< April 10	April 12 >

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. Judgment call, but the 'delete' arguments are backed by guidelines, whereas the 'keep' arguments are backed by WP:USEFUL. The category system is not intented to let people find "the different things called a system" but to group related articles. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the categorization of anything named a "system" or anything that can be called a system, which is a form of overcategorization. The articles and categories in Category:Systems are otherwise unrelated. For example, the articles in Category:Reproductive system are not in any way related to the articles in Category:Role-playing game systems. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too broad a category, as described by Dr. Sub above. Dugwiki 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely, broadly named category. Doczilla 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — this is a well established category with matching categories in 18 other different languages. Surely this indicates that a system is an important concept that needs categorizing. You could apply the same argument above to any high-level more philosophical Wikipedia category covering concepts. — Jonathan Bowen 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is disputing that the concept of a "system" doesn't deserve an article, or that likewise "system theory" isn't a valid idea. The question is whether articles need to be categorized as systems, considering the definition is extremely broad and quite a bit subjective. So many things could potentially qualify as "systems" that you almost have to ask what isn't a system. As far as the category being "well established", it doesn't appear it has actually been reviewed previously in cfd so apparently we just never got around to asking ourselves if the category is appropriate. Dugwiki 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too broad in scope to be useful. --Ezeu 06:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Systems are commonly used by everyone and talked about in everyday discussions. This covers everything from operating systems to wagering systems. So, this is apparently an important area. The sub categories seem to be targeted quite well, so this acts as an umbrella category for those sub cats. I guess my question is that since we talk about systems without being specific, why is it bad to keep this category? Its presence shows how diverse the use of the term is. It does not confuse anyone that I know of. It is clearly not over categizarationC but a grouping of useful sub categories! Vegaswikian 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, please look at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Do you really believe that Category:Planetary systems, Category:Voting systems, and Category:Organ systems should be categorized together? Do you really think that social dynamics, geocentric model, and time-variant system are at all similar aside from being describable as "systems"? Grouping these things together just is not helpful. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — this sounds more like an argument for a reorganization and diffusion of topics rather than deletion. To expand on the comment above, 18 people on 18 other versions of Wikipedia in different languages have deemed "Systems" a worthwhile category:

[[ar:تصنيف:أنظمة]] [[cs:Kategorie:Systémy]] [[es:Categoría:Sistemas]] [[eo:Kategorio:Sistemoj]] [[fa:رده:سامانه‌ها]] [[fr:Catégorie:Système]] [[io:Category:Sistemi]] [[id:Kategori:Sistem]] [[ia:Categoria:Systemas]] [[it:Categoria:Sistemi]] [[nl:Categorie:Systeem]] [[ja:Category:システム]] [[pt:Categoria:Sistemas]] [[ru:Категория:Системы]] [[sl:Kategorija:Sistemi]] [[vi:Thể loại:Hệ thống]] [[vls:Categorie:Systeem]] [[zh:Category:系统]]

This is like having 18 votes for this category — although I guess that doesn't count here. In any case, I would like to hear an argument for why the category "Systems" is important emough to exist in these 18 other languages but not in English. Can anyone provide one? Personally I can't thing of one and it only reinforces my view that it would be a serious mistake to delete this category. Rather, I think some effort is needed to diffuse the topics included into sub-categories so that at the "Systems" level only major types of system are included. I would be willing to put this effort in if the category survives. — Jonathan Bowen 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because the other language versions of Wikipedia have dysfunctional categories does not mean that the English version of Wikipedia should copy it. For all we know, they may have just blindly copied the English Wikipedia category tree. (I have seen this before.) This argument is not persuasive. Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I would agree if it was a relatively small number, but 18 is significant in my view. So I disagree that this is a dysfunctional category. — Jonathan Bowen 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there is a usefull Category:Systems theory and the attempt to broadly widen its scope a caricature of categorizing. --Pjacobi 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is important to have a Category:Systems and a Category:Systems theory, one for just systems and one for the particulair formal and theoretical aspects around systems theory - Mdd 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Systems theory perhaps? Cwolfsheep 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Does something like Category:Planetary systems really fit into Category:Systems theory? Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - With 27 subcategories and numerous articles, this is not a redundant nor a 'dysfunctional' categorisation. Ian Cairns 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did not understand this argument. This category was not nominated for deletion because it has too few articles or subcategories or because of any issues with redundancy. It was nominated because it contains a large number of unrelated articles and categories. Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've created similar category in my native (russian) wiki, 'cause found such category very useful.Kambodja 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The first argument:

This is the categorization of anything named a "system" or anything that can be called a system...

is also a very strong reason to keep this category. All the categories and articles in the Category:Systems have an ontological and formal connection. Like the Category:Scientific modeling this category gives (for those who are interessed) a complete cross view in Wikipedia, a view right-angled on all the specialised categories. - Mdd 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , it is right that such category collects a broad heterogeneous subjects but it is still usefull for collecting everything that fit with the System concept --Chaos 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The things collected there have nothing in common except for the word "system", and this word is just as general as the word "collection" so it does not mean much. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — in collections the objects do not (necessarily) interact, whereas systems are characterized by the interaction of their components and this is what makes them particularly interesting whatever the domain. So I disagree with this argument. — Jonathan Bowen 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being broad by itself is not sufficient reason to have it deleted (cf. Category:Interdisciplinary fields). This category provides a unique perspective and a cohesive way to categorize a broad range of subjects that may share similarities and common approaches. --Zhenqinli 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Mdd, it is good for people to understand the different things that can be called "a system". --ivanlanin ♫ •• 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I believe this category is appropriate for Wikipedia. Like other categories near the Fundamental level (this is a "grandchild"), it encompasses a wide range of concepts, yet it fills a gap not covered by is sibling categories. I agree with those that object to broad categories that become a catch-all for a variety of articles, but suggest that the solution is to 1) clearly define the scope of the category 2) remove any articles or subcats that are already deeper in this category tree 3) disperse others to more specific categories and 4) remove articles that just don't fit. This should leave the category containing a much smaller set of high-level subcategories and a very few articles. I would be disappointed if this category is deleted. I am not formally "voting" in this CfD as I am here because of canvassing, which I know is discouraged, but I hope my input has some merit. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some more comment and links to articles is always usefull of course, but good category, certainly compared to what en-wp categories generally exist ... --LimoWreck 23:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to have been accidentally deleted from cfd logs for April 10th, so I am relisting it for April 11th (someone inadvertantly erased it when adding a comment on another topic) This category appears to suffer from POV inclusion problems, similar to the deleted Category:Racists, and only currently contains two games. Therefore delete as it looks like an unnecessary and possibly overly subjective category. Dugwiki 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective, pejorative category per previous "racist" category deletions. Doczilla 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. --Ezeu 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 07:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doczilla. Haddiscoe 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trying to discriminate between "racist" and "non-racist" video games can only lead to endless squabbles. Term is not well-defined in the context of Wikipedia, and there are grave WP:NPOV issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monolithic kernel to Category:Monolithic kernels
Category:Microkernel to Category:Microkernels
Category:Nanokernel to Category:Nanokernels
Category:Operating system kernel to Category:Operating system kernels

