The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD notice was put up without a listing, so I'm adding it now (it's not my nomination). I'd delete because it's not likely to get used (and has a slash). SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I noticed that it was a category with significant text and no corresponding article so I created the aritcle forgot to list it here. -- Fplay 04:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. I can't see this one going anywhere. If it needs to contain something, I'm sure someone can recreate it. Mikeblas 00:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Titular articles is a stub; overcategorization. siafu 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete K1Bond007 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Controversial books is getting whacked, then so should this one (but please gather and preserve the information of the list before ripping out the attributes from all of the article pages). My reasoning is techincal: This kind of thing should be a list only. Why? It is because the grouping (what is on or off such a list) is hard to manage. Trying to do it with a category (with over 100 books) means you fight the fight of "what is on and off the list" on 100 articles. This should be one "List of" article and that it is. Balance issues, etc. can be worked out there. Again: category is just a bad way to do it: you visit the book's page, you see that attribute and it is distracing and possibly prejudicial (to read the book or not, depending on the reader of the article). -- Fplay 22:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is quite a different matter than Category:Controversial books as those books that have been banned are quite verifiable. A discussion relative to what constitutes a controversial book will always have a certain POV at its root. It doesn't take much to discover whether or not a book has been banned, however. It's quite like Category:People Who May Have Killed Someone versus Category:Murderers. One is verifiable, the other is obviously POV. Soltak | Talk 22:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The banning also involved a POV process at one time. When I am book-browsing, I am not interested in knowing that some nun somewhere banned some book that I feel like reading. This "banned" category acts like a LABEL or MARK that intrudes on the book browsing process. Do good librarians go and give books special marks on the book cover or the card catalog (or whatever) for having been through a banning? No. They just want the card catalog to have publication date, author and subject of book in the card catalog (or index or whatver) and not much else. If the book (usually only in later printings) is published promoting itself as an award-winner of something, fine. Everything else is a MARK on the book after publication and I find it to be retroactive and INTRUSIVE. Good librarians preserve the books in their orignal published state and let the reader decide how to proceed. You want a special display or a list about censorship? Fine! However, when I go into the stacks of a library in the USA, I expect the books to the UNMARKED by censorship or promotion! -- Fplay 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a POV was involved in the process of banning a book (I'm not disputing that point) is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no POV involved in determining whether or not a book was at one time banned, regardless of what the reasons were at the time. Regarding your comments about marking an article and the intrusiveness, that too is irrelevant. This is a category. A link appears at the very bottom of the article and in the list of categories. THIS IS/WAS A BANNED BOOK is not splashed all over the top of the article, that would be a different matter entirely. Conveniently enough, this isn't it. Soltak | Talk 20:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THAT is merely a side-effect of technology: In earlier versions of the WikiMedia software, the categories WERE listed at the top of the page. My attitude is: leave the book article alone and go make whatever lists you want. People who want to know what lists a book is on can use the "What links here" tool. -- Fplay 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not including past versions of the software in my reasoning. Also forgive me for being of the general impression that all of the arguments you are raising are completely irrelevant to the issue. What the software used to be like has nothing to do with what the software is like. Categories are at the bottom, not the top, and having this category does nothing to adversely label a book. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category links appear at the top, together with interlinks and the Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy links, for users with the Cologne Blue skin in their preferences (which I prefer). They appear in different places depending on the skin. Previews of Catch 22 using various skins are: standard, simple, Cologne Blue, MonoBook, Chick, Nostalgia, and MySkin. -Wikibob 17:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in agreement with the reasoning of User:Soltak. User:Ceyockey 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silly, uninformed, POV content. Banned where? Banned when? The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is hardly banned in the USA, for instance, e.g., and never has been: there are a couple hundred different *versions* (print & nonprint media) legally available just at Amazon.com. 12.73.194.209 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another technical point about categories is that they obscure the issue of WHY. WHY is something in a category? We are not accustomed to justifying why an item is in a category. Look at what is happening on the "Banned books" LIST: they recognize the lack of documentation and are backfilling. You want this kind of fix-up (adding justification for being in a category) to occur on every book article? YUCK! -- Fplay 04:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I compeltely agree with Fplay. How do I do something about it? A stlye guide request that a category have a good description and goal? The problem is even worse with subcategories; they're listed [i]before[/i] the main category entires for some unclear reason, and the category structure here seems very haphazard for those reasons. How do we make it change?Mikeblas 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Tom Sawyer was banned in Mesa, Az. The book is viewed by their schoolboard (and, apparently, by many individuals) to be racially charged. [1] Mikeblas 04:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I go to Mesa, AZ, and take a copy of "Tom Sawyer" with me, I can be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to jail for possessing a banned book??? 12.73.195.159 15:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be silly: It