Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4 where the articles of the category were also nominated for deletion by the nominator below, with a result of Keep. - jc37 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ECO codes to Category:Chess openings

• Merge, This category is not needed, since most of the pages aren't ECO openings anyway, and all ECO openings are Chess openings anyway. So move anything here there and be done with it. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. I looked over the several talk page discussions, in addition to the discussion below. I think that the "what goes where" could use further discussion, but I don't think that that needs to be decided in order to close this discussion. To clarify, the consensus was unanimous that the category should be renamed, and renamed to a name that includes the words Christian illuminated manuscripts. There was No consensus to add the "extra" disambiguation phrase "other" or "miscellaneous". - jc37 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Added clarification - jc37 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category does not contain any "Judeo" manuscripts, just Christian manuscripts. It also is no longer the parent cat for Category:Gospel Books, Category:Illuminated psalters, and Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts, so it's purpose is now to hold the otherwise uncategorized left over Christian illuminated manuscripts that didn't fit in those other categories (Gospel Books, Psalters, etc). This was also discussed at Talk:Illuminated manuscript. Andrew c 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note For clarity, nb nom was originally to rename to "Christian illuminated manuscripts (miscellaneous)", and the Jewish manuscripts are now in Category:Jewish illuminated manuscripts - see below. Johnbod 13:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except the (miscellaneous) feels really awkward. Pavel Vozenilek 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we rename it to
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 03:16Z

I personally like that idea as well. And I personally would want to see the subcats of Christian illuminated manuscripts put in this category. However, this has been a point of contention on Talk:Illuminated manuscript. Other users feel it is not a good idea to bury important manuscripts such as the Book of Kells in layer after layer of subcategories. The reason I added (miscellaneous) was to let the users know that this was the category for the left-over, uncategorizable Christian IMSSs. If we remove (miscellaneous), then users may go there to try and find famous biblical manuscripts or Gospel books or other articles found in other categories. What do editors here think? Does it make sense to move Category:Gospel Books, Category:Illuminated psalters, Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts and Category:Music illuminated manuscripts (categories that all contain Christian Illuminated manuscripts) as subcats of the newly proposed Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, or should we use some sort of differentiation like (miscellaneous) or something else to separate this category from the existing Christian manuscript categories.-Andrew c 03:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm in favour of making category names as short and (disambiguation)-free as possible, so your first proposal of putting the "miscellaneous" scripts directly into
    Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 05:50Z
• Rename to Other Christian illuminated manuscripts - or "Christian illuminated manuscripts - other" The whole reordering of the sub-categories of illuminated MS has been discussed exhaustively at Talk:Illuminated manuscript (and other pages), and with all due respect to Resurgent insurgent, I think he should see the debate there (under several headings), where the particular question of whether to have an umbrella category was discussed at length. There are a number of categories that will need renaming or deleting at the end of this process & I was planning to do them all at once; I am still moving articles around to the new scheme. This category contains many types of manuscripts, like Books of Hours, which are certainly categorizable but don't yet have enough articles for a sub-category of their own. The Category:Hebrew illuminated manuscripts has been migratted to "Jewish IM" to include all Jewish manuscripts. Johnbod 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment everyone, please note that I have changed the nomination from having (miscellaneous) to having "Other" per Johnbod. We must have some sort of modifier, because the purpose of this category was to get all of the extra, uncategorizable Christian manuscripts out of the main parent cat Category:Illuminated manuscripts. If we remove the qualifier (whether it be misc or other), we change the entire scope of the category, and add confusion (see my previous comment). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. I've read the discussion Johnbod and Andrew c refer to, but neither "other" nor "miscellaneous" work as category titles. A category name should not presume the reader is familiar with our category schemes; it should not reference other categories (as "other" does, and to a lesser extent "misc"). There is nothing wrong with using Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts to hold the articles that are not already further subdivided, and the other proposals are unnecessarily convoluted. — coelacan — 07:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this either means using this as an umbrella category, which after lengthy talk page discussion was not the preferred solution, or being misleading, as there already are other categories for Christian Psalters, Gospel books & Bibles, & may be further ones in the future. I'm open to alternative names, but I think the local debate should be respected. Johnbod 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do mean use it as an umbrella category. I read the discussion, I don't see any good argument not to use it as an umbrella category, and I think the other proposals are self-referential within Wikipedia, which should be avoided when possible. — coelacan — 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against this is that it will put all the most famous named MS like the Book of Kells etc two layers away from the main Illuminated Ms category, which will itself often not be the first category people have looked at. All the other categories will be visible from the main IM category page, except these, which are actually by far the most populated, and contain virtually all the best-known Ms. I don't see how this can do anything but irritate users, many of whom will surely give up hunting through a forest of layers. Johnbod 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hypothetical situation. We currently have "Jewish illuminated manuscripts" with 4 articles. But say, 5 years down the road, we have a dozen articles on Tanakh manuscripts in Hebrew, and then a dozen articles on Talmud manuscripts, and then a dozen articles on misc. manuscripts in Hebrew (and lets assume, hypothetically, that they are all illuminated). When we create new subcats for these articles, would you suggest that they stay in the main umbrella cat of "Jewish illuminated manuscripts" or be bumped out into the main IM cat to have "Illuminated biblical manuscripts" sit right next to the hypothetical "Illuminated Tanakh manuscripts"? -Andrew c 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very hypothetical situation indeed, as I'm fairly sure no illuminated Talmud has ever existed. The great majority of Jewish illuminated MS are Haggadot, of which we only have one currently. But yes, I would. Far more importantly, at the moment the Jewish Bibles are also in Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts, but this would bring them under Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, which I don't think is acceptable. Nor do I think it desireable to split the Bibles up. The rename option to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts is really a non-starter. People should either vote keep or rename per nom. Johnbod 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 02:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. The argument that people won't want important topics in subcategories and sub-subcategories is inconsistent with standard practice throughout Wikipedia. Important topics are almost always at deeper levels in the category tree, and anyone who has browsed Wikipedia categories more than casually will look for interesting subcategories and sub-subcategories long before checking the actual contents of a category! We even make it easy, by allowing you to expand subcategories to show just the sub-subcategories without leaving the main category; the Mediawiki software was specifically modified because this is so common! Xtifr _tälk 12:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts because it makes sense to clarify. IZAK 10:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - After looking over quite a bit of this material earlier, it would seem to me that this category, and many (if not all) of the sub-cats of