Pluralization. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy, and added the rest. I'd change all of the "kernel" categories to the appropriate plural.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - This is a clear case where pluralization is warranted. This should have been left in the speedy rename section. Dr. Submillimeter 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for specificity. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose. Problem is that the head of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been called "chancellor" and not president since the early 1970s. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Speedy. The header to Category:University and college presidents accounts for chancellors.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison presidents and chancellors to be inclusive. Otto4711 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw or Hold. Take a look at Category:University and college presidents there are various names used for this area. Clearly the leaders are not always presidents. I don't believe that we should change this one without fixing the problem at the top. Decide on how this parent should be changed then rename the children and grandchildren to match. Vegaswikian 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. I could see a point in renaming to "personalities" but please suggest that in a new CFD. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Internet celebrities to Category:American internet celebrities
Category:Fictional Internet personalities to Category:Fictional internet personalities

capitalization Otto4711 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Internet is generally capitalized, as it is here in History of the Internet. My spellchecker still regards the lowercase as incorrect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)c[reply]

Two issues: The category page states a rename to Category:American internet personalities and not as listed above. Secondly, Internet should remain first letter capped. RedWolf 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the personalities/celebrities thing. Disagree that internet should be capitalized. Otto4711 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I strongly agree that Internet should be capitalized. There's only one, and that's its proper name. But obviously, this is no longer a speedy candidate and should be sent to CfD. Xtifr _tälk 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy. I think "internet" can be used as an uncapped adjective. Regardless, I also think "celebrities" should become "personalities".--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first to Category:American Internet personalities; Keep second as is. Even if small-"i"-internet is occasionally used as an adjective, such usage is rare and should probably be considered non-standard. Xtifr _tälk 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Despite wide acceptance of uncapped "internet", it's supposed to be capitalized. Doczilla 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But "celebrities" is still a POV term, and should be changed to "personalities" (or something similar). Xtifr _tälk 11:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 to Category:Writers of young adult literature. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cap. —Cryptic 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps something less, um, cryptic (if you'll pardon the term)? Is this for authors who are young adults, or authors who write for young adults? Grutness...wha? 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. It should be Category:Writers of young adult literature, which would be a fine speedy target. For whatever reason, all the other categories that you might expect to be titled "authors" are instead "writers". — coel acan — 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that makes sense to me, this now takes it out of "speedy", and it should be relisted? - jc37 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy. I prefer the nominated way.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Writers of young adult literature as the most accurate. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Writers of young adult literature as with Her Pegship. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of dramedy television series episodes to Category:Lists of comedy-drama television series episodes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Renaming in line with Category:Comedy-drama television series, Category:Comedy-drama, Category:Comedy-drama films, and the main article, Comedy-drama. On the talk page the category's creator stated this name had the benefit of being shorter and these category names are getting excessively long. It's 5 more key-strokes to retain consistency, I think people can handle the extra "effort". Pufnstuf 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment shouldn't that be comedic drama, or dramatic comedy? 132.205.44.134 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comedy-drama" = 1,910,000 ghits; "comedic drama" = 62,800 ghits. That's a 97% majority for "comedy-drama". "Dramatic comedy" gets 116,000 ghits, so "comedy-drama" is by far the most common term. Allmovie even has an article devoted to Comedy-drama. Pufnstuf 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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: the nomination was to delete it; it appears several 'keep' arguments object to that, but not to a rename. The present name is indeed awkward. The cat descriptor offers three inclusion criteria (biographical museums, collector museums, and museums named after people). The latter is arguably trivia, but the first two can have clearer names as suggested below. Analysis shows that yes, the category is for biographical museums (among others) so that's not inaccurate, and that per the confusion below the present name is neither excellent, nor easy to understand. Hence we end up with renaming to "biographical museums", and split out "collector's museums" as suggested where necessary. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ - I'm only nominating the parent at this point. On the one hand, this category and its subcats are a variety of eponymous category and sentiment seems to be running pretty strongly against them. OTOH, these aren't simply museums named after people but are instead museums about the people for whom they are named. Part of the category description indicates that it's for museums whose collections are based on those of a single person and those should be removed from the category and the description tightened, but I do see some utility in grouping such museums together as a child of Category:Museums by type. I do think the names need to be changed if kept but I'm not sure to what. Otto4711 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone comes up with a better name, which is perhaps unlikely. Oliver Han 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though preferably with a different name (Museums devoted to Individuals?) - these are often fairly unique Museums, that are nonetheless fairly common.A Musing 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Museums about individual people - This name would be a slight improvement on the existing name. Dr. Submillimeter 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Biographical museums maybe. I actually first proposed this on the talk page in November 2005. If you google it, the term appears to be in use, albeit somewhat sparingly, probably because the concept does not come up too often.--Pharos 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is a well-established category. — Jonathan Bowen 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to just about anything! Please! This is, IMO, a really awkward and inappropriate name. I don't particularly care what it's renamed to as long as it's renamed. Of the suggestions so far, I think I have a mild preference for Category:Biographical museums, but if it looks like something else might achieve consensus, consider my vote switched to that, whatever it might be. Xtifr _tälk 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supplemental: I would also accept a split per discussion below. But the current name borders dangerously on original research. It appears to be a made-up term with no widespread acceptance. And I don't think we should categorize things based on made-up terms. Xtifr _tälk 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Biographical museums is simply inaccurate. The existing name is excellent, as it flexibly covers the various possibilities referred to in the introductory text to the categories. Honbicot 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly not inaccurate. Museums about a person's life are by definition biographical in scope. See a list of biographical museums and google it for a number of other uses.--Pharos 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tribute museums perhaps, sbandrews (t) 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to something proposed above. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — there are two major but slightly different types of museum associated with people under this category, one based (initially) on the collection of the person as a benefactor and one about the (notable) person, often including personal items in the collection. The former is typical set up during the lifetime or on the death of the person, the latter typically some time later, often in one of their residences. It would be quite a major effort to split them, and this would depend on volunteer effort of course. If there were to be a split, the later (probably smaller) set of museums could be categorized as something like "Biographical museums", perhaps as a subcategory of the existing one. Also note that there are subcategories by country, so any name for this category should ideally be kept short (an advantage of the current name!). — Jonathan Bowen 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Biographical museums. Of the various suggestions, this is stiking me as the most descriptive. I still think that those museums that are named after someone who donated the collection but are not about the person should not be in this category structure. Otto4711 02:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a split. I've been doing some research, and I believe the common name for the other type to be "collector's museum". See for example here. So perhaps the second type (non-biographical) should go in a Category:Collectors' museums.--Pharos 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — I like the idea of a "Collector's museum" category under Category:Collectors' museums; it is very descriptive and succinct. It would require some effort however to split out the biographical museum entries. Perhaps we need two new subcategories for these two aspects. — Jonathan Bowen 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is not for "biographical museums", and I see no reason to change its scope. Haddiscoe 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please explain, then, what you believe "people museum" to mean. Have you looked at the category's contents?--Pharos 09:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — it is currently for museums associated with individual people, whether through there collection or because they are notable. The former outweigh the latter I think, although I haven tried counting! — Jonathan Bowen 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and think about renaming/splitting. Collector's museums is complicated - are the Hermitage Museum, Ashmolean or British Museum examples? Apsley House, Sir John Soane's Museum and many others are both. Johnbod 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to understand the purpose of this category, and it is a valid purpose, but all the other proposals involve a change of scope. Abberley2 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No one will really understand what "people museum" means. When I first read the name, I thought it might be for museums with interactive exhibits or some type of weird post-modern art museum where the visitors just look at each other. I would not have guessed that it was about museums devoted to specific people. Dr. Submillimeter 07:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term "urban decay" is vague and broadly applicable to many urban phenomena. The category's inclusion criteria are therefore subjective and suffer from POV problems. For example, Category:Hip hop and Category:Punk are both subcategories of this category, even though those genres are not always associated with "urban decay". The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category, broad beyond uselessness. Doczilla 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous category the contents of which (mostly relatives) can all be easily interlinked through the main article. Insufficient material to warrant a category. Otto4711 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Category page does not define its inclusion criteria, and in practice contains mostly biographical articles of people who are connected in some way. However, this isn't particularly systematic and their relationships are quite different. And how can Category:Charles, Prince of Wales be a subcategory of this one? Cart before the horse anyone? Sam Blacketer 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Eponymous category not necessary. I disagree with Sam Blacketer, however; Princess Diana is significantly more popular (even dead) and better-known that her former spouse. --lquilter 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no better category for such articles as Death of Diana, Princess of Wales as the exception outline at WP:OC says. Tim! 