Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 11

< January 10	January 12 >

January 11[edit]

Category:WikiProject Pixar[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: C1 - speedy delete. --El on ka 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is for a WikiProject that was proposed about 18 months ago but never went any further. Only content is a template which is itself at TfD. PC78 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and move to User Categorisies for discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a user category. PC78 (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as either housekeeping, empty category, or G8 (parent never existed). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:56, 15 January 2009 (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:Adoptive parents[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. While several editors mentioned a listify as an option, the related precedent nominations were deletions and not listify closes. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/listify. This is almost always a non-defining aspect of a person's life (as far as WP is concerned). Being an adoptive parent has been so common throughout history and is so commonplace today that it's certainly not defining and almost bordering on trivia for most of those who are in these categories. The included people do not have articles because they are adoptive parents, in other words. That's not to say this information isn't notable (and important to the individuals themselves). But that just means it should be mentioned in the individual articles and that lists could be created for adoptive parents. We don't categorize people for being biological parents, so why do we do so for being an adoptive parent? (Personally, I think a woman pushing an infant out through her vagina or having her stomach cut open to remove an infant would be more of a potentially "defining experience" than adopting a child, but that's just (male) me speaking.) The main category was nominated for deletion in 2005, which resulted in "no consensus". See also the related past CfDs for "natural parents" and "parents of twins":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_9#Category:Natural_parents

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:Parents_of_twins — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic does not confer notability argument has been refuted so many times it isn't funny. This category is no more vulnerable to it than Category:1976 births or Category:English people. Hesperian 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so—year of birth categories are not there for their definingness—they have essentially been kept as administrative categories. And Category:English people is only properly used as a parent container category, not as one that is applied to individual articles. (Not that either of these specific categories have even been subject to actual discussion in the past 5 years or so.) Where is a recent discussion where the consensus was to keep despite a consensus that it is not defining? On the flip side, categories that are actually subjected to discussion are regularly deleted all the time for being non-defining for the subjects. If needed, I'd be happy to present you with a (very long) list. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  No thanks. I know where to find those in your user subspace—an impressive resource BTW. But Wikipedia maintains gazillions of categories that are neither container categories, nor does membership confer notability. For example nearly all of the leaf categories of "Fooian fooers" type. Buildings and structures in Foo. Companies based in Foo.
  
  I wish that someone would make an effort to articulate this "category membership must confer notability upon member" position in WP:CAT, so that the community would have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting it once and for all. It shits me that this argument gets repeatedly trotted out when it is so obviously not applicable across the board, and apparently has no basis in any policy or guideline or convention. Hesperian 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your suggestions are good ones, I think re: resolution of that issue. However, at the present time I still think there's a distinction between categories that have been discussed and those that haven't. Just because something is out there and has never been discussed doesn't necessarily mean that it and anything analogous to it are "OK". It just means they haven't been discussed yet. At least that's how I look at it and justify the distinction (cognitive dissonance, anyone?). I see no other easy way of reconciling the fact that anyone can create a category with the position that surely all categories that describe trivia about people can't be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify per nominator's rationale. A trivial categorisation and the point about categories not existing for other methods of parenthood (natural birth, step-parent etc.) is a good one. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-defining and per previous CFDs. I don't see much need for lists either. Otto4711 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-defining, previous precedent. Lists optional. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (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:WikiProject Films stub templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, weakly as it were. Kbdank71 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Films stub templates to Category:Film stub templates

Nominator's rationale: Stub templates are not exclusive to the WikiProject. Rename and reparent in Category:Film templates. PC78 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only weakly a rename; stub templates aren't generally given their own categories. BTW, this discussion should probably be at WP:SFD (grey area... not really a stub category per se, but still relating to them). Grutness...wha? 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Earlier I moved it to WP:SFD, and then was told SFD didn't have jurisdiction over this, so moved it back .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, as I said, it's a grey area. SFD always deals with stub categories (i.e., categories for holding stub articles), but has in the past occasionally also dealt with categories like this which categorise stub templates. I've seen them here before as well, though, so it's probably a coin-toss. Grutness...wha? 08:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm... I'm not sure what the conventions are regarding categorisation of stub templates, but I see no real reason to delete what looks to be a rather useful category. PC78 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (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:Celebrities born in prison[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think it's fairly widely accepted that place of birth is usually not defining for people, and when saying that we typically are referring to the geographical place of birth—country, province, city, etc. Is being born in a particular type of building or structure defining? I don't think it is. It certainly is not for the one person currently included in the category. (Maybe for Jesus being reportedly born in stable was defining, but I don't think it is for most people.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not defining at all. The intersection of 2 categories - Category:Celebrities and Category:People born in prison - the first dubious and the second not yet attempted. Occuli (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – what is "celebraties" - I think it could be changed to Category:People born in prison.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of "celebrities" is problematic, but the suggested solution to that doesn't address my main concern, which is that being born in prison is not defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This would work much better as a list for sourcing. EDIT - If there was more than one person in the category, of course! There must be other notable people who were born in prison? Lugnuts (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being born in prison is, in fact, very noteworthy in a number of respects. But it shouldn't be a Category -- not even for celebrities. Cgingold (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being born in prision is not noteworthy - I cannot think we'd keep any article where the only claim to noteworthiness is having been born in prison (there were numerous births at Manzanar - a prison however else it may be labelled). Intersect one un-noteworthy concept with the universe of our notable people (which Celebrities seems to embody) still yields non-notable intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (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.

