< April 25	April 27 >

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Paintings in the Borghese collection and Category:Caravaggio paintings. --Xdamr^talk 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caravaggio paintings in the Borghese collection to Category:Paintings in the Borghese collection

• Merge - this is overcategorization by triple intersection of artist, medium and collection. In addition, the parent cat is so small that subdividing seems unnecessary. Otto4711 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, & also in to the other category, as below Johnbod 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Keep Although this category cannot be expanded beyond its present 6 members, they are a coherent and highly important group commissioned directly from the artist. The Borghese collection is an article on the historical collection, not just the present day Galleria Borghese. So contrary to what ProveIt says below, they will always belong in this category, even in the immensely unlikely event that "where they happen to be today" changes - in fact they have all been exactly where they are in the Villa Borghese since the 17th century. The policy states that small categories with two or three members that are incapable of expansion should be deleted; this has twice that. If they are merged they also need to be merged to Category:Caravaggio paintings, a point typically overlooked in this badly-researched nomination. 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure why you're citing the "small with no potential for growth" portion of WP:OCAT because the nomination does not suggest deletion on that basis. The nomination is based on the triple intersection of artist, medium and collection. Certainly the paintings should be categorized as the work of Caravaggio, but I had assumed that no one could be so foolish as to interpret this nomination as a desire to remove Caravaggio works from the Caravaggio category. I support whole-heartedly the notion of merging the category per nom and also to Caravaggio paintings per ProveIt. Otto4711 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you were leaving it to the closer & bots to recognise they needed merging to two categories? There is nothing in WP:OCAT about triple intersection per se; there is plenty about trivial and non-significant intersection, which does not apply here because these paintings were acquired by Caravaggio's largest single patron and form a historically significant grouping. Johnbod 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see, that's what's good about CFD, if one person misses something then another will pick it up. Otto4711 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, we never f*** anything up here Johnbod 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Caravaggio paintings. They will continue to be Caravaggio paintings as long as they exist, no matter where they happen to be today. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge x 2 per nom and per ProveIt. Bencherlite 09:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bernini sculptures of the Borghese collection to Category:Sculptures in the Borghese collection

• Merge - the parent category is small so subdividing it seems unnecessary. Additionally, this is overcategorization by triple intersection of artist, medium and collection. Otto4711 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to "Modern sculptures of the Borghese collection" or similar, but don't delete. See below. The distinction between ancient and modern is highly important. I'd rather see these merged with the paintings into "Renaissance and Baroque works of art in ..." than merged with the antiquities. If merged, they need to be merged to Category:Bernini sculptures also, but they are the most important group of his sculptures, so are fine where they are. 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment again these are a historically significant group acquired by a single patron direct from the artist. They are fine under WP:OCAT - or please explain which section of that you think applies? Johnbod 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Borghese antiquities to Category:Sculptures in the Borghese collection

