Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Category:Star systems rumored to be inhabited with intelligent life[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 wub "?!" 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star systems rumored to be inhabited with intelligent life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Call me crazy, but I don't think this is a great way to categorize stars. First of all, these can't really be "rumors", since no one knows whether intelligent life exists anywhere but Earth. It might be better phrased as "star systems theorized to be inhabited with intelligent life". The category defines itself as "Star systems with alleged extraterrestrial intelligence." But however we phrase it, the problem of course is that the entire process of deciding what we include here is terribly POV or arbitrary—if one person suggests that maybe there is intelligent life in star system X, does star system X enter this category? Or does it require a certain number of people to suggest it? Do the people have to be some sort of scientists, or do we count cranks and "ufologists" as well? There is no "scientific consensus" on these theories of possible locations of ET intelligent life that we could use to determine when a star system is added to the category. At the end of the day, it's not defining for the stars included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or at least add Solar system :) Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - rumors are not a proper basis for categorization. Do not add Solar system in the absence of reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rumours are not a categorization scheme in general use on Wikipedia 76.66.201.179 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We'd first have to establish a base of reliable sources that would suffice to have this mentioned in the article about the star system itself. I think we're far from there still. __meco (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pssssssss, Vulcan I hear has very intelligent life. Mr. Spock says so. Pass it on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think because of WP:NOT. In the case of the star system Sirius, the only criteria for inclusion of that category (that I could see) was Composer Karlheinz Stockhausen's claim he was trained as a musician there. I don't think that could be considered a "rumor".—RJH (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all else fails, we could always run this by Lily Tomlin. Cgingold (talk) 03:13, 15 March 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.

International Criminal Court judges[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. the wub "?!" 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Current International Criminal Court judges to Category:International Criminal Court judges
Suggest merging Category:Former International Criminal Court judges to Category:International Criminal Court judges
Nominator's rationale: Merge, we generally don't subdivide categories into "current" and "former" status. Categories are meant to be "timeless", and doing so also solves potential problems of keeping categories "up-to-date". Current and former judges of the court are well-discussed at Judges of the International Criminal Court, so no information is lost in a merge of these categories. The combined category will also not be terribly huge, so no exception to the general rule seems warranted in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; we don't differentiate between current and former. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Long precedent. If the category became overpopulated, those for ealier periods could be pushed into a subcategory with an appropriate date range, but the court is too new for that to be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Many precedents for not separating current from former. Current should be in a list, and possibly already are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 15 March 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:Abandoned communities in Oklahoma[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge If any of these qualify as Ghost towns, they can be recategorized at will. Kbdank71 14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Abandoned communities in Oklahoma to Category:Former settlements in Oklahoma
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Former settlements seems to to be the common name for categories like this that included unincorporated communities. This was a part of a multiple nomination last month, but this specific category was not really addressed and as a result there was in affect no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 11 March 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:Counts of Vérac[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 wub "?!" 13:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Counts of Vérac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Unpopulated. Hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:10, 11 March 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 politicians 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: keep. Kbdank71 14:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American politicians by state to Category:American politicians by state or territory
Nominator's rationale: Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 11 March 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:Sikh ceremonial food and drink[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 wub "?!" 13:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sikh ceremonial food and drink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - only contains one article, and unlikely to contain more. Robofish (talk) 04:44, 15 March 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:Swiss of Macedonian 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: rename. the wub "?!" 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Swiss of Macedonian descent to Category:Category:Swiss people of Macedonian descent
Nominator's rationale: Found doing cleanup. Apparently intended to be included with this discussion but was left out. The discussion ended with a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Carlos's history vis-a-vis these sorts of nominations relevant at all? Otto4711 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 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:Shopping malls in the United States[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. the wub "?!" 13:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls in the United States to Category:Shopping malls in the United States by state
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state is currently a mix of forms, some using by state and others not. I think that adding by state is reasonable for all, or most, of these. This would make the old name available for broader use to include subcategories of malls built by companies if and when needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 11 March 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:Ilium/Olympos[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 wub "?!" 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ilium/Olympos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, highly unlikely to expand beyond the existing three articles. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 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:NUTS statistical regions of the European Union[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NUTS statistical regions of the European Union to Category:NUTS statistical regions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was renamed some time ago from "NUTS statistical regions of Europe" to the present name. This was based on the idea that they are only used for European Union countries.