means that if you go to some libraries in Mesa AZ, you will not find that book to be available. Only a knowlegeable person would even notice its absence. The impact is mostly on the school or local community and there are no criminal issues involved in the USA. It amounts to local censorship. Local censorship already happens in the home (in a non-notable way) but when it happens in a USA municipality, it often becomes notable. -- Fplay 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being silly, wee one, I am being satirical. You are giving a histrionic, reactionary definition to the word ban, and also censorship. Just because a local schoolboard or library system decides to exclude a certain title from their stacks because of content, this does not constitute a ban, just a controversial decision. In this case, it is also rather a reactionary decision since TS is, for better or worse, a recognized major work of American literature. But it is not banning, or censoring. Read up on Nazi Germany's book bans, or the Soviet Union's, or even pre-Revolutionary colonial America. But Mesa, AZ - you, do not be silly! And this kind of silliness is just why the Cat needs to be DELETED. 12.73.195.159 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• List and delete. Most of the articles in this category give no context as to where, when, or why they were banned. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perfectly reasonably category. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list. This must have some sort of context to make any sense. siafu 14:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify with sub-headings by country. However, if you are going to include books banned in totalitarian regimes you are going to have a very long and, perhaps, pointless list. Arniep 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But by the very nature of the word "ban", forbidden books in totalitarian regimes are exactly the material for which a category bearing this title has any encyclopedic value or intellectual meaning. The exclusion of a book from the Podunk County Library System libraries simply because the subject matter or content somehow bothers the decsion-makers, when it can still be purchased privately and kept and read out loud, is nothing but a matter of local politics, and defining it as "banned" is strictly POV 12.73.194.235 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is just not practical or even useful to list all books banned under totalitarian regimes. Having an article on book censorship and then including examples of books banned under various different totalitarian regimes would be much more informative. Arniep 02:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But my point is, real banning occurs most often in totalitarian regimes, so if you are going to keep any kind of record of truly "banned books" (and you are the one who suggested getting rid of the cat but *listifying* the contents), then you must start there. Unless you are suggesting a Category/List [[:Partial index of books banned, censored or otherwise rejected for content here and there in unexpected, non-totalitarian places. Duh, I don't think so. 12.73.196.52 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per systemic bias. Would have no objection to listifying by country, which is also more comprehensive because it allows years and reasons. Radiant_>|< 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Create subcats as needed. Mirror Vax 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A couple of folks have suggested country-based sectionizing (either of the category or lists), but that wouldn't work well for non-totalitarian regimes; I'm basing this comment on the ability of individual school districts in the United States to ban books, as in the aforementioned Mesa, AZ case. It wouldn't help the reader to say "book A is banned in the US" because that would not be a true statement; "book A is banned somewhere" is a true statement, which, if the category is kept, the category text needs to clarify very well. User:Ceyockey 03:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of what earthly encyclopedic value is an enormous categorization OR listing of every book not included in the Mesa, AZ, school libraries? By your use of the word "ban", this is what you will have to produce: every book available is either accepted or rejected by every school or public library system - they cannot hold them all, and many are determined not to meet the needs or standards of the various jurisdictions, and so most are rejected. That is NOT a ban. You seem to have a burr in your ass about Mesa excluding "Tom Sawyer" because of alleged racist content, and that is your POV problem, which is what I keep saying is wrong with having this category under any circumstance. 12.73.196.52 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the article includes the specifics of at least on of its banning(s) (when, where, why) and uses the word "ban", perhaps even in the title sub-section, then I think that it would be OK to maintain the category. Of course, that will take some time and some work to grow the category to the size that its corresponding list has. True, it marks the book as being banned, but we have to leave that up to the editor's discression. THAT would be a reasonable compromise. And if some books are only on the list and not the category, then so be it. -- 71.198.189.137 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: the standard for a banne book needs to be clearly defined.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, important to free-speech issues. -- Ze miguel 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Larix 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is no POV when determining when a book has been banned, either it is or it isn't.--Fallout boy 22:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus K1Bond007 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're redudnant, and there's no reason to decide between one or the other. I think "Industries" is the one that should remain, since it fits the pluralization pattern and does indicate we'll end up with a list of all industries in a category. Mikeblas 22:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The former is for industry in general, the latter for specific industries. -04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I actually figured that out myself, finally. I've been moving topics into and out of the categories to make them adhere to that definition. Is it up to me to take down the suggestion banner if I want to withdrawl my own suggestion? Mikeblas 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 09:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we need a category for rappers who have passed away? Delete --FuriousFreddy 19:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm usually the first to vote to delete some categories, but for this one I just have to say "Why not?"
