Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16

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) 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Saxe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, empty category, former subcats moved to Category:House of Wettin where they belong, as the 'House of Saxe' doesn't exist; it's merely an abbreviation of 'Saxony' and not a distinct noble House in itself. smigs 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Epbr123 19:02, 18 March 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 to delete the category as originally populated. - In reading the discussion below, it would seem that this category once had more members, though at the time of closure, the only member is

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

• Delete: this is a pejorative POV label, being as it is an attack on skepticism. Since it has been applied with a broad brush to articles that are already within category:Parapsychology, it is also redundant. The 'Pseudoskepticism' label seems be more of a reference to editors of the article than to its subject matter. — BillC ^talk 20:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. Michaelbusch 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This has nothing to do with editors of the article, nor does it have anything to do with the Parapsychology category. It has to do with the reaction of some skeptics to these types of subjects. It just says there may be a relationship between these subjects and pseudoskepticsm. It is also most positively not an attack on skepticism. This is a complete misunderstanding. It any skeptic who is a pseudoskeptic is in fact a purveyor of pseudoscience, not a true skeptic. If this category has any POV at all, it is a defense of skepticism. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you explain the distinction between things in this category and in category:Pseudoscience or category:Parapsychology? What makes this unique from either of those two? --Minderbinder 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I admit to being confused. Since the category is being applied where there may be a link, then it clearly represents one editor's point of view that that link exists. In other words, it may not. This is not what categories are for. Truro is, for example, in Category:English county towns; there's neither doubt nor opinion about this assertion. — BillC ^talk 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As indicated by the nominator, this is being broadly applied to many parapsychology articles. Dowsing and Uri Geller, for example, are in this category. This category could be used to suggest that the selected phenomena or people were subjected to unfair criticism, which would lead to POV disputes on what are already contentious topics. Categories that generate POV disputes definitely are not needed, which is why I suggest deletion. (Martinphi's comments also support deletion. He states that "there may be a relationship between these subjects and pseudoskepticsm". If the relationship is uncertain as he implies by the use of the words "may be a relationship"", than creating a category is not worthwhile.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Or why not create '''Category:Pseudopseudoskepticism''', for people who are quick to label their critics pseudoskeptics? Seriously, with Category:Pseudoscience it is generally easy (and demanded) to produce
  attributable, non-OR fashion, I'd recommend deletion or, at the very least, restricting use of this category to subjects where a reliable source has called them pseudoskeptics. MastCell 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: I disagree that the pseudoscience category is used where "an editor thinks there may be a link". The pseudoscience category generally causes people to wig out, so it generally should be applied only where an

outside, attributable, reliable source has referred to the subject matter as pseudoscience. MastCell 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

And an article on Creationism might be tagged, because creationists are pseudoskeptics of evolution- but that article is not under the Paranormal or Parapsychology categories. Articles tagged with this category either have (if sourcing is needed), or seem to an editor to possibly have, a connection to pseudoskepticism. Perhaps there is something I am missing here, as I am really new to categories. But it seems to me that this is a category which the so-called "skeptical block" on Wikipedia could get a lot of use out of. I'm not trying to be POV here. I think pseudoskepticism is a rather uncontroversial phenomenon, which any scientific thinker would do well to study. Thus, it is valuable to have articles categorized in this way. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be that I have mis-applied the category. I think it applies to parapsychology, creationism, and a few other things at least, but just because I put it in doesn't necessarily mean it ought to be there. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Major
  WP:NOR problems here. Category may have been created with good intentions, but we're better off not making this judgment. — coelacan — 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you delete this one for such reasons, you have to delete a lot of others. I could source a lot of pseudoskepticism. As an example -which you might not like- because Truzzi called a certain skeptic a "pseudoskeptic", I could source the inclusion of that person's page in this category. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete antagonistic, subjective category. Doczilla 07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective POV targeting scientific skepticism, selectively applied to parapsychology articles. LuckyLouie 08:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: 1) There is a clear and definitive need to differentiate between real skeptics/skepticism that use scientific methods to make valid judgments based on mainstream understanding, and phony skeptics who used pseudoscience and emotive views to try and discredit anything that they don't personally agree with. 2) Deleting this category will harm and devalue skepticism on wikipedia by making it harder to tell the real skeptics from the fake ones. 3) Any argument about this category being used to as a weapon against skeptics can also be applied to the categories about pseudoscience (etc), too. Both are open to exactly the same abuse. This why we have projects like project paranormal and project rational skepticism to police entries and correct any abuses. 4) If a page is compliant with
  WP:NPOV, as all pages should be, then the label can't be pejorative. perfectblue 08:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If the need to differentiate between real skepticism and phony skepticism is clear and definitive, why is this cat being applied to cases where where an editor thinks there may be a link? What if other editors think there may not? If these differences of opinion occur, how will readers know who are the real sceptics and who are the phoneys? BillC ^talk 08:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, you're argument appears to be that the cat is being misapplied, not that it isn't necessary. The point that you've raised is an inherent problem with Wikipedia's open model and nothing to do with the validity of the cat itself. As I said, the same is true for pseudoscience and a lot of other categories. For example, there's nothing to stop me from putting a straight actor in a gay category for malicious reasons, or simply because I think that he's gay even though he hasn't come out. It doesn't mean that we should delete all cats mentioning homosexuality, does it? perfectblue 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like putting the category on Psychic, who exactly is it saying is a "real skeptic" versus a "fake one"? Psychics? People who believe in psychics? People who dispute psychics? Some people who dispute psychics but not others...which isn't really made clear from a category? Could you explain? --Minderbinder 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill C, the matter is one of sourcing. Just as with the pseudoscience category. The pseudoscience category would apply to a lot more things than this category, for obvious reasons, but also because you can only source pseudoskepticism in a few cases. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since the creation of this category follows some outcry over the recent naming of
  pointy. At the risk of not AGF, I also suspect the conclusion of this CFD will be followed with either the attempted removal of Category:Pseudoscience from many articles (justified by references to this CFD) if not a nomination to delete it completely. --Minderbinder 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is not pointy. I think I was likely wrong to question the re-categorization. However, it made me look at categories, and I thought this one was also necessary. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are informed skeptics and there are people who almost religiously fight anything that is not blessed by mainstream science. I think it is wrong for Wikipedia to let skeptics call themselves all sort of rational sounding names and not acknowledge that there are radical skeptics as well. Tom Butler 16:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give an example of a person who could be verifiably cited as being a pseudoskeptic? — coelacan — 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree that there are informed and unbiased skeptics as well as skeptics who are dogmatic in their approach. Though it is worthwhile (even constructive) to discuss these concepts in an article on pseudoskepticism, I don't see the merit in creating a category for it at Wikipedia. Pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism are both pejorative terms, and it should not be the business of Wikipedia editors to place people, places, or subjects within these categories since the act of doing so is inherently POV. I recommend that after deleting this category, we take down the category of pseudoscience as well. Hopefully most of you arguing to delete this category will join in that pursuit. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: There are a number of topics that fall prey to out of hand dismissal versus rational skepticism. What topics fit the category of pseudoskepticism is for another discussion, but for this thread it is important to note that some users of this site may be looking for these topics. It is helpful to those users of Wikipedia to have a listing of these articles, especially if they are specifically here looking for that information. As an information resource, Wikipedia caters to a number of different users. I suggest a strong keep because of these specific users. Those who voted delete, please reconsider while keeping in mind the users instead of actual articles that may or may not belong in the category. That can be addressed on the individual article's talk page. The category itself is useful. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There wasn't anything in the category that had been subjected to pseudoskepticism but not rational skepticism. If you can suggest one article that would be helpful to categorize as such, please suggest it. — coelacan — 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on an oversubtle and personal classification, so of minimal use for navigation. Wimstead 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no rationale for keeping a category just because paranormal believers are angry that they don't have the upper hand in reliable and verifiable sources. --ScienceApologist 03:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, this category is needed by skeptics and non-believers seeking to differentiate between quality skeptics who use scientific methods, and false skeptics who don't use science, in order to prevent the latter form discrediting the movements started by the former with their kookie research and self published opinions. perfectblue 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I can depend on is that you won't fill my citation requests, lol. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV per previous comments. Greg Grahame 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per perfectblue and Nealparr. Subject of the category is an accepted concept and a Wikipedia article:
  WP:BLP. Dreadlocke ☥ 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, there is an article. That just means we may keep the category, not that we must. Can you give an example of an article that should be in this category? Something that has been subjected to pseudoskepticism but not rational skepticism? — coelacan — 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a difficult and controversial concept. An article can handle that, but categories are simply either/or things, that don't do subtlety well. Abberley2 01:10, 22 March 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category:Natives of County Antrim to Category:People from County Antrim