As the current name might imply that the regions are part of the European Union and there aren't really any other NUTS statistical regions than these, I suggest to remove the part "of the European Union". NUTS 1, NUTS 2, NUTS 3, LAU 1, LAU 2 should be renamed the same way. We were more or less ready to do so earlier. 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC) User:Docu
  • Oppose: there are NUTS regions for every country in the world, a qualifier is necessary to avoid confusion with other NUTS regions outside the EU.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category description doesn't imply that it's limited to EU countries. The confusion is rather that people could think that it is. -- User:Docu
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:Wishbone Ash[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 wub "?!" 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wishbone Ash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. The vast majority of the contents are albums (already in Category:Wishbone Ash albums) or members (Category:Wishbone Ash members). There are apparently no articles for songs. With those removed there is insufficient material to warrant the category. There is an extensive navtemplate linking all of this material together. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've removed the people (who were all members but were not all in Category:Wishbone Ash members). This leaves 48 articles, as compared with 48 articles in the Albums category. It is true that there seem to be no song articles. So Otto might well have a case. Occuli (talk) 22:21, 11 March 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:Angela Via[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 wub "?!" 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Angela Via (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for subject's article and single sub-cat. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 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:Muddy Waters[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 wub "?!" 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muddy Waters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed to hold the single sub-cat. Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there are 2 subcats ... there has always been a consensus to delete such with 2 subcats and few other articles. (Unless more material turns up.) Occuli (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was just the one subcat when I nominated it; someone must've added the second one. Otto4711 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 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:Yellowcard[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 wub "?!" 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yellowcard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category. We simply do not need a category for a single article and a couple of subcats, all of which material links through the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 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:Xzibit[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 wub "?!" 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xzibit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the material. I think we've deleted this once previously. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 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:Drag[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 wub "?!" 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Drag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the paltry material it contains. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the current items from the category, but keep the category itself and repurpose it as being about the cultural phenomenon instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category for the cultural phenomenon should be at Category:Drag (clothing). Drag is a dab page. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. If someone wants to "repurpose" it for the cultural phenomenon, it can simply be re-created and used for the different purpose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 16 March 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:Drag albums[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. the wub "?!" 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Drag albums to Category:Drag (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match lead article Drag (band) and lest someone assume that Supermodel of the World belongs here. Otto4711 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 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:Miscarriages of justice[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 for now. It is accepted that there are numerous problems with this category, including the naming of it and what the contents should be. Further discussion is indeed warranted, but as it was pointed out, every time we say "keep for further discussion", nothing ever happens. By listifying, it keeps the articles together while a discussion can be held as to the best way to categorize them, and in case there is no discussion, we don't have to worry about a problematic category sitting around. In addition, this forces the contributors to this CFD to do more than drive-by "this needs to be discussed/fixed" and then moving along thinking someone else is going to do it (which also happens frequently). If after listification, it is not updated with sources, etc, I'm sure it'll get AFD'ed fairly quickly. Kbdank71 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Miscarriages of justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - inherent unfixable NPOV issues. One person's miscarriage of justice is another's righteous act. There is likely someone on either side of every legal issue who believes justice was not served. Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This category is "miscarriage of justice". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete[reconsidered, see comments below] - too subjective, as well as redundant. It's simply not appropriate for individual editors to list articles directly under this heading on the basis of their personal judgements. As far as I can see, the only cases that can properly be listed here are already included in Category:Overturned convictions. As for Category:Extrajudicial killings, I believe it's a serious misnomer to construe those as being "Miscarriages of justice", since the very term "Extrajudicial" means that they are, by definition, outside the judicial process, and therefore have nothing to do with "justice" in the legal sense of the term. In sum, though well intended, this category just doesn't serve a useful purpose. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Cgingold. In the edit logs this shows it's been deleted before, but there is no deletion in the deletion logs. Odd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: this one needs more careful examination. I agree that this category is problematic, and that its sub-category Category:Overturned convictions has the advantage of a clear-cut definition. I also agree that Category:Extrajudicial killings belongs elsewhere, because the issue there is not that the system of legal justice miscarried, rather than it was never used at all.
So what we are left with here is a collection of cases where the judicial system was used, but where the outcome is alleged to have been unfair. The problem with this category is that it doesn't lead us to any clear inclusion criteria: in the absence of a court decision, what's the threshold for inclusion? Do we need a deathbed confession from the trial judge saying "I knew e wasn't guilty but I fixed the trial", or is it enough for the convict's mum to say "he was a good boy, they stitched him up"? All far too vague.
But, but but ... look at some of the articles in here. The Sallins Train Robbery became a cause celebre in Ireland. Three people were convicted after having confessions beaten out of them, of whom two had their convictions overturned on appeal. The third, Nicky Kelly, missed the appeal because he had fled the country, and was reimprisoned on his return. He was subsequently given both a presidential pardon and a huge amount of compensation: in other words, this was a state-acknowledged miscarriage of justice.
Then there is Timothy Evans, a Welshman executed for murder. He was posthumously pardoned, and years later a court denied an appeal on grounds of cost, but acknowledged his innocence.
What do we do about Girvies Davis, whose case seems to have been an enormous stitch-up?
Or Sacco and Vanzetti, who guilt or innocence is still heavily disputed, but whose trial has been widely acknowledged as a miscarriage of justice even a subsequent governor of the state?
I think that we should try to look at some mechanism for categorising at least some of these cases under appropriate headings. In three of the four cases listed above (Kelly, Evans, S&V), there has been clear and formal acknowledgement from the state of a miscarriage of justice, even though none of their convictions were overturned. How can we tighten up this category to include only cases such as these? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sympathetic to your objective, BHG. The question is whether there is a workable way to accomplish what's wanted with a category. You've more or less made a case for renaming to something along the lines of Category:Officially acknowledged miscarriages of justice. Would that work, or does it need to be tightened up in some fashion? Or does it exclude too many valid cases? Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely a step in the right direction, and in the absence of anything better Id go with it. If anything, I think it may be too tight, but I can't think of any way of expanding it without making the definition as unworkably vague as the current category. The sort of case I'm thinking of might go like this: man convicted of crime after judge rules most defence evidence inadmissable, but numerous independent investigations reveal both cast iron alibi and overwhelming evidence that someone else was guilty, but courts refuse to reopen the case. I'm sure we already have several articles on cases like this (the sort of thing that Ludovic Kennedy and Paul Foot use to excel at), but how can they be succinctly defined so as to give clear and objective inclusion criteria? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Officially acknowledged by whom and through what mechanism? Appellate courts? Truth Commissions? Officially sanctioned presidential commissions, the results of which are disputed by an officially sanctioned House subcommittee? Regarding your suggested definition, in the United States there have been laws passed that limit the appeals process for inmates on Death Row, which limits stand once exhausted even in the face of newly-discovered absolute evidence of innocence. There are those who would say that this is a miscarriage of justice, but there are those who support the death penalty who would say that the system before appeal limits was a miscarriage of justice. Otto4711 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say, any duly constituted official body (court, commission, etc.) would qualify for "official acknowledgement", and would thus meet the criteria for inclusion. The example you cite re the JFK assassination is not germane to this discussion, since nobody was ever prosecuted or convicted, much less exonerated. Cgingold (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per bhg.. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - I understand the problems with this category, but in some cases, it is appropriate - where it is widely and uncontroversially acknowledged that a person was wrongly convicted for a crime. (Not all of these cases can be placed in Category:Overturned convictions, as sadly, they were not all overturned in time...) On the other hand, I'm not sure the subcategories Category:Extrajudicial killings and Category:Lynchings belong here (even at the time, lynching was not considered 'justice', but a way to bypass the whole process). Perhaps limiting the category to 'Category:Wrongful convictions, and renaming it, would be appropriate. Robofish (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Category:Wrongful convictions actually did exist at one time; it was a CFD decision that renamed it to "Overturned convictions" in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that there is a problem here, I also agree that it does serve an essential categorization purpose that wouldn't be filled properly if it were simply deleted. There's certainly no question that articles shouldn't be filed here on the basis of an editor's personal opinion, but there are more than enough cases where the legal system itself acknowleged or concluded that it had acted in error to suggest that some form of categorization is warranted here. But at the same time, given that there seem to be some conflicting ideas about how best to revise this, I think it may be outside the capabilities of a seven-day CFD to fix the problem. Keep for now, but have a larger discussion about it rather than simply letting it stand unchanged. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the general tenor of the keep comments strikes me as "this is an important topic but as the category stands there are problems but we can't think how to deal with the problems so let's just keep it." Rather than keeping a category that even those who favor keeping acknowledge has serious problems, would not a list which can be sourced and much more easily policed to be sure the material conforms to whatever definition is arrived at be the way to go here rather than an unsourceable and difficult-to-police category? Otto4711 (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a list probably would be easier to maintain here. It would suffer from many of the same problems, but at least it could be sourced. Robofish (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Cgingold's comments. I don't think deferring this issue to beyond a CfD is a good idea, since usually issues like this that get deferred for "further discussion" produce little or no discussion outside of CfD. Converting this to a list for the time being until someone figures out how (if?) to have a NPOV and non-subjective category for the topic seems like a reasonable approach. I have my doubts whether ultimately a category is the way to go here, though. It seems like this discussion alone proves why having a list, which can provide the detailed commentary, would be preferable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always nice to be cited, but in this case I made subsequent comments that included a suggestion for renaming. That was a, er, "trial balloon" to begin with, but I've struck through my "Delete vote", and I'm now officially proposing to Rename & restrict to Category:Officially acknowledged miscarriages of justice. Cgingold (talk) 04:54, 17 March 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:Spring family[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 wub "?!" 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spring family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Loose collection of miscellaneous articles most of which are hoaxes. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - which articles are hoaxes, and have you initiated AFDs for them? Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Here are the AFDs:
  1. Spring family (AfD)
  2. Bidenly Hall (AfD)
  3. Comte du Vérac (AfD)
  4. Sir William Spring I (AfD)
  5. Sir William Spring II (AfD)
  6. Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  7. William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  8. Robert Spring, 3rd Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  9. Henry Spring, 7th Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  10. Basil Spring, 8th Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  11. Michael Spring, 9th Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  12. Thomas Spring, 10th Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  13. Anthony Spring, 11th Baron Lavenham (AfD)
  14. Sir John Spring (AfD)
  15. Thomas Spring II (AfD)
  16. Thomas Spring III (AfD)
Dunno if I got them all, because it's easy to lose track. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, pending cleanup. We appear to be dealing here with quite a prolific hoaxer, whose articles mostly seem to have some connection to reality, but with a lot of nonsense piled on top. My experience of such episodes in the past is that the cleanup can take quite some time, and in the meantime the category is a useful tool for those working to repair the damage.
    Once the hoaxes have been delete and the category has been purged of the people with no demonstrable connection to this family of wool merchants in medieval Suffolk, the category will probably be empty (and if not, it will be too small to be worth keeping). But I think although this CfD nomination is absolutely right in principle, it's putting the cart before the horse. Best to sort out the articles first, and then delete the category. Would the nominator like to withdraw the nom for now? (only if you agree with my suggestion!)     --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Changing my !vote, now that the hoaxes are deleted. Apart from one or two folks who are are demonstrably related, there is no evidence of a general family connection between the disparate collection of people included in this category. There may be such a connection, but there is no evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per BHG, and outstanding work by the nominator in clearing out the hoaxes. Otto4711 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 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:Arts festivals in the United States[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: multi: Merge Category:Arts festivals in Brazil and Category:Arts festivals in Bulgaria into Festivals in FOO and Category:Arts festivals. Recategorize Category:Arts festivals in the United Kingdom and Category:Arts festivals in the United States into Category:Arts festivals. Delete Category:Arts festivals by country until needed. Kbdank71 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arts festivals in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arts festivals in Brazil
Category:Arts festivals in Bulgaria
Category:Arts festivals in the United Kingdom
Category:Arts festivals by country
Nominator's rationale: Delete Ambiguous name. The introduction is also more like a catch all stating 'This is for all sorts of arts festivals: literary, performance, visual, community.' Even with that, one could argue that the single article does not even fit that description. If there is agreement on this one, then something will need to be done with the parent and other sub categories. I'd lean to splitting the others into Category:Art festivals and Category:Performing arts festivals. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I elected to add the rest of these single entry categories. The articles in the categories nominated for deleting have other correct categories and deleting this one should not be a problem. As a side note to all of this, I;ll point out that Arts festival is an article that uses Category:Art exhibitions as a parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about that lead article, which should be completely rewritten. Art fairs are not the same at all, and seem to need an article. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. Just dropping in to say that I depopulated a lot of the "Arts festivals in country X" categories a few months ago, choosing more appropriate categories for the articles. There were scores if not hundreds of such articles, and there seemed to be some (understandable) confusion between art and arts festivals, as many do seem to include some of everything. "Cultural festivals"? Good luck with whatever solution you find. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that may be the point here. There are better categories in other trees that cover these. So why do we need to keep this structure? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are specific categories aplenty, but no general one for general festivals. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, no please!! Graphic arts does not mean what I suspect you think. We already have music, literature & theatre festival cats. Why interpose a Category:Performing arts festivals? Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is also Category:Night-time arts festivals. Very odd that there is Category:Arts festivals by country but no Category:Arts festivals. Subcats in search of a parent. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I created Category:Arts festivals by country some time ago; I would have brought the idea here for discussion had I realised, and certainly it can be improved, but there needs to be some national way of linking such festivals. It seems to me that many if not most festivals are (and bill themselves as being) broader than "just" music, drama, etc. -- "arts festival" is one catch-all name for that. I also created Category:Night-time arts festivals and think it exemplifies what cats should be about, bringing together articles that might otherwise not know of each others' existence -- so what should its parent be? I agree that Category:Graphic arts festivals is misleading, because of the meaning of graphic arts; one alternative would be Category:Visual arts festivals, but do such festivals, devoid of performances, really exist? That sounds so static, and isn't it in the nature of a festival to have activities, i.e. performances of some type, from speakers at literary festivals to street mimes everywhere else? BrainyBabe (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment suggestion changed above, in the light of recent comments. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Festivals in (X)", maybe. I'd probably just make them all "festivals," rather than go for granularity. A festival like Bumbershoot is such a mix of visual arts and performing arts that it would have to be in two categories, and I'll bet there's a whole lot of festivals just like that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly many of these are not restricted to one class of display. Is there any art show or festival category that would not apply to burning man? So maybe by country would be the best solution for the by country breakouts and leave the categories by type of exhibition without breaking out by country. I guess this should be relisted to give your proposal a chance to be discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is the point. They can be added to Category:Festivals by country categories we would not categorize by country for each type of festival. So we would really be upmerging these;