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, the articles within this one are interlinked through the main article and each other, making the category unnecessary as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Baristarim 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has sufficient material and a number of the articles have no better categories as per the exception at WP:OC. Tim! 22:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per the above and the below, same reasoning. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous overcategorization. The articles in the category are either easily interlinked through the main article and each other or are only tangentially related (Earth Inductor Compass is included because Lindbergh used one on his flight; Hopewell, NJ because it was the town nearest the Lindbergh estate). Otto4711 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lindbergh's articles is long enough that it will eventually need splitting, and the subarticles will need this category per the exception at WP:OC. Tim! 22:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization. The content of the category is easily and properly interlinked through the main article and each other so there is no need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Baristarim 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pattons's article is long enough that it will eventually need splitting, and the subarticles will need this category per the exception at WP:OC. Tim! 22:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Category:Trump buildings is slated to be deleted, per a separate nomination on this page, and should the Donald Trump article be split in the future, perhaps this could be recreated as "an exception" as noted, but that's a decision for the future (and I have a feeling that recreation will find its way to WP:CFD, as well. - jc37 12:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary eponymous category holding two subcats which are a) categorized elsewhere and b) up for deletion themselves. Otto4711 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eponymous categories are very important for some Top and High priority articles. In this case the subcategory Category:Trump buildings needed a parent category. I also think Category:Trump family needs a parent. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - you've said before that you think that eponymous categories should be somehow linked to the importance assigned to the biographical article. Can you explain in a little more detail why you're making this linkage? Because I really am not understanding, and whoever made this particular category didn't even bother to put Donald Trump in it. To answer your concern about the sub-categories, as noted, they are both up for deletion and, unless things change radically in the next couple of days, are going to be deleted. If they aren't, there are other categories in which they can be housed (for example, Category:American families for the family cat). Otto4711 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trumps's article is long enough that it will eventually need splitting, and the subarticles will need this category per the exception at WP:OC. Tim! 22:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to films. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the subjective nature of the categorisation. We have previously deleted a category for video games by societal reation but I'm not finding the discussion. Otto4711 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - not quite how sure you "measure" societal reaction, so hence inherently POV. Rgds, - Trident13 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Powerful delete this subjective categorization. Doczilla 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Films - The category does suffer from POV problems. However, the two articles and the category should still be categorized under films. Dr. Submillimeter 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too fuzzy to be useful. "Societal reaction" is a vague concept, and appears to be used as a container for a) the article on "banned" films, which is nearly always a government reaction rather than a societal one, and b) for "cult" films. Whatever the merits of "cult" films as a category, they don't need this parent categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Arguments are basically that the grouped articles have little in common, vs the suggestion that the categories are WP:USEFUL. Yes, medicine has a lot of eponyms; no, that does not mean we need a category of issues related only through name. Misspelling issues are commonly dealt with through redirects, not cats. See also strong consensus to delete other eponymic cats below on this page. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - another set of categories that collect articles based on their baing named after something, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. and other eponymous category deletions. Doczilla 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The various articles share little in common except their names. Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Medicine is replete with eponyms, despite a move in some places to have diseases renamed to descriptive terms. To access this content quickly, a category is much more useful. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - eponyms are very important in medicine: (1) many conditions remain commonly known by the eponym (or there is no good alternative descriptive term) and (2) even if over the coiming years the descriptive names gain in usage, then the collection of eponyms will remain useful being of historical importance (just because some suggest switching the terms we use now, previous patient notes and journal papers will remain with the eponyms). David Ruben ^Talk 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with David Ruben & JFW. Also eponyms are more likely to be misspelled and wikisearch may miss it, would be easier to find via category --Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 13:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of these keep arguments make little sense. Categories are supposed to bring together articles that discuss similar topics. In these cases, the topics are only similar in that they are named after people. While the practice of naming various medical phenomena after people is notable, actually categorizing eponymously-named phenomena is not useful. For example, Hodgkin's lymphoma (a type of cancer) has little in common with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (a degenrerative neurological disorder) aside from the name. However, Hodgkin's lymphoma does have much more in common with other forms of cancer, so it should be listed in Category:Types of cancer. Does this make sense? As for the misspelling issue, redirects can be used to take care of that problem. Dr. Submillimeter 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it makes sense to categorize terms. If it is an eponym... one can look-up the guy (usually it's a guy) that it is named after. A lot of medical terminology comes from-- Latin, Greek. Many eponyms derive from Italians, Frenchmen and Greeks --which to an English speaker may sound similiar to a descriptive term-- it is nice to have them sorted. Nephron T|C 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category contains only 3 list articles. I believe it should be merged into another film or film-list category, but I'm not sure which one. kingboyk 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fluffed the nom up slightly. I'm proposing the articles be recategorised somewhere (cat merge) rather than a cat rename. --kingboyk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm leaning toward nominating the articles for deletion as well. No need for the category under any name. Otto4711 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awkward category. Doczilla 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Perhaps we could have a list of films that explains who considers them cult, and why. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I found this category while surfing Wikipedia. Someone else had posted Template:AfD in the category. I replaced the template with a CfD template.) As discussed elsewhere, the term "cult" as applied to entertainment suffers from POV problems. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, shading to reluctant acquiescence to deletion - there is a significant body of material about cult films ("Midnight Movies" by J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum for instance) so it's less subjective than an equivalent category for TV shows or other aspects of entertainment. The category is salvageable IHMO assuming that it relies on reliable sources for the "cult" status of the film and not some random editor's deciding that "small fan base" or "weird movie" equals "cult film." Otto4711 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (but clean up is necessary) - Cult Films are just like the equally controversial and equally unknown as the Honor Killing of your own daughter if she goes out with boys in Turkey. That being said, deleting this category would be a mistake. However I feel that this list needs to be cleaned up and proof that this movie is a cult film, as this list is controversial and a magnet to people's POV. A way we can do this is by categorizing the films by the point they are getting across, such as revolution in the movie Fritz the Cat or legalizing marijuana in the movie Grass. Also, for the literal cases that can not be classified this way, the cult that made the film.- Hamster2.0 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of vague, subjective category. Doczilla 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I love culty films, I made good money showing them when Iw as a student, but most of these are simply films that people assert are cult films. Borat, for example - is that a cult film? Does it have a small but obsessive following, with a popularity utterly baffling to non-fans, like, for example, Plan 9 From Outer Space? A list with reliable sources (preferably Ebert or smilar) for each entry is the way to go here. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think I have heard both Highlander (film) and Blade Runner referred to as cult films, even though they seem to have too much of a mainstream following to qualify as such (from my point of view). Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is better defined and more seriously studied than other cult entertainment. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Lugnuts 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cult" is much abused word. Oliver Han 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no inclusion criteria on the Category but the article Cult films defines a cult film as one with a "highly devoted but relatively small group of fans". How is the devotedness of fans measured, and how small a group of fans does it have to be? Relative to what? The Blues Brothers has a group of fans which exceeds that of many films which are clearly mainstream. How must they demonstrate their devotion? I really think this is an arbitrary categorisation; fans may put their favourite films in there to try to increase their prominence. Sam Blacketer 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that List of cult films was similarly deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films) as having too subjective an inclusion criteria, and as a general rule if something is too subjective to be a list it is even less suited to be a category (since categories have stricter requirements for Wikipedia inclusion than lists). Dugwiki 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasion it was deleated last time was because... -Hamster2.0 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to being split off (from the main artical), I tagged this list section as being unreferenced and requested references from editors and from the Wiki Film project to verify that the list was something that was objective, verifiable and not original research.