• NOTE: closing admin should also look at this CFD on the same subject (started April 10th, closed the 12th and reopened here, but not everybody who commented there has also commented here). >Radiant< 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women screenwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This category was previously nominated, but that discussion was closed prematurely because the nominator happened to change his mind, despite widespread support for deletion. It is absurd to give the nominator absolute control over a discussion in that way. What if a thousand people had urged deletion? Or ten thousand? Or ten million? Would the nominator outweigh them all? This category is an irrelevant intersection, and what is more it is demeaning to women, whose work should be judged on the same basis as men's work. Honbicot 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous debate?Yeago 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Women_screenwriters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion reopened Please note that the prior nomination has now been reopened, so there are effectively two nominations of this category at once. A Musing 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not about judging literary work, it's about understanding it. And in order to do that, one needs to know the context in which it was produced. The gender of the author is a significant part of that context. And really, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would prefer that people not attempt to speak on behalf of all women. There are lots of women here, and in all the previous discussions, arguing in favour of these categories. Ignoring them while claiming to be defending women could be seen as just a teensy bit demeaning. — scribblingwoman 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many feminists feel no restraint whatsoever about speaking on behalf of all women. Haddiscoe 09:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons extensively explained before. I believe the prior discussion was heading for a no-consenus, just like the discussion on Category:Women writers. A Musing 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in the prior debate, it is here [6]. For those who like counting numbers and are interested in whether there was widespread support for deletion, there were seven "deletes" and seven "keeps"; and, of course, one of those deletes was the nominator who came to the recognition, after discussion, that the points he was making, and that the new nominator is now making, were not apropos. The category is far from an irrelevant intersection, is a needed and useful subcategory of

policy on categories based on gender.A Musing 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, seems like this guy had an axe to grind then he's hoping to finish grinding now. I'd like to meet some of the women and children who will be protected by deletion of this category, as the nominator says.Yeago 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Here are my comments from the previous discussion: "These lists of women by profession usually just are not very meaningful; aside from the fact that the women of a specific profession faced the same general sexual discrimination that virtually all other women have faced, the women probably have little else in common with each other. Articles are the place to explain the discrimination battles that women have faced in various professions, not categories." Dr. Submillimeter 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... compelling. Yeago 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (I was the previous nominator) Yes, there was support for deletion, there was equally strong support for keeping. Wikipedia is all about change. I changed my mind, it is allowed. There is no virtue in being dogmatic. If you look a little closer, just like I didn't, a person in this category isn't precluded from being in Category:Screenwriters or an appropriate Category:Screenwriters by nationality. Like it or not to be middle-aged, white, straight male is the "default" for screenwriters. The works of women, people of other ethnicities and sexual orientation are given particular study because their viewpoint is different from those who present us with the most fayre. Mallanox 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge into Category:Women writers. No screenwriter writes only screenplays. Doczilla 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a big generalisation and easily refuted. The first occupant in the category is Yasmin Ahmad. Look her up on Amazon, you won't find her as she's written no books. She's only written for film and she's only directed what she's written. Mallanox 01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. And besides, many, many writers, probably most, write or have written in more than one genre. Margaret Atwood is a poet, a novelist, a literary critic, a short story writer, and an essayist. She is tagged as all those things and more, and so she should be. Researchers are interested in different things, and our job is to provide access from different vectors. Unless we want to have one huge pile called "writers," which could arguably include anyone who every put together a shopping list as well as Nobel laureates, we need the subcategories. And as I said earlier, some of us have been busy making subcategories to Category:Women writers in direct response to concerns that the category had the potential to be huge. — scribblingwoman 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Because of what was said here, here, here, here, here, and here. Oh, and here. — scribblingwoman 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create as List of women screenwriters.Yeago 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if we're going to have
  WP:DRV, as I don't think a nominator can simply withdraw and end the debate once an actual debate has started (i.e. if the discussion is not all one-sided). Xtifr _tälk 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. We should not have Category:Women writers, and "other crap exists" is not a valid argument for retention. Haddiscoe 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as disruptive nomination, otherwise Strong keep per scribblingwoman, with a deep sigh of ennui and deja vu. We have been round and round this subject in endless debates listed above, and it is becoming disruptive to have CFD used to continually revisit the subject.
  It is also depressing to see yet another gendered category nominated without reference to the relevant guideline,
  WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep so long as Category:Women writers is in place While Category:Women writers has been a disputed category, the fact remains that it is still in place. So long as that parent is in case, it is useful to subdivide it by writer subtype because of its large size. Therefore "Women screenwriters" is a natural choice as part of that subdivision scheme. Of course, if down the road Category:Women writers were ever deleted, then this category would likewise be deleted as well. Dugwiki 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subcategorising makes the POV much worse, because some writers will end up in half a dozen gendered categories, which is really in-your-face bias without any restraint or sense of proportion. Abberley2 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a useful subcategory for the now established category of "women writers." Are we going to have to go through this debate every time a subcategory is proposed? As one of the above voters pointed out, one of the complaints at the discussion about "women writers" is that it wasn't subcategorized. Well, here people are, trying to subcategorize - let them do so! Nothing in this category violates
  Awadewit 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This sort of category suggests that Wikipedia is controlled by editors who wish to present a certain worldview, and thereby harms the project. Abberley2 20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, what, the worldview of wanting to provide information? Dkreisst 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that was a bit snide of me. But, which worldview do you object to? The fact that women exist or the fact that screenwriters exist? Dkreisst 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that feminists are using what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia to promote their cause. The problem is that people with very fashionable biases are either unable to see that they are biased, or have a self-righteous conviction that the rules shouldn't apply for them. A Victorian Wikipedia would have had a sanctimonious religious bias, and a 21st century Wikipedia has a left-liberal bias. It is a tragedy that this can't be removed, and that therefore neutrality will never be more than a pipe-dream. Abberley2 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Abberley2, your anti-feminism is not a relevant criterion for deletion. We have a choice between keeping this category, which will be useful for those who find this a useful classification (it won't be useful only for feminists), and deleting it so that the categorisation is not available to anyone. As
          WP:CATGRS, which apply a neutral test of relevance to gendered categories. It's a pity that you reject those rules, and using your anti-feminism as grounds for deletion of every gendered category is getting disruprive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Keep, because I use it for research. Dkreisst 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per all above.--Keefer | Talk 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- valid category. --Wassermann 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as long as Category:Screenwrites remains fully populated. Hoverfish Talk 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Oliver Han 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, splitting cats by gender is not generally helpful, and WP:NCCAT tells us otherwise. >Radiant< 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But on the flip side, when you have an already existing gender scheme as you do with Category:Women writers, then subcategorizing that scheme makes sense. If you don't feel that writers should be divided by gender, then you need to remove the parent category Category:Women writers to solve that problem. Until that is removed, though, this subcategory makes sense. Dugwiki 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge to "Screenwriters" if this would orphan articles). I only think such categories should exist when there is something notable about the presence (or absence) of women in a field, and I don't see anything particularly notable about gender in this field.--Mike Selinker 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on the previous discussions, the case presented here to keep does not convince me that we are doing anything to fix the problems pointed out in the previous discussions. Vegaswikian 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• New information/proposal: Category:Women television writers was just merged with Category:Women screenwriters. The latter now has 85 articles in it. I hope we can move for a speedy merge/rename as Category:Women televison and screenwriters speedy close/keep (And please: could the closing admin. be someone who hasn't weighed in on the issue in this or previous discussions?) — scribblingwoman 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I believe that the
  WP:DRV. While the question is unresolved, please may I ask the admin closing this discussion not to take the previous CFD as a precedent? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note the above comment was deleted by Radiant in this edit, and I have just restored it. This CFD has not been closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Bondarchuk into Category:Bondarchuk family. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bondarchuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, It appears that User:Number87 moved all the articles to a newly created Category:Bondarchuk family, so either this needs to be deleted or repopulated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and consider nominating
  talk 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Indian nationalism to Category:Nationalism in India. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian nationalism to Category:Nationalism in India

