categorising Category:Companies by city, in which categories will be created to categorise the cities by country Russavia (talk) 15:26, 16 March 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 from Lawrence, Kansashi[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 deleted as the by-product of vandalism which has been reverted [1]. Of course the result is identical to that of a formal category merge, but that would be too dignified a description for this particular case. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Lawrence, Kansashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:People from Lawrence, Kansas, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 14:47, 16 March 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:Dissident physicists[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, ill-defined inclusion criteria on several fronts, POV decisions seem inescapable. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dissident physicists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There appears to be no encyclopedic criterion for inclusion here, besides what the category's creator envisions. It is unclear how Adolf Grunbaum and Raul Painleve, for instance, qualify as Dissident physicists. Neither of them are described as "dissidents" in the article. The blurb for the category says "Physicists who dissent from modern physics or relativity theory." Most of the physicists in the category appear not to be dissidents in this sense. silly rabbit (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Listify as nominator. This should be deleted, or at least listified so that some explanation and sources can be provided for a particular person's inclusion. silly rabbit (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm rather dubious about the merits of this Category, but I'd like to hear what it's creator has to say about all of this. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My impression of this category is that it was created for POV reasons; its creator wrote Thomas G. Barnes and a series of other creationists/crackpots/"dissidents", then used this category to praise them by association with famous physicists. Bm gub (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dissident from what or whom? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very POV. Many of the articles included give no suggestion why the individual should be labelled a "dissident" or "maverick". Even scientists who famously championed minority positions -- eg Einstein against the sufficiency of quantum mechanics; or Fred Hoyle against the Big Bang -- don't really make a coherent group; and it's a travesty to make so broad a claim that they dissent from "modern physics or relativity theory", when their dissents were very much couched within the orthodox terms of those theories. Possibly there might be scope for an article, to explore different famous dissents against mainstream opinion. But again I fear the inclusion would be typically POV/OR, unless an RSs could be found giving an authoritative external assessment of who the most significant "dissenters" were. As things stand at the moment though, IMO this category is too vague, too diverse, too potentially position-pushing, and its inclusion criterion too subjective and too open to abuse for it to remain. Delete it. Jheald (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague (and probably POV) unless someone can demonstrate that "dissident" has a unique and well-known meaning that applies to physicists, such that "dissident physicists" is a particular concept that is well-known and well-understood to have that particular meaning. --Lquilter (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and POV. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. The criteria might be listed more precisely as Physicists who differ or dissent from significant portions of the Einsteinian version of relativity theory. Having notability and academic credentials, not one of the people included in this list could be regarded as a "crackpot", but all of them at one time or another expressed doubts as to the validity of Einsteinian relativity. The documentation for their doubts may be found in the linked Wikipedia articles, almost without exception. If any lack such documentation, they could legitimately be removed from the list. The voice of these doubts is significant enough to warrant retention of the list. The term "dissident" was used by people in the list, like Petr Beckmann, to describe themselves. Thousands of scientists today, both inside and outside academia, categorize themselves with this label. Greg Volk
  • Delete - Greg's comments above helped me make a decision on this one, that it's overcategorization by belief or opinion. Based on his description, it's also subjective. What constitutes a "significant" portion of Einsteinian relativity theory? Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. It is not anyone's opinion that these people objected to relativity theory, but a matter of record contained in the Wikipedia articles themselves. You don't have to agree with their beliefs to recognize that they believed them. "Significant portions" could be rephrased as "fundamental tenets", including the constancy of the speed of light, interdependence of time and space, point particles, and Maxwellian covariance. Debate over a particular individual's inclusion is certainly appropriate, but it is a fact that many people since 1905 have objected to the basic elements of Einsteinian theory. Greg Volk
  • Delete - Even if we were to give this category a better name, along the lines of, say, Category:Physicists who challenged Einsteinian relativity, I'm not persuaded that this is an overwhelminginly noteworthy distinction in the careers of each of these people. (perhaps for a few, but not for all of them) Cgingold (talk) 05:40, 22 March 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:Automotive timeline templates[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 20:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Automotive timeline templates to Category:Automotive company timeline templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent is Category:Automotive company navigational boxes. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:28, 16 March 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:Wasps Rugby[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 match head article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wasps Rugby to Category:London Wasps
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the category's main article and subcategories. – PeeJay 10:04, 16 March 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:LGBT serial killers[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, no compelling reasons to rescind prior decisions, and consensus to keep not apparent. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT serial killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Could possibly be speedied as re-created category previously deleted. In the WP:OCAT discussion of non-notable intersections, Category:LGBT murderers is given as an example of a non-notable intersection, and it was deleted in 2006 JAN 26 CFD. This serial killers category was then deleted in 2006 JAN 31 CFD. I think it still qualifies as a non-notable intersection of sexual orientation and criminal behaviour. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Category:LGBT serial killers. There is some evidence this is a cultural or historical topic[2], but I'm uncertain if it's enough or a good idea to start down the road of "serial killers by ethnicity, race, religion, psychological ailment, etc."--T. Anthony (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. According to the above link to WP:OCAT:

    "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one."