disambiguating Categories:Thunder Bay[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all to <stuff> <preposition> Thunder Bay, Ontario (if not already in that format). Another way to put this would be: "Rename per solution proposed by Vegaswikian". - jc37 06:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from Category:Thunder Bay District. Both are in Ontario - the city is located in the district, and there are no other cities, towns, or villages in the world named 'Thunder Bay' according to Thunder Bay (disambiguation), so adding ', Ontario' is unnecessary Mayumashu (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Bay District or District of Thunder Bay is, by virtue of having "District" attached to it, different from "Thunder Bay", therefore I think Category:SUBJECT of/in Thunder Bay would be sufficient. I'd rather the category end in ", Ontario" than "(city)". vıd ıoman 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the word city in brackets are too complicated. I would support renaming these categories without the word city without the brackets. Steam5 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without ', Ontario' then. It is unnecessary as both the district and the city are in Ontario and there are no other cities, towns, village, or districts called Thunder Bay outside Ontario. Note that there is Category:People from Rome (city), Category:People from Dublin (city) etc Mayumashu (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Seems to be the most logical way of distinguishing between the city and the district. Adding "Ontario" will add nothing, since both are of course in Ontario. This is the standard way of disambiguating when there are cities and districts/counties, etc. of the same name. I'm not clear on why its considered "too complicated", as it seems like a fairly non-intrusive means of doing it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having "District" differentiates between the city and the district. I don't think anyone is going to look at "Buildings and Structures of Thunder Bay" and wonder if they're from the lake or the district. Thunder Bay without any qualifiers almost always refers to the city. I don't see a reason for Rome or Dublin categories to be disambiguated either. No one is going to confuse Rome with a town in Georgia. vıd ıoman 03:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think that, but others who are less familiar with the differences might. Categories are supposed to be unambiguous in a self-standing way: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.". Since there is a district and a city of the same name, they are not unambiguous in a self-standing way. You seem to be making the type of argument that would be made in naming an article, but the approach in categories is different. (The Rome example is not to disambiguate from a town in Georgia; it is because there is a district in Italy called "Rome"; same situation exists here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is Category:São Paulo (city) as well. Same deal, the city is located in a state with the same name. Mayumashu (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a parallel situation to this; the larger division that shares its name with the city is a purely statistical division which has no status as a body of government. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguator "(city)" really isn't necessary here; the risk of confusion is so minimal and theoretical as to be non-existent. Support move to just "Thunder Bay". Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thunder Bay city is by far the better known one. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename without (city) or Ontario - our article is at Thunder Bay, the cats should match. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Kbdank71 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) see below.[reply]
Oppose. Almost all of the district articles are disambiguated as Category:Foo of Thunder Bay District, Ontario so it makes sense to have the city and district categories disambiguated in a similar way. Given the other uses of Thunder Bay, it is really ambiguous without a qualification. Since the majority of the current names are not causing a problem, why change? So the way most of these categories are already named makes sense. The only change needed is to rename Category:Thunder Bay to Category:Thunder Bay, Ontario and Category:Museums in Thunder Bay to Category:Museums in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that the commons category is Category:Thunder Bay, Ontario. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support proposed rename. I've withdrawn my opinion that they should be renamed as nominated because of some of the comments above. On whether ", Ontario" should appear I'm neutral. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vegaswikian. I agree that disambig as "..., Ontario" is sufficient. --Kbdank71 17:30, 23 January 2009 (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:American liberalism[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American liberalism to Category:Liberalism in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the common form for categories and articles in Category:Liberalism by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and to match Liberalism_in_the_United_States. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Support for consistency with parent article and parent category. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (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.

Sportspeople by state[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Delaware sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Delaware

Category:District of Columbia sportspeople to ~~Category:Sportspeople from District of Columbia~~ Category:Sportspeople from Washington, D.C. to match parent category

Category:Florida sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Florida

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Sportspeople of Hawaii to Category:Sportspeople from Hawaii

Category:Idaho sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Idaho

Category:Illinois sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Illinois

Category:Indiana sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Indiana

Category:Iowa sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Iowa

Category:Kansas sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Kansas

Category:Louisiana sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Louisiana

Category:Maine sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Maine

Category:Maryland sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Maryland

Category:Massachusetts sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Massachusetts

Category:Mississippi sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Mississippi

Category:Missouri sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Missouri

Category:Montana sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Montana

Category:Nebraska sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Nebraska

Category:Nevada sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Nevada

Category:New Hampshire sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from New Hampshire

Category:New Jersey sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from New Jersey

Category:New Mexico sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from New Mexico

Category:New York sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from New York

Category:North Carolina sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from North Carolina

Category:North Dakota sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from North Dakota

Category:Oklahoma sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Oklahoma

Category:Oregon athletes to Category:Sportspeople from Oregon

Category:Pennsylvania sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Pennsylvania

Category:Rhode Island sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Rhode Island

Category:South Carolina sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from South Carolina

Category:South Dakota sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from South Dakota

Category:Tennessee sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Tennessee

Category:Texas sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Texas

Category:Utah sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Utah

Category:Vermont sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Vermont

Category:Virginia sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Virginia

~~Category:Washington sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Washington~~ All Washington (U.S. state) categories are in a separate rename right now

Category:Washington (U.S. state) sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Washington (U.S. state) added back in based on the Washington mass renaming where this category was excluded based on this discussion

Category:West Virginia sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from West Virginia

Category:Wisconsin sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Wisconsin