Nominator's Rationale: The category is meant for various articles regarding regional, religious and ethnic nationalism in India, not necessarily of Indian nationalism itself. These include articles on nationalism that are contrary to Indian nationalism itself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. utcursch | talk 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abberley2 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 all. >Radiant< 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being bold, and suggesting that people can vote on the entire section below at once by discussing it here (all the "deletes", not the "renames"). If there is significant discussion about a specific example, it can be considered separately. Closers should look at this discussion as well as the specific ones. I hope this makes it simpler. As for me, I say Delete all per nom --

• I have no objection to consolidating the nominations. I normally would have done a mass nom but there were merges and renames mixed in as I was going though them. Otto4711 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all or merge subcats upwards; most of these categories have subcats, and it would make sense to keep the handful of articles in the main category and the articles in the subcat together; I think an upmerge accomplishes this best where there is otherwise insufficient material. Before this kind of a mass purge in particular, I'd suggest providing notice to category creators or to some of the relevant arts wikiprojects to get the benefit of input from those who use these categories (and as is civil per the guidelines). A Musing 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the various sensible nominations. The subcategories can all be found in their respective work-by-artist categories. The remaining articles are all best accessed through the artist's article. None of these artists fall into the special case were an eponymous cat is needed because there are too many articles. --

talk 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep all — these are all important artists who deserve further articles to be written about them as well as the existing articles. The existence of these categories gives a good location for them and will help avoid the main articles for the artists from becoming too long. — Jonathan Bowen 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these aren't currently needed (Although I'm in favour of keeping Hogarth), but most have potential for growth so should either be kept or redirected to the existing subcats. Tim! 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Eponymous categories should be limited to multi-part biographical articles about the specific person. Most of these categories contain one biographical article on the artist and one subcategory for the artist's work. A few contain some non-biographic articles (related people or museums), but categorization of these things by person (especially other people) does not work very well. Hence, I recommend deleting these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 07:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johannes Vermeer

Category:Johannes Vermeer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - last artist for a while, I promise. One article plus one subcat equals no need for the category. Otto4711 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and good work Otto4711 on these cats. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:J. M. W. Turner

Category:J. M. W. Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is catching such hodge-podge articles as a house Turner painted and a church he painted in. No need for the category for navigation. Otto4711 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

Category:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category that lacks the material needed to warrant it. Note that the image is otherwise uncategorized; I'm not up on the image categories so don't know where it should be put. Otto4711 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titian

Category:Titian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete in the absence of the need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rembrandt

Category:Rembrandt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - there is not the volume of material required for an eponymous category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perugino

Category:Perugino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous cat that is not needed for its one article and one subcat. Otto4711 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scott McCloud

Category:Scott McCloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete for a lack of sufficient material to warrant an eponymous category. Unneeded for navigation. Otto4711 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I hate to do this to our friend Scott, delete eponymous category. Doczilla 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mantegna

Category:Mantegna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one article, one subcat. Not enough material to require an eponymous cat for navigation. Otto4711 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:William Hogarth

Category:William Hogarth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category housing one subcat and three articles, all of which are interlinked. No need for the cat for navigation. Otto4711 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the recent creation of the Category:William Hogarth paintings and prints seems to have replaced this category and at the same time orphaned two articles that aren't paintings or prints. What was the point of that? If there's some logic behind it all well and good, but otherwise this category should be kept and Category:William Hogarth paintings and prints deleted. Yomangani^talk 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an extensive categorization tree under Category:Paintings by artist and the paintings and prints category is housed there. There's been a move away from categorizing people by their works and vice versa, so presumably the paintings and prints category was created to reflect that and the "...by artist" scheme. None of the three articles remaining in the Hogarth category are orphaned. Each is in several categories in addition to the eponymous one. Otto4711 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems like an excellent reason for moving the prints and paintings into the subcategory, but I'm not sure what the reasoning is on removing the Hogarth category. If the idea behind categorization is to group related articles then removing such a grouping doesn't seem a particularly good idea. If there were only ever going to be paintings or prints associated with the artist that would seem a logical step, but for Hogarth at least there are a lot of associated articles (many of them yet to be written and some yet to be added to the category). For example, if I'm interested in Hogarth I'm more likely to want to see Hogarth's House in that category than in the ever so obvious Category:People museums in the United Kingdom. Yomangani^talk 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're interested in Hogarth's House, you're most likely to get to it by going to William Hogarth and then clicking on the link there to get to the house article. Otto4711 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's an argument against categories in general. Pretty much anything that you are interested in can be reached by clicking some links. Yomangani^talk 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is enough material at present, and has potential for growth. Tim! 21:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thomas Gainsborough