• Merge - the parent category is very small so subdividing it seems unnecessary. There is nothing that indicates why "antiquities" should be categorized separately from sculptures. Otto4711 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These belong to diffferent trees & are sufficently distinct that they should be kept apart. If Otto cannot see why a sculpture of 150 AD should not be categorised differently from one of 1650 AD then I suppose there's no use trying to explain. Johnbod 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, instead of being snotty about it, you could explain why they are distinct. If the only reason to keep them separate is because one bunch is older than another bunch, then the scheme smacks of being an arbitrary standard of inclusion. Otto4711 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are just very different things - in London and many places they wouldn't even be in the same museum & in the Louvre they are in different departments. Look at what your proposal would do to the head-categories also. Are you saying a near-2000 year difference in period is "an arbitrary standard of inclusion"? Would you apply the same crieria to non visual arts categories? Roll up the Roman emperors and Presidents of Italy? I don't think so. Johnbod 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the category does not indicate, with perhaps a category description, why this set of sculptures should be categoried as "antiquities" instead of "sculptures." Saying that "they are just different" doesn't strike me as particularly informative or persuasive, especially in light of a comment like "I suppose there's no use trying to explain." It leads me to wonder if that actually means "I don't know either." "Rome" and "Italy" are two very easily distinguishable geopolitical entities. Even dumb ol' me can tell you some differences between them so I wouldn't suggest merging the two categories. Otto4711 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I also find Ancient Rome and Baroque Rome "very easily distinguishable". I guess I was right the first time & there is no point trying to explain. Or are you saying you just don't know what antiquities means, and put the category up for deletion rather than disturbing your dictionary? Johnbod 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duuuuh..."antiquities" means "old stuff," right? Maybe it's just me, but I think something from AD 1650 is pretty damn old. I am more than happy to learn about the very special distinctions which require that these particular statues need to be categorized as "antiquities" but so far you really haven't offered any real justification for it. If all that "antiquities" means is "really old" as opposed to, oh, "old," then I'm not seeing the need to differentiate between old statues and really old statues. Can you explain that to me or are you just planning on spouting more of this I know it when I see it stuff? That may have worked for Potter Stewart but you sir are no Potter Stewart. Otto4711 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just you - I hope. Johnbod 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...does that mean you can't explain why the old sculptures and the really old sculptures should be separated, or does it mean you're just not going to? Otto4711 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquities come from the Ancient world, Bernini's etc from the post-classical world. It may be all the same to you, but not to most people, or this encyclopedia. Johnbod 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bernini is not a subject this nomination. This is about the organizational utility of separating "antiquities" from other "sculptures" and you have offered no reason for doing so other than antiquities are older. Otto4711 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really I suggest you leave Category:Old stuff alone, if that is your level of understanding of it. Johnbod 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really I suggest that you try explaining why these seven statues are so different from the eighth statue in the parent category that they can't all be under "sculptures." All well and good to be a dick but it doesn't really answer the question. Other than of course continuing to suggest that you can't actually answer the question and your objection has no basis in fact or logic. Otto4711 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gradually dawned on me that you really don't accept that the difference between art from the Ancient World and the Early Modern Period is sufficiently significant that it should be recognised in a category scheme. Since this appears to be a unique personal view, and you don't appear at all receptive to explanation, I'll just suggest you look at some articles on the subject, or reread my comments above, with reference to the head categories, and the way musums categorize these objects. Johnbod 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that this is just now dawning on you, since I've been saying it repeatedly for days now. Over that same period of time I've also been repeatedly asking for some sort of explanation that justifies splitting a category with eight members into a category of one and a sub-category of seven; can you give me some notion of how far along that question is in your dawning process? Otto4711 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is, as I have been saying for days, that they are different kinds of things that don't belong in the same category. Distinctions between periods are absolutely fundamental to art history, as I said above at the start. There would be 1 in the sculptures category, and eleven in 2 subcategories. Johnbod 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination only encompasses one subcategory. You keep trying to make the Bernini subcategory an issue here but it's not as it is being dealt with separately. What is under discussion here is whether subdividing a group of eight inot a "group" of one and a sub-group of seven is worthwhile in this instance. No one is suggesting the dismantling of the entire "antiquities" categorization scheme, assuming such scheme even exists on a widespread basis (I haven't looked into it) and no one is suggesting that the individual sculptures currently sitting in the sub-cat should not also be categorized elsewhere in that scheme. The question is whether this subdivision is needed and, again, your only arguments for it amount to "they're different" and "they're older" along with some general art-snobbery. Otto4711 13:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 1 "sculpture", 4 Berninis, & 7 antiquities. Only the Berninis are (I'm guessing) incapable of expansion. You have another nomination above proposing merging the Berninis into the sculpture (thereby removing them from the tree of Bernini works, but that's noit important to you presumably). Equally your proposal here would remove the Borghese antiquities from the parent antiquities categories. You have also missed the point that Borghese sculpture collection is now dispersed; some of the works are now in the Louvre (the Antiquities) and some in Rome (Berninis and Canova). Your nominations combine these two, whereas the present scheme reflects this correctly - see the head categories. Johnbod 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like the category should be merged to the appropriate Sculpture by artist categories as well. If sculpture is generally categorized by the museum in which it's housed then the category can be merged there as well, or the individual statues can be so categorized. There's still no demonstrated need for this category. Otto4711 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least one penny has dropped. The category unites items now in different counties which were in the historic and highly notable Borghese collection. I've expained to you before (CfD Museum people etc) how the history of collecting is an area in which WP is extremely weak; this is another attempt to remove what little coverage we have. Meanwhile cinema & other categories spiral on beyond all reason. 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your apparent personal bitterness over categories you don't like has no bearing on this nomination. No one is suggesting disbanding the entire category structure for the collection, only simplifying it in the absence of any legitimate argument for the complication. Merging the antiquities category to the Sculptures category will still mean that those seven things are categorized in the Borghese collection because the category is called "Sculptures in the Borghese collection." Otto4711 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any bitterness over cinema categories, I just never see them and don't usually comment here on debates on things I don't don't know or care about. Still less do I start nominations about these things. Johnbod 19:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Johnbod Modernist 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge According to wikipedia an antiquity is an antique and an antique is anything collectible and over 100 years old, so it seems to me that the Canova qualifies as an antiquity, even though it is much more modern than the other Borghese sculptures. More of an issue for me is that some of these sculptures are not really sculptures, for instance the Borghese Vase. So perhaps some renaming is in order too. Lesnail 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ???? antiquity says nothing of the sort; it correctly says:

"Antiquity may refer to:

• Generally, "ancient history," and may be used of any historical period before the Middle Ages.
  • More specifically it means the classical antiquity of Greece and Rome.
  • It may also be used to refer to various periods of ancient history, like Ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia or other early civilizations of the Near East. It is less commonly used in reference to civilizations of the Far East.
• The term may also be used of archaeological objects from ancient cultures.
• Antiquity is a quarterly journal of archaeological research.
• Antiquities an expansion to the Magic: The Gathering collectible card game."

The Borghese Vase is a marble sculpture 1.72 metres tall in the shape of a vase; it is not a piece of pottery, and is correctly classified. Johnbod 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Common sense and common usage of "antiquities" especially as regards art objects implies from the realm of ancient culture, ie. ancient Rome, Greece etc. I agree with User:Johnbod. Modernist 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my previous comment came from looking at the page antiquities, which it turns out says completely different things from the page antiquity. Lesnail 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has now been rectified - reverted to older version redirecting to antiquity. Johnbod 22:51, 3 May 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: rename as proposed. Sam Blacketer 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Mexico, 2000 to Category:2000 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2003 to Category:2003 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2004 to Category:2004 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2005 to Category:2005 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2006 to Category:2006 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Mexico

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to tag the categories when I nominated the articles last night. Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Tim! 09:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom. ~I'm anonymous

---

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Antisemitism to Category:Articles that discuss antisemitism