Category:Wyoming sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: Based on a recent test discussion, there is support to rename the sportspeople categories. Parent categories, such as Category:People from Delaware, and children categories such as Category:Basketball players from Delaware are consistent in this manner. I am aware of the much larger issue, regarding consistency within each state's people category. These will be processed in due time; the proposed name is also compliant with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT, as terms like "Oklahoma actors" or "Arizona sailors" (and any number of others) are ambiguous, whereas "Actors from Oklahoma" leaves little doubt about the category's contents, just as WP:NCCAT dictates. Neier (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. Neier (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename under the understanding that this is part of a larger move to name people by occupation in states, provinces, cantons, etc. with the pattern Category:People from Fooia. I really wonder if this not be the pattern for people by nationality/country too given the recent (and appropriate) rename of Northern Irish people to People from Northern Ireland Mayumashu (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2009 (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:Political parties observed by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Political parties observed by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz was created as part of a discussion in November about the prominence to be given a particular issue relating to The Left (Germany) - namely the party's observation by the Bundesverfassungsschutz (constitutional protection agency). The issue has now been resolved in The Left article, but the category remains. The category is an example of overcategorisation - "Small with no potential for growth": there are only 5 parties under observation, AFAIK. The information should be in more detail in each party article and perhaps Bundesverfassungsschutz, and if/when it is, the category is redundant. And of course the NPOV-breaching reason the category was created in the first place (see remarks on Talk:The Left (Germany) shouldn't be forgotten. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is but one incident in the history of each of these parties, and while it should be mentioned in the articles, I agree that having a category for it is overcategorization. I see it as similar by analogy to the deleted U.S. law firms cited for misconduct or entities that committed SEC violations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being "observed" by this Amt apparently carries no problems for the observee. Banned parties, another day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (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:Anglican scientists[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 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by non-defining intersection of religion and occupation. Similar "scientist–religion" categories have been repeatedly deleted:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_3#Category:Atheist_scientists

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4#Category:Islamic_scientists

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Roman_Catholic_scientists

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_11#Category:Atheist_scientists

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_12#Category:Scientists_by_religion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_1#Category:Christians_in_Science