Category:Arts festivals in the United States to Category:Festivals in the United States
Category:Arts festivals in Brazil to Category:Festivals in Brazil
Category:Arts festivals in Bulgaria to Category:Festivals in Bulgaria
Category:Arts festivals in the United Kingdom to Category:Festivals in the United Kingdom
And to Category:Arts festivals. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there are a total of five articles in these four categories, it just doesn't make any sense to keep them, in my opinion. I'm more sure of the upmerging after looking at the contents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fine, but in fact only one article (Glastonbury, UK) is not already in the "Festivals in ..." tree. I'm unclear where you stand on Category:Arts festivals, and why. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are called "arts festivals". Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason on earth why filing an article in more than one "Specific-type-of-festival in country" subcategory would be a bad or unwanted thing. What we don't want is for an article to be in "Music festivals in the United States" and "Festivals in the United States" at the same time, not "Music festivals in the United States" and "Arts festivals in the United States". An article is always allowed to be in as many subcategories as are necessary and relevant; it's "subcategory + undivided parent of that same subcategory" filing that we don't want. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe at this point, the question is are there any objections to merging:

Category:Arts festivals in the United States to Category:Festivals in the United States and Category:Arts festivals
Category:Arts festivals in Brazil to Category:Festivals in Brazil and Category:Arts festivals
Category:Arts festivals in Bulgaria to Category:Festivals in Bulgaria and Category:Arts festivals
Category:Arts festivals in the United Kingdom to Category:Festivals in the United Kingdom and Category:Arts festivals

Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have very quickly been able to get the UK subcat up to 15 articles + 2 sub-cats (non-exhaustively), & I'm sure the US one can be much bigger. I have yet to hear why these should not be kept, but the other 2 should be merged as you say. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can someone articulate what is intended to be categorized here, not what has drifted into the category by happenstance. Arts festivals seem to include painting, sculpture, and photography; music (note we have Category:Music festivals so is someone's POV that certain music festivals are artsier than others, except since Category:Music festivals in the United States is a sub of Category:Arts festivals in the United States all of the US's music festivals are artsy enough?); performance art and theater; poetry readings; the arts of brewing and viticulture perhaps. I can hardly conjure a "festival" that includes absolutely none of these; perhaps the Trappists on retreat during silence week, but somehow that doesn't seem festive to me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's really very simple; there's art and the arts - they are not the same. If a festival contains only literature, music, art, performing arts, theatre, film, photography, dance etc etc then it goes in the relevant category, which all already exist, though not of course for all countries. If it contains significant amounts of more than one, or all, of these elements, then it is an "Arts festival", and should go in Category:Arts festivals or (imo) a national sub-cat where justified by numbers, and perhaps eg the "music festivals" cat as well, if that is an especially strong element in the festival. Example: the Edinburgh Festival, where theatre, opera, music, dance, art, comedy, literature all play significant parts. Brewing and viticulture do not come under The Arts. I hope that's clear. I would also point out that User:Hmains has been moving all these categories around during the debate - originally "music festivals" weren't under "arts festivals". I'm not sure how I feel about that - I suspect I prefer it if the specialized ones like Music, literature etc came straight off the main Festivals cat, as was the case when the nom began. Maybe music, theatre, dance etc should be subs of the performing arts cats, maybe not - again, a side issue. He might have told us he'd done it frankly. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 13 March 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.

More image -> Wikipedia file renames[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 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename per nom. Is there a way to speedy this even though it isn't specifically addressed by CSD C2? --Icarus (Hi!) 16:11, 11 March 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:Latin authors by era[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 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Latin authors by era to Category:Latin writers by era
Propose renaming Category:Old Latin authors to Category:Old Latin writers
Propose renaming Category:New Latin authors to Category:New Latin writers
Propose renaming Category:Modern Latin authors to Category:Modern Latin writers
Propose renaming Category:Silver Age Latin authors to Category:Silver Age Latin writers
Propose renaming Category:Post-Silver Age Latin authors to Category:Post-Silver Age Latin writers
Propose renaming Category:Golden Age Latin authors to Category:Golden Age Latin writers
Propose renaming Category:Classical Latin authors to Category:Classical Latin writers
Nominator's rationale: Rename all - Per the lead category Category:Latin writers, some of the sub-cats and because Category:Authors is a redirect to Category:Writers. Otto4711 (talk) 06:01, 11 March 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:People acquitted of crimes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep as container category for other categories, not articles (although shouldn't it be renamed to "Category:Categories for people acquitted..."? Note: this was a joke. Do not do this.). Kbdank71 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People acquitted of crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Being acquitted of a crime is not defining. We deleted Category:People acquitted of sex crimes recently as a BLP problem; these raise the same issue. Luckily this cat isn't much used, but if it were it would have all the same folks who were in the deleted cat, and many other various celebs who have had run ins with the law and were acquitted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. Doesn't/shouldn't this category function essentially as a container category for its subcategories, like Category:People acquitted of murder, Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity, and Category:Overturned convictions? Those three subcategories at least have a much stronger case to be made for being "defining" for those included. I would think, though, that we should discuss first whether the subcategories should be deleted before we should discuss whether we need this container category. I agree though that individual articles should not be placed in the nominated category. In other words, if it is to exist, it should only be a container category, but I see it's not being used exclusively in that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a rename to something like Category:Acquittals along with a restriction to container cat status would alleviate the concerns? Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difficulty is, that there are lots of non-subcat crimes that people have been acquitted of, including the sex crimes one. If being acquitted of a crime is sufficiently defining (which I have doubts of), then all acquittals can belong here: acquittals of DUI (a crime), Rape (a crime), or any otherwise not subcategorized criminal stuff. By the way, lots of people were acquitted of crimes while being simultaneously convicted of others, so we get to double their cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest we keep an eye on it, if kept. So far it doesn't look like it's been used in that way, but you're right that it could be. If it became a problem, I don't see why it shouldn't be eligible for deletion on that basis. With the addition of the Template:Container-cat to the category page, the potential problem might be solved, and the category could remain as long as there were appropriate subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as container category. I concur with Good Olfactory, it should be restricted so as not to be used for any person who has ever been acquitted of any crime whatsoever. The two individuals presently listed directly were both acquitted of very serious crimes that aren't specified by any of the current sub-cats. Possibly additional sub-cats for other specific crimes are warranted. Cgingold (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The possible problem of over-populating this category should be left aside for now. When it becomes an actual problem, more minds and fresh solutions may have emerged. __meco (talk) 08:07, 12 March 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.