The reasons for deletion are pretty clearly explained in the AFD discussion I linked above. It was unreferenced and overly subjective. The list was deleted both as a seperate article and also deleted from the article Cult Film (the rest of the article Cult Film that wasn't lists of films and actors was kept intact). Dugwiki 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even though, like Guy, I frequently love "culty" films, this is far too vague and subjective. If it's too subjective for a list, it's wa-a-a-ay too subjective for a category! And if people feel this can be properly cited, it's probably better to do so as a list in the first place (perhaps initially created in user-space and then taken to deletion review). Xtifr _tälk 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague, easily applied term. Can essentially be applied to any film with fans. -Sean Curtin 07:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective, invites misuse, and is mainly a Imarketing term nowadays. AshbyJnr 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category does not provide the needed context. This should be covered in the text. Pavel Vozenilek 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many movies that are widely considered cult classics. --Valley2city^₪‽ 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As above. It is not at all "vague". All movies have fandom, but cult films have a specific kind of fandom and it is important to keep films identified by what status they have reached. However there should be an explanation in the article as to how it became a cult film. Still Bottom line is:Strong keep!(SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories like Category:Cult Television Shows have been deleted in the past. --(trogga) 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i havent been a editer long however i do know that the categorey cult films has been very hepful to me. cult films is like slang but everyone knows what it means. i mean the big lebowski' cult film all over it it has a fan base who absolutly love it yet others would just say its an okay movie. therefore cult movies would be instrumental to determining what movies have an undieng fan base and which do not.

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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Somerset culture to Category:Culture in Somerset