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:Astronomers_by_religion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_10#Category:Latter_Day_Saint_scientists — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is now significant interest in the Relationship between religion and science and these categories are useful for quickly finding scientists from different philosophical and religious traditions. Also notice there are categories for Anglican philosophers, Anglican writers, etc....so why single out Anglican scientists for deletion? Surely it is consistent with the other categories? Notice that the categories Muslim historians, Muslim scientists, etc. have been there by consensus for some time. I believe the consensus is now moving toward keeping these types of categories. Bletchley (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A discussion of Category:Muslim scientists has never resulted in a "keep", despite what you suggest. In fact, it was deleted by consensus here, and can therefore be re-deleted. Category:Muslim historians has never been discussed, nor have either of the two Anglican categories you reference (but those are all entirely different than the "scientist" categories, anyway, and different considerations would apply). I challenge you to find a discussion where the consensus has been to keep a scientist by religion category. There has been no shifting consensus in the past on this question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how this nomination is singling out Category:Anglican scientists? Given the cited discussions, there does not appear to be any singling out of one category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: yes, as it says above, check out Anglican philosophers, Anglican writers etc. If you can have "Anglican writers" as a category, then singling out "Anglican scientists" for deletion is rather inconsistent is it not? Why one occupation and not another? Bletchley (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are completely different as those categories are (or at least should be) used for people who are Anglicans who write specifically about Anglicanism and Anglican philosophers who, um, have philosophised about the religious belief system of Anglicanism. This is connected to the comment by Johnuniq below where he discusses the problem of category names reflecting the fact that categories "by ethnicity or religion [should only be used] if this has significant bearing on their career". Show us how I'm singling out Anglican scientists as opposed to scientists of other religions. I'm not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I looked at both of these categories, Anglican philosophers and Anglican writers. The first is a category of Anglican theologians who are also major philosophers who philosophized about their and others' profound relationships with their Church and/or God. Bingo -- exactly how such a category should be used.
      - The second though, is less what it is supposed to be. If an article discusses nothing about the writer's relationship with the Church (Hanan Ashrawi) she does not belong in this category. However, if an article would be incomplete, without a significant discussion of the writer's relationship with the Church (W. H. Auden), then he belongs in the category. The problem with "ThisReligion's scientist" categories is that they are dumping grounds for any scientist who practiced the religion ever, whether or not that is significant to the work that brought them the attention that merits an article. I'm not sure if, under these circumstances, the categories should be kept or not. If they stay, they should only be as categories, as all categories should be!, for articles about people whose lifework was related to their religion. Berkeley, Butler, and John Macquarrie cannot be fully understood or written about without details about their life inside their faith. Hanan Ashrawi's religion is a fact of her life, as a Palestinian, but her article does not mention any intimacy with her religion at all. William Rowan Hamilton was an Anglican? And the article says nothing about his ever going near a church. This is not how a category should be used--Anglican men would be just as valid a category for the Hamiltonian dude.
      - These two descriptors at the top of the category page do not agree with each other: "This is a category of scientists who belong or have belonged to the Anglican/Episcopalian faith tradition. This category is of relevance to Relationship between religion and science." Only in the case of a significant aspect of the second being part of the scientist's life, and being discussed in the article, should the person be included. The first statement does not belong as a category descriptor--Category:Blue-eyed Anglicans, Category:Sunflower seed eating Anglicans become just as relevant.
      - I think that, if you are saying none of these scientists have made an impact about their relationship with their faith, the categories should go. But if some have, the categories should be cleaned up. Or else, because Anglican writers also contains junk, it would show a non-bias to nominate it also. Both categories are used improperly and deserved the same treatment for that: junking or fixing. Other stuff should always, in my opinion, have the same treatment, when offered up as an example. --KP Botany (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Science is supposed to be objective, but I just wonder whether in some fields people may be slightly less than wholly objective due to their beliefs. The question is to what extent the religion practised by a scientist is a notable characteristic. In most cases, I suspect that it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As in the related proposal to remove religion from the infobox for scientists, if we are going to pigeonhole scientists, I believe we should only use precise labels. This category could include any scientist baptized as Anglican. Yet in the nom's reference we read "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". So, if categories like this are to made, they should be of the form "Scientists who have written about their Anglican faith" (a precise and reasonably verifiable category, although personally I think it is overcategorization). --Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The category is quite clear. It specifies scientists "who are or were Anglicans". Then it is upto the reader to go to the article to find out the details of the timespan that the scientist was or is an Anglican, and its level of importance to that Scientist's philosophy, upbringing, background etc. Categories by definition don't tell us everything. That is why we have full articles :-) There are religion categories for other occupations such as writers, philosophers etc...it seems arbitrary that scientist are being singled out here. Bletchley (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any rationale for deleting it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There seem to be a few Wikipedians who who have a personal or philosophical objection to religious categories, who want to delete all of them without proper discussion in the broader WP community. Nbauman (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does "non defining intersection of religion and occupation" + loads of precedents with consensus supporting the proposal = IDONTLIKEIT? And if you're suggesting that I, as nominator, "have a personal or philosophical objection to religious categories" or "want to delete all of them without proper discussion in the broader WP community", I think you need to assume good faith and keep your speculations to yourself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not speculating or assuming bad faith. User:Feketekave said so explicitly here Nbauman (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Feketekave has not commented on this discussion and no one has provided a rationale for deletion that resembles his opinion. I'd still like to know how my nomination rationale for "delete" and the others in favour of delete = IDONTLIKEIT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scientists by religion is a bad idea. Do they practice science differently? Really? How so? Should we be more inclined to accept the results of scientific research by a Fooian scientist than a Dooian one? No; then it's not a defining connection. Apart from the verifiability and the difficulty to define and changeability of one's religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The intersection of religion and science is often notable for cultural and historical reasons. Especially in cases where the two seem to be in conflict or concordance. Now I'm not saying this category should be kept as I think it might be both too broad and too narrow. (Too broad as in it's just any old Anglican, too narrow as in it's too denominationally specific) Still there are reasons for lists that relate to science/religion and for categories on people who write about the Relationship between religion and science. (Although at present there is no Category:Religion and science scholars or Category:Scholars of science and religion or however one wants to phrase it)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why do the arguments apply to Scientists? There are lots religion categories by other types of occupation, eg. Anglican writers. These categories are no different. Questions of definition, verifiability etc. are all the same. Needless to say, their existence demonstrates that your concerns do have solutions. I just don't understand why people get all emotional when it comes to scientists...why the special sacred cow status? I don't get it. Can somebody enlighten me? Pray tell. Bletchley (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see much "emotion" in this discussion except from those wanting to keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not defining and OCAT. I'm simply not buying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic here where there is ample precedent that this type of classification should not be kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious overcategorization to me. Why categorize scientists by religion when the text itself barely notes this? You could do the same for jockeys, CEOs, and computer programmers. OCAT seems pretty clear to me. In response to a comment above, writer classification by religion is different, as many writers are notable for writing in a particular religiously influenced subject area. For example, Nietsche and Russell were clearly atheist writers, and this directly and deeply influenced their work; Aquinas is a clearly a Catholic writer as his entire body of work is Catholic apology. I can't see the value of scientist classification except in distant historical settings (i.e. Islamic scientists in the 12th century), and these can be accomodated by other Islam related categories. As it is, the categorizations get misused by proponents of religion X and clutter up lots of pages where it's simply irrelevant. Phil153 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although supportive of religion/scientists categories in the past I think lists might be better for this now. Especially if the other cats aren't revived. That said I would support a Category:Anglican scientist-clerics as a counterpoint to Category:Roman Catholic scientist-clerics. I think when discussing scientist-clerics the issue of religion/science is clearer.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore Most of the previous deletions were simply wrong. Many scientists are religious to the extent that it is involved in their publications and their motivation. So where there is good evidence of their self-description and relevance to their work, the categories should be used. I consider the arguments otherwise to be based on a failure to understand the relevance on the part of individuals in the debtes, and another example of cultural bias. There's nothing wrong with having lists also, which could show more than just the names. DGG (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore This seems entirely encyclopedic and appropriate to me - there are biographical encyclopedias of science scoped by religion and there are notable professional organizations on a religious axis such as the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorisation. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intersection of religion and profession (other than for priests etc.) is irrelevant. - fchd (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (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:South Korean spree killers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Falls under WP:OC#NONCATGRS. There are only two entries, and one of them (Seung-Hui Cho) it would be debatable whether he should be classified as American or South Korean. I suspect that the creation of this category was based on the acts of Seung-Hui Cho, as it was created on April 21, 2007, 5 days after the Virginia Tech massacre on April 15, 2007. Scootey (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:OC#NONCATGRS, but also per WP:OC#SMALL. I fail to see how this category will expand. DiverseMentality 05:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks like it is one in a series of by-nationality categories. Not sure if one only of these should be cherry-picked for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a fair sub-cat of Category:Spree killers by nationality. Lugnuts (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As argued above, this is one of 18 sub-cats by nationality. As long as there is at least one article properly listed this is a valid category. Given his life history, I think Cho probably belongs in both the South Korean and American sub-cats. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nationality is the way these cats are divided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (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:Film festival founders[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film festival founders to Category:Film festival executives

:Nominator's rationale: I believe the current category definition is too narrow, restricted to people who founded a film festival, while leaving out all other film festival directors and executives who were not founders. Our other businesspeople and media executive categories are not restricted to founders and I don't feel this should be, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN[reply]