Category:Thomas Gainsborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category without the material to warrant it. Category has a paintings subcat which is in the Paintings by artist tree, the bio article and an article on a river that's in the category because the artist painted it. Otto4711 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 10:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gustav Klimt

Category:Gustav Klimt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - empty save for a single subcat which is already categroized as part of the Paintings by artist tree. Otto4711 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Édouard Manet to Category:Édouard Manet paintings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Édouard Manet to Category:Édouard Manet paintings

Merge - all articles save the bio and all images are for paintings so this is pretty much a duplicate. Otto4711 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --
  talk 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• catredirect for now, as still has potential for growth. Tim! 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Marcel Duchamp to Category:Marcel Duchamp works. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marcel Duchamp to Category:Marcel Duchamp paintings

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the category contains nothing but articles on his paintings except for his bio. Otto4711 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, the nom didn't suggest deleting it. Is saying "Delete per nom" really such an automatic, parrot behavoir around here?Yeago 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename to "Marcel Duchamp works". Only a few of works are paintings. The others are sculptures, readymades, etc. --sparkit^TALK 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete or rename per sparkitYeago 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename but keep this category as a categoryredirect as the biography has potential for growth. Tim! 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Marcel Duchamp works - The category collects together articles on the works (not paintings) of Duchamp, so the category is very useful at bringing together related articles. However, the category needs to be renamed to indicate what it is used for. Dr. Submillimeter 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Albrecht Altdorfer to Category:Albrecht Altdorfer paintings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albrecht Altdorfer to Category:Albrecht Altdorfer paintings

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - only one entry in the category, for a painting. Rename in line with Category:Paintings by artist category tree. Otto4711 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nomination is for a rename --

talk 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. --
  talk 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename but keep this category as a categoryredirect as the biography has potential for growth. Tim! 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional works presented as fact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Category:Works of fiction presented as fact. Upmerge contents & delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Both of the films in this one are already categorized in Category:Mockumentaries. Doczilla 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge both to Category:The Omen (film series). Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, The Omen, and Category:Film series. See also other film series nominations below. - jc37 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Omen films to Category:Omen films

Category:The Omen to Category:Omen films

• Merge or Delete both - redundant categories. Either merge "Omen films" into "The Omen," merge "The Omen" into "Omen films" or delete both as unnecessary categorization given the level of interlinking amongst the various Omen film articles. Otto4711 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, there is a use for film series categories hency Category:Horror films by series. As creator of one of the categories I'll give no opinion as to which way to merge. Mallanox 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we have deleted categories for film series if the articles within the categories are extensively interlinked. Otto4711 02:40, 13 April 2007 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands with no constant members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bands with only one constant member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both - capturing bands which otherwise have nothing in common based on the coindidence of membership, which is an arbitrary standard for inclusion. The "one member" category was nominated once previously and closed

• Delete - People join or leave bands all the time. This is not really a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-defining. This isn't a unifying factor to bring these bands together. — coelacan — 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-defining, trivial characteristic. Especially the first. It could be argued that an exception should be made for groups which are really more-or-less an alias for an individual (like Nine Inch Nails), but I'd rather see a more specific category for such cases, e.g. Category:Musical groups which are more-or-less an alias for an individual. (Although, actually, Nine Inch Nails should be in Category:Musical groups with only one official member.) But mostly, I'd rather not bother. As Dr. S. says, people join or leave bands all the time. In addition, I'd like to point out that we don't categorize "bands"—we categorize musical groups. So even if these are kept, they should be renamed to Category:Musical groups with no constant members and Category:Musical groups with only one constant member. And nearly every orchestra in the world should be added to the former. Xtifr _tälk 06:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as non-defining. Also, a group which is really more-or-less an alias for an individual is usually called an artist and not a musical group. --
  talk 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Amen characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Amen characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's not actually a category, it's a list! No, honestly, it's a list in the category namespace! The only actual member of the category is the show itself. The rest of it is a list carefully crafted to look more-or-less like a category. Someone seems to have been very confused. Xtifr _tälk 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henson family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hilton family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hotung family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hussain family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Huston family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - another bunch of family eponymous categories that serve no purpose as navigational hubs. They are all very lightly populated and the articles within are easily interlinked with each other. If desired, an article like Hilton family can be written as such articles do a far better job of illustrating family relationships than categories do. Otto4711 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. I have two different sets of Hiltons for in-laws and step-relatives. They're not related to each other. They're not related to Paris. Doczilla 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - all of the articles are interlinked with each other. The category is not needed for navigation. All of the films are already in the appropriate parent cats anyway. Otto4711 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, the articles are sufficiently interlinked internally. Dugwiki 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:National Lampoon films. - jc37 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Lampoon's Vacation to Category:National Lampoon films

• Merge the target category is not so massive that subdividing is needed and I see little navigational utility in the subcat. Otto4711 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom --Starrycupz 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:American songs by artist into Category:Songs by artist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American songs by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Songs by artist, or Keep. This is sort of a strange one. By convention, both Albums by artist and Songs by artist are supposed to be all inclusive, which means that either there should be no subcats, or all members of subcats should also be in Songs by artist itself, violating the grandfather clause ... see also discussion of February 20th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - if for no other reason than the category is completely ambiguous. Is it for "American" songs (which means what, songs written by Americans? Released in America?) or for songs by AMerican artists? Not a useful categorization regardless of any other issues. Otto4711 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Haddiscoe 09:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Abberley2 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pederastic film to Category:Films with a pedophile theme

