Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22

< September 21	September 23 >

September 22[edit]

Category:Leicester City F.C. directors and chairmen[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 18:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only 1 article and therefore seems pointless having the category. Skitzo (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are there no other Leicester City directors (past or present) that are notable enough for their own articles? If not, then this category needs populating. Other clubs have similar categories, so this one should stay if enough articles can be found to fill it. – Pee Jay 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a defining characteristic for Milan Mandaric (and I expect there are others). As an aside, the name is ambiguous as there are 'directors' (board members, presumably) and 'directors of football', eg Dave Bassett. Occuli (talk) 08:46, 23 September 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 people of Cork descent[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. Kbdank71 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: You can come from Cork - You can descend from a famous person - You cannot descend from Cork. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We have Americans of Irish descent, but we have not started categorising them by county. A category like this should only be applied if the descent is a notable characteristic, and I doubt this applies to any of the people listed. Two of them (Jeremy Irons and Barbara Windsor) probably only appear as a result of appearing in the BBC TV Series "Who do you think you are?", having been unaware of these roots before the prgramme researched their ancestry. This is thus a trivial characteristic for them. Another person is also categorised as a Panamian-American. It may be that a few members should be upmerged to an Irish category, but that should not apply to British people, for whom some Irish ancestry is so common as to be unremarkable. Probably, delete the lot, but I have not checked them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I fear it may be too late.. I would not have had a problem with a category name of 'People with Cork ancestry' as a subset of a category People with Irish ancestry'. However, a whole tree of 'descent' categories is already in place including category 'Filipinos of Irish descent' etc. etc. and remarkably the article 'Albert II, Prince of Monaco' is categorised as 'People of Irish descent'. No references in the article, no source, nothing. This is upside-down. Ian Cairns (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People of Irish descent. Remove Albert II, Prince of Monaco if there is no sourced mention. We really don't want to subcat by anything smaller than country - many would be in 4 distinct county cats just going back to grand-parents. Occuli (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Albert II of Monaco's great-grandfather was born in Co. Mayo (see John B. Kelly, Sr.), and both his grandfather and mother were noted for their Irish descent. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the person adding the category should add a mention of this to the article Albert II, Prince of Monaco (not done as far as I can see). Occuli (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is total rubbish Snappy56 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serious overcategorization. It's bad enough to categorize people by the subnational locations they are "from" (some categories have unfortunately reached the level of city neighborhoods), but to categorize people by the subnational locations that at least one of their ancestors was "from" (which means all things to all people based on practice) is complete trivia. Postdlf (talk) 21:17, 26 September 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:1929 singles[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 - Merged, and rationale established. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty and redundant category. Prior to the invention of LP records in 1948 music albums did not exist. The existence of separate categories makes navigation more difficult and confuses readers. The small amount of content formerly here has been moved to the songs category for the appropriate year. Also nominating the following pre-LP era categories:

There are a couple of gaps in the numbering because not every year in the sequence had a separate singles category. Apologies in advance for any errors in the formatting (and feel free to correct them if you see them); I don't do this sort of thing very often. Best, Durova^Charge! 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, you should not have emptied the categories before nominating this for deletion, because the rest of us cannot tell what was there before you started. However, since there was no distinction between shellac singles, EPs and LPs, the appropriate answer would have been to merge with a category for Phono Records for the year in question, rather than a songs category, which might refer to sheet music songs that were never recorded. Furthermore, songs were not aleways recorded in the year when they were published and may have eben recorded by several artistes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordinarily that advice would make good sense. Nearly all of these articles were stubs that were either unreferenced or whose attempted referencing was grossly at odds with site policies (attempted citations to copyvios, fansites and other unreliable sources such as IMDB). The bottom line is that we simply don't have adequate documentation about what form these musical works existed in (78RPM, sheet music, stage production numbers, or film production numbers), so the only adequate category is to call them songs. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 22 September 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:Fictional elderly martial arts masters[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; the arguments for deletion are far more convincing here than those for keeping, particularly the points about definitional problems and it being a quadruple intersection OCAT. To preserve the information, as some have expressed a desire to do, we'll make this a LISTIFY. As soon as this is done, the category can be deleted speedily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - vague category being used to capture any character who is both old (whatever that means in Wikipedia terms) and knows martial arts. There is a list in the main article. A similar category for "Elder women" on TV shows was deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The elderly martial arts master is a staple "stock" character in film, literature, tv, and video games. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many staple stock characters and most of them don't have categories. Given that there is no objective definition of "elderly," given that at least some of the characters are not temporally fixed (Obi-Wan Kenobi for instance) the category is so prone to misuse that it's capturing such characters as Nick Fury (who is also not temporally fixed) and Third Doctor (who in no way meets the proffered - but unsourced - definition given in the article or category text), the mere existence of the character type does not support the existence of the category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Doctor is a master of "Venusian Aikido".[1] That is why he was added to the category. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which points to the problem with this category. Yes, he is a "master" of a particular martial art. But read the article. Does he fit the proffered definition there? No. Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling via the tardis and not stay in one place for very long makes him an itinerant. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's late and perhaps my eyes are bleary, but I don't see "itinerant" in the article. Regardless, the Third Doctor spent most of his regeneration exiled on Earth and so did tend to stay in one place. Otto4711 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wise old man. - jc37 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - legitimate cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters, wizened but sharp, crotchety but with the pupil's best interests at heart, or Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in all seriousness, Category:Fictional sages seems like a much better name. And I do agree that Nick Fury shouldn't belong here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify to List of elderly martial arts masters, per Elderly martial arts master. The latter is a Stock character, possibly derivative of (or at least similar to) the Wise old man stock character. Since assignation of whether a character fits a particular "stock character" type can be rather subjective (see the discussion of Nick Fury, above), I think references are absolutely required, to prevent them from becoming WP:OR-ridden. And since that's likely to be an ongoing, slow process, such groups of stock characters should all be lists, and not categories. - jc37 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elderly martial arts master already consists mostly of a list, so the category contents could just be used to expand the list contained in that page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic that should be available to readers as both a list AND a category per WP:CLN. As always, inclusion criteria for category (and list) need to be clear, and sources provided in the articles included. Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN does not require that information be presented through multiple organizational schemes and your continued insistence that it does is growing tiresome. The inclusion criteria for this category cannot by definition be clear because there is no objective definition as to what constitutes "elderly" for the purposes of this or any other category. Any age that is selected as the demarkation between "elderly" and "not elderly" can be nothing other than arbitrary. Otto4711 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN clearly describes that lists and categories are designed to coexist. No category can include sources and every entry in any list or category needs to be sourced to meet the inclusion criteria for that list or category. Every entry that merits inclusion on the list included at Elderly martial arts master has by definition met the inclusion criteria for this category. If the inclusion criteria are "arbitrary" or "subjective", they may well need to be clarified (as I specified above), but the fact that categories cannot have sources is not a valid justification for deletion of this or any other category. As WP:CLN states, "Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." By tightening and clarifying the inclusion criteria on the list at Elderly martial arts master, including reliable and verifiable sources to support the inclusion of each entry, supplementing the list with entries that only appear in the category and adding the category for all those that appear only in the list, we will be able to create a combination of list AND category that will meet the broadest needs of Wikipedia readers as specified in WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is, under WP policies and guidelines, the objective definition of "elderly"? Otto4711 (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)*[reply]

The definition is as characterized in the fictional work or as described in a reliable source about that character. Same as for the list. Alansohn (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then. no objective definition of "elderly"? Got it. Otto4711 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN says that lists and categories are permitted to coexist in cases where they're both appropriate. It doesn't say that they're required to coexist in every single case where one or the other can be created — there are plenty of other cases where a list is perfectly valid but a category is not. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not defining and OCAT. Stating that this is a legitimate category does not make it something to keep. Likewise there is no case why we need both a category and a list. The fact that both are allowed to exist does not mean that we need both in every case. Finally this is a quadruple intersection if that is not OCAT then we have a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't have said it better than Vegaswikian. --Kbdank71 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian and Otto4711. But perhaps most especially, per Jc37. Postdlf (talk) 14:49, 6 October 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.