rename Category:Natives of County Armagh to Category:People from County Armagh

rename Category:Natives of County Down to Category:People from County Down

rename Category:Natives of County Fermanagh to Category:People from County Fermanagh

rename Category:Natives of County Londonderry to Category:People from County Londonderry

rename Category:Natives of County Tyrone to Category:People from County Tyrone

Rename all from Natives of Foo to People from Foo per CFD 2007 January 17 and lots of subsequent CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Place of birth is not necessarily a defining characteristic. CalJW 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Mayumashu 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to include notable non-native residents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --
  talk 17:22, 17 March 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category:Natives of County Carlow to Category:People from County Carlow

rename Category:Natives of County Cavan to Category:People from County Cavan

rename Category:Natives of County Clare to Category:People from County Clare

rename Category:Natives of County Cork to Category:People from County Cork

rename Category:Natives of County Donegal to Category:People from County Donegal

rename Category:Natives of County Dublin to Category:People from County Dublin

rename Category:Natives of County Galway to Category:People from County Galway

rename Category:Natives of County Kerry to Category:People from County Kerry

rename Category:Natives of County Kildare to Category:People from County Kildare

rename Category:Natives of County Kilkenny to Category:People from County Kilkenny

rename Category:Natives of County Laois to Category:People from County Laois

rename Category:Natives of County Leitrim to Category:People from County Leitrim

rename Category:Natives of County Limerick to Category:People from County Limerick

rename Category:Natives of County Longford to Category:People from County Longford

rename Category:Natives of County Louth to Category:People from County Louth

rename Category:Natives of County Mayo to Category:People from County Mayo

rename Category:Natives of County Meath to Category:People from County Meath

rename Category:Natives of County Monaghan to Category:People from County Monaghan

rename Category:Natives of County Offaly to Category:People from County Offaly

rename Category:Natives of County Roscommon to Category:People from County Roscommon

rename Category:Natives of County Sligo to Category:People from County Sligo

rename Category:Natives of County Tipperary to Category:People from County Tipperary

rename Category:Natives of County Waterford to Category:People from County Waterford

rename Category:Natives of County Westmeath to Category:People from County Westmeath

rename Category:Natives of County Wexford to Category:People from County Wexford

rename Category:Natives of County Wicklow to Category:People from County Wicklow

Rename all from Natives of Foo to People from Foo per CFD 2007 January 17 and lots of subsequent CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Place of birth is not necessarily a defining characteristic. CalJW 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There are always non-native notable residents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Mayumashu 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --
  talk 17:22, 17 March 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

Propose renaming Category:Protestant ministers to Category:Christian ministers by denomination