Biographers by subject[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. Note that this CFD does not preclude any further categorization of these articles into other, for example, scholar categories. Kbdank71 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Joseph Haydn: biographers and scholars to Category:Biographers
Suggest merging Category:Mozart biographers to Category:Biographers
Nominator's rationale: Merge - these appear to be the only two "biographer by subject" categories and this is not a path down which we should wander. Many biographers write multiple biographies. If implemented, Kitty Kelley would end up in categories for Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor, Frank Sinatra, Nancy Reagan, the British Royal Family, and the Bush family. Clutterful. Merge these to the lead category for redistribution to an appropriate nationality sub-category. If retained the Haydn one is malformed and needs to be renamed. Otto4711 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge mostly to the composers cats and biographers, perhaps not for all the Mozart ones, who should be listed at Biographies of Mozart, which doesn't have them all. Rename Haydn to Category:Joseph Haydn scholars - many of these are scholars who produced editions of the music & non-biographical books, but (as the existing name suggests, and any research would have shown) not biographies. Probably "Mozart scholars" should be set up too. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The categories were set up because the overall categories for Haydn and Mozart were getting crowded, hence user-unfriendly. I don't think mere precedent ("we've never done this before") should take precedence over the goal of serving our readers.
Note to Otto4771: it's a WP courtesy to notify the originator when you propose to delete something. Thanks for Johnbod for doing this. Opus33 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only for recently created categories. The Mozart cat is almost a year and a half old :).-choster (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the Haydn one from this January :) Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the age of the category, it's still a very good idea to notify its creator, both as a matter of courtesy and because of the practical benefits that arise from having the category creator contribute to the discussion. Who better to explain the rationale than the creator of the category? BTW, I use Twinkle, which automatically notifies the creator, so it's absolutely no trouble to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good on you, BHG (& Johnbod) - I could not agree more, and I've always made a point of notifying creators whenever possible, without regard to the age of the category. Since the issue has been raised, I'd like to share two excerpts from a dialog I had with User:Black Falcon that led directly to the creation of Template:cfd-notify, which I make regular use of to notify editors about CFDs.
"More importantly, I think it is very important for category creators to be invited to take part in the CFD discussions whenever possible. It's more respectful, it's more democratic, and the discussion usually benefits from their participation. Even if it's one of those outrageously stupid or insipid categories, at least they get a bit of a "wakeup call" and may (hopefully) learn not to create similar categories in the future." Regards, Cgingold 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Thank you. I completely agree that the potential benefits of notification outweigh the costs (i.e. the time invested). In certain cases, the creator can contribute valuable insight about his or her intent in creating the category; other times, the nominator consents to speedy deletion/ merging/ renaming, allowing the discussion to be closed early. At minimum, notification carries (as you note) educational value: regardless of the outcome of the discussion, the creator's knowledge of the policies, processes, and extant consensus regarding categories is increased." Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I stongly encourage all of my fellow editors to adopt this practice as an integral part of the CFD process. Cgingold (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale for merging is not "we've never done this before"; it's "we don't do this and here's why doing it would be a bad idea." Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. In general, I think that a biographers-by-subject category is a very bad idea, because many biographers write thoroughly scholarly works on quite a number of lives: I think for example of Roy Jenkins, who wrote 6 very well-received biographies. Categorising Jenkins with his five subjects would completely overload the category list in his article, and the same applies to Victoria Glendinning, who has written 8 biographies of literary figures.
    In some rare cases (such as, perhaps Ellman's biography of Joyce, the book may be a defining characteristic of both the author and the subject. That might appear to justify a category, but I don't think it does. The major purpose of a category is to assist navigation, and if the biography is indeed so deeply significant to both the author and the subject, there will plenty of cross-linking, thus rendering the category superfluous for navigation purposes. Additionally, once we have a category "biographers of [a major figure]", it will inevitably (and legitimately) fill up with those who write much less significant biographies, thereby reducing its utility.