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To bring category inline with existing "Culture in (English County)" style. Rgds, - Trident13 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and coherence --Dweller 12:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as with many other "family" categories, these either have insufficient material to warrant categories and the various articles are all interlinked with each other, or the category system does not serve well to explain the family relationships between people with different family names. In each case, an article (such as the article for Redgrave family) can be created if the family relationships are sufficiently complex. Otto4711 14:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This sort of thing is much better handled as an article which can properly delineate and annotate and describe. I hate to imagine what would will happen to all the "occupation X family" categories when the genealogists get ahold of them and start adding in third cousins twice removed, and the great⁵-grand-daddy of the family. --lquilter 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intersection of profession and familial relationship tends to be a rather trivial one, and that's what we ahve got here. Concur with Otto4711, if there is enough of a familial presence in showbiz, they can have an article, but that's about it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, unnecessary intersection. These people's articles are already linked through content, and it's not like these are the only Rooneys, Stillers, and Redgraves in the world. Doczilla 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, no objection to them existing as articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to 'women screenwriters'. Consensus to merge seems obvious, there is disagreement about where to merge to. Also, I'd suggest we need a centralized discussion on gender-based cats. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category is unnecessary and it contains only two articles. Brandon97 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It now contains 56 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUGGESTION: Could people please refrain from attempting to depopulate the category until such a time as it no longer exists? — scribbling woman 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into women screenwriters - this was a recently created category, not sure what the nominator means by unnecessary, but it is a perfectly valid category.A Musing 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Women screenwriters Seems like this is probably an unnecessary subdivision of the women screenwriters category. Dugwiki 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge per nom. or merge into the more inclusive Category:Women writers because every screenwriter has written other things as well. Doczilla 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_23#Category:Women_writers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Women_screenwriters Random Passer-by (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or if it must be merged, merge with Category:Women screenwriters. It is a new sub-category, developed after an extensive discussion about the category "women writers", and it is unfair to cull it so soon. If it doesn't seem useful after reasonable time, no doubt someone will take note of that and offer it up again. And could I just say that I wish there were some way to put a grace period on new categories? There was very recently the extensive, detailed, and generally thoughtful discussion on the category of women writers that took up a lot of editors' time and energy. That discussion was the forth time the question had been revisited (#1; #2; #3. See also Category talk:Women writers). And now, within days of the most recent discussion being closed, there are two attempts to remove related subcategories, this one and ~~one here~~ [update: withdrawn by nominator. Another update: someone re-nominated it.]: subcategories, I might add, that many editors in the last discussion felt were essential in order to prevent "women's writing" from becoming a monster category. I sincerely hope that now that anyone reading this knows this history exists, that they will wait before making a comment here until they have read through the previous discussions. Perhaps the nominator will consider withdrawing the nomination? — scribblingwoman 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but why do we need Category:Women screenwriters? As I recall the past discussions, women related writing categories were suppose to be for specific criteria that was not simply gender based. Category:Women screenwriters appears to be simply gender based. The same applies to this nomination. Both of these also include ((popcat)) so they do not appear to be even attempting to implement criteria to address the problems raised in the previous nominations. Vegaswikian 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to Vegaswikian: If Category:Women writers exists as a legitimate category, why do we need to defend each and every subcategory? The principle that gender can affect literary production surely applies across the board? And as I reminded people, above, during the discussion of the parent category, several editors expressed fears that it would become an unwieldy category and stressed the need for sub-categories. So the rapid proliferation of sparsely populated categories is an attempt to address those concerns. Perhaps some of them will prove not to be feasible for whatever reasons. But let's give it a chance! I have been madly populating the categories that I know best and others have been working, too. If after a decent interval some categories still look weak, then we could reassess. Re. women screenwriters in particular: not my field, but a quick search turned up several studies that focused on women screenwriters, particularly in the early days of cinema. As well, there exist organizations and conferences dedicated specifically to women screenwriters. So scholars, and women screenwriters themselves, would seem to see their situation as distinct in some way. — scribbling woman 00:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Television writers - In general, I still think that articles are better for discussing discrimination against women in any career, as a list of names does not indicate anything special about the intersection of gender and line of work. Moreover, aside from the general fact that these women faced similar discrimination issues, they otherwise have little in common with each other. Dr. Submillimeter 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into category:Television writers. I don't know or care whether the programmes I watched tonight were written by men or women. Oliver Han 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Scribblingwoman.Keefer | Talk 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Television writers. Nothing here or in the category has indicated why gender in any way contributes to these authors notability or uniqueness. That means we are basing classification solely on gender and this category is not needed. Vegaswikian 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Some people above commented that they don't feel gender is appropriate for screenwriters. That may or may not be true. However, what is true is that we currently have Category:Women writers which appears to not be going anywhere any time soon. Because of the large number of Women writers, this category requires subdivision of some sort, and subdividing by the genre of writing is a very natural scheme. So within that scheme Category:Women screenwriters makes sense.

As it stands, regardless of whether you think that writers overall should be divided by gender, the fact remains that they are. And unless and until Category:Women writers is deleted we must abide by its description and thus divide writers by gender. And therefore, it follows, we must subdivide those women writers along some accepted scheme, such as by genre, to keep the category maintainable and consistent. Thus simply merging this category into Category:Television writers is not currently an acceptable option. Dugwiki 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after this we need to revisit Category:Women writers. If the existence of that category is the root cause of the problem, then maybe we need to reach a clear consensus on that category. These sub cats were suppose to support why gender is important but so far that had not happened. Vegaswikian 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The last debate just ended. I, for one, would appreciate a little down time in order to, I don't know, populate some categories? And if past experience is any indication, we are not going to reach anything like a consensus. My fondest hope at the moment is that people find something else to talk about for awhile. As I said above, there really ought to be a policy about how soon people can renominate categories for discussion once they have been through the process (or twice, or three or four times, as is the case here, not counting sub-categories). — scribbling woman 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further response Vegaswikian, there are many useful subcategories there for those of us who use them. Frankly, I find the work I've done to date categorizing ancient and medieval women writers, especially in the Chinese, Japanese and Tamil traditions, fascinating, and those subcategories quite interesting. For those with an interest in this subject. I also found reviewing the category of women screenwriters quite interesting, and was amazed at what a small proportion of total screenwriters fit in the category.A Musing 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Or if it must be merged, merge to Category:Women screenwriters. We have just had a series of extensive discussions about Category:Women writers, and one of the concerns expressed there was that sub-categorisation was needed; it seems perverse to immediately set about nominating the sub-categories for deletion. I am disappointed too that after such an extensive discussion, the nomination merely describes the category as "unnecessary", and makes no reference to the relevant guidelines at WP:CATGRS. Television writing is a long way from my areas of expertise, but having done some work on the women sub-categories of writers-by-nationality, I was fascinated to see how under-represented women were. I don't know whether that represents systemic bias in wikipedia or under-representation of women in that field, but either way the scarcity fits one of the criteria in WP:CATGRS. A quick look at Category:Television writers suggests that there is again a huge majority of male names, again suggesting that this category meets the criteria. I am particularly surprised and disappointed to see delete votes based on the fact that a category includes ((popcat)): if a category is underpopulated, the answer is to populate it, and if it is not capable of being further populated, then it clearly meets the rarity criteria.
It really is starting to get very tedious to find that nearly every gendered category is permanently under attack in this way, and we repeatedly have to the same discussion from first principles every time. WP:CATGRS is a guideline, and has the same status as other guidelines such as WP:CAT and WP:OCAT, which form the basis of discussions here. Why do we keep on having the go around in circles defending the principle of gendered categorisation of a small subset of human activities, when the guidelines are already in place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It is disappointing that BrownHairedGirl took it upon herself to create subcategories, when she knew that there was much demand for things to go the other way, ie towards total deletion. Haddiscoe 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Haddiscoe, as you know, there was no consensus to delete Category:Women writers, and the fact that some editors have taken it upon themselves to reject wikipedia guidelines is not a reason to refrain from creating useful sub-cats (though I didn't create this one). However, you have now voted for "strong delete"; do you have a reason for that vote other than fact that you reject WP:CATGRS and seem to think that a category should be deleted even when there is no consensus to delete? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category fulfills the guidelines at WP:CATGRS. It is a legitimate area of scholarship and television writers are often distinct from screenwriters (this word typically refers only to people who have written film scripts). Writing for a sitcom, for example, is the same as writing a film script. We should recognize these different genres, as does the academic scholarship on the topic. Also, perhaps the reason that the category is underpopulated at the moment is because every time a subcategory to "women writers" is created, the editors have to defend the category itself rather than take the time to populate it. Because we established the necessity for subcategories at the debate over "women writers," it is essential that editors stop immediately suggesting these subcategories for deletion unless they have a carefully reasoned argument. Awadewit 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the category only contains two articles is due to it being a recently added subcat to a parent category that many editors felt needed to be broken down into appropriate divisions.