Infectious diseases[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 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion

Nominator's rationale: The entire set of categories are result of overcategorization, linked by location and non-defining, trivial information. The existence of each of these has been urged as reason not to delete any of them in individual and related CfDs, even though the fact that other stuff exists is no reason to keep something and the lot was created just yesterday. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – unfortunately you have to tag and list all the subcategories, as otherwise we are left with a host of orphans. There is also Category:Deaths from infectious disease which I expect you will deplore as 'non-defining, trivial information'. (There ought to be an easier way of doing this.) Occuli (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I asked for an assist on this on the main project talk page, as tagging hundreds of categories is a bit laborious and best done by a bot (this is the route recommended on in the CfD instructions). I'm waiting for a response on that. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~It's really not that hard to tag categories.~~ Well, maybe it is, depending on circumstance. Anyway, the real discussion on this issue is happening below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all unless you wish to nominate all of Category:Deaths from XXX. Given a large category it is routine to subcat by country; given a large USA cat it is routine to subcat by state (where appropriate, which seems the case here - but let us not go any further, deaths in ZZZ hospital). Occuli (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry, but how is this different from arguing that other stuff exists? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to speak for Occuli, but it may not be different than that argument. However, as has been pointed out, arguing based on the existence of other stuff is sometimes valid and sometimes invalid. As the essay states, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'" Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep all regardless how many are nominated or tagged. 'Overcategorziation' is not an argument for deletion, since that is in the eye of beholder, and can be stated for every category in WP. There is not any argument presented for deletion on this basis. 'Linked by location' is no argument for deletion as 'linked by location' is not disallowed by WP rules. That someone died of an infectious disease seems defining to me. More than an ordinary death; more like a murder by biological agents and we certainly categorize all murders. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Overcategorization is an argument for deletion: the guideline WP:OCAT. It also lists 'linked by location' as a reason. As for the 'eye of the beholder' argument: the guideline goes into some detail in combatting this by defining what overcategorization looks like. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be little reason to delete these categories, especially given the mess that would be left if they were deleted. These categories allow organization by a defining characteristic of the individuals involved. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why is how a person died a defining characteristic, unless it is somehow extraordinary (e.g., Category:People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution)? How does the fact that two people died of influenza (or one of influenza, another of cholera) link them in any non-trivial way? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has always been the case that categories are allowed to be subdivided by country, regardless of whether the resulting categories technically violate WP:OCAT or not, if the undifferentiated parent category is very large. OCAT policy even explicitly states that location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories right in the very "intersection by location" section that RJC cites above as a reason to delete. Given that, keep. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 28 September 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:Infectious disease deaths in Germany[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 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Delection

Nominator's Rationale: Category is a clear case of overcategorization. It is based upon a "non-defining or trivial characteristic" and "intersection by location." RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category is not tagged for discussion - please tag the category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Category:Infectious disease deaths in Germany is part of Category:Infectious disease deaths by country and it would be inappropriate to single it out. Occuli (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have centralized discussion above under the topic "Infectious diseases." RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per RJC. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RJC.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:16, 25 September 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:Antennas (radio)[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 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Antennas (radio) to Category:Antennas

Nominator's rationale: Merge, not particularly different from parent category. Adamantios (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge - I agree that there's no discernible difference between these two categories, but the preferred name is Category:Antennas (radio), which is consistent with the main article and eliminates possible linguistic confusion with the biological variety. (I also note that Category:Antennas (radio) was renamed from Category:Radio frequency antennas last year, but there's no link or date given for that CFD, so I don't know what the reasoning was on that. Perhaps simply to match the main article.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – antennas seems to include TV, radar, mobile phone etc which seem to me (no expert) to be distinct from radio. Occuli (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Earlier brief cfd. Occuli (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Occuli, that confirms what I suspected was the reason for the rename. As for the different kinds of antennas -- actually, all of them (including TV) are Radio frequency antennas (the original name of the category. As far as I'm aware, the only real difference is what use they're put to. I'm hoping that Vegaswikian will join the discussion and perhaps enlighten us as to what he had in mind when he created Category:Antennas. Cgingold (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but I believe the issue was that not all antennas are radio frequency. Given that, then it makes sense for Category:Antennas to be the parent. I'll try and do some more digging in a few days. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a chance to look at Category:Antennas. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of junk in there. Leaving the sub cat makes cleanup of the parent a whole lot easier. Maybe Category:Antennas needs to be a container category only? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment under Category:Radio frequency antenna types. Adamantios (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there are non-RF antennas, such as optical antennas [2] , or gravity wave antennas [3] 70.51.9.124 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong. Optical antennas are the same as radio antennas. Technically, light is a radio wave that just happens to be in the visible part of the spectrum. --ssd (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little misleading. The real issue is that radio and light waves occupy very distinct parts of the "electromagnetic spectrum", and thus require radically different antennas. Cgingold (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still wrong. The only difference between what you see as radio and light is the wavelength. Just means that light antennas are either smaller, or are multiple wavelengths in size. There's been discussion about nanoscale antennas for solar panels to get super high efficiency. There really is no difference. --ssd (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for this very interesting reply, Anon. -- I certainly didn't consider either of those possibilities. My immediate thought was, "do we have any articles about such antennas?" I got 0 hits for "gravity wave antenna" on Wikipedia, but I did get 1 hit for "optical antenna": it's mentioned briefly in the article Nanoantenna, which amazingly enough hadn't been placed in Category:Antennas (I immediately added it). That being the case, I suppose we don't have any real choice but to keep that as the parent cat. However, I just skimmed through that article list again, and as far as I can see, every single one of them (except for the new one) belongs in Category:Antennas (radio). If I'm right about that, it means that Category:Antennas will be left with one article and one sub-category as its entire contents. Again, I don't really see any other options here, but perhaps there's something I haven't thought of. Cgingold (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't thought of Antennas (arthropods), or even Antennas (alien creatures). Just trying to be funny... Adamantios (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did mention "the biological variety" above. :) But what I really meant was, perhaps there's some other way to handle the category scheme that I haven't thought of. Cgingold (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and clean up: I don't care which way this merge goes (but category:Antennas (radio) would make more sense); also, anything that is actually an antenna should be moved into the types subcategory. --ssd (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the simpler name: A quick glance will show that most the articles in the parenthesised cat are also in the simpler one, and there's no consistency to the exceptions. Neither category has a huge number of entries. Yes, if someone wants to put some living, non radiation antennae and antennae of hypothetical extraterrestrial critters into the antenna cat with the metallic and other artificial ones, nothing wrong with that. We just don't need two or three categories for all the kinds of antennas, nor a longer name than "antennas" for the common category. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:21, 20 September 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 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Category:Antennas wasn't tagged for a reverse merge, hence the relist. --Kbdank71 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that all antennas are/will not be radio based, how can we be considering a reverse merge? I believe that there is a working consensus above to do a restructuring that leaves Category:Antennas as the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything in this category is radio based. If other antennas (biological or otherwise) get pages, they would not belong in this category. (And if you check any textbook, light is considered radio wave still.) --ssd (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about Nanoantenna's? If you have a problem separating these out, then we need to rename something to 'electromagnetic' as the parent of radio which is only a portion of the spectrum. This may be why keeping a generically named category as the parent and then splitting out by types and ranges is needed. Part of the problem here is that the name of the main article is ambiguous and using that as a guide would lead to an ambiguous category name. Reading Antenna (radio) shows that the article is clearly about electromagnetic antennas. Given that radio is well used to describe a very specific use of several parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, using that to label the top level category is confusing as well as ambiguous. This is shown by trying to label optical antennas as radio antennas. They are more accurately described as electromagnetic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nanoantennas are not different from other radio antennas. Note that the nanoantenna article even lists several other radio frequency antenna types. Light is just a very high frequency radio wave. Next you'll want to separate very low frequency from high freqency from x-ray from microwave, etc. They're all radio waves, including light. Electromagnetic is more accurate scientifically, but I think keeping this as Antenna (radio) makes more sense from a common word perspective, and it's not inaccurate. "electromagnetic antenna" gets about 6000 hits in google; "radio antenna" gets 1,430,000. --ssd (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm delighted to see that you've finally conceded that "Electromagnetic is more accurate scientifically". Saved me from making the silly but equally true point that "microwaves are just low-frequency light waves, etc..." :) Cgingold (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since the main article is Antennas (radio) why would we want the category to be named something different? --ssd (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that title is ambiguous and confusing. Since there is an article on radio, having a category called Category:Antennas (radio) implies that it is about antennas for radios. Nothing is further from the truth. The main article is about electromagnetic antennas and is not limited to those used for radios. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that everything that can receive and transmit a signal over a modulated EM wave is a radio... --ssd (talk)
Please note that in discussion last year, Category:Radio frequency antennas was moved to (parent set to) Category:Antennas (radio), reason given was "to match its main article (categories should normally match the spelling of their associated main article)". I think this reasoning still applies. --ssd (talk) 15:31, 28 September 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:Intermodal transportation authorities[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. While something needs to be done here, I don't see a consensus as to what that is. The issues are more significant then I believe would be resolved by relisting. So I'd suggest that those involved take this to a talk page and work to come up with a new proposal for this. Once the differences are resolved then this can be brought back here if needed. I will leave open that the discussions may wind up with a better category structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Intermodal transportation authorities to Category:Public transport operators