There is a distinction to be made between murderers who murder for a variety of unconnected reasons and serial killers who murder because of a psychological impulse. As someone who has his whole life stood up for gay rights, I think that LGBT issues should be treated just the same as straight ones. Also, if being 'LGBT' can be put down to brain wiring, some kind of correlation with serial murder (caused by brain wiring) is not unarguable. More importantly, the subject is a "unique cultural topic in its own right" as attested here, here, and here (page 514 only. WARNING - the page below it contains a disturbing crime scene photo)) for example. Furthermore, a head article could easily be written for this category I think.
To sum up: the deleted category for 'LGBT murderers' would contain unconnected types of killers. This cat for serial killers automatically contains a more limited range of people whose two defining characteristics could be linked somehow. It is therefore of academic interest as shown by the article links above. Malick78 (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - you're using Family Research Institute as a source? Do you know anything about that group? WP:FRINGE, at best. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I'm not saying they are right, but their discussion of it shows it is a unique cultural topic in its own right. That's the criterium. (Even Flat Earth has an article.) Malick78 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then create an article. But there is no Category:Flat Earthers. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: no one thinks Category:LGBT actors is about actors who play LGBT characters, so no misunderstanding is likely here either. Malick78 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response: that would be the difference between Category:Serial LGBT killers and the current version. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 18 March 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:Murderers of the elderly[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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Murderers of the elderly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Problematic inclusion criteria. How old does a victim have to be to be classified as "elderly"? 100 years ago, someone who was 55 might have been seen as "elderly", whereas today, probably not. Without a set cut-off, deciding whether or not to include an article is somewhat arbitrary. And setting a cut-off would also be arbitrary since there is no universally-accepted age at which someone becomes "elderly". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tried to think of a better name so I'm open to suggestions. I concede the point regarding the wording of the inclusion criteria, though in practice when you read the word 'elderly' you know what it means. The cat though is meant to collect those such as Harold Shipman, Colin Norris and potentially John Bodkin Adams (if consensus ever turns to him being categorisable as a serial killer) - people who targeted the old. The cat is obviously of academic interest - some killers go for children, some for the elderly. Wording is the only problem I see, but Category:Murderers of children also has problematic wording (the definition of minority differs in all cultures). How about Category:Murderers of people of a pensionable age? :) Malick78 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the age of a murderer's victim or victims is non-defining and there is no possible objective definition of "elderly." Otto4711 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: it's completely defining. Serial killers are defined and profiled by law enforcement agencies according to who they target. If the definition of "elderly" is problematic, put a notice at the top of the cat page saying "over-65s". "Children" after all are generally just "under 16". The ungainly definition problem is outweighed by the benefit to research. Malick78 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not appear to be a category exclusively for serial killers, so whatever profilers may do regarding serial killers strikes me as being less than relevant to a general "murderers" category. Pointing to the murderers of children category cuts no ice with me, because its existence has no bearing on whether this category should exist and, indeed, I doubt that the murderers of children category should exist either. Deciding that "elderly" means "65 and over" is completely arbitrary and subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many would, and many would not. Arbitrary. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elderly is totally ambiguous. You can join AARP at 50. You can get discounts as elderly at 50, 55 60, 61, 62, 64 and 65 and probably a few more variations based on how companies define it. Senior communities are frequently setting 55 as the youngest you can be to live there. So even picking a specific year would appear to be completely arbitrary.Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More examples of ambiguity: where I live, you get free car parking at city parking meters when you are 75, your government old-age pension starts at 65, many businesses give discounts beginning at age 55, and you can take the bus for half price on an "age-discount" at age 50. Which of these are elderly, or are they all? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable subject, "elderly is ambiguous" - if someone over whatever age is considered elderly was killed in the 9/11 attacks, do we get to peg this cat on Osama bin Laden too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is preferable that the category definition (on the category page) tries to exclude vague and/or non-Neutral point of view (NPOV) cases. In many cases, only referencing a Wikipedia article explaining the term is not sufficient as a definition for a category. This is true for almost every sensitive category."