Give editors more time; we’ve had less than two weeks to contemplate this category.

Screenwriters and television writers are not the same thing (screenwriters are writers of film), so I do not support the merge.

Response to Vegaswikian, the subcats aren’t really supposed to support why gender is important necessarily; rather, the existence of the categories and subcategories would demonstrate the very real fact that gender is an important aspect of the history of this genre of writing, as well as the production of literature and drama (tv, film, stage) in general. Read Women's_writing_in_English to find a thorough explication of the basis for categorizing writers according to gender. --Susiebowers 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Women writers must not be subcategorised, as that will lead to some women being in many gendered categories, making the painfully obvious bias involved far, far worse. Abberley2 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Abberley2, what "bias" do you mean? This does not split any existing category; and WP:CATGRS says "Concerns about the POV status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also be a potentially unacceptable POV. Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter — if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Abberley2, I would refer you to the two most recent discussions on Category:Women writers, in which editors said repeatedly that the category must be subcategorized if it is not to become unwieldy. — scribbling woman 12:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the categories capture buildings and structures with nothing in common beyond being named after a person, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. --rimshots^talk 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These articles have little in common and should not be grouped together. The place where I went to elementary school has nothing in common with my place of work, and they are both named after people. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me that a large portion, if not the majority, of buildings are named after people (they're usually named after either people or cooporations). You could well end up having most buildings in the world in this category. Dugwiki 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial relationship, and definite overcategorization. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - categories capture cities with nothing in common beyond being named for a person. I'm pretty sure we've deleted categories for cities named after U.S. Presidents before but I'm not finding the old discussion. Otto4711 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eponymous cities, ~~Listify or~~ Delete Cities named for Lenin and Stalin. The nom.'s arguments work for Eponymous cities. The cities named for Lenin and Stalin, resp., do have something in common: being named after the same person. A list for either name would be more informative however, especially as most of these cities don't have that name anymore. A list could contain the old name, the eponymous name and the current name, together with dates of name-change. --rimshots^talk 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists for both Lenin and Stalin already exist. Otto4711 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, nothing speaks against deleting the categories. --rimshots^talk 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the names, the places have little in common with each other. The cities in the subcategories are not even located in the same countries. Dr. Submillimeter
Listify cities named for Lenin and Stalin, Delete Eponymous cities. Commonality and source of place names has often been of great interest historically (for example, the numerous cities named for Alexander the Great, from Khandahar to Alexandria, Egypt help define the Hellenistic World. The naming of cities for Lenin and Stalin is meaningful, and the work of compiling these cities should be kept, though preferably in list form.A Musing 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of cities named after Lenin/Stalin do exist. Pavel Vozenilek 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A great number of cities are ultimately named for a person, and sharing that in common is not sufficient for a category. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per ProveIt and WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - categories capture items with nothing in common beyond happening to be named after a person. This is overcategorization based on name. Otto4711 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - if "Eponomous theories" is kept it needs to be renamed to correct the spelling error. Otto4711 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --rimshots^talk 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The various objects described above have little in common aside from the names. For example, fettuccine alfredo has nothing in common with Melba toast, although the two combined together would probably be very tasty, especially if followed by Queen Elizabeth cake for dessert. Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. After you finally understand what the category name is supposed to mean, you wonder why it's worth confusing our users for something so unhelpful. EdJohnston 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, and any other eponymous categories. This is just something that isn't a defining feature of anything that I can imagine. Can we add this to the policy for speedy for categories. (I don't think "listify" is even a good solution -- only in rare instances can I imagine this being actually a useful list rather than a trivial one. Naming theories, geographical features, buildings/streets/cities, pets and babies after someone is a massively common practice, notable only in rare circumstances.) --lquilter 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the other "eponymous x" categories. Being named for a person is not a defining characteristic as stated above. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Would be a monster of a category. --Valley2city^₪‽ 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no villages in Mie Prefecture. What was there, is merged to other towns or cities. Former villages are categorized in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Mie Prefecture. Neier 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom. Neier 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and superfluous category. --MChew 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no villages in Ishikawa Prefecture. What was there, is merged to other towns or cities. Former villages are categorized in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Ishikawa Prefecture. Neier 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom Neier 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and superfluous category. --MChew 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. While there is some discussion about the target name, there is no objections to fixing the all caps name. By allowing the rename we get to a better name and the adaptation issue can be addressed. Maybe the solution is as simple as creating a sub category. Vegaswikian 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CLAMP images to Category:Clamp manga images