And merge Category:Public transport companies into this.

In addition, I accidentally created Category:Defunct public transit operators in the United States instead of Category:Defunct public transport operators in the United States; that needs to be merged if the category redirect template doesn't get it done. --NE2 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Intermodal transportation" is not a common phrase and could refer to passengers or freight. In addition, "authorities" tends to imply a public authority, which is not always the case. NE2 09:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Support, with a question - The phrase "intermodal transportation" tends to conjure up images of shipping containers between trains, trucks, and ships with me. So it might not be such a bad idea. What I'd like to know, however, is whether or not this category would include local bus systems or not. I've got mixed emotions about that. ----DanTD (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It already does, such as Williams Omnibus Bus Line and Vallejo Transit. It might be a good idea to make subcategories for bus and rail, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. --NE2 14:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Authority" and "operator" are not the same thing, and should not be bundled together. An authority is state owned whereas an operator is privately owned. I have no thoughts on the "intermodal" issue, it seems to be a redundant distinction. Orderinchaos 09:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The category includes both state-owned and privately-owned operators. I would also argue that separating the two is not necessarily a good idea; we don't do it for freight railroads. --NE2 07:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Australia I don't know of any Government owned companies/departments/organisations that don't use "Authority" and I know of no Country/State/Terrritory that use "Operator" for companies/departments/organisations they own. Look at the Roads and Traffic Authority the NSW Government doesn't call it the Roads and Traffic Operator since it's an Authority along with Public Transport within Australia (Such as State Transit Authority of New South Wales) that is owned by the Government is run by or is run as an Authority. I could write a long list but I don't see why I should do so. Bidgee (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but "authority" leaves out current and former privately-owned systems, which are not too different from public authorities. --NE2 08:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are run differently also "authority" is only be used by Governments in Australia (unsure with about Countries) and not by privately-owned companies and I do not see your point. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I know the difference, but it doesn't change much in how the everyday operations are carried out. --NE2 09:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Operations and ownership of a Government authority is different to a privately-owned company. Bidgee (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We have the Public Transport Authority and Transperth (the local equivalent of the "Adelaide Metro" which is the lone member of the above Australian category) as our public transport authorities in Western Australia, but sWAn Transit and Path Transit amongst our operators. The former are government, the latter are private companies which tender for Government services, and are regulated by the aforementioned Authorities. Other states in Australia have very similar arrangements. To erase this distinction actually creates confusion as to who has what role. Theoretically some private authorities could exist, although apart from preventing people from riding on them I'm unsure what authority they would exercise! Orderinchaos 09:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that there are two layers in Australia - the authority, which handles the general aspects such as funding, and the operator, which may be private or public? If that's true, I agree that it makes sense to separate them. In the United States, matters are somewhat different; there are still often multiple levels, but both can be authorities. For example, the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, responsible for one line, is a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Is there another name for the non-operating level that will distinguish it from an operating authority? --NE2 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. In Australia, the authorities also handle security on all the services under its jurisdiction (their security officers have some police powers under the law), negotiate timetables and transport priorities, buy and order vehicles and manage fares (the State Government actually set the fares in the budget each year), as well as organise the operating tenders. The operators actually run and maintain the buses and employ the drivers. In WA and NSW (and likely some other states too, although VIC's trains are operated privately by Connex), the trains are operated by public operators such as RailCorp and Transperth Trains, although these are never called authorities (and certainly they have very little authority over anything). Orderinchaos 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So what would you call the authority class if you had to distinguish it from the operating class? "Public transport/transit authority" doesn't work, as it is also used for operating authorities (for instance Rhode Island Public Transit Authority). --NE2 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To follow up, would you be opposed to a split into operators and managing authorities, getting rid of the current ambiguous wording? --NE2 11:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To clarify I would support getting rid of "intermodal" and replacing it with "public", but oppose all other aspects of this quite complex and multi-layered proposal. Orderinchaos 09:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Most "intermodal" authorities do not qualify as intermodal at all. NVO (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Agree with what Orderinchaos has said about "Authority" and "operator" not being the same. Bidgee (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Australian editors are here - has the Canadian project been notified in any way at all about this proposal? Apart from the tag at the category itself ?Satu Suro 09:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They hadn't. I've just posted a notification at WP:CANTALK. Orderinchaos 09:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the Trains WikiProject; I would have done Buses too but that project is dead. --NE2 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, more or less. We can quibble about "authorities" vs. "operators", but "intermodal transport" is clearly misleading. The items in the categories are transit systems. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Public transport operators" is misleading which is what we are talking about above. Bidgee (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said I'd be happy to use "authorities" over "operators". It's the "intermodal" that's the problem. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but only based upon target name. I agree that the existing cat name is a bit cumbersome, but "Public transport operators" is not necessarily the same thing as "Intermodal transportation authorities". Making this change would, I fear, introduce inaccuracy into the cat system. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose: due to confusion between authorities vs. operators. I do support the removal of intermodal once a suitable alternative is found. DigitalC (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I believe the original idea here was to categorize transit systems that comprise multiple forms of public transportation between which passengers transfer — i.e. systems where bus passengers don't necessarily go from point A to point B on a bus, but instead are taken by bus to hubs where they're funneled onto a subway, LRT, skytrain or commuter rail line to continue their journey. I would suggest that in practice it hasn't proven a particularly effective way to categorize transit systems — the current nomination demonstrates quite clearly that the distinction isn't immediately obvious — but the discussion should be based more around whether it's necessary or not, and less around the idea that it's just a misnomer. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That to me is part of the problem. Here I am in Maryland, and in Montgomery County there are five overlapping systems (three bus, one commuter rail, and one subway) with three authorities (WMATA, MTA, and the county) and I'm not sure how many operators, and I'm ignoring Amtrak, which does interoperate with the commuter rail. All the systems interconnect to each other to some degree. In Silver Spring, for instance, I believe that every one of the systems mentioned connects at a single point (which is being rebuilt into one big station). Does that get you an intermodal system, or not? And what's that system, anyway? Consider how disconnected the Maryland Transit Administration's operations are: it's really just an umbrella over all the different operations run by the state, which happen to comprise five different modes. There's no systemic connection between MARC's Burnswick Line and the Baltimore city bus system; it could hardly be called "intermodal". What we seem to have is "Transit systems with more than one mode", which doesn't strike me as a particularly notable distinction so much as it tends to be accidents of history. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Orderinchaos. JRG (talk) 00:08, 29 September 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 Virginia Republican Party members[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:West Virginia Republican Party members to Category:West Virginia Republicans