Comment - As you can see from the parent cat I just added, Category:Founders by field, there are in fact a goodly number of other categories of this sort. Whether it should be expanded as proposed is another matter. Another possibility would be to have both categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, withdrawn then. I've been populating the category along with its creator and so far all the articles I've come across have been founders. Articles that I thought would exist, on, say, prominent TIFF director but non-founder Piers Handling, do not exist yet, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (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:Foreign-born soccer players who played for the Booia' leftovers[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 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Croatia

Nominator's rationale: Delete these two were tagged for a recent (lengthy) nomination that resulted in delete - I, the nominator then, failed to add them to that list Mayumashu (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a footballer can only ever play for one international team unlike clubs which they can change many times a season. Over 90% of players that play for an international team are also born in that country when an individual plays for a team that is not of his birth then that is pretty noteworthy, sometimes controvertial often in what as seen as a "flag of convenience". Some countries have a policy of importing players under the "grandparent rule" or "granny rule" and "naturalisation" route such as Ireland, Portugal, Jamaica, France, Barbados, Mexico, Holland and Australia and even in Africa such as Rwanda whislt others export players such as Germany, England, Argentina and Brazil and most pertainant here is the USA and the issue is explored here as well. There are plenty of sources which discuss this import issue. This often discussed issue can be very controvertial and these categories help navigation. more, and more and yet more. ~~I have mostly provided evidence from and Irish perspective but~~ I am sure others could provide evidence from various countries. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are some articles which discuss it from a more international perspective. [1][2].[3].