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, There is a capitalization issue here, which has been resolved already on the main article and category. This rename was previously a speedy, under the ill-conceived name of "Clamp (manga artists) images", based on the parent cat. However, the suggestion made in the speedy nomination was a good one, and I'll recommend it here. Neier 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not all images are from manga. Suggest instead Category:Clamp manga and adaptation images. 132.205.44.134 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete WP:CSD G4 - recreation of previously deleted Category. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was deleted once before and that I nominated it. This time I see it has a version in another language Wikipedia so I'm less sure. Still this seems like it'd lead to a proliferation of "X to Y" conversion categories based on offshoot faiths like say; Category:Hindus who converted to Buddhism or Category:Muslims who converted to Baha'i.--T. Anthony 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see your point, but (a) there are far more obscure categories, (b) so what? if a category can be populated with 10-20 names that makes it useful (c) it adds useful information and (d) wikipedia is not paper - we have plenty of room for all the categories you say we might end up with. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- obviously a valid category. It's a shame that closely related/identical data was lost when the former Category:Jewish Christians was recently deleted...so, is there a way to recover the data that was found in that former category and begin transferring the names to this one? --Wassermann 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion discussion for Category:Jewish Christians shows some arguments against and for this category as well. --rimshots^talk 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Category:Christians of Jewish ethnicity" - the problem with many debates on WP:CFD at present is what is the defining criteria for inclusion, or its alter argument of too vague. If we defined the categories names better in the first place, then perhaps many of the debates would be clearer. From the previous discussion re the deletion of Category:Jewish Christians I really like BrownHairedGirl's proposal as it says what is trying to be defined/enclosed within the category. Rgds, - Trident13 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was indeed deleted before. The main reason was the potential for the staggering amounts of X converted Y categories, where X and Y are for ever conceivable religion. Arnoutf 17:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of deleted category and per Arnoutf, are we going to have Category:Jews who converted to Christianity and then converted to Islam and then to Scientology? There are already lists of List of converts to Christianity, Converts to Islam, which are or should be referenced, categories are less valuable for that. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that one has to be afraid of too many categories. Every X to Y religion is not that many as far as computer space goes. Remember wikipedia is not paper! Even so there is an article for (or at least should be) foreign relation between county X and Y because it is significant. Converts to and from different religions have been and always will be a major part of the contact between those religions. Expessially this category which has profound influence on the topic of jewish-christian relations. Jon513 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there should be articles and there are, but why should there be categories? You have some people who have changed their religions as often as others change their hairstyles, do we clog up their bio with categories from each X to each Y categories, so we are hard pressed to see what the person's defining characteristics might be? Since bio's have too many categories already, category clutter is a real problem. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 - Besides the fact that the example Category:Systems was deleted, Consensus seems to be that the word "projects" is too ambiguous. (See also: WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names.) As an aside to whomever may be concerned, I am discounting the last comment for obvious reasons. - jc37 12:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9#Category:Projects. This is effectively an attempt to rename Category:Projects. However, it still brings together unrelated things with a shared common name. For example, Category:Building projects does not contain articles that are related to Category:Research projects aside from the fact that both things could be described as "projects". This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see why these categories need to be together. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — People with an interest in project management will be interested in different types and examples of projects. See Project#Project_types for examples of categorization in the existing project article. Thus I contend that these are related, just as very different types of system are related under Category:Systems, for example. — Jonathan Bowen 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, I really do not believe your argument. A research project that I start in my office is not at all similar to a construction project started by a company on the other side of London. Second, Category:Systems suffers from the same problems as this category, so I have nominated it for deletion as well. Dr. Submillimeter 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — I think "research project" (or any other project for that matter) in this (Wikipedia) context means one that is notable (i.e., not an individual project). Any projects listed here should be notable enough to require project management (in my view). — Jonathan Bowen 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too ambiguous. --Ezeu 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Honbicot 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This group tried to get my support by spamming my talk page. This shoudl teach them. ---ssd 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Listify historical examples, if such a list does not already exist. - jc37 13:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The categorization of people by religion and occupation is generally inappropriate, as religion usually has little influence on people's careers. Specifically in astronomy, I know from personal experience as a professional astronomer that religion has little to do with people's careers in the field. Religion is not mentioned in any of my professional papers, nor is it mentioned in anyone else's professional astronomical publications. The professional astronomers whom I have known to participate in religious worship generally keep religion separate from their occupation. Generally, I cannot tell if my co-workers are religious unless they tell me. This category tree is highly inappropriate, and it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I personally would object to being categorized as an astronomer of a specific religion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine, but many people would object to being categorized in all kinds of ways and traditionally that's not been a factor. There are likely a few names in Category:Gay writers or Category:Blind musicians who would not like being linked as such. In addition there are astronomers who worked in Islamic science or for the Vatican Observatory. Still whatever.--T. Anthony 09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, it just occurred to me that I do know a few employees of the Vatican Observatory, and that religion does have an influence on their careers but not on their research; I would not be able to distinguish between their research work and the research of other astronomers. However, these people should be classified as "Astronomers of the Vatican Observatory" rather than "Christian astronomers". The vast number of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, new age, and other astronomers that I know still are not influenced by religion in their work. Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

I'd prefer to use intersection categories only if there is some there is some true categorization cohesion. Not just lesbian left-handed authors from ottowa and the like. But categorization on en: is broken beyond repair already -- see the discussion on wikien-l.

In the specific case of religious subcategories, there was once the sensible compromise, to use the religion tags only on people known for their religious beliefs.

Pjacobi 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

If this was a list of astronomers who were also notable for their religious beliefs, then it might have some use, but otherwise it doesn't make much sense. You may as well have a list of left-handed or banjo-playing astronomers. Chrislintott 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an historically important division, but not now, sbandrews (t) 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could specify time as well I might do that, but I don't know how time specific categories fare. Like Category:Muslim astronomers during the Caliphate might be a bit more plausible, but might also be too wordy.--T. Anthony 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- thinking more about it I'm not even sure it was an historically important division, but if you could show it to be so you should propose to move it to, e.g. rennaissance astronomers by religion or some such. sbandrews (t) 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Too often) irrelevant intersection. AshbyJnr 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the reasons mentioned above. Also, the list won't be accurate anyway, you'll miss a large number of religious astronomers who don't openly discuss their religion. Count Iblis 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as irrelevant intersection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical reasons. Obviously nowadays when most astronomers/scientists are atheists or very skeptical of religion this category is not very applicable; however, in a historical sense this category could be very useful. --Wassermann 13:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most astronomers have lived quite recently, due to the proliferation of academic posts, and this category is not relevant to them. Brandon97 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard of archaeoastronomy right? There is a long history of astronomers you know.--T. Anthony 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and per User:Pjacobi's comment on 'lesbian left-handed authors from Ottawa.' It can be alarming to read an article where someone's religious affiliation is unexpectedly announced in a context where it doesn't seem relevant. Here, the lack of relevance is pretty clear and we can avoid the problem completely just by not allowing the category. EdJohnston 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at some of the articles in the category I see a few that don't cite sources to show that the person's religion is verifiable. How to verify religion unless the person has published on the topic? For a couple they mention that they were Jesuits, but there is already a Category:Jesuits. Another astronomer is mentioned as a clergyman, but there is also a Category:English clergy. Astronomers by religion is redundant since for each bio a person can be listed in multiple categories that are aplicable, and this has already been done for many of the articles in these cats. Should there be a Category: Astronomers who are outspoken aetheists? What next? Category: Bangladeshi Christian Women Amateur Astronomers who discovered comets in the 20th century?--mikeu 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference--mikeu 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Boy, I have to cite that a lot. Doczilla 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that for those people where it's important they can be in for instance Category:Jesuits and Category:Astronomers. Categories exist to help navigation, which means that members need demonstrably more than coincidental commonalities. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I could only see this category as interesting if it specifically focused on priest-astronomers, such as Christopher Clavius. Oitherwise it's about as relevant as kick-boxing astronomers. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until "Atronomers by favorite food" is created. ;-) Gnixon 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJH; this category is meaningful only in ahistorical sense, where a list would be more useful. Keeping it as a category would merely allow Dr Submillimeter and his colleagues to be classified by an irrelevant intersction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category assumes that all astronomers have verifiable religion. This is plainly not the case. --ScienceApologist 12:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And Sir William Herschel who discovered the planet Uranus was Jewish. So what? It doesn't mean we have to create a category about it. Does religion have anything to do with astronomy (astrology maybe, but not the sciences). Plus where will it end? Chiropodists by religion? --Valley2city^₪‽ 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a specific religion that set-up podiatry/chiropody. There was palm-reading methods linked to some Indian and Japanese religions, but that's not the same. I do know that in pre-modern times observatories were often set up by the priests of Mayan, Christian, and Muslim religion. In Mayan and Christian religion calendars were important requiring this. Hence we have the Gregorian calendar. (Hint, it's not named for James Gregory (astronomer and mathematician)) In Islam star positions were useful for travelers wanting to know which direction was Mecca.--T. Anthony 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kompleks Sukan Negara to Category:National Sports Complex, Malaysia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to change language from Malay to English. The English Wikipedia is more likely to attract English readers than Malay ones. Two hundred percent 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow inclusion criteria. I'd recommend upmerging to Category:Lasallian student publications, but the sole article is this category is already in that one as well. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 05:47Z