• Merge - seem to me to be redundant. Otto4711 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though I'm supporting your merge nomination (see below), it's not because these categories are completely redundant. Where they are redundant, they need to be merged, yes. However, pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children ("generally" pre-13 per DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria) whereas pederasts may be interested in pre-pubescent, adolescent, or even slightly older individuals but far younger than themselves. Where the two categories are not redundant, criteria for inclusion are simply too subjective for categorization according to Wikipedia standards. A list that can be properly sourced, however, would be wholly appropriate for reference purposes. Doczilla 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I was disappointed there was no argument for merging put forth, there is nothing to rebut. Merging pederastic topics into pedophilic topics is akin to merging "secondary education" into "primary education" simply because both involve minors. It is logically fallacious on its face. Haiduc 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. The word "pedophile" is more inclusive, to the extent to which we can concretely apply these terms. Not all pedophiles are pederasts, but all pederasts that we can objectively and consistently call pederasts are pedophiles. Doczilla 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absolutely and demonstrably false, as the age of youths in pederastic relationships is above that of children targeted by pedophiles -- up to 13 in this last case, and "between the ages of twelve and seventeen" in the former, according to sexologist Vern L. Bullough. Haiduc 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed my point (for which I blame myself for not elaborating). There are other issues here. I didn't say all pederasts are pedophiles. Read that sentence again. Once we move into the range of including those attracted to adolescents, we move into a subjective realm outside what we can, as I said, "objectively and consistently call pederasts" for the purposes of Wikipedia. We need rock solid definitions without room for subjectivity, or we'll violate Wikipedia policy on unnecessary use of potentially libelous or pejorative terms. How old does the person interested in the adolescent have to be in order for us to dub that individual a pederast? When we cannot clearly call the person a pedophile, we move into POV issues when it comes to labeling a film pederastic. A list of films with pederastic content may be appropriate for reference purposes because it can be properly referenced with supporting information. A category cannot be properly sourced. Doczilla 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry but you seem to be grasping at straws. Pedophilia and pederasty are two sets that may intersect but they are not equal nor is one a subset of the other. As for the discussion of negative interpretations, that is the reader's problem, not ours. Describing a personage as homosexual may be ill seen by many but that should not prevent us from being accurate. Nor is this a subjective topic - both sexualities are the subject of study by anthropologists and sexologists, and these are objective disciplines, ostensibly. Haiduc 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fictional characters? Libel? I doubt this is a problem. But if we have problems defining Category:Pederastic film then we have the same kind of problem with Category:Films with a pedophile theme. I'm not saying "other crap exists", but it would seem that by your argument there can be no merger, rather both categories have to be deleted. — coelacan — 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all films are fictional. Doczilla 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename if it "seems to be redundant" then you need to take up your issue at the articles Pederasty and pedophilia. My guess its already been proposed and rejected, and for consistency's sake these should be distinct as well, or renamed to Category:Films with a pedophilic/pederastic theme Yeago 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, rename to Category:Pederastic films. Vegaswikian 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly listify Pederasty and pedophilia may overlap, but they are not the same thing. Considering anything labeled with "Pederasty" or "Pedophilia" is bound to stimulate debate and/or contentiousness, and also considering that this is not an often recognized genre of film, I think this would be a good candidate for converting into a list. Otherwise, it should be kept. --
  tman 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Comedy films by actor to Category:Comedy films by series. Rename all subcats to X (film series) per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Category:Film series. Delete Category:Adam Sandler films - jc37 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy films by actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Adam Sandler films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cheech and Chong films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Marx Brothers films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Laurel & Hardy films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Abbott and Costello films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - per strong consensus against categorizing films by the actors who appear in them. Otto4711 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per discussion of April 3rd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all As above, the filmography for actors is easily accessible from their main articles. Dugwiki 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per established consensus on performer by performance categories. Doczilla 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Honbicot 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.Delete first 2, rename the other 4 (per Mike Selinker, below). I agree with Dugwiki about proper access. Hoverfish Talk 16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep frankly I find it inexplicable why anyone can find a category such as Laurel and Hardy films objectionable. It is totally different to the type of category listed at April 3 2006. Tim! 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand what the problem is with linking to the filmography. People generally notice "See also" a lot easier than the categories at the bottom. And the more categories we have at the bottom the less easy is to find anything in all the resulting mess. To answer: If we have category Laurel and Hardy films, then we have to have them all. This is the only problem I see and it's a serious one. Hoverfish Talk 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment The problem with the last 3-4 nominated categories is that they are basically of the same nature as Category:Bad News Bears films, Category:Bowery Boys films and plenty more (far less important than Laurel & Hardy films) that you will find if you look at all the subcategories of Category:American films. They do not have the name of the actors but they have the same function: they group together films of characters or context. Isn't the same true for Abbott and Costello? So to my "delete all" I see an injustice, if these other categories remain. Hoverfish Talk 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - The Adam Sandler category should definitely be deleted, mainly for the same reason I described for the
  Ocean's Eleven features an ensemble cast, and having a category for Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon, and all of the other actors would cause quite a mess in the category section. Hopefully this discussion here will prevent the creation of other actor categories similar to the ones listed here. Also, the other categories listed above by Hoverfish should also be included in this deletion as well. --Nehrams2020 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename the last four to Category:Marx Brothers series films, et al., and delete Adam Sandler category and parent category. The Marx Brothers, Abbott & Costello, and Laurel & Hardy films are very properly series of films, not films by actor, and have more in common with Category:Batman films than the Adam Sandler category. But they need a new name to avoid the creation categories like the Sandler one, so I suggest adding "series".--Mike Selinker 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be the way out of the problem. I adjusted my vote for renaming the last 4. Please, see also Category:Film series. If this category is permited, they surely belong there and are much more important than many others found there. Hoverfish Talk 07:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Renaming sounds like the best option for the four categories as described by Mike. --Nehrams2020 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I'm also fine with renaming the last four. However the first two should go. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike Selinker et al, and rename parent category Category:Comedy films by series. The four categories mentioned are all for actors/teams which are American film institutions (I can't believe I'm including Cheech & Chong in that, but there you go) and there should be some way to keep them in the category hierarchy. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance. This isn't imdb. Doczilla 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cI hope you agree that Category:Alien and Predator series is by far less desirable than the above 4. Hoverfish Talk 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I just checked the ampersand/no-ampersand status of each of these categories. I think that the new names should match the use in the titles. So I propose:

rename Category:Cheech and Chong films to Category:Cheech & Chong series films (I altered the article title to match the films)

rename Category:Laurel & Hardy films to Category:Laurel and Hardy series films

rename Category:Abbott and Costello films to Category:Abbott and Costello series films

rename Category:Marx Brothers films to Category:Marx Brothers series films

delete Category:Adam Sandler films and Category:Comedy films by actor

place these all in Category:Comedy films by series as Pegship suggests

I think that gets it all in one nomination. Yes?--Mike Selinker 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up It sounds like the intent of the rename is to try and frame "Laurel & Hardy" and "Abbot & Costello" and "Cheech & Chong" as essentially subgenres of films in their own right. So much as you would define certain films as "comedies", within the comedy genre is the subgenre of "Abbot & Costello comedies". Personally I'm not convinced this is actually needed for navigation, but neither am I totally opposed to the idea of renaming these as suggested and placing them under an appropriate genre/series parent category. I'll therefore defer to other editors on those three. The Adam Sandler category can be deleted safely. Dugwiki 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The genre notion could be avoided if we simply place them into Category:Film series. There are more comedy series in there (St Trinian's films, Pink Panther films, Herbie films, etc). Hoverfish Talk 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine too.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - these are not film series. These are not sequels (in most cases) and they are not genres or subgenres any more than films starring members of the Frat Pack are a genre. These are films that star several of the same actors. By this argument, any films starring two or three of the same people can be classified as a "genre" and, for that matter, films starring a single person could be. Films starring, say, John Wayne or William Powell have a certain iconographic look and feel to them but consensus is very strong against categorizing those films as "John Wayne films" or "William Powell films" or categorizing any films by the actors who appear in them. There is no legitimate reason to categorize the films of these sets of actors or treat the actors involved any differently from any other set of co-stars. Otto4711 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, so I ask you too: How far would you go in nominating the contents of Category:Film series then? Aren't Herbie films also characterized by some common actors and characters (even the car is here a character)? And why should sequel-series have a category? Isn't a link to the rest via "See also" enough? Your scheme would be consistent if you nominate 90% of Film series for deletion. Else my argument is that you are taking away the usability of categorization in one area while in another very similar area you are letting it untouched. The result will be that some groups of films that share one characteristic have a common category, while other groups that share another do not. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I care to have a consistent categorization in films, which focuses on usability and which makes sense in all areas, more than I care to apply a general guideline wherever applicable. Hoverfish Talk 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts good articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

seems redundant to me. Postcard Cathy 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redundant to what? Regardless, delete nearly empty category. Doczilla 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - presumably these are now in Visual Arts GAs & similar, and the boys at Good article review are working hard to see there are none of those left. Johnbod 01:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marx family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mangeshkar family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Marx Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mukherjee-Samarth family of Hindi films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - more eponymous family categories which either do a poor job of explaining family relationships amongst people with various surnames, are redundant for navigation to the family articles and the extensive interlinkages of the articles, or both. Otto4711 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. In time, Karl Marx's relatives will get mixed up with Groucho Marx's. Doczilla 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Doczilla. — coelacan — 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Marx Brothers. There's a lot more in this category than most of the eponymous ones.--Mike Selinker 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:People from Australia to Category:Australian people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge / Redirect into Category:Australian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems obvious. There are only two entries and the main cat is large. I'll change the cat on the two articles. --Bduke 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per nom. Seems obvious. —
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 03:17Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Norwegian British people to Category:British people of Norwegian descent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian British people to Category:British of Norwegian descent

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All the people in this category are British people of Norwegian descent, none of them are Norwegian as the name would suggest. This renaming would put the category in line with others like Category:British of Chinese descent and Category:British of Canadian descent. Philip Stevens 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion is preferable, but if there is no consensus for that, it should be Category:British people of Norwegian descent, and the word "people" should be added to the names of the other catgories too. Honbicot 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British people of Norwegian descent Baristarim 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's comment. I'd like to change the nomination to Category:British people of Norwegian descent, if that's allowed. --Philip Stevens 11:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original nomination. There are already several pages named without the unnecessary word 'people' - see Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin list Mayumashu 11:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British people of Norwegian descent. The equivalent of "Canadians" is "Britons", not "British", but "British people" matches the rest of the system better. Abberley2 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British people of Norwegian descent. --Schoolboy123 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Australian radio presenters to Category:Australian radio personalities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian radio presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Australian radio personalities, convention of Category:Radio personalities by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Only one entry in this cat and I have removed it by changing the cat as proposed. --Bduke 00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newton family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous category for which there is no need because of the small amount of material and the extensive interlinks between the articles. Otto4711 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Other families have this name. Doczilla 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lupino family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete the three articles are all linked to each other and Lupino family serves as a navigational hub so the category should be deleted. Otto4711 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Other families have this name. Doczilla 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lowell family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the article Lowell family serves as an appropriate navigational hub and the articles are extensively interlinked, making the category unnecessary. Otto4711 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Other families have this name. Other Lowells with interesting relatives have Wikipedia articles. Doczilla 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close moved to

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen to Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other entries in Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. Dweller 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and move to

WP:UCFD. Otto4711 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Earle family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the article Earle family serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the small amount of material in the category. Otto4711 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Other families have this name. Doczilla 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Former capitals of Armenia to Category:Historical capitals of Armenia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former capitals of Armenia to Category:Historical_capitals_of_Armenia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Former" makes no sense. Articles under this cat are merged/sorted here automatically by Template:Historic capitals of Armenia.Renaming of cat will bring standardization.Must.^{T C} 09:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Currently, Wikipedia contains a Category:Historical capitals and a Category:Former national capitals, both of which contain subcategories. Someone also added inappropriate merge templates to the two categories a while ago. It might be appropriate to close this nomination and nominate both Category:Historical capitals and a Category:Former national capitals for merging. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nevertheless, the nominator or someone can/should go ahead with another merge proposal for the cats mentioned. Baristarim 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - agree we should close this debate per suggestion of Dr. Submillimeter, and re-nominate as merge proposal. Rgds, - Trident13 09:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Roman scientists to Category:Ancient Roman scientists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman scientists to Category:Ancient Roman scientists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity as per Category:Ancient Romans and most of its other subcategories. AshbyJnr 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that the subcategories of Category:Ancient Romans and Category:Ancient Romans by occupation are inconsistently named. It might be worth nominating all of them together rather than nominating just this one category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and also currently ambiguous with reference to modern citizens of Rome. --Dweller 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. It might be better to do these in a batch, but as long as we've got this one on the table, let's do it. — coelacan — 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Types of corporations into Category:Types of companies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Types of corporations to Category:Types of companies