cat pages like these should be named Category:Naturalized American citizens who have played for its national soccer team or the like - what is noteworthy isn t whether someone is foreign-born - a native citizen of the U.S. can be foreign-born (to American parents) - but whether they have acquired a new nationality(=citizenship) or not. one's citizenship is a more defining quality than one' birthplace because people are free to relocate but can not so easily change their citizenship, and that is why nationality and birthplace have come to identify people in cat pages across the encyclopedia. But the topic is indeed noteworthy as you have clearly shown so there definitely needs to be mention made for national teams who have used a lot of naturalised citizens or countries who provided such players on nat. team pages or in on an article page dedicated to the matter Mayumashu (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree, you dont have to be naturalized to qualify for another country - the granny rule shows this and I dontthink that any of the 50 or so foriegn born players that have played for Ireland ever became natrualised. I have proven that it is a hot potato issue and noteworthy (I could proved a lot more material from reliable sources but thought the amount I proved was sufficient). In soccer the country of birth is a defining feature and it is rarely forgotten - for example John Barnes was born in Jamaica and played for England, articles about him were often prefaced with "the Jamaican born English international" - the same for goes for many others like Andy Goram for Scotland, Vinny Jones for Wales, Shaun Maloney for Scotland, Marcel Desailly for France etc etc etc. I think it detracts from Wikipedia by deleting these categories especially as the are well sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, with the British footballers who have played for (the Republic of) Ireland not having become naturalised citizens of Ireland - it is certainly a noteworthy exception. Otherwise, outside the British Isles (and the difficulty there is there in being clear on a person's nationality) however naturalisation is required. The noteworthiness of this needs explanation and therefore is still far better dealt with in an article. Players then should be 'listified' either in the article in question or on a separate linking article page. There is still the issue of players who are foreign-born but not foreign (such as with people born to Fooian parents in Booia in a Booia w/o jus soli - and which people born in the U.K. to Irish parents/grandparents are a form of). The naming of the cat page would need to be, except for the Irish exception, the rather bulky Category:Foreign-born non-citizens of France to have played for its national football team to be accurate, or otherwise we are just noting the foreign-birth and not if it is noteworthy or not, because (again) many but not all foreign-births are noteworthy within a soccer context Mayumashu (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I disagree, I would agrue (an argument backed up by the references listed above) that in the case of international soccer/football a player being born outside of the country the he plays for is noteworthy and should have its own category - its not just in Ireland that players havent become naturalised - things that spring to mind are the West Indies countries that took on British players such as Robbie Earle, Deon Burton and Frank Sinclair for Jamaica, Shaka Hislop of Trinidad, Craig Rocastle of Grenada - I could go on and on. I think this issue should be dealt with in two ways Category:Foreign-born soccer players who played for Fooian and also :Category:Fooian-born soccer players who played for Mooian. I would advocate in the strongest terms that these categories should exist as long as they are properly defined and sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the British Caribbean players do take up citizenship of their adoptive country / country of heritage, under the Irish ones, but am not sure. (And a no. of French footballers likewise have played for the African country of their parents' birth.) But again I m under the impression that they easily qualify for and get passports for these countries. This is the case with South Americans of Italian descent, I know. But this all belongs in an article or articles. Mayumashu (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to conform with previous CfD. The above discussion is like arguing over whether we should shut the gate when the horse is already miles away. Delete these to conform with the previous consensus; if anyone wants to propose having these categories restored, the discussion could go to WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thats not really a valid reason to delete. The previous deletion of the other categories didnt even inform the relevant Projects that it was up for discussion. I will personally recreate the delete the other Categories if it is overturned. Have a look at the previous CfD and the arguments to delete are pretty lame. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes it is. It's basing the deletion on a previous consensus to delete. It appears that the nominator simply forgot to include these in the list he was nominating. Failure to notify any particular WikiProject is not a valid reason to depart from this consensus, as there's no requirement to do so and WikiProjects are responsible for tracking the articles and categories they are interested in. Any attempts to "overturn" the previous discussion are not properly discussed here, but at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so whats the point of this discussion then? will they be deleted even if concensus is to keep now that the "case for the defense" has been put forward? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if there's overwhelming support for keeping these in this discussion, they would be kept. The nom has no choice but to go through the usual process for renaming. What I'm saying is that a dramatically different result would be somewhat strange and unlikely, having just held a discussion that addressed many more of these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect there was only 3 !votes and 1 !vote to Keep - the arguments put forward to delete are pretty flimsy. And the only with any weight (put forward by yourself) has in my mind been debunked above. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you should have brought that up at the time. I personally am not too interested in fighting every battle twice in quick succession. But despite your explanation, I still don't think it's category material—list yes, but not category. WP:DRV? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have if any Projects were notified! ;) You may not believe that it is defining but in international soccer it is, as demonstrated by the multpile sources provided above. Should you require further evidence just ask. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long until users start taking responsibility for tracking the stuff they are interested in, rather than placing the blame on others for not doing something that is not required by WP guidelines? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont go gettin yer knickers in a twist me-lado! All I am saying is it would have been polite and probably best to inform individuals who know about the subject matter know of the discussion - thats all. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's twisted, and I think it's presumptuous to suggest that no one outside of WP:FOOTY knows anything about the subject matter. I just see a lot of WikiProject people complain after the fact when something's renamed or deleted, but of course they don't bother to place the category or article on their watchlist. Then they expect the process to start over just because they weren't informed. It can't really work that way, and this is just one more example of it happening. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont put words in my mouth. I never said "that no one outside of WP:FOOTY knows anything about the subject matter" - I said it "have been polite and probably best to inform individuals who know about the subject matter". Which I stand by. Now back to the issue at hand please.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to personally notify every WP user "who know[s] about the subject matter". Since I assumed you were not seriously suggesting that that be done, I assumed you were referring to notifying WP:FOOTY. But that's presumptuous to suggest that only those at the WikiProject know about football. (In fact, some who know a great deal about football go out of their way not to join the project.) Either way you meant it, it was kind of a crazy thing to suggest. The way every interested person gets notified is through the category being tagged, which it was. And I think it's entirely one of the "issue[s] at hand", since there would presumably no effort to overturn previous consensus here if all users watched the categories they were concerned about rather than relying on the goodwill of others and then complaining afterwards about the lack of goodwill. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are primarily relating to Football - the Football Project deals with all thing football. The Football Project should have been notified about this discussion because they who are obviously going to be pretty knowledgable about the subject and going to have something to say on the subject. So I said that "have been polite and probably best to inform individuals who know about the subject matter" - I did not say they would be the only people with and opinion or knowledge on the subject I said (once again) it would "have been polite and probably best to inform individuals who know about the subject matter". sheesh!!!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why single out WP:FOOTY, since there are many users who are not members of WP:FOOTY (probably more, in fact) who "know about the subject matter" (football)? That's the issue you are avoiding. What makes WP:FOOTY deserving of a special notification but not everyone else who knows about football? Or the Wikiprojects for the countries in question? Or those who wrote the articles that are affected? Or ... or ... or. It can go on ad infinitum, which is why lack of notification of a specific WikiProject or user is completely irrelevant, so long as the categories were tagged properly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about it, you are hurting my head - dont tell the Ireland project about an Irish category, dont tell the Science Project about a scientist, dont tell the Football project about a football topic! Either way the concensus was weak and the arguments even weaker. Now can we get back topic.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All they gotta do is add categories to their watchlist. It's not a huge burden. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in our discussion before, I (and probably no other right thinking editor) am not going to spend weeks watching every one of the thousands of categories in the scope of WP:FOOTY in case someone tries to delete them. Expecting people to do that rather than the people who nominate or come across the CfD to list it on any relevant project(s) is daft. Rather than maintain this position wouldn't it be easier to accept that it is good practice/common sense/polite to inform the relevant project even if it is not mandatory. I would guess that informing more people about the debate generally results in a debate with more contributors and the greater number of contributors the healthier the debate (ie more than 4 contributors/stronger consensus). King of the North East 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spend weeks"? That's what watchlists are for. I never said notifying a WikiProject wouldn't be polite or convenient for you—I do it myself sometimes—but that's rather irrelevant when it's not required. To argue it as a reason for overturning a CfD is a non-starter, which is my point. If you are looking for a solution to the problem that you can control, watchlists are the answers. If you don't want to do that, just don't blame others for not telling you and expect that blame to be used as a good reason to overturn a decision. That's all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