Nominator's Rationale: According to the disclaimer template at the top of the category page, this category "indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." The problem is that this is not clear from the category name alone, and this leads to potential WP:BLP problems when it's added to the articles of living people. For example, there's a nasty argument over on Talk:Gilad Atzmon about whether or not adding this musician to the category (he's been accused of antisemitism, which he denies) violates our BLP policy. The argument in favor of retaining the category is that it isn't an accusation of antisemitism, but merely an indicator that antisemitism is discussed somewhere in the article. If that's the case, then we should rename the category to make this clear. The existing title is simply too problematic and too subject to misinterpretation. *** Crotalus *** 23:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - oh, is it time again already to discuss this category and its many iterations? How about instead of constantly tinkering with it to the satisfaction of no one we just admit defeat, delete it and then we don't have to worry about it any more? Otto4711 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nomination was to rename. While you're at it, why not remove all the articles in the cat as well: "and then we don't have to worry about it any more". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting but hardly novel idea - eliminating things so we don't have to worry about them anymore... --Leifern 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Or maybe change back to its older name "Anti-Semitism" as I'm still uncertain this is really the more common name. Anyway point being this is a valid historical topic and it doesn't need to be awkwardly justified. In addition we have Category:Anti-Arabism, Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment, Category:Anti-Indian sentiment, and other things in Category:Anti-national sentiment. Rename them all in this manner or why bother? Granted my main view is don't bother.--T. Anthony 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said it might be best to not add it to articles of living people. Also I'm leaning toward "speedy keep" after I saw how many other language Wikipedias have this as well.--T. Anthony 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Unlike Category:Anti-Arabism (hatred of Arabs) or Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment (hatred of Chinese), antisemitism is not hatred of semites. Many academic sources prefer non-hyphenated spelling. Why would we reintroduce confusion? As for BLP, are the living people somehow immune to antisemitism? Let's not put artificial barriers please. If the requirements of WP:BLP are satisfied, it should be enough. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By not having the hyphen I guess it means it's more like antimatter, therefore it's something that when mixed with semitism annihilates both. (Whatever that would mean) Or it could be like Antiphon and it's something that alternates with semitism somehow. Point being you have a hyphen, you don't have a hyphen, the word still implies it involves semites somehow. Having "semitism" as part of it clearly implies that. If you can think of a word that starts with the "anti" prefix, but has nothing to do with what comes after the prefix, feel free to correct me. As I see it the only way to get around the association is to coin a new word which has no "semitic" element in it. And the unhyphenated form is not really preferred in scholarship or academia in the English language. Still it is preferred in non-English languages and the Jewish community. I had said maybe move it back, but remembering that I know it's a bad idea, so what I mean now is that if we were to rename this that would be the way to go. I disagree with the proposal here and ultimately I want this category to remain as is.--T. Anthony 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe it's like Antipasto. :) --Xtifr _tälk 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as is - just as any Category X doesn't need to be changed into Category:Articles that discuss X (imagine Category:Articles that discuss addiction and Category:Articles that discuss nationalism instead of Category:Addiction and Category:Nationalism). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, antisemtism is, unlike the various wikipedia based neologism fluctating in cfd discussions, a well established historical concept. The fact that the term is a misnomer (i.e. that not all semites are jews) doesn't really affect anything, wikipedia relates to how concepts are used in the real world. Of course one should keep in mind that accusations of antisemitism can be extremly controversial, and the category should be reserved for obvious clearcut cases (Hitler, Göring, Anti-Jewish Struggle League of Sweden, etc.). --Soman 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for clarity's sake. Why add all the blah, blah, blah about nothing? What else is Wikipedia if not mainly articles? What next, rename Category:Sex to Category:Articles that discuss sex or Category:Holocaust to Category:Articles that discuss the Holocaust, or how about Category:Internet to Category:Articles that discuss Internet? Hmm, this could keep us all busy as we rename everything. This is obviously a BAD FAITH nomination and should be dealt with quickly! IZAK 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per IZAK. Good analogy. The Prince 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Tinkering with a category because of occasional problems in applying it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If it's application is controversial for some living person, deal with the problem at that level.--Redaktor 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close discussion per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:POINT. Gidonb 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as already mentioned, the problem is when the category is used as "well person A is alive and it's not clear that A is an antisemite, but I think he is so I'll add him to the category". If only used for dead and/or self proclaimed antisemites there wouldn't be any problem. // Liftarn
• Keep as is. If we were talking about something called Category:Antisemites, the concern about application to controversial individuals would be valid, but in this instance it's clearly just a category of articles that deal with antisemitism in some way. As an example, Abraham Foxman is included, and I don't think there's any concern whatsoever of him being painted as antisemitic. ;) Daniel^C/_T+ 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is, like IZAK says. There is no need to start renaming this category because then it will start a trend and a bad habit, and, more than anything else, isn't it obvious that the articles in that category discuss Antisemitism? If the name of the category was Actions carried out by the Wehrmacht during WW2 then I'd agree renaming as that not all the Wehrmacht actions were related to Antisemitism. --JewBask 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not rename As discussed on the previous CfD's. What next, rename Category:Imams to Category:Articles that discuss Islamic religious figures? or Category:Islam to Category:Articles that discuss religous issues based on Mohammedean prophecies and teachings? This is getting a bit out of hand. -- Avi 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do not rename - disclaimer is adequate; new name is awkward, reminds me of those 'as-a-term/in-popular-culture' evasions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is