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Appears to be overlap between the two. Since the parent is Category:Companies decided to suggest merge in this direction. Note, there is a suggestion that the main articles be merged in the opposite direction. Vegaswikian 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and keep a redirect. AshbyJnr 07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Types of public utility to Category:Public utilities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Types of public utility to Category:Public utilities

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Was going to rename for plural, but in looking at this category, it seems to be a list of utilities rather then types of utilities. Vegaswikian 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this should be categorised by country (or by region/city, if too large). Pavel Vozenilek 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already has 3 subcats by country and one by type. Vegaswikian 07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies with demoscene background (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

'Companies founded by members of former or active demoscene groups' seems like overclassification. If needed should be a list in the demoscene article. Vegaswikian 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Baristarim 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close, duplicate discussion. —

Category:Non-fictional doctors to Category:Physicians

• Merge, I want 2 get rid of my new catargory so y not merge it.
  dwilliams 06:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close - This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 10#Category:Non-fictional doctors. The second discussion here will cause confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 11:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article series; limited use of categorisation other than attract attention to the main article. JFW 

Clarify? I hadn't thought to use it to attract attention to main article (that's what See Also is for, I'm assuming). Purpose was simply to group the various companies, individuals, tribes, and botanical articles related to Biopiracy disputes or bioprospecting. Please point out the higher use of Categorization that I failed to observe/achieve here? Thanks.Yeago 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • If particular agents are the subject of biopiracy/bioprospecting disputes then the articles need to state, in prose, what the nature of those disputes may be. To slap a category of this nature on it - with its controversial undertone - undermines the need for
    WP:NPOV.JFW | T@lk 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I completely agree. Except that I can't help that all articles in this category are not complete. I can guarantee you that prose does exist concerning all of the members of the CfD category--they simply happen to be mentioned in another article. A topical, category structure in part assists contributers fill in these blanks. NPOV disputes which do exist (and not many will, as most unexplained members are plant articles. Not a lot of controversy there) should be dealt with at the article level--tanking the entire category because of a few members is not a valid solutionYeago 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I realize prose is necessary (and if you check My Contributions you'll see that I'm filling in these gaps) all you've done is elaborate on good practice for membership within this category. I didn't get an answer to my request for clarification.Yeago 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The category's inclusion criteria are apparently vague and poorly constrained. Grouping "companies, individuals, tribes, and botanical articles" together seems inappropriate. Also, the category appears to be making the allegation that some of these parties have committed "biopiracy", even if the creator did not intend it that way. Dr. Submillimeter 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category contains a) bioprospectors/biopirates b) associated/victim tribes of bioprospectors/biopirates c) organisms bioprospected/biopirated. Would individual categories of a,b,c (if they could be sufficiently filled) be more appropriate? While I understand there are issues with the existing category, the issue of Biopiracy/Bioprospecting has become an important international issue for developing countries. Similarly, Wikipedia should have a better topical structure for articles related to this issue.Yeago 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Subdivision would be appropriate and would make the category more acceptable. Still, the topics seem to be only loosely associated with each other. This categorization is still inappropriate. Moreover, "biopiracy" is an attack word that should be avoided. (This category just seems like it is poorly planned.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you about that. Unfortunately the international debate over the phrase 'Biopiracy' vs 'Bioprospecting' is still in the works and clear, apolitical definitions do not (unanimously) exist so I've got to work with what I've got. If you notice, I recently overhauled the 'Biopiracy' article (rename and merge with 'Bioprospecting') for exactly that reason. Also, before you speak you should educate yourself about the phrase "biopiracy". While it is often an "attack word" the

UN, the oxford dictionary, and the Convention on Biological Diversity

lay out legal definitions—not attack words in the least.

Also, I can't agree that a) these topics are 'only loosely' associated with each other and that b) being 'loosely associated' voids the possibility of categorization. Take Category:Political corruption, for example. That category contains people, organizations, monetary funds, methods, congressional acts, the list goes on. Yet nobody proposes we nix that category because of the breadth of members. The associations are no more "loose" or different than that of Biopiracy/prospectingYeago 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There may be room for subdividing, and making the category description more clear, but as Yeago shows, this is already a well-defined concept. — coelacan — 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per YeagoDr. Submillimeter. The concept(s) being categorized to fit neatly in a category. The prose article of the same title is better able to address the nuance of each person, company, group, or thing now categorized. Moreover, the extremely heterogeneous grouping of things that have "something to do with" the concept is weird. There's nothing this category does that cannot be done better in the main article (including linking to the various articles, in proper context for each). LotLE×talk 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? =)Delete per yeago? I'm a bit confused. I think you're agreeing with my suggestion of neater subcategories?Yeago 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had misread the attribution of the above vote. I'm afraid I don't see enough value of subcategories to warrant them, nor enough members to populate them. The article itself is fine, and categories are not necessary for every possible concept (especially the possibly biasing nature of this particular categorization) LotLE×talk 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I feel the bias is mitigated by lumping -prospect and -piracy together (since interests often dictate which term is used).

As for them not being filled, I only began categorizing last night. Sure, if in a year the category is stagant I'd say axe it. That's still just a mayble.