    Some historical figures attract a huge amk8nt of scholarly attention, and it seems to me to be quite appropriate to record that bibliographic data, whether in the main article (as with James Joyce) or in a separate article/list. But I can't see a persuasive case for using the crude category system to do this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see; so you want to merge Marion Scott (musicologist), who never published a biography of Haydn, but did spend over 20 years on "her own editions of Haydn’s music with Oxford University Press however her book about Haydn’s chamber music was left incomplete at the time of her death. Her massive Haydn Catalogue appeared in the Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians" - to Cat:Biographers, but not, as suggested above, to Cat:Haydn scholars. Any particular reason? Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? That would clearly pre-empt this discussion & be a breach of procedure. You could always try looking at what categories contain (or even pondering for a moment the existing name) before nominating them for a obviously inappropriate merger. Failing that, you could always try amending or withdrawing an obviously ballsed-up nom once in a while, as the mature regular nominators often do. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article could benefit from an additional category it is certainly not disruptive to create and populate that category. What CFD discussion have you been participating in? Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nomination is to delete the category by merging, and a rename has also been proposed, it clearly is. Unfortunately I have all too often been participating in the same discussions as you. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and query: For what it's worth, Marion Scott was a Haydn biographer, producing articles with information about the composer's life, but never a full-length book. Also, I would welcome advice about how to keep the main Mozart category manageable and user-friendly if this proposal passes. Opus33 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Category:Biographers is intended for people who wrote articles, which were doubless mainly musicological in thrust. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest not categorizing these people directly under Mozart at all. If consensus determines that they shouldn't be in a biographers subcategory then putting them in the Mozart category is a sidestep of that consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even by your standards, that wonderfully contradicts your comments just above! Irregular verbs, indeed:
I make reasonable suggestions
You sidestep consensus
He, instead of griping about where an article might end up after a CFD, should just set new categories up. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no contradiction. "Directly under" means placed within Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart by adding the category to the article. This is a discussion of biographers by subject categories, which again in no way impedes you from creating and populating categories under the Category:Scholars by subject structure. Generally speaking "biographer of Foo" does not equal "scholar of Foo". Kitty Kelley is not a scholar of Nancy Reagan or the Royal Family. I believe this addresses your concern, although it is written at such a level of incoherence that it's hard to know for sure. Otto4711 (talk) 08:35, 16 March 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.

Geography[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, except do not rename Category:Uptown New Orleans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Minneapolis communities to Category:Communities in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Propose renaming: Category:Virginia Beach, Virginia communities to Category:Communities in Virginia Beach, Virginia
Propose renaming: Category:Community areas of Chicago to Category:Community areas of Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Districts in Miami to Category:Districts in Miami, Florida
Propose renaming: Category:Phoenix-area freeways to Category:Freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area
Propose renaming: Category:Geography of Chicago to Category:Geography of Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Historic Districts in Baltimore to Category:Historic districts in Baltimore, Maryland
Propose renaming: Category:Historic Districts in Chicago to Category:Historic districts in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Historic districts in Cincinnati to Category:Historic districts in Cincinnati, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Islands of Miami to Category:Islands of Miami, Florida
Propose renaming: Category:Islands of Seattle to Category:Islands of Seattle, Washington
Propose renaming: Category:Lakes of Minneapolis to Category:Lakes of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Propose renaming: Category:Landforms of Louisville to Category:Landforms of Louisville, Kentucky
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Atlanta to Category:Neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Charlotte to Category:Neighborhoods in Charlotte, North Carolina
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Chicago to Category:Neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Cincinnati to Category:Neighborhoods in Cincinnati, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Cleveland to Category:Neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Detroit to Category:Neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in downtown Dallas to Category:Neighborhoods in Downtown Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in east Dallas to Category:Neighborhoods in East Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in El Paso to Category:Neighborhoods in El Paso, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Fort Wayne to Category:Neighborhoods in Fort Wayne, Indiana
Propose renaming: Category:Fort Worth, Texas neighborhoods to Category:Neighborhoods in Fort Worth, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Honolulu to Category:Neighborhoods in Honolulu, Hawaii
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Lake Highlands to Category:Neighborhoods in Lake Highlands, Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Louisville to Category:Neighborhoods in Louisville, Kentucky
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Milwaukee to Category:Neighborhoods in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Minneapolis to Category:Neighborhoods in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods of Mobile, Alabama to Category:Neighborhoods in Mobile, Alabama
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in New Orleans to Category:Neighborhoods in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in north Dallas to Category:Neighborhoods in North Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in northwest Dallas to Category:Neighborhoods in Northwest Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Oak Cliff to Category:Neighborhoods in Oak Cliff, Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Oak Lawn to Category:Neighborhoods in Oak Lawn, Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Pleasant Grove to Category:Neighborhoods in Pleasant Grove, Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Providence to Category:Neighborhoods in Providence, Rhode Island
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods of San Antonio, Texas to Category:Neighborhoods in San Antonio, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in San Bernardino to Category:Neighborhoods in San Bernardino, California
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in San Diego to Category:Neighborhoods in San Diego, California
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in San Francisco to Category:Neighborhoods in San Francisco, California
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Seattle to Category:Neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in south Dallas to Category:Neighborhoods in South Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in St. Louis to Category:Neighborhoods in St. Louis, Missouri
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Tulsa to Category:Neighborhoods in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in west Dallas to Category:Neighborhoods in West Dallas, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Registered Historic Districts in New Albany to Category:Registered Historic Districts in New Albany, Indiana
Propose renaming: Category:Uptown New Orleans to Category:Uptown New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming: Category:Urban Communities of San Diego to Category:Urban communities in San Diego, California
Propose renaming: Category:Wards of New Orleans to Category:Wards of New Orleans, Louisiana