Nominator's Rationale: Rename; only Protestant christian denominations use the term "minister"; this subcat usefully separates out the subcats-by-denomination from the subcats-by-country, but it is misnamed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What is to be gained from the change? Nothing it seems. What would be lost? The category would not fit so neatly into Category:Protestants by occupation. Dominictimms 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The category already is effectively being used to sort ministers by denomination. The rename is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The renaming makes sense as BrownHairedGirl explains it. The concern that Dominictimms raises is minor; names of categories do not need to precisely parallel their parent categories. The category can still easily be included in the parent. — coelacan — 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT rename Keep as is. Pastorwayne 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per fundamental issues raised by Dominictimms. Abberley2 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What are these fundamental issues? The only thing Dominictimms said was that it wouldn't precisely match the parent category. This is not a problem. Names of categories do not need to precisely parallel their parent categories. The proper use of the category, if it is not clear, can be made clear on the category page. — coelacan — 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Renaming would worsen the lack of clarity as to the purpose of a group of related categories, including this category, Category:Clergy, Category:Ministers of religion and Category:religious leaders. Cloachland 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, can you elaborate? What would be the problem with clarity, exactly? — coelacan — 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not all clergymen in mainly Protestant countries are Protestants. Choalbaton 15:33, 24 March 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) 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial surgeries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "controversial" suffers from severe POV problems. This category will only aggravate any POV disputes in medicine-related articles on Wikipedia. I recommend deletion. If an alternate merge or rename can be proposed, I may support that as well. Dr. Submillimeter 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "controversial" is a POV term. --18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete this and several "controversial" categories bellow. Misuse of the word. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subjective "controversial" categories. Doczilla 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Controversial' = POV --Xdamr^talk 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion=POV. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 20 March 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) 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial birds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is an ad hoc collections of things, including birds where ornithologists are debating whether the birds are extinct, birds that are identified from only a few specimens, or birds where the classification as a new species or subspecies is disputed. Grouping all of these things under the point-of-view laden term "controversial" is not helpful, as the various scientific disputes are not related. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "controversial" is a POV term. --18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete. Not because "controversial" is POV, but because it implies that the birds are doing something to generate controversy, rather than simply being subjects of debate. Britney Spears is controversial because she does things like allow herself to be recorded while tipsy or sans underpants, not because people debate her relative merits as an entertainer. But even if a more precise name were chosen, it'd still be an unhelpful category. Bobanny 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should point out that many of these birds have also allowed themselves to be filmed and photograped without any clothes on! :) Dr. Submillimeter 23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subjective "controversial" categories. Birds??? Doczilla 07:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Controversial' = POV, and this category clearly links together things which are in reality totally unconnected. --Xdamr^talk 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If controversial is POV, tell the taxonomists to stop using it. This is the correct term to use when the taxonomic placement of a species is in disagreement. An English word may have a more precise meaning in the jargon, as is the case with this word. KP Botany 22:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category is being used for things besides where the animals' classification is in disagreement. A separate category (birds with disputed tanonomic placement) would be useful for that subset of birds, but not for "birds whose behaviour is disputed" or "birds which may be extinct but where differences of opinion exist among ornithologists". Grouping all of these things together like this under "controversial birds" is not helpful. Dr. Submillimeter 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion=POV. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 20 March 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) 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial Pokémon designs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Another category with the word "controversial". We cannot categorize articles using the word "controversial", which suffers POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because controversial is a POV term. The criteria for inclusion are inevitably either vague or arbitrary: does a design have to be denounced unanimously by the UN General Assembly and all national governments, or is it sufficient for one teenager in Bognor Regis to say "this is so lame"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree here. Jynx's controversy was enough to change the design (which I actually personally ahte - black hands are better than purple), someone in Japan filed a lawsuit regarding the appearance of Kadabra. But Murkow and Hoondoom have unsourced controversies. A category with only two artilces is not useful, so delete. Hbdragon88 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subjective "controversial" categories. Doczilla 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Controversial' = POV --Xdamr^talk 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the most amusing of this batch of nominations. Wimstead 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Amusing" is a POV term. I think Category:Controversial birds is much more amusing. :-) Dr. Submillimeter 10:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion=POV. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 20 March 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) 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial entertainment media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "controversial" suffers from POV problems. We cannot categorize articles using such terminology. Dr. Submillimeter 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "controversial" is a POV term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subjective "controversial" categories. Doczilla 07:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Controversial' = POV --Xdamr^talk 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion=POV. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 01:12, 22 March 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) 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The word "controversial" suffers from severe POV problems. We cannot categorize media using this term. Dr. Submillimeter 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "controversial" is a POV term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subjective "controversial" categories. Doczilla 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too subjective and it too broad a category to have any real descriptive value. Every Manga with a bare breast or a gay character in it is controversial in places like the Bible belt. Look at CCS. It's use of magic cards and gay characters makes it controversial in some parts of the US, yet it would be meaningless to label it as a "controversial Manga" as it would put it in the same category as
  Eerie Queerie and hard core porn Manga. perfectblue 08:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete 'Controversial' = POV --Xdamr^talk 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion=POV. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 20 March 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) 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial comic books and graphic novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - "Controversial" suffers from severe POV problems. We cannot categorize media based on this term. Dr. Submillimeter 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "controversial" is a POV term. --18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete all subjective "controversial" categories. Doczilla 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too subjective and it too broad a category to have any real descriptive value. Every comic with a bare breast or a gay character in it is controversial in places like the Bible belt. Look at CCS. It's use of magic cards and gay characters makes it controversial in some parts of the US, yet it would be meaningless to label it as a "controversial" as it would put it in the same category as
  Eerie Queerie and hard core porn Manga. perfectblue 08:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete 'Controversial' = POV --Xdamr^talk 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion=POV. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 20 March 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) 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banned comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Categorizing media by whether they have been banned or censored is inappropriate, as it rarely puts the censorship into context. For example, were these comics banned is just a rural county in Missouri, or in several states, or in several countries? Generally, a category of banned things is also not useful, as almost everything has been banned somewhere at some time. Similar categories for other media (e.g. banned books) have been deleted and blocked. This category should be deleted, too. Dr. Submillimeter 17:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt I've lost count of the number of 'Banned' categories which have come up, but either way this one has to go as well.