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Conformity with other such categories, unnecessary specificity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 27 September 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:Ethnic Republicans[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nonnsense category - every Republican has an ethnicity. Either delete (my preference) or rename to "Republicans by ethnicity," with a possible (United States) dab in as well. Note that there is also Category:Mexican American Republicans (United States).—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a USA category? It's not about ethnic nationalism and secession? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it only contains Category:Native Hawaiian Republicans (United States) which is already nicely parented. Occuli (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and please note prior CFD deleting Fooian-Americans by party categories as overcategorization. Postdlf (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT per Postdlf's precedent. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 27 September 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:AmBX enabled games[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. Kbdank71 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete:The category serves no purpose. SkyWalker (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having a category for each technology used on all video games would result in mass categorization that would leave articles ugly and valid categories hard to find. --Xeeron (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the AmBX article could use some adjustments to explain about it, removing the category will make it harder to find AmBX games if there are not many to list. I will also note despite the fact that this CfD has just gone up, SkyWalker is already removing this Category from articles. (See [[4]] (123 edits tagged as: Removed category "AmBX enabled games" )). As far as I'm aware, it's bad practise to do so, and makes me wonder if this CfD is just to WP:POINT - NeoThermic (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is equivalent to Steam products, Direct2Drive products and few other. Your vote does not justify why it should be kept. Technology such has this will come and go has year passby and Wikipedia is not meant for this sort of category. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Steam and Direct2Drive are content delivery products, however. amBX is a technology. This list is more analogous to List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support or the list at the bottom of OpenGL, the difference being that the list of games with amBX support is a bit too large to go into an article. You have also not addressed why you have removed this category from the articles that had it while the CfD is still running. NeoThermic (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no differences. So if there is a new audio or some other new technology does that mean that each technology there should be separate category?. I don't think so. The one with DX10 support would soon go under deletion tag even such list does not justify it having here. The one with Opengl is ok because it does not category even who know that may be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you're ok with deleting this category without thought as to where best the data it contained (the list of games) should go? Further still, you're saying that there should not be such lists about technology used in products? Where exactly do you draw the line? NeoThermic (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is there a necessary to have a list such has ambx when the list is not encyclopedia at all?. If it is encyclopedic why can't we have a list such List of movies that uses THX or List of movies that uses Dolby Digital?. This sort of list will grow larger and larger and unmaintainable. Same thing goes for categories. After few years if we look at the article below it would look so ugly and messed up. Also coming to the List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support did you know DirectX 11 is announced?. Very soon we will have an article which will have List of games with DX11 support. All this creates unnecessary headaches and waste of time instead time can be well spent on articles that needs improving and things are encyclopedic in nature.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with deleting the categories from articles before the discussion is finished either. See my edit summary on GTA:VC, it's obvious that nobody has been reading this edit summary, because I haven't been proven wrong yet. Now prove me wrong, please. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I'm not opposing or supporting the deletion of this, I just wanna know why it's necessary to remove the categories before the end of the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:13, 23 September 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:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx)[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 (see extended closing comments below) Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid arguments on both sides. Closing this as no consensus (with no prejudice against immediate renomination as part of a broader discussion) with the suggestion of a relist (anyone is welcome to do this). Closing this discussion was complicated because it started as a rename nomination and then changed into a deletion discussion referencing two previous "group" nominations (which I read) and then the discussion got rather out of control. Rather than have this nomination set a "precedent", it would be better to do a new group nomination or a new individual nomination for deletion making clear whether this cemetery should be distinguished from others such as Category:Burials at the Panthéon, Category:Burials at the Zentralfriedhof, Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey, Category:Burials at Arlington National Cemetery (to pick a few famous national cemeteries). Also, having an extended (and at times fractious) philosophical debate about categories and lists doesn't help people trying to close discussions. The general points about "categories" versus "lists" should be thrashed out elsewhere, with only specifics used in CfD discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx) to Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change disambiguation to match main article Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx. Having "(The Bronx)" is as unnecessary as having "The United States". (Note: this name was selected in a 2007 JUN 29 CfD in changing some from "Foo burials" to "Burials at Foo". I'm unsure why "The Bronx" was decided upon.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bronx" is how it is commonly called locally and in NJ. At least when I was out that way. ~~In any case, Rename per nom.~~ Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise it's called "the Bronx", but "The Bronx"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After looking at the dab page, I'm wondering if this should be renamed to ~~Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (Bronx) or~~ Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (Bronx, New York) with the article moving as well? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete - where one is buried is rarely if ever a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - the base article is at The Bronx, so I would have thought everything else should follow suit. I am indifferent to whether it is Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx) or Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery, The Bronx, or whether it is 'the' or 'The'. Occuli (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of Category:The Bronx give roughly equal support to any variant on (T/the) Bronx. Occuli (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks; yes, it looks like both forms are used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re-reading the 6/29/07 CFR and its preceding June 21, 2007 CFD, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why in the vast majority of cases where one is buried is a defining characteristic. To quote the original nomination, People are generally defined by what they did when they are alive, not by their burial place. Although people can choose their burial places, their location of burial is generally not relevant to their notability. If being buried in a specific place is considered an honor, then the category should still be deleted following Wikipedia's guidelines on the overcategorization of people by award or honor. Moreover, people who are buried together may have little in common with each other aside from their place of burial. While this information should be given in lists on Wikipedia, it does not belong in categories. Therefore, I recommend deleting these categories. Note that one of the greatest objections to listifying is that the lists would be difficult to read because of their length. However, lists are a much more appropriate place for burials, as lists can also provide information on date of birth, date of death, and occupation, whereas categories cannot. (See WP:CLS for more information regarding this.) Also, lists can be formatted into tables very nicely and can even be split into multiple subpages. For an example, see list of NGC objects. Moreover, if people would like to show how the people in these categories may be related (as they held certain positions, died in certain wars, etc.), then lists are going to be the primary place that could supply this information. Categories can only supply names, which is far less interesting. Hence, I strongly advocate using lists instead of categories for these people. This was answered by such fallacious arguments as the supposed notability of some cemeteries (irrelevant), faulty comparisons to categories for year of birth and college alumni categories (WP:WAX), "the place of death can be very relevant to the biography of the person" (true, but the place of death is not the place of burial) and "lists would be too big" (lists can be broken down in any number of ways if they are too large, including alphabetically or by decade or year) along with a smattering of the usual WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING claptrap and a number of people apparently missing the point that the nomination was to listify so no information would have been lost. The closing admin at the time erred in keeping the categories as there was no reasonable rebuttal to the nomination, which remains well-reasoned and unrefuted. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete --Except for National cemeteries in which burial is a signal honour, place of burial is trivial information. Have we not had similar discussions about other cemteries in the past? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – there is 2007_June_21#Category:Burials, a consensus keep (including this cemetery). Occuli (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A notable cemetery that is the resting place of many of New York City's most notable residents, a distinguishing and defining characteristic of the several dozen individuals included in the category. We are again hearing the persistent falsehood that there is some superior benefit to putting items in a list, in direct contravention of WP:CLN, which clearly specifies that categories and lists are intended to work together in synergistic fashion; lists are not intended as the dumping ground for whatever some editors have arbitrarily decided does not belong in a category. Again, we here weak arguments for the supposed superiority of lists ("Categories can only supply names") which apply to every single category in Wikipedia and have no specific relevance to this particular one. Again, there is a complete absence of any reference to Wikipedia policy to justify deletion. Given that there is no reason to be forced to choose between having only a list OR a category, WP:CLN pushes us to choose both and keep the category as is. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN in no way requires us to categorize articles by more than one method, so your claim that CLN in some way mandates or even endorses these categories in nonsensical, The notability of a particular cemetery has absolutely no transference to the notability of those buried there per WP:NOTINHERITED. Your insistence that listification over categorization is bad is once again wrong-headedly based and has no support in policy or guideline. Since there is no indication that the individuals buried in this particular cemetery even wanted to be buried there as opposed to being buried there on the basis of the wishes of whoever happened to be handling their arrangements, your assertion that their burial location is a definable characteristic is ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk)