Nominator's rationale: Matching "City, State" format, and bits of cleanup. I think it's right to capitalize "North Dallas" and the like, but someone from there may know better. "Historic district" is downcased in the articles. I know that "Community areas" is what the 77 constituent communities are called in Chicago, but I have no idea if "Urban communities" is a meaningful term in San Diego, or if it should just be "communities."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Uptown New Orleans rename. I think that this is the name of the historic district and the area. Leaving this one alone is probably the correct action. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with Category:Lower 9th Ward, New Orleans either.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there is evidence that Category:Lower 9th Ward, New Orleans can be expanded, I think it should be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are 4 articles in "Lower 9th Ward, New Orleans" cat, and thousands of images on Commons. If that isn't enough, certainly it could be "expanded", as national historic landmarks not yet having articles are within the area. Useful cat; keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also think it should be kept. I'm just not sure whether it should have a "Louisiana" on the end, or lose its "New Orleans," or stay the same.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd say leave it. I think that is the naming convention for neighborhoods. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leave as is. Correct name in use; no need to create Wikipedia specific more difficult to type neologisms. Infrogmation (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category names should follow the same naming conventions as the article names. Oldiesmann (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No different than any of the hundreds of other categories that have had the state appended to the category name. --Kbdank71 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all except leave Category:Uptown New Orleans per above comments. Occuli (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom with the exception of Category:Uptown New Orleans as discussed above. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 17 March 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:Sachin Tendulkar[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 per all precedent of eponymous categories. Kbdank71 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sachin Tendulkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another eponymous and small category. All material is interlinked and the lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sachin Tendulkar is an Indian equivalent of Shane Warne, whose category has just (within the last 12 hours) been closed as delete (without unanimity, and as the closer states there is a possibility of some "Wha...?"s). It would seem to me reasonable to wait say 2 weeks for the possibility of DRV to recede before bringing this one to cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent on eponymous categories. I disagree with Occuli on this; this stands or falls on its own merit, not as what happens to someone analogous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fate of the Shane Warne category is a precedent (and I note that the closer has not as yet attracted any flak). Occuli (talk) 20:52, 14 March 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:African American conservatives[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 13:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American conservatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another variety of the oft-discussed, always deleted "American conservatives" category. To recap for those not familiar with the deletion rationale used multiple times in the past: categorizing (in this case, American) people as "conservative" is largely a subjective exercise that is essentially informed by a POV. It's common for Americans to be "conservative" on one particular issue but "liberal" on another, making it next to impossible to simply categorize people as simply being a "conservative". If we don't categorize people as "American conservatives", then we also shouldn't categorize them as "African American conservatives". Note that Category:African American conservatism has been recently deleted, and that category was being used almost exclusively to categorize people. This one just does so more explicitly. See also the following related discussions:
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:Species native to Hong Kong[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/upmerge. Kbdank71 13:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Species native to Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This seems to be semantically identical to its parent category Category:Biota of Hong Kong. It needs upmerging. Hesperian 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Should either exist? Are there any species confiend to Hong Kong and not also native in the adjacent mainland? If not, it should be merged to an appropriate Cantonese category. (Sorry, older English spelling). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of Hong Kong endemics; but even if there weren't, I would disagree with your position; that's not really relevant here though. Hesperian 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. These categories cover very similar areas - there are unlikely to be many articles that belong in one but not the other (Category:Animals in zoos of Hong Kong, perhaps?!). Robofish (talk) 04:27, 15 March 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:President's Counsels[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 13:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:President's Counsels to Category:President's Counsels (Sri Lanka)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "President's Counsel" is ambiguous as any president of anything could have a lawyer with this title. Suggest disambiguating to match article President's Counsel (Sri Lanka). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 11 March 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:Xcalibur[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 13:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xcalibur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only covers television show and seems unlikely to expand. Simply south (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only contains one article, unlikely to contain any more. Robofish (talk) 04:24, 15 March 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:100 Famous Japanese Mountains[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 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:100 Famous Japanese Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories for "published lists" are generally inappropriate: WP:OCAT#Published list. This category is categorizing mountains that are included in the book 100 Famous Japanese Mountains. In that article a list already exists. In any case, even if not a published list this would be entirely arbitrary and subjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - mind you with 36 Views of Mount Fuji (Hokusai), The Fifty-three Stations of the Tōkaidō, The Sixty-nine Stations of the Kiso Kaidō etc, we could have a List of lists of Japanese beauty-spots:) Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : WP:OCAT is only a recommendation. The articles don't really suffer from overcategorization either. The rest of the argumentation of nom concerns the list rather than the category. Why not delete the list as well? In my opinion the nominator's argument could also be applied to World Heritage site lists and categories, which are somewhat subjective and arbitrary. One of the criteria for inclusion into the mountain list was "history" which is also used as criterion for WH sites. As for the 100 mountains, I believe that for Japanese people such lists are more important, justifying a separate category. With other precedents (WH sites) existing and no visible danger of overcategorzing I vote for keep. bamse (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & per Johnbod. In my judgement, the guideline on lists like this is very sound. List-categories would proliferate endlessly if they were permitted for everybody's favorite lists, so only rarely should exceptions be made. In this case, we're not talking about a select group of mountains that have been uniquely intertwined with Japanese culture for centuries, so a category is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:OC which, even if perhaps not a specific concern for some of the particular mountains, should still be looked to as the guiding standard. Picking and choosing among published lists on the basis of whether or not individual articles have clutter issues is not workable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining characteristic and well dealt with as a list alone. __meco (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just someone's opinion after all. Category:Shakespeare's better plays anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per all above. Robofish (talk) 04:23, 15 March 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.