Xdamr^talk 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and salt per nom and Xdamr and countless other "banned" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per precedents. Doczilla 04:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but police This category should be kept, but policed on grounds of notability (EG, exclude xeroxed Dōjinshi banned in a nowhere highschool, but include comics banned at a state/national level. Censorship is a broad and important topic in the modern world as it interferes with the freedom of billions of people. We shouldn't trivialize any branch of censorship just because what is being censored might be trivial in itself. Keep this topic for the same reason that we keep banned books and banned films. perfectblue 08:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply perfectblue, you seem to be unaware that Category:Banned books was deleted in this CFD, and that Category:Banned films was deleted in this CFD. The deletion is not because censorship is unimportant, but because (as Dr S puts it in this nomination) "almost everything has been banned somewhere at some time"; e.g under Enver Hoxha, Albania banned all non-Albanian films except those by Norman Wisdom. Censorship is better recorded by lists and articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Postlebury 12:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ban! Er, I mean delete. The precedents are clear. Censorship is an important topic, but it should be covered by articles. With information! Not by vague, ill-defined, ambiguous and unmaintainable categories. Xtifr _tälk 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List and delete per other categories for banned X. -Sean Curtin 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and numerous precedents. Otto4711 21:33, 22 March 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 and rename to Category:Animal births by year.--Wizardman 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do I have to give a reason? Just look at the category! Who needs it? Who wants it? Perhaps it should be merged with "Category: Net weight of toenail clippings by US State or Territory"? Really, send this one to the doghouse. Malangali 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Year of birth is not a defining characteristic of animals. I'm not sure how this category could be useful. ChazBeckett 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Good grief. Doczilla 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm going to disagree on this one. Almost all articles about specific things or events (as opposed to concepts) should include a category that indicates year of birth, year of creation, year of the event, etc. Articles about specific notable animals are no exception. Having a year in the category set of an article places the article in the proper historical hierarchy so that it can be compared to other articles in other subjects in the same general time frame. So while it doesn't make sense to have a "year of birth" for the article Horse, it does make sense to indicate year of birth for Barbaro, for example. (And along those lines, I tagged Category:Racehorse births by year as a subcategory of this.) Dugwiki 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My one minor criticism of the category is that it doesn't seem use the standard templates used by other "by-year" categories. I would recommend altering the category's structure to match the templates for Category:Racehorse births by year or Category:Births by year. Dugwiki 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S It also needs to be better populated once the structure is standardized. Right now it only has a handful of articles, and there are numerous "famous animal" articles that should be included (see Category:Famous animals). Dugwiki 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Dugwiki. If an animal is has to slum it by being the subject of a biographical article amomgst all the humans listed here, then year of birth is a defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't the animal slum it by being included with human creatures who were born in the same year? What's wrong with the category for all births in 1861? Malangali 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for merger rather than for the proposed deletion; and while I wouldn't be strongly opposed to that merger, I suggest that a) readers would be surprised to find animal births in the same category as human births; b) for those who are particularly interested in notable animals, the separation is useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No-one seems to have a decent reason for deleting these basic and entirely harmless categories. Mowsbury 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inception is a defining category.
  bio) 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not defining category - here we talk about animals, not humans. The category does harm in making WP look like a joke. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Animal births by year to match the structure of the birth by year subcats. "Who needs it," "who wants it" and "makes WP look like a joke" are not persuasive arguments for deletion. Otto4711 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate I see this as a logical extension of the racehorse precedent. Set up the structure of subcategories per Category:Racehorse births by year and start adding animals with articles and known birth years. I do wonder if we should just rename the existing racehorse categories to extend them to include all animals. ~ BigrTex 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the articles listing births in each year, animal births are included amongst the human births. Why can't the same apply to categories? Epbr123 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am at a loss to find any reason why people would want to look up animals by their year of birth. In my book, having no reason for a category's existence is a good reason for deletion. perfectblue 08:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are many reasons for this category as listed above. Also, people would want to look up animals by their year of birth because they are doing research(a main reason for an enyclopedia). Acidskater 11:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The animal and human births should be kept separate. Postlebury 12:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Subcategory of Category:Births by year. --Galopin 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a perfectly justified category. Bluap 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Categories for human births/deaths/etc should be separate from categories for animals, as they can't give the difference in context like lists of births/deaths/etc. -Sean Curtin 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Animal births by year --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 06:00, 26 March 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:Quantum Chromodynamics' physicists into Category:Physicists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quantum Chromodynamics' physicists to Category:Physicists

• Merge Overcategorization. Or at least let's get rid of that bizarre apostophe. Lesnail 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete this overcategorization with poor punctuation and incorrect capitalization. When anyone creates a category like this, I seriously recommend looking through their user history to examine all categories the individual has created. Doczilla 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - This is another very specialized physics field that probably does not need a subcategory. Dr. Submillimeter 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge overspecialization. linas 20:03, 16 March 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.--Wizardman 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Delete because this category is absurd. Really, how many animals were born in 1861 who will make it into Wikipedia? If there are other similar categories, I vote to delete them all. One category for animal births should be more than sufficient, no? Malangali 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per absurd. Doczilla 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is part of the parent category Category:Animals by year of birth, which I strongly advocated keeping in the cfd discussion above. All articles about specific things and events should include a category indicating year of birth/year of creation/year of event/etc. See that thread for my comments. Dugwiki 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dugwiki as a defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per item above. Mowsbury 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of category above.
  bio) 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Absurd overcategorisation. There's no relation between animals because of birthdate. Humans are different as they are influenced by culture of the era. Pavel Vozenilek 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lives of animals that live with humans are also influenced by the culture of the era. Postlebury 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quatloo 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as the parent category is kept above. ~ BigrTex 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:1861 births. Epbr123 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The animal and human births should be kept separate. Postlebury 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if parent is kept; delete if parent is not. -Sean Curtin 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the parent is kept; delete if parent is not, per Sean Curtin. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 20 March 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 - Re-nominating at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Violin restorers and makers. There are some excellent and interesting suggestions below (including some fascinating information about the term luthier, which I hope is expanded on and clarified in the new nomination), but I didn't want to copy/paste the discussions for a relisting, in order that the discussion may start fresh. - jc37 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violin restorers to Category:Violin makers

• Merge Almost everyone who would belong in one of these categories belongs in the other as well. This is not a useful way to sort people. Lesnail 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I don't know violins. However, my shoe repair shop does not make shoes, my auto repair shop does not make cars. just guessing here.
  bio) 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• A complicated matter Violin makers' categories are a little bit complicated because not all the luthiers are violin makers and not all violin makers are violin restorers or violin dealers or violin experts as well. Some people are much more recognized for their work as restorers or experts or dealers than makers, so some subcategories in my opinion are necessary.

For the American common language in most cases a luthier is a guitar maker in general, but many makers of violins are very often categorized as luthiers. This happens outside wikipedia. On the other hand 'violin maker' is a clear specialization of a general 'luthier', so both categories are often necessary to better qualifying the craftsman. A general rule to follow could be following what they mostly say (or have said) of themselves (bio, websites, etc.). In other languages it is easier because the translations of 'luthier' are enough to inicate every craft in musical instrument building of stringed and plucked instruments. But in English 'violin maker' is really a 'luthier of violins' when his reputation as a maker of violins is gradually growing. Being travelling in this period I cannot guarantee to follow or contribute regularly to this very interesting discussion here, but I'll do my best. --Kremona 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kremona. Vegaswikian 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notified User:Kremona, category creator. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Violin makers to Category:Bowed stringed instrument makers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category is supposed to be (according to the discription at the top) for people who make any kind of bowed string instrument. It seems to me that calling someone who builds only cellos a "violin maker" is rather fishy, and certainly does not help readers. Also, it probably isn't a good idea to just clean up this category into a category of just violin makers because there is very substantial overlap between the violin makers, the viola makers, the cello makers, etc. Lesnail 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and merge as above Lesnail has a good point that this category and the Category:Violin restorers category above are bound to be the same list of people. Merge all these categories into a single Category:Bowed stringed instrument makers category, and in the category description indicate it is for people who make or restore bowed stringed instruments such as violins and cellos. Dugwiki 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The actual term for a maker/repairer of stringed instruments is 'luthier', therefore this category should properly be renamed Category:Bowed stringed instrument luthiers.