The issue is not notability here, as the cemetery itself and the individuals in the category interred there are all notable, so inheritance is an issue that would only apply to their survivors. I have no objection to the creation of a list to coexist with the category in synergistic fashion, as dictated by WP:CLN, which could not be any clearer in stating that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". I fail to understand why we need to discern the motives of those buried at Woodlawn in order to merit a category, but that there is no corresponding need to have gotten their approval to have a list. I agree that many (if not most) cemeteries would not be of significance, but there is no argument that burial at Woodlawn Cemetery is a defining characteristic. If you can point to any policy that requires deletion of this category and creation of a list I will be glad to reconsider my position.Alansohn (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does any policy "require" deletion? No, of course not, and asking for such is a stupidly high standard. Most category deletions are done at the guideline level, such as WP:OCAT. You probably know this already, so it's unclear why you're demanding a policy for this category but not for the other categories that are nominated on this (or any other) day. Which leads me to wonder whether your demand for a policy is sincere or not. Dunno, no way to know what's going on inside your head. The point still stands that you have offered no rationale as to why a list would not be a better way to present this information. The only "persistent falsehood" here is yours, in stating that CLN somehow means that categories and lists must co-exist when it has been clearly established (and CLN itself states) that there are sometimes advantages to one over the other. Where are the reliable sources that back up your claim that having been planted at Woodlawn is a "distinguishing and defining characteristic" of the people buried there? And...everyone buried in this cemetery is notable because they are buried there? Really? No one who isn't notable has ever been buried there? Or are you falsely suggesting that having been buried there confers notability automatically? Otto4711 (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will start by saying that burial at Woodlawn is a defining characteristic of those buried there. There is no standard that specifies that all individuals buried at Woodlawn must be notable, any more than all people born in 1947 or in Boise, Idaho must be notable to merit categories for those characteristics. I will also state that the majority of cemeteries are not a defining characteristic of those interred there, and that Woodlawn is a notable exception, as exemplified by this article in The New York Times. A list is NOT a better way to present information in this case or any other case, it's merely a different way. WP:CLN provides both advantages and disadvantages for both categories and lists. WP:CLN could not be any clearer in specifying that "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." I stand firmly in the "both camp", that encourages the creation of both lists AND categories to meet the navigation needs of Wikipedia readers, and I have no objection to creating a list to coexist with a renamed category. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are firmly in the camp of maintaining two 'copies' of the same information? People categories are considered as appropriate when they are defining for the individuals. As a general rule, place of burial does not generally meet that guideline. Categories and lists, can and do coexist, but that does not mean it is the correct or proper solution in every case. Yes, the anti list camp needs to understand that categories are not appropriate for everything. Many of the categories created after an AfD discussion are simply better suited as lists. The category structure should not be used as a replacement for failed AfDs. The sad fact here is that while I am on record a supporting a rename, the discussion here is causing me to rethink my position. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list is NOT a better way to present information in this case or any other case, it's merely a different way. I'm sorry, but this is patently untrue. We have, through consensus, determined any number of instances in which lists are superior to categories. Filmographies for actors are handled as lists and not categories because we determined that lists were superior. Many award recipient categories we have decided are best handled as lists. Many articles on the characters or episodes of a TV series have been merged into a single list article and the category for the individual articles deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My position that lists are NOT superior to categories is based directly from WP:CLN, which is the relevant Wikipedia guideline covering the issue, and which would seem to override the rather narrow consensus built on the personal biases of a small handful of individuals that clearly contradicts this guideline. Any entry that requires a reliable source to merit inclusion on a list has satisfied the inclusion criteria for a corresponding category. The fact that categories cannot include sources is clearly recognized by WP:CLN and is an issue that applies to every single category on Wikipedia. I understand that some individuals in what WP:CLN describes as the "list camp" have a deep and determined opposition to categories they don't like. The disruption caused by those in the "list camp", no matter how well-meaning, is not only in contravention of a rather-clear guideline, but most certainly "doing so wastes valuable resources", as stated by WP:CLN. I agree that not every list deserves a category. But in a case like this one, one of the most notable cemeteries in the New York City area, if not the United States, the defining characteristic of being buried there could not any more clearly satisfy the clearest possible intentions of WP:CLN that both a list AND a category are appropriate. Any further arguments aimed at pushing the dominance of lists over the category system should probably be better spent trying to get a broad consensus that WP:CLN needs to be rewritten. Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only place where this supposed battle for dominance of lists vs. categories is taking place is inside your own head. Not one single person has said that lists across the board are always superior to categories. What has been said and what has been confirmed in CFD after CFD after CFD is that there are some specific instances where one format of grouping works better than another format of grouping. WP:CLN acknowledges this plainly when it says "Each way has advantages and disadvantages, and one or more of these ways may be appropriate in a given circumstance." (emphasis added) CLN clearly allows for the possibility that there will be instances when there will be one best way for like articles to be grouped, so this bizarre insistence that the existence of CLN as a guideline means that suggesting one method is better than another under a specific set of circumstances is unfathomable. "Keep per WP:CLN" boils down to "keep this category because we can make categories" and, taken to its absurd extreme, would mandate boarding up the windows of WP:CFD and never deleting a category under any circumstances. Just because we can make both categories and lists doesn't mean that every situation requires both a category and a list or even benefits from both a category and a list. How many hundreds of examples of listify and delete CFD closes will it take to convince you that there is a broad consensus in favor of choosing one method as better than another depending on the circumstances? Otto4711 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have offered a wonderful rebuttal of the straw man argument "Keep per WP:CLN". The problem is that I have never made that argument, here or anywhere else. While boarding up CfD would have the benefit of ending your efforts to convince me to change my opinion solely based on endless repetition of yours, I do agree that there are circumstances where categories should be deleted or renamed. However, in this case, where burial in this particular cemetery is a rather strong and defining characteristic of the individuals included in this category, WP:CLN's admonition to allow categories and lists to co-exist is rather clear. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Allowed" != "required". Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't define a person any more than the year they were born or the year they died, the cause of death, or the schools they attended. Its just one more factual category. And a useful one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, WP:WAX and WP:USEFUL. If you think those other categories are non-defining, nominate them for deletion. They aren't an excuse for making more non-defining categories. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Otto; since categories are not articles, that a category or other navigational device is useful to the readers is a valid justification. DGG (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you disagree with me, as I believe that category should be deleted. WP:USEFUL is not a valid justification for retention. At least one person, the category creator, thinks every category is useful. We delete all sorts of categories that some people may find useful because they do not fit in with our categorization guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the basic argument you employed, that usefulness is an argument for discussing the merits of a list , a category, or having them both together. I disagree on the specific conclusion you applied here, as you gave no reason why a category was useless, just that a list was justified. There are other reasons of course not to have a category. That you do not consider it a defining characteristic is IDONTLIKEIT. The key virtue a category always has is that it can be built automatically, and I would oppose deleting unless there is a reason why the result would be either useless or harmful or prejudicial. For paper, where a category is ann index, it is necessary to be very restrictive due to the difficulties of making them, and the space they can occupy. Not here. DGG (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you need to read what I wrote again. I said that the fact that something might be useful does not constitute a reason for keeping it. We delete things every day that someone somewhere might find useful. And I can flip your IDONTLIKEIT right around and say that your wanting to keep the category is WP:ILIKEIT so that's two "bad" arguments from you versus one "bad" argument from me. I guess I win. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article in The New York Times is one of many that describes how and why burial at Woodlawn Cemetery is a notable and defining characteristic. Any rebuttal, or will you still insist that shouting "you win" trumps reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are notable people buried at the cemetery. No one is suggesting otherwise. Yes, the cemetery is notable. No one is suggesting otherwise. The question before us is whether being buried in a particular cemetery defines the individual so buried. Your source, amusing as it is to read about dogwoods with dry balls, does not demonstrate that burial location is defining. Indeed, such sections as "Among other fascinating details, these documents reveal that a final resting place is often not so final. Many a mausoleum has changed inhabitants, as mausoleums are often sold." argues against burial location being a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing a lot of the strategy of "there might be a possible borderline case, say in which some notable individual might, perhaps, have had their mausoleum relocated, therefore not a single example is notable", but it doesn't fly, and you can't point to one article for one individual who was moved out of Woodlawn, other than to note that it has happened to someone. Even if you would find one person moved out of their mausoleum, remove that one entry, don't toss out the whole category. What about all those interred in Woodlawn who have remained in the same spot? Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You've been seeing a lot of it? Where have you been seeing this? It's incredible that you would cite this article to support your position and when it's pointed out to you that it's perhaps not so supportive as you think it is you diss it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing WP:USEFUL trotted out a lot recently in CFDs and I think it's getting misconstrued. As I understand it, it's saying that whether or not information is useful to someone is not a valid argument as to whether or not it should be kept in any form on Wikipedia; e.g., phone numbers are useful but we don't allow Wikipedia to serve as a telephone directory. However, once we move past the point of whether the information should be documented, we then have to examine whether categories are a useful method of presenting that information. Postdlf (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, if kept. I'm on the fence about whether burial location is important enough to merit categorization generally. The information is easily maintainable in lists. But it also isn't problematic as a category, as individuals are only buried in one location (and I understand that such an absolute statement is just begging for people to provide the rare counter-examples, but so be it), so the criteria for inclusion is clear (though do cenotaphs count as burials?) and the clutter would be no more than one category per article. Postdlf (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer on the fence: listify and delete preferred. I just don't see the benefit to maintaining this information in category form as well as in list form. Postdlf (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listify if desired. I'm not convinced that it is defining. If kept, rename per nom. --Kbdank71 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and anyone can listify if they wish. I struck my vote above since I realized that the current name is probably the better choice and that after the reading the discussion, keeping this category is not the best choice. If kept, leave at Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx) and do not rename. It would then match the parent Category:The Bronx. That follows the standard form for disambiguation, and it reads better to me then leaving off the 'the'. The keep arguments just don't seem convincing and some of them leave me thinking WP:ILIKEIT. In fact the questions raised by the keep arguments led to my changing positions. I should add, that while this category may be in some odd way for a few individuals be notable, the category could not be restricted to only those few, so keeping this would lead to a constant need to cleanup the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 2 October 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:Little House on the Prairie[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 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:To be determined. This is the parent cat for Category:Little House characters (subject of the CFD directly below). It's being used as a combined category for "all things Little House" -- both the books and the TV shows (and some other things as well). But that's problematic, since the name pretty clearly refers to the TV shows, whereas the books are most commonly referred to as the "Little House books". The simplest and most obvious name would probably be Category:Little House fiction, but that's also sort of problematic, because even though they're written in a narrative style and have "characters" of a sort, the stories were all taken from the author's real life, and the "characters" in the books are all real people. And as I mentioned, there are also some other items in the category that pertain to the Little House "franchise", but aren't in any sense of the term "fictional". On the other hand, I believe they're usually shelved with the fiction books in the library -- and they're categorized here under four categories for novels. Notified two category creators "god-parents" with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a fictionalised account is still considered fiction. - jc37 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~Abbreviating the name is a bad idea, and is contrary to naming conventions and WP:NEO.~~ If you want to split the cat (which isn't mandatory) dab one with (TV series), per NC-TV. - jc37 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "abbreviating", jc -- I'm guessing you actually mean "truncating"? In any event, as I pointed out, "Little House on the Prairie" clearly refers to the TV shows (since we're obviously not going to have a category for a single book). I'm really not at all sure what the right solution is. But if it turns out that there's support for Category:Little House fiction, I don't see how it would be "contrary to naming conventions and WP:NEO". Cgingold (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant truncation (which is abbreviating : ) - And truncation, in this case, would be a neologism. Also, Little House on the Prairie, as the article shows, refers to the book. - jc37 10:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "neologism", and I didn't invent the term -- it's merely the commonly used term for those books. The point about "Little House on the Prairie" is that it's clearly nonsensical to use it to refer to all of the books when it's the name of one of the books. Cgingold (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a "neologism" regardless if we created it or not. And, how do you feel that "Little House" includes Farmer Boy, On the Banks of Plum Creek, By the Shores of Silver Lake, The Long Winter, Little Town on the Prairie, These Happy Golden Years, The First Four Years? Just because LHotP has become the most famous book of the series (due to the Newberry Medal for one thing...)? And WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMON, also comes to mind. Anyway, I suppose the best answer would be to ask if you would find a source to support this usage. - jc37 12:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I really have to underline the fact that I am NOT pushing for this particular name -- as I said above (now bolded), "I'm really not at all sure what the right solution is." However, if other editors feel that it's the right name to use, that would largely be because it IS the commonly used term (whether or not a certain Wikipedia editor known as jc37 is aware of that fact). Here's the Google Results for that phrase: "about 154,000 English pages for 'Little House books'". Also, it's no accident that we have an article called "List of Little House books". Cgingold (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol @ "whether or not a certain Wikipedia editor known as jc37 is aware of that fact)" - touche : ) - And though I'll be happy to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd be content if you can find links where the publisher and at least 2 WP:RS which call them the "Little House" books/series. We'll then add those to the category intro (and the list page), and we'll have our name target : ) - jc37 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress uses "Little House books" as a series entry for 33 items in the series, and the publisher (HarperCollins) refers to the series as "Little House"[5]. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