• Keep Why not? we have a list of FAMOUS people who died from drug overdoses so why not have this?

Soltak | Talk 22:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it is normal to differentiate between deceased and living people when categorized by occupation (for example do we have deceased scientists or deceased historians or such?). Joshbaumgartner 22:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As opposed to rappers, deceased scientists and historians (especially historians) are rarely so due to gang fights. Deceased rappers, including many of those featured in the category, have - at the very least - suspicious circumstances surrounding their deaths. Soltak | Talk 23:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a gross generalization. Big L was a victim of a shooting, but not because he was in a gang. Left Eye died in a car accident (and she's not even in here). Big Pun died of complications from obesity. DJ Screw died of a heart attack (or overdose, one). Ol' Dirty Bastard died of a heart attack. Scott La Rock was killed during an argument with a friend. The only two who died under honestly mysterious circumstances were The Notorious B.I.G., 2Pac, Jam Master Jay, and Mac Dre. But that's four out of ten. --FuriousFreddy 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Four out of ten is forty percent. Do you think even twenty percent of scientists or historians die under honestly mysterious circumstances? Mikeblas 02:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's four out of that ten. There's several others who've died of more reguilar circumstances who aren't included here. I'm honestly offended by your implication, on some "these crazy rappers are always tryin' ta kill each other". Rappers are no more likely to die under myseterious circumstances than any other classification of entertainers. --FuriousFreddy 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment about "gangs" was an illustration relative to the "historians" comment, not a statement of fact. I am very well aware that some of the deaths weren't a result of gang fights. However, some of them are. Regardless, a pretty high percentage of rappers (as opposed to other professionals) die under mysterious circumstances. As was suggested below, upmerging to a category about suspicious deaths (I don't know if we have one) would be perfectly acceptable. Soltak | Talk 20:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A pretty high percentage of entertainers in general die under mysterious circumstance. Rappers are no exception to the rule, but it's certainly no more frequent than any other type of musical performers: it just gets sensationalized in the media. --FuriousFreddy 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I were to change my vote to delete on this particular category, would you support Category:Suspicious Deaths or something to that general effect? Soltak | Talk 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsolved murders, maybe. Whoa...it already exists! --FuriousFreddy 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Then why not just a suspicious deaths category? Mikeblas 23:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be amenable to that. Soltak | Talk 00:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyone dies. Golfcam 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Better, more specific categories already exist. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Death doesn't change your article's status. siafu 14:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. -- Ze miguel 13:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it seems a relevant category to me. Larix 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "deceased" is too vague--Fallout boy 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's vague about "deceased?" You either are or you aren't. Soltak | Talk 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 17:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another illogical category with a person's name. This is a subcategory of 1874 births, among many others. Alan Pascoe 17:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I believe this was done to prevent large numbers of categories clogging up an article. Arniep 19:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to this is to list only those categories that are most relevant. A page doesn't have to be in every category it could possibly be in. Why is Winston Churchill notable? The answers to this lead to the choice of categories. Alan Pascoe 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's as famous as presidents and many of them have categories. Golfcam 03:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One odd byproduct of having categories for notable people like Churchill, presidents, etc., is that some articles end up in inappropriate supercategories by dint of which category they belong to. It makes sense that everyone in Category:Governors of Arkansas also belongs in Category:Arkansas politicians, and would in turn justifiably belong in Category:People from Arkansas as well. This hierarchy is clear. Under the current scheme, however, Monica Lewinsky is a sub-sub-category of Category:Governors of Arkansas even though she never was, simply because she is in Category:Bill Clinton. (Likewise, Don't ask, don't tell is not a 1946 birth.) Andrew Levine 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. The concept of having a category that is the name of a person is inherently illogical. Furthermore, it is resulting in an inconsistent approach. The example given about US presidents is a good one -- there are only 10 for which personal categories have been created. The rest don't have them. Alan Pascoe 11:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following that line of reasoning Category:Countries contains hundreds of thousands of articles about things which aren't countries, so the likes of Category:France should be deleted too. I really can't imagine that anyone is going to be surprised to find that Bill Clinton's category contains articles about things and people who never governed