per IZAK, Avi, and Tom Harrison. (And obviously use only when documented appropriate — like any other category on Wikipedia...) -- Olve 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Arguments above convinced me. If the name was 'Antisemite' or 'Antisemitic' it would have to change. But trying to find the 'right' qualifying phrase is impossible (e.g. "Antisemitism (topic)") is what I had been thinking. Now as a topic, it can be applied in many cases, including those people/institutions with positions against it. It will just have to be understood (through disclaimer, and ability to read being a common given around here) as not being 'Antisemite'. Shenme 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename unnecessary I'm not sold on the proposed rename. The current name doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me, plus the argument that people aren't reading the category description simply means that incorrectly included articles should be removed. (I never liked the argument that editors aren't responsible for reading category descriptions when categorizing. You should follow the description and context, not just guess at what you think the category title means.) Dugwiki 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep i think most folks would understand that category:antisemitism would mean something like topic:antisemitism, not category:antisemites Gzuckier 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for reasons well articulated above. --Leifern 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and Oppose rename. The current category text seems to me to do the job fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is the common term for this activity; no reason to change names. Too many weasel words for WP. Hmains 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reasons given by the OP are shady and dubious at best. Lixy 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no rename antisemitism is well known as antisemitism, and this merge would be making the category too broad. The things in this article are not discussing antisemitism in their articles; they are accused of being antisemitic. Secondly, no other category has such a strange name. Antisemitism is bess kept alone without change.--Sefringle 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename → Read this please! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-Semitism. --Wassermann 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- by the way: ever since Category:Anti-Semites was deleted this category has been used as a substitute for that category and has been added to many of the articles of people believed to be anti-Semitic. I don't think that this is a good use of this category. --Wassermann 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Oh, would that be like changing the tag on the Hitler article? I have no idea why you claim it "has been used as a substitute." - Doright 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Do not rename. This nomination appears to be a violation of WP:Point attacking dialog with Jayjg [[1]]. -Doright 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom This slur is too powerful in Western culture to be phrased in such a bald accusatory fashion without breaching the goal of neutrality. The related categories can also be renamed to remove one of the arguments against renaming this category. OrchWyn 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's supposed to be added to articles on people unless they self-identify as either anti-semitic or as a scholar of anti-semitism. The Category:Anti-Semitic people deal was deleted.--T. Anthony 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this as it is. Users are smart enough to understand what it is talking about, as they are in many other similarly named categories. Tewfik^Talk 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Izak. Zeq 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Humus. Isarig 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has a point, however, I'm not sure that the proposed rename is the best way to go about this. It's a very general category that's highly populated (and politically charged), which is likely to raise concerns. Perhaps some more specific subcategories might fix what's wrong with the category. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you suggesting we bring back Category:Anti-Semitic people? -- Avi 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not at all. I am 100% against that category. I was thinking more like "Antisemitic publications". .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no rename, per IZAK and others. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Sleep On It 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename - As it is now, using it on a page such as Gilad Atzmon is done in a manner to slur the person as an antisemite. Regardless of the convenient disclaimer on the category page, this will be the common perception upon seeing this category on a person's wiki page. Renaming the category will eliminate this point of confusion/contention. Tarc 14:33, 2 May 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: rename as proposed. Sam Blacketer 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States elections, 1952 to Category:1952 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1958 to Category:1958 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1964 to Category:1964 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1970 to Category:1970 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1976 to Category:1976 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1980 to Category:1980 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1982 to Category:1982 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1986 to Category:1986 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1988 to Category:1988 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1992 to Category:1992 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1994 to Category:1994 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 1998 to Category:1998 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 2000 to Category:2000 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 2002 to Category:2002 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 2004 to Category:2004 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 2006 to Category:2006 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in the United States
Category:United States elections, 2010 to Category:2010 elections in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose rename This is the standard WP convention in all Category:Elections by country articles I found. --Shuki 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are categories, not articles. See, for example Category:1998 elections in Canada, Category:1999 elections in Canada, Category:2006 elections in Germany, Category:1998 elections in Germany, Category:1999 elections in Germany, Category:2006 elections in Australia, Category:1998 elections in Australia, Category:1999 elections in Australia, and all subcats of Category:Elections in the United Kingdom by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Ok, nevermind. --Shuki 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per BHG. Doczilla 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BHG. Lesnail 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. It just reads a whole lot better that way.--Mike Selinker 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim! 09:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename - per BHG. ~I'm anonymous