I do somewhat agree with your above sentiment that categorizing articles that have "something to do" with a concept is weird. But then I stumble upon categories like Category:Jesus....Yeago 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Categorization is appropriate "for lists and topics" according to
  Category FAQ—this is unambiguously an international topic. Nominator misunderstood intention of category as a funnel device to article (which it is not). Also, we don't nix categories simply because they maybe might one day pose NPOV threat (unless someone raises NPOV issue, NPOV disputes are to be handled at the article level).Yeago 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I tend to agree with the nom, and implying piracy by people is a BLP concern, so delete. >Radiant< 09:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge —

Category:Christian Science followers to Category:Christian Scientists

• Merge, Duplicate category whose name is longer and clumsier. We don't call Christians "followers of Christ" usually, do we? Also note title of
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 05:30Z
• Merge - per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 09:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer a different merge than the nomination. Merge both into Category:Members of the Church of Christ, Scientist to avoid conflicting categorization and confusion with "scientists who are Christians". The denomiation is called the Church of Christ, Scientist, so this works fine and is much clearer. — coelacan — 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & rename per Coelacan - I don't think Category:Christian scientists (as in chemists, biologists, etc. who are Baptists, Catholics, etc.) would be valid as an intersection (see that Category:Jewish scientists is up for deletion). Carlossuarez46 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Schoolboy123 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Members of the Church of Christ, Scientist - This category's name cannot follow the convention of categories for most other denominations simply because it may be used for scientists who are Christian as well as members of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Hence, the category needs to be given an unusual but unambiguous name. Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carter family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - for members of the extended Carter-Cash musical familiy. There already exist articles on the

• Delete! They're not the only Carter family! Doczilla 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of notable Carters with families. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons as above.--
  Atlantima 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Though the family trees are great, having categories for the articles is helpful and makes it easy to find related articles. --Larrybob 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as relates to the article Carter Family, rename for capitlisation. Tim! 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. >Radiant< 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by

Category:Sex Symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as

• Delete per nom. It's also incorrectly capitalized. Is there some simple way to check all deleted categories? I know I've seen this one before. Doczilla 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good call. It appears it was last deleted 8 months ago from clicking on the "log" link above, and once also before that. Also Category:Sex symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appears to have been deleted on 2 occasions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - It also survived 2 other attempts at deletion along the way, one resulting in a rename and one in a no consensus keep. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt both with the capital S and lower-case s as recreated content. Otto4711 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all this time, I'd never checked the "logs" link before. Sheesh. SALT! (Still, suppose the previous versions had been spelled slightly differently. What would have been the easiest way to look them up?) Doczilla 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and add white powder protection. —
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 05:31Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Redirects from CamelCase to Category:Redirects with old history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Redirects from CamelCase to Category:Redirects with old history

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is intended to hold redirects with histories that pre-date the

Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 01:28Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Sort the category into:

• Category:Ancient Roman astronomers
• Category:Ancient Greek astronomers

as appropriate, both to be subcategories of Category:Ancient astronomers. Let me know when it's done, and I'll delete Category:Greek and Roman astronomers. - jc37 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek and Roman astronomers to Category:Roman astronomers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This grouping seems strange and confusing. It seems to muddle history by suggesting that the Greek and Roman civilizations were interchangable, which is not really true. Note that Category:Greek astronomers does exist and does include ancient Greek astronomers. This category should be renamed just to contain Roman astronomers, and I will sort the Greeks and the Romans accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 00:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. —
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 01:30Z
• Rename per nom. Doczilla 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rename to Category:Ancient Roman astronomers for clarity, as per Category:Ancient Romans. AshbyJnr 07:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Either "Roman" or "Ancient Roman" would be appropriate. (Note that the categories under Category:Ancient Romans by occupation are inconsistently named.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per AshbyJnr.Yeago 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer Category:Ancient Roman astronomers to avoid confusion with modern astronomers who live or work in Rome. — coelacan — 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ancient Roman astronomers, as this category is for Ancient Romans. Honbicot 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Ancient... And create an Ancient Greek category to go with it. 132.205.44.134 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Baristarim 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The problem here is that the interesting division here is between the ancients and the moderns, not between the Greeks and the Romans. A quick glance at Category:Greek astronomers shows that, with one exception, it is composed of modern Greeks-- that is, citizens of the modern Greek nation. I'm not so keen on such categories anyway, but dumping all the ancient Greeks in there is plainly wrongheaded. There's something to be said for renaming this category-- "Ancient astronomers" or "Classical astronomers" spring to mind, or we could mine the Astronomy article for a period name. But as a category it has the right members, and Seleucus of Seleucia belongs in this one. And drawing a line between Ptolomaic and Imperial astronomers is a starkly arbitrary line. Mangoe 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could the problem with the Greek astronomers be solved simply by creating Category:Ancient Greek astronomers? Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that there isn't a useful distinction between ancient Greek and ancient Roman astronomers. Indeed, we could just as well put anyone fron Alexandria into Category:Ancient Egyptian astronomers. And what do we do with an ancient astronomer from Greece under the Roman Empire? The category needs a better name, perhaps, but it is the right category. Mangoe 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Some of these people (such as Aristarchus of Samos) were not Romans, and some may have been alive before the foundation of Rome. Grouping these Greeks with Roman people is plainly inappropriate; it's like grouping Canadians with Americans or English people with Irish people. A Category:Ancient Roman astronomers could always contain a description indicating that it should include all subjects of the Roman Empire (thus including people like Ptolemy). Dr. Submillimeter 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was willing to defer to Dr. Submillimeter's professional expertise until we got to specific cases. I question the value of all these "national whateverist" categories anyway, but Ptolemy could be categorized as a Greek, or Alexandrian, or Roman astronomer, depending how much you think language/ethnicity, location, or era matters. It seems to me that the fact that they are ancient is the only important connection. Mangoe 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ancient Greek and Roman astronomers. Name is unambiguous, does not imply Greek=Roman (indeed, by having both names we a priori show that) and takes on board Mangoe's comment above. --Dweller 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Dr. S wishes after considering the whole tree: it looks like there is a Category:Ancient Astronomers that this is categorized in, and I think it makes sense to split out the Greeks and Romans within the Ancients if that makes sense within astronomy (I know it does within, for example, literature); if there should be Ancient Chinese or Ancient Persian astronomers, they could also be subcategorized. It also looks like there are separate trees of Ancient Greek Scientists and Roman Scientists, and splitting would allow proper subcategorization within those trees.A Musing 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.