Delete There is no need for this publication to have a category. AshbyJnr 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless categorisation; it is difficult to think of a single other article which could be in it. Sam Blacketer 11:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of very limited potential for growth. --rimshots^talk 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. When professionals refer to clinical depression as "the common cold of mental illness" because it's the most frequently diagnosed specific mental illness, then it's too common to be a defining feature for most people. Doczilla 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I considered nominating this before but passed. However, Doczilla's comment on the ubiquitousness of this diagnosis leads me to believe that this is not noteworthy enough to use for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also because of likelihood of temporality concerns and multiple conflicting diagnoses. --lquilter 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impolite to emphasise negative characteristics. Oliver Han 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto Submillimeter's comments; these categories are ripe for deletion. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nondefining, hard to verify, changes over time, no need for thousands of similar "categories". Pavel Vozenilek 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all of the above, esp that depression is widespread that it's not a notable characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category is worthless and dumb. It's not good for anything and deserves to be wiped off the face of Wikipedia. We'll all be better off when it's gone. -Roofus 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single-member category of limited usefulness. Doczilla 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ok with merging the included article into another appropriate category. But note that if the category is simply deleted it leaves the included article orphaned with no category. So if it's deleted you'll need to use another broader disease related category to replace it. Dugwiki 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The article is already a member of several other categories. You're right about the need for a medical cat, though. I added the article to cancer deaths because this disorder is a form of cancer. Doczilla 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc, Category:Cancer deaths works for me. I'm ok with Deleting the category now. Dugwiki 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People are not notable for having diseases but for their other actions. The one person in this category, however, is an advocate for cancer patients and should be categorized accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've indicated in other disease related categories, some people are in fact notable in part for their disease. The blanket statement that nobody is at all notable for having a disease is simply false. Dugwiki 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Someone could have a disease and just stay out of the public eye. That person would not be notable and would not appear in Wikipedia. People with diseases who are known for having the diseases are either notable because they became advocates for the diseases' victims (as is the case for the person in this category) or because they were notable for other activities beforehand. (Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this?) Dr. Submillimeter 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply The flaw in that argument, though, is that it assumes that people can only be notable for one thing. In fact, though, it is quite possible for people to be notable for multiple aspects of their biography. A person can simultaneously be noted for their career AND for their advocacy of a cause AND for their personal hardships including disease, death, scandal and other items which catch national media attention. So that is the fundamental point, I think, where you and I differ in our categorization philosophies. You would argue, for example, that Christopher Reeve is notable mainly as an actor or possibly as an actor advocate, whereas I would argue that he is notable for three main items - his acting career, his advocacy and his personal hardship due to paralysis. Therefore, in my opinion, it is appropriate to categorize him under all three general types of category tags. Dugwiki 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is some evidence that this is a defining characteristic. Some people are notable for having disesases, but unlike disability I'm not sure that the categorisation system is a useful way of identifying them. --11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above and per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 6#Category:People with diabetes --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games to Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, after precedent set by CFR for parent, which was like the current name of the category without the Cancelled. Consistency and conventions possibly the only need for such, as the key article is titled Mega Drive as well. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --rimshots^talk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Esn 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Real-time tactical computer games to Category:Real-time tactics video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I think the old CVG (computer and video game) project is transitioning to VG (video game). I'm also trying to make it look more like Category:Turn-based tactics video games. The main article also uses the word 'tactics' instead of 'tactical'.SharkD 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rename --SkyWalker 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tactical role-playing games to Category:Tactical role-playing video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category is for video games only. SharkD 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with this change Ominae 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 07:15Z

Subjective inclusion criteria; ~~arguably duplicates Category:Alternative education and maybe even Category:Education. Doesn't education ultimately seek to "modify behaviour"?~~ —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 01:38Z

Per the creator's comment on Category talk:Behaviour modification I believe it is a duplicate of Category:Punishment or one of its sub-categories. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 05:54Z

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. Andrew c 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague inclusion criteria. We already have a category for Corporate crime which has more definite inclusion criteria (and which this one used to be categorised under. [1]) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 01:26Z

Delete per nom - not a lot else to say. Rgds, - Trident13 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't there a speedy criteria for oxymoronic categories? (I kid, I kid.) Xtifr _tälk 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Silly category. It would be hard to tell which articles belong in this category. If you wanted to know about this stuff, you'd be better off doing a Google search. EdJohnston 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 11

Category:Systems

Category:Racist video games

Kernels

Category:University of Wisconsin presidents to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison presidents

Internet categories

Category:Young adult Authors to Category:Young adult authors

Category:Lists of dramedy television series episodes

Category:People museums

Category:Urban decay in popular culture

Category:Diana, Princess of Wales

Category:Malcolm X

Category:Charles Lindbergh

Category:George S. Patton

Category:Donald Trump

Category:Films by societal reaction

Eponymous medical terms

Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations

Category:Cult films

Category:Somerset culture

Show business families

Category:Women television writers

Eponymous buildings

Eponymous cities

Eponyms

Category:Villages in Mie Prefecture

Category:Villages in Ishikawa Prefecture

Category:CLAMP images

Category:Jews who converted to Christianity

Category:Projects by type

Category:Astronomers by religion

Category:Kompleks Sukan Negara

Lasallian Schools Press Conference

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression

Category:People with glioblastoma multiforme

Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games

Category:Real-time tactical computer games

Category:Tactical role-playing games

Category:Behaviour modification

Category:Corporate ethics