loc - found. K, I'm sold. These two refs will need to be in the category intro, though, else this discussion may be repeatedly repeated in the future. - jc37 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a problem with this fictional universe category. Do you mean it shouldn't occupy the heirarchies that it's in because it's not specific to the category heirarchies it subscribes to? I don't think non-fiction books should be lumped into a ficional novel category, unless the category subscribes to from the literary studies heirarchy as well. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a new category: Category:Books by Laura Ingalls Wilder or Category:Books in the Little House series (since they all weren't written by Wilder), with a scope note referring users to Category:Little House on the Prairie (TV series). Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I suggest we rename this category to Category:Little House on the Prairie (TV series), for clarity. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly strange that we don't already have Category:Books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. Clearly that needs to be created -- and probably the other two as well. However, we still need to come to a decision on this hybrid/parent category. Basically, we need to either come up with a suitable name for it or, if that proves impossible, perhaps we should simply split it up and link the new cats horizontally. (I like to use {{CatRel}} for that purpose.) Cgingold (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I think that Little House on the Prairie is such a popular name that people interested in it, would find it quite obvious to have it named this way, even if it's not so precise (Kyleall (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep -- There are enough articles to merit having the category. The name is clear and reasonable without abbreviation (which would make it unclear) or adding a disambiguator (unnecessary). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Little House series, which does not preclude several subcats, such as those described in this nom and in the one below. - jc37 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with that. I was going to suggest Category:Laura Ingalls Wilder but what you suggested is more sensible - the category isn't all about the author as it isn't all IRL. chant essy 18:30, 24 September 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:Little House characters[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: upmerge the two articles, recreation permissible of this or tv/book character subcats if other articles are found or written. Kbdank71 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Little House characters to Category:Little House on the Prairie series characters

Per Little House on the Prairie.