Arkansas. Bhoeble 05:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing odd about this. It is pervasive in the category system. Categories don't distinguish between lists of things and topics. When you see a category like "Governors of Arkansas", you have to read that as, "Governors of Arkansas and related topics". Properly understood, Monica Lewinsky does belong under there. Now, you could solve this by splitting the category into, say, Category:List of governors of Arkansas (Bill Clinton would go there) and Category:Topics related to governors of Arkansas (Monica Lewinsky would go there). That is not the standard Wikipedia practice. Lists and related topics are intermingled. Mirror Vax 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ten most prominent presidents have categories, more or less, which is what you would expect and is no more inconsistent than much of wikipedia. Anyway, the number will rise. Categories for individuals are a well established practice and Churhcill is one of the most prominent people in world history. Bhoeble 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so. The ten that have categories would not be regarded as the most prominent, e.g., John Kennedy doesn't have one. Also, the practice of naming categories after people is not well established -- there are very few cases of it. My concern is that it will become so and create an illogical mess. Alan Pascoe 14:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bhoeble said "more or less" and he was right. They are ten among the most prominent, with an unsurprisingly secondary tendency towards the more recent. Kennedy will probably acquire one soon. Osomec 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up. While there are plenty of articles that sensibly belong here (e.g. Blood, toil, tears, and sweat), there is a lot in here that isn't well connected to Mr. Churchill (e.g. Honorary Citizen of the United States). siafu 14:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've hit on the underlying problem, some articles have too many categories. This is what motivates people to create a personal category -- to make the page look tidier. The solution is, as you suggest, to reduce the number of categories, not hide them in a personal category. It is actually stated in Wikipedia:Categorization of people that categories should be limited to 4 or 5 things which are most relevant to the person. Alan Pascoe 14:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to mention the fact that you added the section on categorizing by personal name into Wikipedia:Categorization of people just today, apparently completely on your own. siafu 15:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I am entitled to do this. There is nothing underhand about this, nor is it inconsistent with my proposal for deletion of the David Bowie category. You seem to be forgetting, anyone can edit, which applies to guidelines as well as articles. You have reverted my edit because you want it discussed. This, I will initiate later on the guideline's talk page. Alan Pascoe 19:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reverted your edit because your logic does not apply to guidelines. They need to be discussed and agreed upon rather than just implemented by one user by fiat. siafu 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is not so, as you should by now be aware, but this is not the place for a discussion about this. Alan Pascoe 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And it is certainly not a good idea to restrict people to 4 or 5 categories. Look at it from the point of view of the categories: they should contain all relevant articles. Osomec 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is nothing illogical if you understand how categories work (see the explaination above). And the number of categories that an article belongs to has nothing to do with the decision to create a new category. A category is created when you have multiple articles on a topic (a big "see also" section is a hint that a category might be needed). Mirror Vax 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the point. I proposed this category for deletion, not because of the number of articles in it, but because it cannot logically be a sub-category of its current parent categories. Alan Pascoe 13:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the only issue the births and deaths categories? I have no objection to keeping those as pure lists. The Churchill category doesn't have to be a member of those categories. Problem solved, then? Mirror Vax 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. I have changed the Churchill category. Someone else has already changed the Bowie category. Alan Pascoe 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A category that is a person's name is illogical. This one is a subcategory of, for example, 1947 births. Alan Pascoe 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I believe this was done to prevent large numbers of categories clogging up an article. Arniep 19:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment made for Winston Churchill applies here also. If this is accepted, it could reasonably be done for every person for whom there is a biography on Wikipedia. That would make a total mess of the relevant categories. Alan Pascoe 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Elvis Presley and so on all have categories. Golfcam 03:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And these should go too. Consider this and the Winston Churchill category as 'test cases'. Address the principle; should there be categories for individual people? Consider the long-term effects of these. There may be just a few now, but the numbers will increase. Many categories will then become an incoherent mix of two approaches -- putting a biography article in a category such as year of birth, or putting a biography article in a category which is made a subcategory of a category such as year of birth. It is the functionality that matters here, not how important the person is, or how pretty the article page looks. Alan Pascoe 11:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This practice is well established and useful. It is very functional to group articles related to prominent people, which is why it is so often done. Bhoeble 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not well established, there are very few cases of it. It also does not enhance functionality, it damages it. This is the very reason I have proposed it for deletion. When I, for example, click on a category "1947 births", I expect to see a list of other articles about people born in 1947. In all but one case this is so, and that case is David Bowie. Proponents of this practice have won the argument if they can explain to me how David Bowie can logically be a sub-category of "1947 births". Alan Pascoe 14:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Bowie was born in 1947, as it says in the opening paragraph of the article. siafu 15:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know. The David Bowie article should this be in the "1947 births" category. It currently isn't. There is however a David Bowie category, which is a sub-category of "1947 births". This, I believe is wrong. Alan Pascoe 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Well-established practice. siafu 14:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's rather late to start a debate about the desirability of this practice as its usefulness is well established. Osomec 03:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above Larix 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for the reasons given, but I do agree it shouldn't be a subcategory of "1947 births". The article itself should link to that, as those are articles about people, not articles about people and all the subjects that go with them.--Mike Selinker 00:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Merge and Delete K1Bond007 17:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cannot possible incorportate all "Sports fans" in one category - this one only representes USA. In present format, it should not exist. Possibly move to Category:US Sports fans, but even that is questionable. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 13:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Category:Wikipedians by sporting team (support), as it seems this category is for Wikipedians who support these teams,so is a duplicate of this cat. If the subcategories of cat:Sports Fans are to be kept and moved, they need renaming to make it clear they are for users, ie rename to category:Wikipedian Atlanta Thrashers fans or category:users who support the Atlanta Thrashers etc. --Vclaw 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge- I agree with the above delete and merge plan. Station Attendant 01:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 18:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems arbitrary and vain. No clear reason to have it. Seems more a basis of an article than a category. -- Jbamb 12:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Professional wrestling has had a long history of family groups—some actual families, such as the Anoai and Hart families, and some that existed largely or exclusively in kayfabe, such as the Anderson and Dudley "families." The Von Erichs, most of whom were actually related, were one of the most prominent pro wrestling families of the 1970s and 1980s. Many of the Von Erichs were prominent enough to have fairly large articles. — Dale Arnett 21:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I won't bother making a lengthy argument as the poster above did so quite well. The Von Erich family is quite important to Professional Wrestling. Soltak | Talk 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valuable resource. McPhail 00:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Von Erichs are probably the most influential American family in pro wrestling history. - Chadbryant 01:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As said above, the Von Erich family was very important with the innovations made in promoting and the drawing power of its members.--Darren Jowalsen 00:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. List material only, logically in article on The Von Erich wrestling family, under Category:Professional wrestling. 12.73.196.52 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus K1Bond007 05:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:NowCommons. Same thing, different template, very confusing name. -- Beland 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, Pavel Vozenilek 13:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, it does appear based on the text description that these are the same. User:Ceyockey 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose the images in Category:Images to be moved to the Commons (some which I put there) are for images to be automatically moved to commons but haven't been, Category:NowCommons is for images that are already in commons and can be deleted. Arniep 19:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question — The description says "Each image on this page has been replaced by the same image (or an image with the same name) on Wikimedia Commons" which means that the images are already on commons; the description also says that there is an issue around history replication to commons ... if that is the issue, that the two categories are distinguishable based on one having GFDL issues and the other not, then I'll change my opinion on the matter. User:Ceyockey 00:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, maybe rename to Images incorrectly moved to Commons, because it might contain non-free images (eg. Image:Arvidsjaur City Arms.jpg) that were moved to Commons, that may be deleted from there. In which case one risks losing the image from en: where they could be used, under fair use provisions, or maybe only in some jurisdictions. Commons criteria is that All files uploaded must be free of use in any jurisdiction. -Wikibob 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination and support: bringing consistence to names of six categories. Some prior discussion here.