Xdamr^talk 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename to
  Violin maker#Bowed_string_instrument_luthiers. However, I get 0 Ghits for "Bowed stringed instrument luthier" and although there are 212 ghits for "Bowed stringed instrument" luthier, I'm still not persuaded that this is the best possible category name: there are 187,000 ghits for "violin maker". But I'll support this clumsy-sounding renaming as the best option available until someone thinks of a better name or offers evidence that "violin maker" is the correct generic term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment 'Violin luthier' gives us about 217,000 hits. I adopted Lesnail's naming formula in toto, substituting 'luthier', as the category was apparently for all bowed instruments (violins, violas, cellos, etc). Having taken a deeper look at this category, its parent category seems to be Category:Luthiers. This then raises the question, why do we need to group bowed instruments together? Why not have individual sub-categories within Category:Luthiers for each of these instruments?

I therefore propose that this be renamed Category:Violin luthiers and that we create Category:Cello luthiers, Category:Viola luthiers, etc as sub-categories of Category:Luthiers.

Xdamr^talk 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I should say that I would be happy to retain 'makers' instead of 'luthiers'. The latter is the correct term, but if general consensus is that it is too opaque then I won't object (although that would preclude, so far as I am concerned, merging Category:Violin repairers as proposed above—Luthier = maker/repairer but repairer is not synonymous with maker).

Xdamr^talk 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending input from User:Kremona, who seems to have put in significant work on this category and on related articles and was not notified. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should, of course, act as you see fit, but bear in mind

WP:OWN—discussion on CfD is not beholden to the view of the creator(s)/significant editor(s). User:Kremona

seems to be a somewhat irregular editor anyway so it is questionable as to whether he is likely to see your note within the 5 days of the debate. Your choice though.

Xdamr^talk 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the guidelines for the CfD process indicate that it is civil to notify interested parties, and I will say that as one who knows little about violins, this seems a fairly intuitive categery (even if most of us couldn't get to a name other than Stradavarius for it). A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy to support Xdamr's proposal of

WP:OWN, just as a desire for more expertise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

)

Sorry, I ought to have pointed out that I play the violin (somewhat indifferently, it must be admitted), so this fairly well known to me. Luthier defines the term fairly well (although a self-reference); [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc, etc are illustration of usage in these terms.

Xdamr^talk 13:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A difficult matter: Violin makers' categories are a little bit complicated because not all the luthiers are violin makers and not all violin makers are violin restorers or violin dealers or violin experts as well. Some people are much more recognized for their work as restorers or experts or dealers than makers, so some subcategories in my opinion are necessary.

For the American common language in most cases a luthier is a guitar maker in general, but many makers of violins are very often categorized as luthiers. This happens outside wikipedia. On the other hand 'violin maker' is a clear specialization of a general 'luthier', so both categories are often necessary to better qualifying the craftsman. A general rule to follow could be following what they mostly say (or have said) of themselves (bio, websites, etc.). In other languages it is easier because the translations of 'luthier' are enough to indicate every craft in musical instrument building of stringed and plucked instruments. But in English 'violin maker' is really a 'luthier of violins' (or violas or cellos, without a distinction yet) when his or her reputation as a maker of violins is gradually growing. I am afraid that it will be better to keep luthier and violin or bow maker (or restorer, dealer, expert, etc.) together, where necessary, at least until when their specific bio will be better defined. Being travelling in this period I cannot guarantee to follow or contribute regularly to this very interesting discussion here, but I'll do my best. --Kremona 19:01, 20 March 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 members are part of the target category, hosting both motorcycles and cars. No prejudice against a motocross category.)--Mike Selinker 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorcycle racing venues in the United States to Category:Motor racing venues in the United States

• Merge, the whole reason we name the parent category "motor racing venues" instead of anything more specific is because both motorcycles and cars race on the same tracks. All 3 of the articles in this category are also used for racing cars. Recury 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - As noted by the nominator, the category for motorcycles is redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for me. I think most of the other subcategoris of
  bio) 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Upmerge I would also support upmerging the other subcategories. ~ BigrTex 03:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do they always use the same tracks? I'm not into this, but aren't some of the tracks dirt trails and the like, Motocross being one example? Mesquite Moto-X Park is one I found in Nevada and as far as I know it is not used for other vehicle racing.Vegaswikian 07:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't necessarily be against a category for motocross venues because they are significantly different from regular road courses like the ones in this category. Just the other day I made Category:Drag racing venues because they are different enough to be considered seperate, IMO. To answer your question, they almost always use the same tracks, at least 90% of the time, and it is this overlap that I'm trying to avoid. You don't have that kind of overlap with, say, drag racing. Recury 17:58, 17 March 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 keep' Category:American Dragon: Jake Long characters; rename Category:Star Wars character lists to Category:Lists of Star Wars characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Rename per standard (to "Lists of <foo> characters"). >Radiant< 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Probably speedy it. -- Cat ^chi? 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Star Wars, keep American Dragon. The American Dragon category is not a category of lists. It's a collection of character articles, a few of which are lists.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Star Wars, keep American Dragon. per Mike. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Star Wars, keep American Dragon. per Mike. –Pomte 06:36, 30 March 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Role-playing video games, as all computer role-playing games are, to a certain extent, tactical. Subjectinve inclusion criterion. >Radiant< 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually the criterion for this category is the main article tactical role-playing game, which specifies that a tactical RPG "is a type of computer or console role-playing game which incorporates elements of traditional turn-based strategy games (including classic forms like Chess and Shogi). This genre is also known as turn-based tactics, and is the computer and video games equivalent of tactical wargaming and table-top role-playing." Thus it has a fairly objective sounding set of criteria (ie turn based role playing game) that differentiates it from other RPGS (such as a real-time non-turn based RPG such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) Dugwiki 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Tactical role playing game" is the title of a specific genre as noted above. Tactical should not be interpreted as an adjective here (if it was, you may have had a point, like "awesome role-playing games"), but rather part of the title. Titles frequently aren't parsed literally, just as "video games" aren't played on VCRs and "film" is often times not even on physical film any more. SnowFire 23:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for reasons already given. Tactical RPGs are a recognized sub-genre. -Sean Curtin 02:50, 19 March 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. There is a consensus to merge, but no consensus as to what is to be merged to what. For now, I'll make Category:Fictional American comics characters to be a subcat of Category:American comics characters. Note that not all characters of comic books are fictional. - jc37 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fictional American comics characters, redund. >Radiant< 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the other way around, to fit with
  talk 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Merge per nom. Wikipedia guidelines stress the need to specify that characters are fictional. Doczilla 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Rimshots: Category:Fictional American comics characters into Category:American comics characters. It appears that the problem is that there are two redundant categories, not that the fictional nature of the characters is unspecified. The category is already a subcat of Category:Fictional Americans and Category:Fictional characters. "Fictional American comics characters" is clunky and the "fictional" part is unnecessary as per all of the subcategories in Category:Comics characters. If I'm wrong, it'd help if someone could link the specific MOS section as a point of reference (I couldn't find it). Bobanny 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per rimshots. -Sean Curtin 02:51, 19 March 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 - jc37 11:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either this should be renamed to "African American" or somesuch, or it should be deleted as irrelevant intersection of profession and ethnicity. >Radiant< 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --
  talk 14:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do not rename to "African American"; not all black people (or characters) are American. No opinion on the value of the category itself. -- Eugène van der Pijll 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Eugene, do not rename to "African-American". Agree with Radiant that this intersection is irrelevant. ChazBeckett 16:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe overcategorization by ethnicity. [6] Given the overabundance of white super-characters, I'm not so sure that it is a trivial intersection of variables, though. Oppose rename even if not deleted because it is presumptuous to call all characters of African descent American. Maybe some were born in Canadian. We don't always know. Some of those characters are definitely not American. Doczilla 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with no rename - non-white superheroes and supervillains are still something of a rarity and I find this to be a non-trivial intersection. A number of the category members are non-American so no rename. Otto4711 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is a fair bit in that category, and many of the articles are only in one or two categories. I agree with Otto4711 that this is a fairly interesting intersection. Also, it doesn't look like any of the people using the category have been notified, and I'd suggest seeking that input before deleting. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible violation of
  WP:CATGRS. Someone's colour has no effect on their superhero attributes. Epbr123 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep: Not to put too fine a point on it, but 1) Modern day ethnic divisions in society and the existence of comic book characters written to appeal to/provide a role model for minority audiences make the race of fictional characters highly relevant. 2) Not all black heroes and villains are African-American. For example, Anansi the Spider from DC's Static Shock is true Africa rather than African American, and also Kendra Young from Buffy. She's black, but is not an American either. perfectblue 09:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete Inverted racism. Postlebury 12:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Doczilla; since most superhero characters are white,the black ones are notable for their race. Oppose rename per Eugène van der Pijll, because not all black people (or characters) are American. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do not rename. African-Americans are always Americans, but most black people are not Americans. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial intersection. Race has no effect on superheroness. If not deleted I oppose the rename as 'Black' does not equal American nationality.