If this is intended for Little House on the Prairie (TV series) characters, then rename to Category:Little House on the Prairie (TV series) characters - jc37 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about asking the person who created it? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Keep - as nominator. (With no prejudice against future splitting/subcatting should the need arise.) - jc37 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) modified per discussion in the nom directly above this one. - jc37 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose a case could be made for splitting into two sub-cats, but it probably makes more sense to keep it as a sub-cat for both the book and TV characters, given their common roots, etc. (I think this should be considered in tandem with the CFD directly above, for its parent cat, Category:Little House on the Prairie.) Cgingold (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the character articles also include both the book series and the TV series, there's probably no need to split. - jc37 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've created this category. I don't really mind you changing the name but I meant it to be the place for the possible profiles for the characters of the books, the series and rest of the LH screenings. That's why I didn't specify anything more. (Kyleall (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Little House on the Prairie, a comprehensive category for the subject. That category is not large enough to need a lot of subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Little House on the Prairie (TV series) characters and create Category:Little House on the Prairie (book) characters; there are many characters from the TV series who never appear in the books. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Little House on the Prairie. There are only two articles in there. The template is about to be deleted (orphan and useless). It was not a good idea to create that at the first place. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 27 September 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:Fictional characters who time travel[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 as recreation. Kbdank71 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Merge Category:Fictional characters who time travel to List of fictional characters who can manipulate time

First, this was already listified in this previous CFD. Second, as several of the group members "time travel" due to the use of objects or devices, the inclusion criteria is simply anyone who manages to get hold of such a device (See this recent cfd). See also Time travel in fiction. The circumstances of the ability really should be explained in this case. Sounds like a list to me. - jc37 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this shoud be an important and defining characteristic for all the characters currently in the category. Far more defining in many cases than being able to turn intangible (Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible) or being able to stretch (Category:Fictional characters who can stretch themselves). --Philip Stevens (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? First, if you have issues with those categories, please feel free to nominate them. Second, being able to do something due to the use of a device is a really bad idea for categorisation. This has repeated precedent. (The most recent is: here.) - jc37 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename maybe to Category:Fictional time travelers. The current name suggests that this is a superpower. I usually see time traveling in fiction as someone who uses an implement (i.e., time machine). But that's just my opinion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is another reason why this shouldn't be a category. Use of an implement means that it's not "defining" to the character currently using it, since anyone could use it. Consider how many times the TARDIS has been stolen. Do every one of those characters now qualify for this cat? - jc37 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is certainly a defining characteristic, and quite appropriate for a category. In this case, category and list are complementary, and there's good reason to have both. (I would also be okay with renaming to Category:Fictional time travelers if there's sentiment for doing that.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a re-creation of previously deleted content. Otherwise delete as non-defining. Characters in comics especially routinely travel through time with no inherent ability to do so. Otto4711 (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It states clearly in the category that time travel must be a defining characteristic before a fictional character is put in there, so I see no reason for this category to be deleted or listed as it must be a defining characteristic for any characters to be put in the cat. Also, the semantics of the name are very different to the deleted category, this cat goes with Category:Fictional characters who can teleport and Category:Fictional characters with precognition. I would also point out that List of fictional characters who can manipulate time is not suitable as a list as many characters in the category can not manipulate time, only travel through it. --Hera1187 (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think you missed the link Otto provided. Unless you're saying that Category:Fictional time travelers is "very different" than Category:Fictional characters who time travel.

Second, the present state of the current list has little bearing on whether this category should or shouldn't be listified. Also, the list can be renamed, if that's deemed appropriate (which may indeed be the case). Or a new supportive list created, which only includes those who are noted for their time travel devices. Or even just a list of the time travel devices. That's one of the great things about a wiki, things can be changed (hopefully for the better : ) - jc37 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a defining characteristic (if not the primary defining characteristic) of these fictional characters. Per WP:CLN, the list can category should coexist, with each supplemented with entries that only appear in the list or category. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Four routinely travel through time. Are they primarily defined by it? The X-men routinely travel through time. Is that a defining characteristic of the X-men? The Hulk has time-traveled a couple of times. So has Spider-Man. So have, probably, every single character that's ever appeared in a Marvel comic. If you ask the average person to name what defines Spider-Man as a character, is "he time-travels" going to be in the top ten? The top 50? No. As for yet another fallacious appeal to the "authority" of CLN, I've dealt with that claptrap enough times already and I grow weary of repeating myself. Otto4711 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a single counterexample proves absolutely nothing. I am far from the only editor here who disagrees with you, and I hope that you will grow weary of the need to attack any individual who disagrees with your position. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "single" counter-example? Practically every character published by a particular company is a "single" counter-example? Otto4711 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the "no inherent ability" clause of your argument in your next reply and explain why this would require deletion under which policy or guideline? I'm still far from the only individual here who deems this a category in full compliance with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that someone who is forced to travel through time with no ability, interest or desire to do so is defined by having been so forced? Are you suggesting that in, say, a 50-year publication history of a character a character travels through time once is defined by having done so? Again, categories are about defining characteristics and since the vast majority (if not all) comic book characters have traveled through time at some point traveling through time is non-defining. Captain Boomerang traveled through time during the Crisis on Infinite Earths. Is he defined as a "time traveler"? There comes a point when a plot device becomes so ubiquitous as to lose its status as defining the characters who have done so. Time travel is far beyond that point. Otto4711 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category provides a definition that it is "for fictional characters who can time travel. Only characters where time travel is the main part of their story should be added here." This definition has been here since the category was created in March 2008. As I stated in my vote, I am suggesting that this is a defining characteristic -- if not the primary defining characteristic -- of the fictional characters included in this category. None of the hypothetical cases you have described in your most recent reply would fit the definition of this category. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the objective definition of "main part of their story"? Otto4711 (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that time travel is not a defining characteristic for, say, Spider-man, even if the character has traveled in time in an occasional story line. I strongly suggest abiding by your own definition, which would exclude characters who use time travel as an incidental characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category currently exists to draw in all fictional characters who time travel. Descriptions written on the category page do not ameliorate that because 1) those descriptions don't appear along with the tags on tagged articles and 2) no one even has to read the description in order to add the tag to an article. It's consequently been the experience that limitations not reflected by the category's name itself are effectively nonexistent, such that the contents of any category will inevitably expand to include everything that literally fits its title. So what rename of the category do you propose? Postdlf (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws you recognize with categories are an inherent issue with all categories and lists in Wikipedia, regardless of the perceived clarity (or lack thereof) of the title. The job of policing is up to all of us and is relevant to every single category in Wikipedia, not just this one. I'm happy with the current tile of the category and the title of the corresponding list -- List of fictional characters who can manipulate time -- is even more confusing. I am more than willing to listen to a proposed title that you believe will address your issues and consider it as an alternative. The speedy deletion claim is even more irrelevant, despite the fact that it has been repeated, in that the recreated category provides a rather clear definition of which articles are to be included. The proposition that a deleted category can never be recreated under any circumstances is blatantly false and disruptive as an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation, as noted above. If, for whatever reason, that precedent is overlooked, then listify as the category is uselessly broad given the commonality of time travel across all sci fi/fantasy media, as its name currently targets no less than all fictional characters who have time traveled, period. It further lumps together very unlike things by failing to separate characters who travel through time by their own inherent power, from those who travel through time by means of their own invention, from those who travel through time by means of someone else's invention or inherent power (whether willing or unwilling). Postdlf (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or delete (listifying if the list we have isn't complete or extant) as useless given the commonality of time travelling characters. Hiding T 10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. The entire fictional character structure has issues. This type of classification is well suited to a list where you could explain why it is defining and group the methods of time travel employed so that the characters could be displayed grouped by these other bits of information. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 1 October 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:Fictional hypnotists[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: listify. Kbdank71 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Delete Category:Fictional hypnotists to List of fictional hypnotists.