Yes spend weeks trawling through every category in WP:FOOTY in order to put it on the watchlist (unless there is a way of wishing them all there instantaneously). Also I'm not using it as a reason to overturn the CfD, I havn't even !voted on the issue, I just take exception to your suggestion that I should spend my evenings putting thousands of categories on my watchlist just incase someone tries to stealth delete them using the unhelpful attitude that "I wont inform anyone of this debate because I don't have to". My point (about healthy debate/strong consensus) is illustrated by the fact that there is a much more lively debate here (6 contributors in the first 2 days compared to 4 in total for the first nom) because people have taken the time to notify the relevant project. King of the North East 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as hard as you're making it out to be with raw editing functionality for watchlists. And if WP:FOOTY (or any individual user) claims to be interested in them all, then it makes perfect sense for someone in FOOTY (or the individual) to go to the trouble of tracking them all. But hey, you can do as you like, as I said. Just don't try to place the onus on others where no onus exists. There was not a "stealth delete" strategy or intent, as far as I know. (Please..., let's try to AGF.) Everyone has responsibility for tracking their own stuff. Simple, really. Alternatively, you can rely on the unlikely chance that everytime one comes up for nomination, the nominator (1) knows about WP:FOOTY and that it would want to be notified; (2) is kind and thoughtful enough to notify others; and (3) has the time to carry out his intention to notify others. Personally, I don't rely on those, because the chance of all 3 being met in any given situation are low. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, the Australian WikiProject just went through a similar crisis, and after I suggested adding the categories they were interested in to a watchlist, one participant did it for all the Australia-related categories. From what I've heard from that user, it was not an onerous task and didn't take long—certainly not "weeks". As far as I know they did it in one day. The watchlist contents can even be copied and e-mailed around or posted on WP user pages from the raw data. They are quite happy now as they can easily track the nominations to all Australia-related categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(reindent) I still contest the point, it seems what you are trying to say is that it is better to assume that someone from the relevant project(s) is watching all the related categories then trying to widen the discussion by informing the relevant project(s) because it is not mandatory to do so. You patronise me by asking me to assume good faith, but it is extremely difficult to do so when confronted with such a silly argument from someone who's vote in this discussion is completely at odds with the way they closed this discussion, which was done with a clear conflict of interest having voted Keep in the previous debate. It seems you are prepared to ignore the precedent to delete following a fairly rigerous debate in which you voted keep, but when you vote delete in a much less rigerous debate you seem to suggest that it is a waste of time having a proper discussion and that it should go to DRV. King of the North East 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may "seem" to you that that's what I'm suggesting, but it's not. I'm trying to be helpful. If you don't want to be helped, that's fine. It's obvious from the remainder of your comment you have other issues. If you think I have a COI problem, I suggest you bring it up at a WP:DRV rather than tossing around accusations randomly in this forum. I don't think any reasonable person would regard the close you reference as demonstrating bias. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing random about it - in fact its pretty specific. And you have been nothing but rude with regards this issue (no shock there though!)--Vintagekits (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "randon" in the sense of having little to do with anything directly related to the discussion at hand; it's an ad hominem attack of the type users make when they don't know how to effectively discuss the issue as opposed to the users involved in the discussion. But sorry if you've felt I've been rude, as I haven't intended to be anything but helpful on the issue and to point out the dangers of relying on the goodwill of others to notify you of changes that you might care about. If you don't want to be helped, the answer is to ignore the offer, not to take offence. WP is run by individual users, not WikiProjects, which is a fact that often gets lost in the indignation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZZzzzzzzzzzzz!!! are you potentially the most boring ~~man~~ person on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)