More Omaha[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 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Beer brewing companies based in Omaha to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Christianity in Omaha to Category:Christianity in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Defunct companies based in Omaha to Category:Defunct companies based in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Downtown Omaha to Category:Downtown Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Ethnic groups in Omaha to Category:Ethnic groups in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Geography of Omaha to Category:Geography of Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Historic districts in Omaha to Category:Historic districts in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:History of Downtown Omaha to Category:History of Downtown Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:History of Midtown Omaha to Category:History of Midtown Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:History of north Omaha to Category:History of North Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:History of Omaha by community area to Category:History of Omaha, Nebraska by community area
Propose renaming: Category:History of south Omaha to Category:History of South Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Jews and Judaism in Omaha to Category:Jews and Judaism in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Lynchings in Omaha to Category:Lynchings in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Meat packing companies based in Omaha to Category:Meat packing companies based in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Midtown Omaha to Category:Midtown Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:National Register of Historic Places in Omaha to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Natural disasters in Omaha to Category:Natural disasters in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Neighborhoods in Omaha to Category:Neighborhoods in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Omaha newspaper people to Category:Newspaper people from Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Omaha writers to Category:Writers from Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:People from North Omaha to Category:People from North Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:People from Omaha by occupation to Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska by occupation
Propose renaming: Category:People from South Omaha to Category:People from South Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Pioneer history of Omaha to Category:Pioneer history of Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Religion in Omaha to Category:Religion in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Riots and civil unrest in Omaha to Category:Riots and civil unrest in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Shopping malls in Omaha to Category:Shopping malls in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:South Omaha to Category:South Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Omaha to Category:Television stations in Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: While attending to various other "City, state" categories, I decided to get the Omaha ones out of the way, because there's a lot of them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:29, 11 March 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:Latin commentators on Aristotle[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 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Latin commentators on Aristotle to Category:Commentators on Aristotle
Nominator's rationale: Merge, here the "Latin" refers to the language of the commentary rather than any ethnicity (including as a substitute for "Roman" (in the great sense) as I was expecting. Is the language of the commentary - by people from England, Germany, and anywhere else - all that important, we don't have this sort of division for anything else? Upmerge. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's exactly the same principle that makes Category:Renaissance Latin authors (in which Italians and Frenchmen sit happily next to each other) useful. The subcategory separates out a group of writers in a way far more consistent with scholarly practice than ethnic divisions. The world of Latin-speaking writers is typically studied as such, with its own history and developments. (Bibliography could be produced ad nauseam focused on the Latin writers, e.g. Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias in the Latin Middle Ages: essays on the commentary tradition; "Moral and intellectual virtues in the earliest Latin commentaries on the Nicomachean ethics" in Virtue ethics in the Middle Ages: commentaries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics, 1200-1500; John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England [in which the whole point is to show Case in the context of Latin Aristotelian writers of many nationalities]; etc.). Consider also Category:Scholastic philosophers (Scholasticism: "the dominant form of theology and philosophy in the Latin West"), which is also a grouping of writers united in large part by the Latin language (and overlapping to some extent with this category). If the standard scholarly designation for them happened to be "Latin schoolmen," rather than "scholastics," there wouldn't be any reason to avoid the name--but the scholarly standard is to speak of the Latin tradition in this case. If the purpose of the category is to provide information, this is the most notable and salient classificatory criterion for these writers. Apologies for my lack of concision. Wareh (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wareh, or Rename to Category:Post-classical Latin commentators on Aristotle (or "in Latin"?). This category seems to exclude Ancient Roman commentators in Latin (or were there none before Boethius?), which should be made clear if it is the case. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to suggested target and to the appropriate sub-cat of Category:Latin authors by era. This is a triple intersection of occupation, language and subject matter and I don't think we want a Category:Writers by language and subject matter structure. Up next, Category:French-language writers about computers, Category:Spanish-language writers about architecture, Category:English-language biographers of Carmen Miranda and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 11 March 2009
  • Comment. If English-language biographies of Carmen Miranda (by writers of many nationalities) constituted a 1,000-year tradition, and were an important part of the history of ideas, and were almost always studied in connection with each other, then, yes, I'd think it would harm the utility and credibility of Wikipedia if we lacked a category for them. I really think the "triple" feature is incidental here: the recognized phenomenon exists prior to the name for it, which only happens to be triple. In any case, rest assured that the natural necessity claimed for this category would not suggest extending it to Czech-language commentaries on Harry Potter, etc. Perhaps only Biblical commentary is of comparable historical significance, so as to be treated in a similar way. The reason for the category is that anyone knowledgeable about the subject would look at an undivided Category:Commentators on Aristotle and instantly see that the whole Latin-language group is untidily mixed in, and that the Latin language is the only really viable criterion to provide better classification. Wareh (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list, either within a general Aristotle commentators article or stand-alone, serves the same purpose without creating a triple intersection. Otto4711 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see this as a triple intersection any more than Category:American basketball players. What do you do with basketball - you play it. What do you do with Aristotle - you comment on him. If it were, as it almost could be, Category:Medieval commentators on Aristotle, I don't think this argument would be raised. It would be wholly inappropriate to split it by country, as few modern countries existed when these guys were writing, so by language seems appropriate. We have not heard any arguments against the usefulness of this category as compared to about 50% of all the categories we have. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American basketball players" is a faulty example as "basketball player" is a single and distinct feature. Now, if we were talking about "French-speaking American basketball players", that would be an analogous example. If 50% of other categories are not useful, you're certainly free to nominate them for deletion but their existence is not an argument in favor of this category. Otto4711 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see why ""basketball player" is a single and distinct feature", and "commentator on Aristotle" is not. Both contain an action and a set context for the action. Please explain. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commentator" is one thing and "Aristotle" is a second. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing in Latin was a 1000 year tradition, because nearly all European scholarship was published in Latin. So of course was writing in longhand. So based on the logic of the keeps, we should have Category:Longhand commentators on Aristotle as well so that typists and all those following Gutenberg are excluded. Type face, a nasty invention, like writing in the vernacular - let's make sure not to categorize those evils. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow in all of this I feel I'm failing to communicate the simple point: everyone who knows (or wants to know) about Aristotelian commentators (who are really no more "double" than basketball players BTW) pretty darn soon figures out that the Latin-language ones are an important and necessary category, maybe the single most useful group to separate. To compare that with absurd hypothetical categories is apples and oranges, because expert editors like myself are not going to come and add categories unless they correspond to the structure of knowledge in their fields. I'd feel better if someone would just say, "Wikipedia policy doesn't care if a classification is considered important and necessary and useful by all the experts who know anything about it," as perverse, of course, as that would be. On an article talk page, one can see an evidence-based discussion of whether the encyclopedia's content is being managed in accordance with actual expert knowledge; I think the encyclopedia would be better if we could do the same thing here. I mean, when the zoologists tell us that a group of snails is typically classified by the shape of their horns, I assume we don't tell them that if we allow that we'd have to have Category:Cauliflower-eared Bulgarian politicians. Wareh (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Latin-language commentators on Aristotle. Latin was the language of Western scholarship until at least the 17th century (e.g. Newton's Principia. Aristotle was one of the most important Greek philosphers. This is accordingly a useful category, covering scholarship in an interantional language up to the Early Modern period. Much of the preceding discussion is a case of reductio ad absurdem. However, I certainly would not want to extend the principle that I am advocating very far. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rename suggestion is synonymous and would be fine with me. Whatever you call it, it's a subject heading that libraries have whole groaning shelves cataloged under. Wareh (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is. This is a sensible category, and under its current name useful to Wikipedia readers who are doing scholarly work on Aristotle. (I don't know how many Wikipedia readers are doing scholarly work on Aristotle, but our aim is to be a useful reference work.) The proposals to rename it dilute its utility. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major distinction--it represents not so much a language as an intellectual tradition, as does the Arabic. DGG (talk) 00:44, 15 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_11&oldid=1138392660"