Now, maybe I've missed something, but this issue is more important for "sensitive" cats. So how "sensitive" is this category really? I would say not very. Let's not go over the top here with the arbitrariness of the definition issue - there is a lot to be gained by having a cat to compare killers who targeted a certain kind of victim. The likelihood of abuse of it is small and is outweighed by its usefulness IMHO. Malick78 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are happy about being wishy-washy about elderly, then this is not a notable topic at all - killers of people older than X, where X is left wholly undefined has never been discussed in literature. No peer reviewed journal would accept a paper about killers of people of an undefined age because you could vary the age to prove any point you wish to assert (POV, OR). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a nice little article to start with. I'll look for more though (and with definitions of 'elderly'). But it shows that this is at least a worthwhile issue :)) A "unique cultural topic in its own right". Malick78 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is not a category for "serial killers." It is not Category:Serial killers of the elderly so information relating to serial killers is not terribly relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I'll change my opinion to Rename to Category:Serial killers who targeted the elderly. A trip to the local Waterstones to check the above mentioned book showed that the author and those in the field take 60 as the age when people begin to be seen as elderly (by their killers). The author, btw, is Britain's foremost criminologist it would seem (according to internet and newspaper coverage). Malick78 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and articleify - Even going along with narrowing the category to "serial killers", this appears to really be the sort of thing that would be more appropriate for an article about the topic of serial killers targeting the elderly, with an internal or associated list as appropriate. Creating a category instead of an article isn't really helpful, since it doesn't explain why we should care that serial killers target the elderly or how that's been studied or anything else about the topic. --Lquilter (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's and Otto4711's arguments. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:38, 19 March 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:West Texas Hall of Fame[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 both. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:West Texas Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buddy Holly West Texas Walk of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Seems like overcategorization by award to me that would be better treated as a list. (Both categories refer to the same walk/hall of fame.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buddy Holly's widow forced the City of Lubbock to remove his name from the West Texas Walk of Fame unless she was paid $10,000 annually for use of the name. The city therefore renamed it the "West Texas Hall of Fame". It is a walkway.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom and WP:OCAT. If kept then merge the Buddy Holly category to the Hall of Fame category per Billy's comment. Otto4711 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both OCAT by trivial award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - overcategorization by award, and unnecessary eponymous categories for award-granting organizations. Lists in the appropriate articles will be much better for providing and monitoring this information. --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 19 March 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.

