< July 18	July 20 >

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: Speedy Delete as nonsense. --Xdamr^talk 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hail Eris! read A Drifting brain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I can't even figure out what this is supposed to be. It certainly does not seem to be a valid category. However, I also can't see grounds for speedy deletion. LeSnail (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did "nonsense" stop being a speedy criterion when I wasn't looking? Speedy delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep, based on the consensus/voted here. But we need to make sure this category doesn't get filled with crap. For instance, surely Wikipedia Review and Conservapedia belong if this category exists, because they are defined by their Criticism of Wikipedia. On the other hand, The Times, clearly does not belong. The article didn't mention those criticisms anywhere, and it was quite shameful to see this category among the others. The Times is not notable/categorized because of their criticism of us. Please, volunteers, watch this category, and help clean it up. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a real "category" - the nature of "criticism" is wholly ambiguous and the category as a whole serves little or no useful purpose to the encyclopaedia. Should be deleted, but at the very least should be subject to proper discussion over the merit of its continued existence DJR (T) 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There exists organisations and individuals who can be considered to be critics of Wikipedia. In most circumstances I expect there will be little difficulty coming to the conclusion that someone is a critic so I don't foresee any real problems in deciding whether or not to add an article to this category. Adambro (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorization on the basis of opinion or belief. Otto4711 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have other categories which include the word critics or criticism, including critics of Scientology. while i dont like LISTS which have arbitrary or nonrational criteria for entry, it seems categories can be more inclusive, and can help readers find what they are looking for. i do agree that the criteria for including an article in this category could be vague at times (im sure there are media commentators or publications that have both praised and criticized WP) but in these cases you could always include them in BOTH categories, if there was a WP booster category. and this is a fairly significant subject, considering what WP is now. i would be inclined to delete more trivial "critics" categories, say, "critics of canadas cat registration policies" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How can one be against Wikipedia. ;-) Debresser (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Category appears to be in keeping with other Critics of... categories. I'm not sure what the nominator means by "the nature of 'criticism' is wholly ambiguous" but we do have a Criticism of Wikipedia main article and articles categorized here generally do appear to be quite clear about the nature of their various criticisms. As for it serving "no useful purpose to the encyclopaedia" it seems to me to serve no more or less useful a purpose than any other category. My concern is that the nominator may be suggesting that it is not helpful to Wikipedia's reputation. If so, we're getting into the realm of censorship. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Part of the problem, imo, is the master category Category:Critics, which combines occupations like Category:Wine critics with the nominated category. But not the other "Critics of..." categories. I've removed the Wikipedia category from this master cat, at least for now, others may restore it if they so choose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• articles categorized here generally do appear to be quite clear about the nature of their various criticisms. Many of them are so clear in their criticisms that they make no mention of their subjects criticizing Wikipedia at all. Many of them mention Wiki-criticism in passing, in a single sentence or phrase. Frankly, many of those that do cover the criticism in detail do so in such an unbalanced manner that it comes off as masturbatory. There is a substantive difference between a person who makes his or her living as a professional critic and someone who criticizes someone or something in passing. This is just the sort of overcategorization by opinion that WP:OC contemplates. We have deleted scores of similar categories and the existence of a handful of other categories (which should also be examined) does not mandate or even suggest that this one should be kept. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#People_by_opinion_or_political_position is a persuasive list: change to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a valid category. Criteria for inclusion is not ambiguous. Edward (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete people by opinion, what will we have next? Critics of Obama, Critics of Abortion, Critics of age of consent laws, Critics of Harry Potter movies, Critics of smoking, Critics of critics: just as valid as this junk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Now this is a good point. So we should delete all "Critics of..." categories? That also seems to be a little extreme. What do my fellow editors say about that? Debresser (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We should be especially wary about moves that may be perceived as censoring of our critics. However, we as a community seem to harbor little such restraint (see the 14 nominations for deletions of the article about Daniel Brandt). Wikipedia is an institution that is eminently criticizable on the grounds of our working focus in a world of information wars. If someone has criticized Wikipedia to the extent that is has been found worthy of inclusion in their Wikipedia article, there should be no problem adding this category to their article. The dilemma asserted by Otto4711 of people in this category who have made mere passing comments criticizing Wikipedia, then the problem is obviously the article which should be purged of such trivial information. __meco (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Worthy of inclusion in their article" translates to documented by reliable sources. Simply appearing in reliable sources does not mean that criticizing Wikipedia is a defining characteristic of the person, otherwise every verified fact would be subject to categorization. We should be equally concerned about painting people as "critics". Otto4711 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if I lack imagination, but I find it hard to envisage someone being cited in their article for criticizing Wikipedia when it wasn't a big deal to them. If it's an op-ed writer who volunteers their opinion on all sorts of issues all over the spectrum and one incident was where Wikipedia was involved I could see the issue being moot, but I don't see a big issue of this. __meco (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "A big deal" also doesn't translate to "defining characteristic". Big deals are made out of all sorts of things, which make them notable but not necessarily defining. People raise ruckuses over lots of stuff that we don't, and shouldn't, categorize. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A rather clear and defining characteristic. The "masturbatory" criticism that we are unable to determine who belongs in the category belongs at the level of individual articles, and we don't need to be jerked around here with claims that we are unable to decide that the category is defining. Results of prior cases are completely unconvincing and arguments based exclusively on the dreaded slippery slope should be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can change their size (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Loosely defined. When did Yakko, Wakko or Dot ever change their size? Is inflation (I'm looking at you, Jigglypuff) the same as changing your size? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Any human or animal can "change their size". It's called overeating. Or are we talking about changes in height here? It is not clear.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous category. Change in height is part of puberty as well, so that's not defining either. Nice use of Jigglypuff, by the way. — Σxplicit 01:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't get me started on Pokémon or inflation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted as overcategorisation. And you'll get onto trouble with all shapechangers (which per definition should all be here).Debresser (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does crouching count? and we won't talk about which character on Star Trek:TNG claims to be "anatomically functional in every way" LOL... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who can scale down their size since many of the delete votes seem to focus on the current title being ambiguous. __meco (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NCAA soccer players to Category:College soccer players

Nominator's rationale: all other subcats of Category:College athletes follow this naming pattern; no need to restrict list to colleges/universities with NCAA programs Mayumashu (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – why is it assumed that 'college athletes' are only found in N America? Occuli (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obviously, students play on university sports teams world-wide. The term 'college athlete' however is strictly North American usage, isn t it? And I wonder how notable playing university sport in other countries is whereas in the States, the top tier are essentially top-level professional for their age-group. And note how there has been no start at all of a similar tree for any other country. I suppose an option, however, would be to overhaul the naming of the tree to have it named more formally, to, for instance, Category:University soccer players in the United States etc. Mayumashu (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i changed the link of Category:College athletes from Category:American sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople at any rate Mayumashu (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association soccer players Much to my astonishment, there are colleges outside of the United States where soccer is played. This category effectively serves as a parent of collegiate-level soccer programs in the United States and corresponding categories should be created for other nations where the sport is played at the collegiate level. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to separate NCAA and NAIA in our categorising, and there is certainly no precedent. This suggestion is fine if the nomination is to rename all the subcats under Category:College athletes. Lets have this page named the same as the others for now and then later if someone wants to rename the lot, splitting the NCAA and NAIA programs, do so at that time Mayumashu (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:College track and field people to Category:College track and field athletes
• Category:BYU Cougars track and field people to Category:BYU Cougars track and field athletes
• Category:Michigan Wolverines track and field people to Category:Michigan Wolverines track and field athletes

Nominator's rationale: just athletes listed, not coaches, officials, or others Mayumashu (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: shouldn't the BYU one retain the team name "Cougars"? Or do the women's and men's track teams have different names? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Corrected Mayumashu (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Seems like a reasonable intermediate step to take until there is a need for these broader categories, if indeed they will ever be needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Peruvian Ministers of the Environment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. Will not be highly populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- We have categories for many UK ministries, so why not for Peruvian ones? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category is defining and matches ones for other nations around the world. What is the source of the systemic bias that assumes that this category will never grow? Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Menstruation to Category:Menstrual cycle

Nominator's rationale: Many of the articles in this category deal with other aspects of the menstrual cycle than just menstruation. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Maya moon goddess? :))) Debresser (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is so categorized, but what's the joke? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my dear. The joke is that on first sight the article seems to be unrelated to the category. Frankly, I'd remove it from Category:Menstruation even on second sight. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to match main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, & to match main article. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename While there is an article that matches the current title, the description of the category states that the parent is the proposed rename target. Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - lawyers are not defined by the locales in which their clients are held. Prisoners can be and are transferred between facilities and lawyers have any number of clients so categorizing lawyers on this basis can lead to any number of clutterful categories on lawyers' articles. Otto4711 (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I doubt this will lead to a rash of categories regarding case locations for attorneys-- Guantanamo Bay is unique because it's so high-profile, yet no one is going there except military or federal employees and these attorneys, (no American can even legally travel to Cuba!) they are taking on cases which often position them directly against the federal government, they are often law professors or academics who are notable in their own right for many accomplishments yet are volunteering their time to represent these prisoners, and they are pretty much the only 'outsiders' who can say what the prisoners are like or what Guantanamo Bay is like. These are not your run-of-the-mill legal cases. It's interesting to find the attorneys involved in the cases for all these reasons, and this category is extremely useful in that respect. There are many cases which may meet one or two of the above, but I can't think of a series of defendants and cases occurring right now which are marked by all the above criteria.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- For almost any other location, I would support the nom, but this is a uniquely notoroius prison Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009