  • Category:Durham Region, Ontario -> model, should stay per [2]
  • Category:York Regional Municipality, Ontario -> Category:York Region, Ontario per [3]
  • Category:Niagara Regional Municipality, Ontario -> Category:Niagara Region, Ontario per [4]
  • Category:Peel Regional Municipality, Ontario -> Category:Peel Region, Ontario Category:Region of Peel, Ontario per [5]
  • Category:Region of Waterloo, Ontario -> Category:Waterloo Region, Ontario do not move per [6]
  • Category:Halton Regional Municipality, Ontario -> Category:Halton Region, Ontario per [7] and our article (although they seem to use "Region of Halton" and just "Halton" as well on their site, Halton Region is most prevalent)
  • Reasoning: Current names are in three different formats. The XX Regional Municipality format is copied from old names of Regional Municipality articles, which have been recently renamed on basis of not being official names. A consistent name is necessary and I agree that XX Region, Ontario is short and to the point, while at the same time being a name that is frequently used in real life. Furthermore, the subcategories "People from XX Region, Ontario" are named in this fashion already. --Qviri 02:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Traditional legal form is ‘Regional Municipality of XX’, and Waterloo’s current usage is ‘Region of Waterloo’. ‘XX Region’ is in most cases merely an unencyclopaedic shorthand, and should be used only in cases such as York and Durham, where the regions themselves have begun using it. David Arthur 16:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I understand your point about the Region of Waterloo. For the record, I think Niagara's use of "Niagara Region" on top of its its website would make Niagara Region, Ontario a valid category name as well. "Halton Region" can be seen in some places on their website, but it's certainly not universal, and they seem to prefer the full form. Peel is going in a direction similar to Waterloo, proclaiming "Region of Peel" on their website. Originally, my goal was to unify the category names for consistency's sake, but now I see that might not be the best of options. I am well aware of the legality of "Regional Municipality of XX" form, however, I thought it was a bit unwieldy for a category name. In any case, I would certainly like to do away with the "XX Regional Municipality" form.

What would you think would be a better option -- an universal "Regional of Municipality of XX" name for all the categories, or different short-hand names for different regions, thus keeping Region of Waterloo as is? --Qviri 22:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the form used by the region itself wherever appropriate, and ‘Regional Municipality of XX’ otherwise. Systematisation can be useful, but in this case Wikipedia’s mission as an encyclopaedia seems to me to dictate that we reflect the reality of what we’re reporting on, rather than trying to create standard conventions where the don’t exist. (The same reasoning goes for article titles as well.)

I agree that certainly ‘XX Regional Municipality’ should go - I don’t think I’ve ever seen that form used outside Wikipedia. David Arthur 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my proposal, let me know what you think. --Qviri 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support the revised proposal. David Arthur 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems very much arbitrary. --FuriousFreddy 01:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either a film belongs in Category:Pixar films, or it doesn't. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, having a (oddly-named) category for this is pretty useless, and the whole category as of now is in list form anyway. It doesn't add any value to the articles, since all of the information in the category is better discussed in the articles themselves. - Bobet 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Disney direct-to-video films

• Name of category is currently a bit clunkily worded. --FuriousFreddy 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:People from Buffalo, New York K1Bond007 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 13, a category was nominated for deletion due to a typo. The discussion was closed as delete for that specific category, however, there were some votes/comments to rename the category as well. I'm merely relisting this for debate. K1Bond007 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per previous debate. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as 'buffalonian' is the established demonym. -Mayumashu 09:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per previous debate; demonyms should be reserved for cases where they are both obvious and well-known. siafu 14:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but the problem is MUCH LARGER. This whole issue should be attacked the policy level, not by individual categories. There are multiple issues: 1. The name is irregular, but that is a very common problem in English with Geography/demographic names. 2. It is ambiguous with other cities named "Buffalo". BUT: Do those other cities also use the term "Buffalonian"? This requires more research. ALSO: By policy, we should have a redirect (or yet another disambiguation page), that is, Buffalonian -> Buffalo, New York (it already exists) with, perhaps, preference for the "most common usage", that is, the most well-known (usually the biggest) city of that name. Utlimately, this is a usability, user interface and navigation issue. Because of the flaws in the implementation of category-as-rediect, we should NOT implement any categories as redirects to solve this problem. -- Fplay 20:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Radiant_>|< 01:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until a policy can be formulated. To abolish Buffalonian but retain the disparate Category:Cairenes, Category:Dundonians, Category:Shanghainese, Category:Kelownans, etc. smacks of systemic bias. - choster 14:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you that we need some recommendations on how to tackle this. Sincerrely, I thought 'Shanghainese' was a breed of dog (no, dont jeer. No sacarsm intended – really). --Ezeu 17:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. There are very many places named Buffalo (see the disambiguation page: Buffalo). This category needs to be more specific. --Ezeu 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buffalo, New York is by far, by far the largest and most significant. By comparison, there are many more places named Saint John or Saint John's than the one in Newfoundland, yet Category:St._Johnsers; not to mention Hanover (q.v. Category:Hanoverians) or Marshall (q.v. Category:Marshallites). IMHO this is a truly poor case to make an example from. -choster 15:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. -- Ze miguel 13:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very stong keep at least keep until we formulate a policy, as it was just a couple of weeks ago that we renamed some similar categories in the opposite direction. Martin 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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