Congo-Kinshasa[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 but the last two. This was rather a toss-up, the nominator's argument is not terribly strong as how most of the diaspora never lived in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Still, the categories have to be called something. The present name, which matches the main article, is the most obvious choice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Congo-Kinshasa diaspora to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo diaspora
Category:Congo-Kinshasa emigrants to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo emigrants
Category:Congo-Kinshasa immigrants to Belgium to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo immigrants to Belgium
Category:Congo-Kinshasa immigrants to Canada to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo immigrants to Canada
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriate footballers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriate footballers
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates in Belgium to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates in Belgium
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates in Cyprus to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates in Cyprus
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates in Israel to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates in Israel
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates in Portugal to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates in Portugal
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates in Turkey to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates in Turkey
Category:Congo-Kinshasa expatriates in the United States to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates in the United States
Category:Americans of Congo-Kinshasa descent to Category:Americans of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent
Category:Belgians of Congo-Kinshasa descent to Category:Belgians of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent
Category:Canadians of Congo-Kinshasa descent to Category:Canadians of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent
Category:Portuguese of Congo-Kinshasa descent to Category:Portuguese of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent
Category:English Congo-Kinshasa people to Category:English-Democratic Republic of the Congo people
Category:Congolese-Dutch people to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo-Dutch people
Category:Congolese-Belgian people to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo-Belgian people
Nominator's rationale: Rename all Some of these are probably technically speediable based on improper use of country name, but because the change was not just an expansion of an obviously abbreviated country name like "USA" (and because there are so many of them), I was more comfortable proposing the changes here. WP:NCCAT says "Congo-Kinshasa" should be "Democratic Republic of the Congo", because that is the name of the article for the country. All individuals included are from the DRC, not the Republic of the Congo. I haven't included Category:Congolese-French people since it includes people from DRC and RC and it would probably be simpler to just separate these out into separate DRC/RC categories manually (if at all). I don't know much about some of these kinds of "combined nationality" categories, but some of them seem quite redundant to me and I would welcome any other suggestions to clean them up. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • rename all except the last two the last one changed to Category:Dutch people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent and no need for two Belgian. BTW, the French one i mistakenly put both Congo people inside. Matthew_hk tc 15:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why are some of the proposed categories being created in the middle of this CFD? Is it too much to ask for everyone to wait for a few days to see the outcome of the proposal and refrain from changing things mid-discussion? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 20 March 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:Aircraft manufacturers of the Soviet Union and Russia[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: relisted for further discussion at 2008 Mar 22. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the Soviet Union and Russia to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: The Soviet Union and Russia are and were two different entities, and whilst Russia is the legal successor to most issues relating to the Soviet Union, economic and industrial entities were split up amongst the various Soviet countries upon their independence, e.g. Antonov was an industrial entity of the USSR, but since the breakup of the USSR, it is an Ukrainian enterprise, not a Russian one. Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Russia already exists, so this category should renamed to reflect the Soviet heritage of the enterprises concerned. The Russian stand-alone category was created as there are enterprises which were formed after the independence of Russia from the USSR, so they can not be classified at Soviet aircraft enterprises by any stretch of the imagination. Although, of course, it is entirely possible to have an enterprise existent in both the standalone Soviet Union and Russian categories; reflecting the continuation of the enterprise post-USSR. This category move could also have implications for other categories of the aviation project. Russavia (talk) 05:02, 16 March 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:Pakastani clothing and textile companies[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 as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pakastani clothing and textile companies to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Pakistan
Nominator's rationale: The category has Pakistan spelled incorrectly. Russavia (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Rename will make page name consistent with others in category. Speedy rename. TheEditrix2 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative/mild oppose Support, but would like to see them all nominated: Right now in Category:Clothing and textile companies by country there are 10 subcategories (including this one) that use "Fooian clothing and textile companies", 9 that use "Clothing companies of Foo" or some variant of this, and 2 that use inappropriate country abbreviations. I see no consistency at all here and I think a broader nomination should be proposed to standardise all of them. I agree, though, that "Clothing and textile companies of Foo" would be ideal to mirror other similar company categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not support the rename if it is the correct form? It is common to propose one item and if there appears to be support to rename the remaining ones. It can be a lot of work to tag all categories when there is no consensus on which form to use. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, thanks, that approach makes more sense to me now, and I have changed my bolded comment appropriately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom as the naming convention that should be used. These have nothing to do with 'nationality', but all to do with 'country' Hmains (talk) 18:49, 16 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_16&oldid=1136463327"