• Delete we don't categorize lawyers by who their clients are or where they are kept. Next, we'll have San Quentin attorneys, and SingSing attorneys, Alcatraz attorneys, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; a kind of "recentism" pervades here in suggesting that being a lawyer for prisoners at G.B. is any more defining than being an attorney for prisoners in other historical prisons (or for Japanese accused at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, for example). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While we may routinely make decisions on how to categorize articles, the basis for categorization comes essentially from the documented information on the article's subject, not on our understanding of how the subject of an article is or should be portrayed or described. it seems that this category represents a significantly reported-on element in a major legal battle with international consequences. i doubt this puts us at risk of having other categories like it, unless another similar event occurs and results in media reports describing a group of lawyers based on their clientele or location of clientele. If someone wanted to try to put together a category of, say, lawyers for the nuremburg war criminals, IF at the time there was any notability (were they ostracized, were they considered heroes by some, even if reluctantly), i might support it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per common sense. Being a Guantanamo Bay attorney, like being in Category:Prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (an even narrower, already existing, category) is a defining characteristic. Nothing at all like "Alcatraz attorney", something which one be hard put to reliably source, as no one normally cares which particular prison an attorney's client is at, unlike these unusual situations. To take a randomly chose example Susan J. Crawford's involvement is mentioned in the first sentence of her article, just like Telford Taylor's is at Nuremburg.John Z (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prosecutors and judges of international tribunals are somewhat different than the defence attorneys at said tribunals. The prosecutors and judges are usually employed by the tribunal; generally, the defence lawyers are not. There's no category for those who defended the Japanese at the IMTFE or the German Nazis at the IMT. Susan J. Crawford is essentially a G.B. "judge", not a prosecutor or a defender. Telford Taylor was a prosecutor, not a defender. Category:Guantanamo_Military_Commission_Prosecutors makes some sense, but this one not as much since for many defence attorneys a G.B. person is just one client among hundreds. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the absence of Nuremburg and Tokyo categories is due to a bad sort of "recentism", just natural recentism - the fact that they predate the net and wikipedia, making article creation harder and less urgent, and are just a case of systematic bias - the mid twentieth century is in some ways the historical era worst covered here. Why one should have categories on prosecutors rather than the defense escapes me. The sensible thing would seem to be to add more subcategories, not delete one. Randomly selecting many more people in the category, I didn't find any whose Guantanamo participation seemed of "just another client among hundreds" type, they were identified as such in the lead, had news articles so identifying them, etc.; It seems to be something many RS's consider notable and defining - the way that defending someone imprisoned at an ordinary location is not, and would not even be mentioned by sources, let alone highlighted. John Z (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why one should have categories on prosecutors rather than the defense escapes me. Because often in these situations for prosecutors that's their job, whereas for defence attorneys they are defending one client and this is just one of the clients that they serve—they are not full-time G.B. attorneys. In this situation, the G.B. prosecutors are not full-time positions—they are more like U.S. military prosecutors—so I'd say that category would not even be appropriately defining for them. They probably each took half a dozen cases, maximum. That's not a full-time, defining employment position. I can name half a dozen ICTY prosecutors off the top of my head, but zero lawyers who defended ICTY clients. Sadly, that's just the way it is in this "industry". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JohnZ. In the articles I checked, the attorney's participation figured prominently. I also cannot see the logic of prosecutors meriting categories, but defense attorneys not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the same reasons that it makes sense to categorize US Solicitors General but not every lawyer who's ever argued before the Supreme Court, or categorizing United States Attorneys but not every lawyer who appears before a particular circuit bench. Prosecutors (generally) appear in the same court every day per their employment, while defense attorneys can appear in federal court one day, bankruptcy court the next and family court the day after that. The association between defense lawyers and the venues in which they practice is nowhere near the strength that association between prosecutors and their venues. It is unsurprising that attorneys' Gitmo participation "figure[s] prominently" in their articles, but "figures prominently" doesn't equate to "defining characteristic". Otto4711 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. The historical importance of these proceedings and the weight given them in biographical articles do reach the level of a defining characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And as for the recentism counterargument, I suspect one could create a category for lawyers who defended Nazis at Nuremberg and other such major tribunals, that satisfies guidelines for RS and defining category characteristics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that you would find that having done so is particularly defining for those who did. Which is probably why the category has not been created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep / Consider Rename Looking through the articles in the category, the fact that these lawyers have represented Guantanamo clients seems to be their primary defining characteristic. The unfortunately characteristic choice to delete a category in its entirety could be obviated by proposing a name that shows that these attorneys have represented a group of clients who are individuals detained by U.S. military authorities, which would address the purported problem while keeping a defining characteristic as an aid to navigation. The reliable and verifiable sources that Wikipedia requires have no trouble defining lawyers on this basis. The Miami Herald had no trouble defining "Veteran Guantánamo attorney Clive Stafford Smith" see here). Sources from Fox News Channel ("Guantanamo Lawyers Predict More Suicides") to BBC News ("Guantanamo lawyers demand access") see the term as defining the group of attorneys representing these clients. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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