Xdamr^talk 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If Wikipedia existed in the 1970s, this would be a valid category. But like "Black quarterbacks" and "Black Republicans," it is no longer an earth-shattering event when a black comic book character is introduced.--Mike Selinker 23:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I can't imagine anyone wanting to categorize black sportspeople. I wasn't aware that the threshold for categorization was "earth-shattering." Otto4711 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was not about black sportspeople, it was about black quarterbacks. At one point, it was a big deal when a team had a black quarterback, but now it's not. Similar, at one point it was a big deal when a comic had a black superhero, but now it's not.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The hell? This is an incredibly defining characteristic and useful category. Viewed historically, this is a very important category and I feel that the white/black division in comics is SO disproportionate. Also, it would set a very dangerous precedent for categorization of any minority group. ANYONE that cites inverted racism as justification for deletion are clearly nominating under bad faith and should have their nominations entirely ignored. I am a white person and I am disgusted by what I see as covert racism, although I do not accuse the nominator or any specific editors. I see this problem as societal, and as such Wikipedia reflects this, as it does here, although I maintain it should not. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!}
• Keep and do not rename. "Black" is an acceptable term and I don't see any reason to drop it. We do use "African American" for some categories, when we need to get that specific, but I hope we aren't going to start categorizing superheroes by both race and nationality. That would be unnecessary overcategorization. These current categories, however, are useful because one actually could write an article about representations of race in comic books, today and in the past. — coelacan — 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete because WP doesn't categorize real people as "black [subcategory]"; see Category:People by ethnic or national origin. We shouldn't be creating alternate categorization schemes for real-world terms and concepts as applied to fictional characters. Furthermore, I agree that the intersection of ethnicity and superheroism/villainy don't need to be combined into their own categories. The contents should be moved to either Category:Fictional Africans or to Category:Fictional characters of Black African descent (or its subcategory Category:Fictional African-Americans), as appropriate. -Sean Curtin 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an do not rename As per
  this guideline. Acidskater 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This guideline states "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. For example, gay literature is a distinct literary genre, and therefore an LGBT writers category is valid. However, there isn't a comparable phenomenon of gay linguistics, so a category for "Gay linguists" should not be created. For similar reasons, African American musicians is valid, but "African American economists" would not be." Black superheroes are not a distinct genre. They are not sufficiently different to white superheroes. Epbr123 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're attaching too much significance to the "distinct genre" point about gay literature. "African American music" is not a distinct genre either. But it makes sense for categorization because one can write an article about African Americans' influences on various music, their interactions with the music industry, etc. One can also write an article about the representations of black people in comics. — coelacan — 00:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't think "African American music" is a distinct genre, you're not worth arguing with. Epbr123 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "African American music" isn't a distinct genre. Since you seem to think so I am curious as to what you say it entails? Acidskater 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rhythm & Blues, Jazz and Rap were all derived by African Americans. Epbr123 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would mean it isn't a distinct genre, it's a broad term covering genres derived from African Americans. A distinct genre would be Jazz or Rap. Acidskater 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Either way, African American music is distinct from other kinds of music but black superheroes are not distict to white superheroes. Epbr123 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. "Black superheroes" is a good way to qualify them, seeing as how there is a good number of them who are not African-American per se (For example,
  Black Panther is from the fictional nation of Wakanda. --Hemlock Martinis 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as is. If we're going to categorize real people and fictional people by race/gender/sexual orientation, these are natural categories. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its an irrelevant intersection. Vegaswikian 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - black is more encompassing than AA. The category as a whole helps to reflect the role and development of a marginalized group with and their represention through a certain medium and genre.