(Speaking of ad hominem attacks ....) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy against closing XfDs you have voted in? Yes. I guess there is no Wikipedia policy against using your administrative powers to close debates in a way that undermines the consensus you have a history of voting against, otherwise you would not have done it. You use the fact that I remembered this close (no consensus. Obviously, this result is at variance with the recent decision to delete) and noticed the way it is completely at odds with the way you !vote here (Delete to conform with previous CfD) to claim that I have "other issues", that mentioning this is somehow a random ad hominem attack and insinuated that I don't have the intelligence to effectively discuss the issue. I just don't like being lectured by someone who is happy to completely disregard previous consensus when they were one of the ones that voted against it, repeatedly argues against informing related Wikiprojects, saying that it is unnecessary because policy does not enforce it, not worth the time it takes to do and misrepresenting other peoples arguments in favour. It would be an ad hominem attack if I used such evidence to call you a hypocrite, speculate that you don't want the relevant projects informed because you don't want other people coming along and mucking up the decisions of the CfD clique with their "expert opinions" and call you patronising and witless for picking out other peoples spelling mistakes and “quoting” them back to them but I won't. King of the North East 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to misinterpret and thereby misrepresent everything I've said is truly fantastic. As for your other issues—get help man. Report me as an abuser of discretion if you wish, but don't just bitch about it in a hysterical way in a CfD I happen to participate in and expect anyone to take you too seriously—I'm certainly not. It's been truly good value, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a wind up merchant, you deliberately misrepresented Vintagekits with this comment "......presumptuous to suggest that only those at the WikiProject know about football" then accuse me of misrepresenting you. Your reference to these unspecified "other issues" of mine that I need help for is insulting. It is this kind of patronising rudeness that generally keeps me away from XfD. King of the North East 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I misrepresented the user it was not deliberate, as you suggest. It's possible the comment implied more than s/he intended, which was what I was pointing out. The "other issues" that I say you need help with specifically are complaining about my "abuse of discretion", since there's not much point bringing it up here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look this argument has gone on too long, the reason I brought up the dodgy close up is that I do not like being told to AGF in a patronising manner by an editor I remember only for making an administrative decision that looked a lot like bad faith (or in the best possible light poor judgement or extreme forgetfulness) which is completely at odds with the way he is !voting here. I think perhaps if you had just accepted that informing the relevant projects is worthwhile instead of arguing the point to absurdity none of this would have even been mentioned. King of the North East 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did acknowledge that, and quite early on—I have even done it myself. The point I was making is that you shouldn't count on it or argue that the CfD is invalid if it doesn't happen. As for my administrative close in question—it seems you misunderstand the role of the closer. I close according to the consensus I see in the discussion in question, not on any "precedent" that has come before. And I'm entirely at liberty to express opinions in other discussions, even if they differ from my interpretations of consensus that I declared in closing other discussions. As to any "conflict of interest", this discussion remaining open for so long is a good example of why sometimes I close discussions even when I have participated in similar discussions previously—there is a drastic shortage of admins who are willing to close CfDs. That's why this one is still open, really. I'd be more than happy to avoid closing any discussions that in any way resemble any discussion I have previously participated in if you can recruit a phalanx of admins to be consistent closers here. Right now we just do our best with what we have, and that includes me doing my best to impartially interpret the consensus (or lack thereof) that I see expressed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I accept that you do a lot of work around here, but arguing points to absurdity, accusing people of crazy talk like you did with vintagekits and accusing people of hysterics and implying that they have mental issues will probably drive more people away from XfD than it encourages to help. If you are struggling to do your best with only a few regular contributors, surely widening the discussion by notifying the relevant projects would encourage other people to comment leaving the regular contributors more scope to close the debates and have the added benefit of creating stronger consensus with more than just 3/4 editors deciding the fate of what can sometimes be categories or category groups that appear on thousands of articles. Why not try informing the relevant projects for a few days and see if it encourages other users to contribute to CfD and improves the standard of debate and number of contributors rather than coming up with reasons that it was not and should not be done? King of the North East 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mental problems? I don't think I suggested that. If you took that from any comments, it was mistaken. (The "other issues" reference was to concerns extraneous to this discussion re: my conflicts of interest, etc., not to your mental health.) As I've said a number of times, I have (and continue to) notify WikiProjects. Typically I get no response; sometimes one user shows up. I've also suggested to other users that they try it, but from my observations still hardly any people that nominate do it. I'm not presenting any reasons it "should not" be done; I'm simply saying that using the fact that it was not done as a reason to invalidate an otherwise valid CfD is ... an invalid line of reasoning. To argue otherwise is an argument that can indeed be taken to absurd conclusions, which was what I was demonstrating for Vintagecars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in popular culture accusing people of having issues and instructing them to get help ("As for your other issues—get help man") is commonly percieved to be insulting, and accusing people of crazy talk and hysterics is certainly not the best way of maintaining civil discourse. Perhaps you should be more careful about how you phrase things? For the record I never stated that not informing WP:FOOTY is a direct reason the first decision should not be taken as a precedent its the poverty of the arguments to delete, and the weakness of the consensus that was the problem. With the informing projects issue, I would suggest that you keep trying (at least for mass nominations), even if you only get one or two comments, thats still an improvement and at least you wont have to have this argument again next time someone sees a huge number of categories get deleted and complains that they were not informed. All the best King of the North East 23:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do that (on all points). (And I'm sorry that I offended you with my previous comments; I withdraw the ones you identify.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I apologise for bringing up the COI allegation in a public forum, I should have bit my tongue having ommited to mention it to you at the time I noticed it. No hard feelings, King of the North East 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – merely being born somewhere confers no automatic entitlement to anything these days, even for those who later turn out to be talented footballers. So what if someone was born in X and plays for Y? Occuli (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "merely being born somewhere confers no automatic entitlement to anything these days" - incorrect, it entitles you to a passport, it entitles you to play for that country. "So what if someone was born in X and plays for Y?" - I think the "so whatness" is answered by the multiple sources I have provided above.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from British nationality law, in the UK it has been more complicated than this since 1983. Occuli (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry I know all about the UK situation and it is special in terms of FIFA's treatment. The point still stands that place of birth is an important and noteworthy defining feature of an international footballer - I think I have clearly proven this with the sources I have proved.--Vintagekits (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but a lot of countries are not jus soli, not being born there doesnt simply mean one can qualify for a passport. You ve shown significance in relation to British footballers who play for Ireland of Caribbean countries but there are a lot of countries that don t have jus soli. Mayumashu (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that in international football the country that an individual was born in is important and it is noteworthy and it is constantly being raise over and over again - take Aiden McGeady for example.--Vintagekits (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one more tidbit to the importance of being born in a country. What happens if you are born on an airplane? Don't laugh, this just happened again on a flight to the US. The child was legally born in Canada, in Canadian airspace at the time of birth, and yet they never set foot in the country. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol! good one, not sure. Maybe if you were in someone airspace! aint got a clue.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and Occuli. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and recreate the other deleted categories. There was never a real discussion (with as someone said only 3-4 editors removing hundreds of categories without notifying related projects. Even if that's not "mandatory"), and foreign-born footballers is a notable subject, and there are enough of them out there for many countries to be filled by players. — _CHAN _DLER ^#10 — 02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or listify before deletion at a minimum. The information in these categories and the ones deleted following these discussions [4] [5], is worth keeping. The fact that these largescale deletions were not raised at the relevant project is a causal factor in the poverty of the discussion. I do not think unhelpful attitudes like "I d recommend listify, but I m not willing at this point to do the work" and that the emphasis is on other people to watch all the categories in WP:FOOTY rather than the nominator or other contributors to attempt to widen the discussion by informing the relevant project(s) do not add any strength to the deletion decision. The lack of strong consensus is a major issue here, if two previous discussions are considered together it seems 2 editors said "delete", 1 editor "strong keep", 1 editor "delete/listify", 1 editor "listify, but I m not willing at this point to do the work", bearing this in mind the deletion of the previous categories should not be taken as a precedent. The reason I believe that categories such as these should be kept (or listified at a minimum) is that they help to illustrate the huge contribution expatriate players have made to certain national teams such as Ireland, Italy and France. Although the other type "X born footballers to play for other national teams" are not in direct discussion here I beleive that they should have been kept, espacially for countries such as Argentina, Brazil and England which have exported large numbers of footballers to other national teams. Just look at the current world champions and current European champions, they both have foreign born footballers in their teams, as have many world championship teams of the past 1934 and 1998 spring immediately to mind. King of the North East 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's finish what was administratively overlooked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more triple intersection categories. All arguments on previous AfDs still stand. - fchd (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in order to adjust this to previous CfD.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2009 (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.