First of all, the confusion of whether the character has this as a "superhuman ability", or whether it's merely a character skilled in hypnosis. And that aside, we shouldn't categorise fictional characters by some skill they may achieve. (Fictional characters who juggle, or Fictional characters who drive automobiles, both immediately come to mind.) - jc37 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Delete as nominator. - jc37 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since we categorize real people in Category:Hypnotists I don't see why characters have to be listified. Also, what confusion do you see here? I created this cat to include all those who can hypnotize in their own respective way. Maybe a rename could be in order? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that those in Category:Hypnotists are not those who claim "superhuman abilities", but rather as an occupation. And further, it's rather a stretch to suggest that the members of this cat consider hypnosis to be their occupation. (Dracula, Hypnota, Bluto, etc. Note that Bluto is an excellent example of why such cats should not exist. Consider how many "skills" he has shown throughout all the Popeye-related comics and cartoons. This is not far different than why we no longer categorise fictional characters based upon team membership. category bloat.) - jc37 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This category might more accurately be called Fictional characters with hypnotic abilities/powers. Whether as a category or a list, I think that would be a more descriptive title than Fictional hypnotists for the reasons noted above. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional characters with hypnotic features or abilities? (To match the parent cat.) Having a "hypnotic ability" is still rather close to having a "skill". I'd be tempted to suggest that we add the word "innate", but then we'd hear about characters who have a "talent" for hypnosis. Perhaps we really need to use "superhuman" in the name? - jc37 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps including "supernatural" in the title somehow might avoid inclusion of characters with acquired skills and talents. However, given the existence of an article about hypnosis in popular culture, I say delete this category or weak listify any contents to that article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how about Category:Fictional characters who can hypnotize? Well, Category:Fictional characters with hypnotism could work too. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how either of those names don't have the exact same problem. - jc37 19:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per points made in debate. Hard to quantify and utility minimal in category form. Hiding T 10:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's also the possibility of renaming this cat to Category:Fictional characters with hypnotic features or abilities, albeit a shorter name could suffice, I just haven't been able to come up with one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:50, 30 September 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:Fictional parasites[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: listify (here's to hoping it doesn't get prodded). Kbdank71 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Category:Fictional parasites to List of fictional parasites

This is one that just needs explanation for each member of this "group". These can range from the microscopic, to beings such as Alien and Parasite, to even including vampires. A category just isn't the way to do this. - jc37 01:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Delete as nominator. - jc37 01:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category, but probably rename to Category:Fictional parasites and parasitoids. Again, there's good reason to have both a category and a list -- they're complementary. Cgingold (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case "parasite" is subjective. How does one define it? After all, one could rather easily suggest that humanity is a parasitic infestation of Earth. This is just a vaguely defined cat which should be a list. - jc37 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we should be okay as long as there's a headnote that excludes fictional hedge fund managers, etc. :) Cgingold (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for my first big laugh of the day : ) - jc37 10:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that could be the problem. How long does the intro need to be? We need to also include fictional politicians and who knows what else. I'm strongly leaning towards to a listify here if not an outright deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - at least two articles, Parasite (Slither) and Parasites (Faculty) would become uncategorized if this is deleted. I have prodded both articles but pending the outcome we need the category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those can be UpMerged to Category:Fictional life forms. - jc37 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional children as a duplicate. ;)
Jokes aside, listify or delete (a bare list that lacks substantial context or explanation is likely to be quickly prodded and deleted) per nom. While Category:Fictional parasitoids may be justified if there are enough articles, "parasites" is (as noted) too vaguely defined. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:11, 23 September 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:Infectious disease deaths in South Carolina[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 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Excessive level of cross categorization. Also contrary to Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place "The place of death is not normally categorized". Further attention may be wanted for Category:Infectious disease deaths in the United States, which has 32 other states as sub-categories, some of which have a disease specific sub-category. GRBerry 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (creator). I was wondering if/when someone was going to bite. I've been categorising people by place of death for awhile now as an explicit challenge to the principle that "[t]he place of death is not normally categorized". As I see it, there's no logic to the distinction between allowing categorization for year of death but not allowing it for place of death. (And as long as place of death is being categorized, it makes sense to subdivide by general cause of death to prevent the category for deaths in a country or state from being massive.) Thus, I'd like to see some discussion on the merits/demerits of categorising by place of death. And what does "not normally" mean, anyway? Does it mean users normally don't do it?; or it's normally not appropriate?; or what? (E.g., Category:Firearm deaths by location have been around for awhile now. Is this an exception? If so, why? Would it "normally" be allowed if a user (i.e., me) started to do it?) It's not a clear guideline, and hopefully this discussion can begin to assist working out what it means. As for this one in specific: if it makes sense to categorise by cause of death (Category:Deaths from infectious disease), doesn't it then make sense to have its massive contents broken down by place of death? The answer probably depends on your individual take on the significance of place of death. But it's certainly relevant at least because (1) the place may have been a significant factor in whether or not the infectious disease was "caught" or not (not many cases of dengue in Montana), and (2) the place may be a significant factor in whether or not the local medical services failed to "save" the person from death. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Most of the other U.S. states now have their own category there, as of now 5 people are listed in that particular category and so I think should be enough to warrant it being kept. It is certainly an improvement on the less specific Category:Infectious disease deaths in the United States.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of a pattern and nothing wrong with the concept of the catgory in any case.Hmains (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. Lugnuts (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that other stuff exists doesn't mean that this category should stay; instead, the others should go, as well. This falls under the "non-defining or trivial characteristic" and "intersection by location" sections of WP:OCAT. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – or nominate all subcats of Category:Infectious disease deaths in the United States for upmerging (unless there is something particularly undefining about being fatally infected in S Carolina). Occuli (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because other stuff exists doesn't meant that this should. And, the entire set of categories was created yesterday: this is hardly a long-standing issue. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have centralized discussion above under the topic "Infectious diseases." RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this looks more like a "centralized discussion" of the issue. You may want to direct users down here instead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 22 September 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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode XI[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: upmerge per episodes I through X. Kbdank71 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another set of plant categories created automatically by User:Polbot. These are cats for plant genera which are too small to need cats, i.e. the genera contain 5 or fewer species and thus the cats will never have more than 5 or 6 articles in. Specific reasons to follow. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maingaya - monotypic genus (contains only one species). Not enough for a whole cat of its own. Delete and upmerge to next higher taxa, family level, Category:Hamamelidaceae.
Category:Matudaea - genus containing only four species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Hamamelidaceae.
Category:Semiliquidambar - genus containing 3 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Hamamelidaceae.
Category:Sinowilsonia - monotypic genus. Delete and upmerge to Category:Hamamelidaceae.
Category:Tetrathyrium - genus contains 2 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Hamamelidaceae.

Support -- I assume you know your stuff. I do not! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to higher taxa--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, except in circumstances where the category could only conceivably hold one species (such as Category:Maingaya), where I would Support. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:50, 27 September 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.