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. the wub "?!" 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Alpha Phi Omega, which is very small. Overlap is obvious. Also, APO is coed, so "brothers" is technically incorrect. >Radiant< 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, People generally are not notable for memberships in fraternities or sororities. Epbr123 14:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These fraternity categories say little about the people's accomplishments while contributing to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See multi-nomination below in subsection "Fraternities." Rename is not necessary, as all members are refered to as "Brothers" (see text of article). —ScouterSig 17:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/Delete While brothers is the correct honorific, few if any will be included in Wikipedia because of their membership in this fraternity. ~ BigrTex 03:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See below in "Fraternities". Alpha Phi Omega does have a pledging period and is not an Honorary. See
  List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members should stand as that, if neccessary.Naraht 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-defining characteristic, because although this is not a primarily social fraterbity, I don't see any evidence in the article Alpha Phi Omega which provides evidence either of the brothers have achieved anything particularly notable through their membership in the fraternities. A group of people doing good works is a fine thing, but not of itself particularly notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why something that defines a person isn't defining all of the sudden because it doesn't attribute to their notability. Frank Sinatra being born in 1915 defines him, even though it didn't attribute to his notability, just as him being part of the Knights of Malta. Acidskater 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Year of birth is a very strong defining characteristic. If Frank Sinatra had been born in 1977, would you expect his singing and acting career to have been the same? As for
      WP:OC for the rationale). Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete The most notable category in this field (Category:Freemasons) has been deleted, and rightly so, so all the others should go. Choalbaton 22:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is this unlikely to be of interest to people unconnected with the organisation, but much worse anyone else who decides to browse it won't learn anything worth learning from it. Wimstead 02:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of these people have articles because they are Alpha Phi Omega brothers. The category is trivial, and is perhaps being used as a promotional tool. Greg Grahame 13:59, 18 March 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. the wub "?!" 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delta Chi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sigma Alpha Epsilon brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Kappa Alpha Psi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Zeta Beta Tau brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Phi Iota Alpha brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sigma Chi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Alpha Gamma Rho brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, People generally are not notable for memberships in fraternities or sororities. Epbr123 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How about putting all fraternities in a single nomination? --

talk 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment This discussion has happened before at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Category:Sigma Chi brothers the result was keep. Acidskater 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per nom. --
  talk 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all - These categories say little about the individuals' achievements while contributing to category clutter on many Wikipedia pages. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  Wikipedia:Categorization of people says that acceptable categories include associations such as where they graduated from college. Being in a Fraternity or Sorority can be just as important as what school they attended. This category can also ease searches for people with this in common. —ScouterSig 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - I would dispute this assessment. Fraternities may be important for some people's careers but not for others. Athletes are a great example of where the choice of college attendance is much more important than fraternity membership, as their education and training in the athletic programs is more important then their fraternity memberships. For example, is it more important that
    Husband Kimmel's articles do not even mention their fraternity membership but do indicate their educational backgrounds, and I would guess that many articles about fraternity brothers are similar in this respect. Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete and remove the guideline. Mowsbury 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold Keep for Now Delete - I'm on the fence on this one, but don't think it should be deleted until some of those using the category are notified and their input sought. If these categories are to be kept, they should be much better populated. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People who created the category have an obvious bias. There is enough inertia and tendency to ever greater category clutter built into the system as it is. Much better to rely on independent perspectives. CalJW 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is the point of having discussions of this, so the people who are, as you say, 'biased' can explain why it is still reasonable while those against it can explain why it should be deleted. When an administrator comes to decide on the deletion they should be able to decifer what to do, thats why they were chosen to be administrators. Saying not to invite the users of the page just takes away from the reasoning of having a discussion and can create an uneven bias in the discussion.Acidskater 07:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The process for nominating categories for discussion is clear that it is civil to notify interested parties - and it is their work we are deleting. As noted above, I'm on the fence on this, I don't think this is a particularly defining characteristic, but I've not been part of one of these organizations and I don't know the level of identification people have with them outside of the one small institution in one small state in one rather large country (the US) I happen to live in. I'm changing my vote above to keep only because we haven't heard from those with an interest; if they can't defend it better than I've seen thus far, I'm likely going to go to "delete" after hearing from them. I find Brown Haired Girl's comments below particularly convincing (the societies don't get discussed in the articles), and would like to see that addressed. But if we can't be civil enough to ask them before deleting their work, I'm against deleting it. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Your point about them not being in the articles is a good one and it should be added. If you look through many articles about those who are members they are in there and I have gone through many articles before and added it. Also, many of these greek societies are not in just one location. Many of the Fraternities listed have over 100 chapters including chapters outside of the United States. I guess what this discussion is going to have to do is show how it is a defining factor of the members, which is hard. How does one explain why it is a defining factor where someone grew up......because that is where they grew up and they can be identified with that town. In my mind I see being a brother in a Fraternity as defining as where I grew up and when I was born, as most greeks I know. You also have to remember that when someone joins a Fraternity or Sorority they can't join another one, it is usually in each greek societies by-laws. Acidskater 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I think that this is a good point; information such as hometown and college as well as categories such as "US Navy officers" or "Universal Life Church ministers" can be debated for quite a long time as to if they are notable in that person's life. (Note: I am NOT trying to invoke the Pokémon test). Continued activity in fraternities by alumni members such as David Letterman should show that fraternity membership is considered important themselves. That they choose to spend time this way is as notable as other volunteer organizations that people who are the subject of articles are involved with, a former job or millitary activity, or other biographical information. It is (or if not, should be) in the text of the article as a biographical point of interest, and meets the same criteria as any other worthy category of people. —ScouterSig 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Comment. I will say I have moved to delete but am a very weak delete (as if my constant shifts don't make that clear). I suspect that fraternities once were more defining than they are now, and that for some they remain defining - but for the overwhelming number of participants, they're a place to live and/or socialize for a brief period of their lives, and I think that swamps the category as a whole. I would support, for example, the categories for clubs that have explicit social service goals, like Rotarians - I'm not sure these fraternities have a broader purpose that rises to that level. A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep defining as per.
  bio) 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not defining at all, just a minor private matter. CalJW 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most members of Fraternities consider their fraternity very important in their life. Many famous brothers of fraternities still send donations as well as attend events (Mike Ditka spoke at the Sigma Chi 150th Anniversary). Even beyond that, these categories are very helpful in finding famous brothers within the fraternity. As to Dr. Submillimeter's point, we don't know which is more important to Troy Aikman, it might be Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Acidskater 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give a damn what people do in their spare time, I'm only interested in what they do to merit having an article in Wikipedia. Mike Ditka was invited to speak because he had done other notable stuff that give him a prominence that membership of this organisation would never give him. Postlebury 12:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wikipedia is not a collection of autobiographies. There are many things which people regard as very important in their own lives (e.g. marriage, childlessness, and home ownership) but which others may not regard as so important. Surely the question which Dr S was raising is not whether the person themselves regards something as a defining attribute, but whether it is a defining characteristic from an enclyclopedic perspective? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • This shouldn't be a matter of if it is important to us or to the person themselves or even if it made them notable, it is a matter of 'is this category helpful in an encylopedic way', and I say YES. Acidskater 15:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A non-honorary fraternity is a defining characteristic. Quatloo 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is a defining part of a person, as much so as where they went to school or where they grew up. Just because not every single person is part of a greek society means it is a defining factor for people who are(and I mean this in a general sense, not just an individual sense). The reason I think these should be kept is because people will want to see who is a member of a certain greek society as much as if someone tried to find out who is a Freemason or an Eagle Scout or was born in 1902. Acidskater 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Freemasons has been deleted. Category:1902 births and its siblings exist mainly for legal reasons connected with the living people policy, Category:Eagle Scouts should be deleted, so perhaps you would like to nominate it? Wimstead 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Acidskater's reply appears to me to be rather circular. A fraternity is a defining characteristic because it is a defining characteristic? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not finding the arguments in favor of keeping these categories convincing, and seeing a number of defenders here to make the case, feel comfortable moving to aruge for deletion. Here's the problem: unlike areas like a person's religion or university affiliation, membership in a fraternity strikes me as not related to their fundamental beliefs or experience, but rather a transitory club-like social group; I actually find it harder to argue for deleting the freemasons category, where there were elements there of a pattern of belief and of doctrines that had a real impact on many people's thinking and actions, at least historically. Is there some indiciation that any of these fraternities offers a unique experience or influence deeds or thoughts of their members?A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are fundamental beliefs and doctrines within each greek society. Also, each greek society holds a sacred ritual only known to the brothers. The point of the ritual is the unique experience held by all the members of a fraternity or sorority that no one else knows. Each Fraternity is very unique experience from all others, including the pledge period. You need to not think of Fraternities as a place where college kids go to get drunk, which might be why so many people wanting the deletion don't understand why being in a certain Fraternity is a defining quality. If you just visit the pages of a few Fraternities you can see public documents of the Fraternities which show their moral beliefs and ideals that are placed upon each member. Just go to Sigma Chi, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Zeta Beta Tau, Sigma Nu, and if you look at the bottom of each page you can see a list of other Fraternities to visit. As for BrownHairedGirl, how do you want me to explain how a Fraternity is a defining quality of a person? Acidskater 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the comments of SS, Acidskater, and Quatloo. Samwisep86 06:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to do with what makes people notable. Postlebury 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as non-defining characteristic, because I can't find anything in the articles relating to these categories which provides evidence either of the brothers being a particularly influential self-supporting group (as, for example, freemasons have been alleged to be), or of the fraternities have achieved anything particularly notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons to keep discussed above, and more. It is interesting and useful information, notwithstanding notability. It DOES define persons. I believe this holds true, also, for Phi Beta Kappa and other honors, too. Pastorwayne 12:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, exactly how does it define a person? Does it affect their choice of career or their progress in that career? Does it increase their chances of coming to public notice? Merely asserting that it membership of a particularl defining is not very persuasive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, now its clearer on what exactly you wanted me to say. Being part of a Fraternity is supposed to affect the way each member acts daily. It puts a certain moral belief system into each member, for Sigma Chi we have a clause in our Constitution which states our purpose as a Fraternity "The purpose of this Fraternity shall be to cultivate and maintain the high ideals of friendship, justice and learning upon which Sigma Chi was founded." As well as this each Fraternity has a ritual known only to its members which teaches us how to act towards others and ourselves. Don't think of Fraternities as place where college kids get drunk, but as a life-long commitment for each member which molds and shapes their ideals for the betterment of themselves and society. Acidskater 19:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Acidskater, I'm afraid that with each contribution you make a stronger case for deletion. A commitment to "friendship, justice and learning" is a fine thing, but those are pretty much universally-shared ideals, and as such are not defining. If you think I'm wrong, I hope that you can either point us towards some organisations dedicated to one or more of "animosity, injustice and ignorance", or to specific examples of how the pledge to those ideals has caused a person to attract notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most notable category in this field (Category:Freemasons) has been deleted, and rightly so, so all the others should go. Choalbaton 22:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above and in the separate debate. Wimstead 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These categories are only likely to seem significant to people who belong to the Greek system. This distinguishes them from say categories for obscure scientific specialisms most people have never heard of, because it will be clear to anyone who reads about those topics for the first time that the categories define the people involved. Greg Grahame 14:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These categories are just not interesting or useful. Acidskater wants us to believe that membership "molds and shapes.... ideals for the betterment of themselves and society,", which is surely an unprovable contention. Dominictimms 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know it's unprovable and I never said that membership does that, but that is it's purpose. Acidskater 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just chanced across the article about a baseball figure called Larry Himes, which was not in any categories except one of these. There seems to be something amiss with the priorities there. Ravenhurst 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How is this category significantly different than "Alumni of ____ University?" I don't think it is, and should therefore stay, but I have not gotten a response yet. —ScouterSig 19:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see my examples with
    Husband Kimmel above. (Please also acknowledge my examples and this message.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Response. I see that now (man, this is long). I... see that it can be argued that Greek membership is not as notable/important/relevant as college attendance (I also appreciate what Wilchett says below) but I also think that the absense of it being mentioned in various articles (including the ones you cited) is a case of oversight or thinking that having the category alone counts. I also believe that (many/most) alumni members consider their membership important in their life; while I cannot cite any survey or statistic, the fact that Fraternities have any, let alone significantly large in some cases, alumni interaction and support shows this. I think that this is a category with merit, especially as Wikipedia is
      NOT Paper
      .
      • Comment - Thank you for reading my comments. One further comment: While Wikipedia is not paper (and thus can contain information on a limitless number of topics), it still needs to be readable. One of the primary arguments against these categories is that they cause readability problems in some of the articles. The "not paper" argument is a good justification to keep a list on Wikipedia, but it is not a good justification for a category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greek societies don't award degrees. There's nothing you can't do without joining a Greek society (though joining one may help), but there are a lot of things you can't do without a degree. In any case, the university categories are of nothing more than curiosity value, and thus are close to the bottom of the merit scale. Wilchett 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various comments above. The connection between the achievements of these individuals is tangential at best. Wilchett 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete less defining than freemasonry which was deleted. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments. The freemasonry point made above just reinforces the need to delete these. Vegaswikian 02:49, 21 March 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 oppose renaming.--Wizardman 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lines of Tokyo Monorail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Tokyo Monorail Haneda Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Stations of Tokyo Monorail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge All to

talk 14:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]