---

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 Rename to Category:YouTube videos. -Xdamr^talk 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - this category is largely serving as a recreation of the deleted YouTube users category (similar to the also-deleted MySpace people category) as well as capturing videos which appear on YouTube. Since pretty much anything and everything seems to end up on YouTube eventually, appearing on YouTube, and even becoming very popular on YouTube, does not IMHO warrant a category. If not deleted, then I suggest Renaming to something like Category:YouTube videos and restricting the category to the videos and excluding the people per what appears to be consensus against that sort of categorization. Otto4711 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose to Category:YouTube videos I'd support the suggested rename and repurposing to make this a category to house articles about notable YouTube videos, such as lonelygirl15. I don't recommend deleting the category altogether, though, as my guess is we'll see enough notable YouTube specific videos to warrant keeping the category in place. Dugwiki 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article YouTube API would not be properly categorised under the suggested renames. Tim! 09:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• YouTube API is properly categorized under Category:Web 2.0 and can also be housed under additional appropriate application or web design tool categories. It would not be orphaned by the deletion or renaming of this category. Otto4711 14:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It may not be orphaned but it would be more difficult to find as it would not be categorised together with related articles. Tim! 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - to Category:YouTube videos. ~I'm anonymous

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 23:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futurama directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - *sigh* Another one. The contents are already listed at List of Futurama crew so just delete it. Otto4711 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. and ongoing convention. Doczilla 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories for cast/crew lists aren't normally necessary. Dugwiki 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please wikify the list. Tim! 10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly acceptable category, no logical reason to delete it. Tim! 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. ~I'm anonymous

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: rename.--Mike Selinker 02:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fantasy books by author to Category:Fantasy novels by author

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - while honestly I don't really see the utility of segregating novels from other books, as long as that's done then this category, as a container for novels categories and as a child of Category:Fantasy novels and Category:Novels by author should be renamed. If this gets deleted and serves as a springboard to discussing the dismantling of the novels/books split, I'm good with that too. Otto4711 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. Except I do not accept the criticism of the Book, Novels split. What we are talking about is a literary form, not the method of delivery. A poem may be in a book, a play may be in a book, a book may contain a whole set of artist's pictures. Increasingly novels, short stories etc are not arriving in book form at all, often online and more traditionally published in serial form, particularly in the 19thC. Many of these were notable at the time but still have not seen the light of day in book form. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we're only going to have one of "books" or "novels", then we should clearly choose "books", or countless short-story collections will be rendered homeless. It's easy enough to re-parent this in Category:Books by author and Category:Fantasy books, if that's really all that's bothering you. I am, however, neutral on the topic of whether Category:Fantasy novels by author should or should not be created as a new category. Xtifr _tälk 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Short-story collections by single authors go in the Category:Single-author short story collections tree. Anthologies go in the Category:Fiction anthologies tree, which includes the subcat Category:Fantasy anthologies. There should be no short story collections or anthologies housed in categories designated for novels. Otto4711 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and possibly create Category:Fantasy novels by author as a subcategory. "Fantasy books by author" should certainly not be a subcategory of Category:Fantasy novels, given that "novels" is more precise than "books". -Sean Curtin 09:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Kevinlewis Johnbod 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Kevinlewis has stated that he supports the nomination to rename. Otto4711 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, changed to Rename. Johnbod 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - has anyone actually looked at the contents of the category? Every single thing in it is a sub-category called "Novels by..." so if this category is not renamed then it will have to be emptied, a new category for fantasy novels by author will have to be created and that category will have to then be populated. This category will then be empty and will likely be speedily deleted. So which makes more sense: renaming the existing category to reflect its entire contents, its position in its attendant category trees and how it's actually being used; or emptying, creating, repopulating and deleting? Otto4711 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. - note that there is a separate Category:Fantasy books; this is just a subcat of Category:Fantasy novels.A Musing 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete haven't seen anything like this before Sleep On It 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are trying to say with this comment, lack of being about here maybe! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:05, 2 May 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. I do not find Tim!'s argument persuasive, and the list is a perfectly adequate substitute. Sam Blacketer 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost (TV series) directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - per extensive precedent against categorizing cast and crew by project. I listified the contents here so subject matter experts can expand upon it. Otto4711 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the only argument to delete is Turtles all the way down logic. Also the list is totally unacceptable as replacement as the items in the list must at the very least be wikified. Tim! 09:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not sure what a belief in infinite cosmological regression has to do with a list of people who directed episodes of a television series. Can you point toward anything in any of the many, many similar CFDs that establish a strong consensus and precedent against these sorts of categories that states that the list resulting from a category has to be wikified or in any other way formatted before the category can be deleted? If you're that concerned about wikification, there's nothing preventing you from doing it or from slapping a maintenance tag on the list. Nothing that you've said here stands as a bar to the deletion of the category. Otto4711 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can clear up your own mess Otto. You may wish to consider the needs of readers beyond your own for once. Tim! 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent. I fail to see how turtles come into the picture. >Radiant< 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument presented is that there is precedent to delete similar categories, the only argument which will be presented to delete the next batch will be precedent and so on. It will be "precedent all the way down". Tim! 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument, which you know as well as anyone so this pretense that you don't is both bizarre and tiresome, is that categorizing directors by the projects they direct leads to undesirable category clutter because directors may direct a variety of projects in the course of a career. By listifying the directors, annotation may be added as to, for example, what episodes they directed, awards and honors the director garnered for the episode, additional sourced information of interest and so on which a bare categorized chunk of names does not and cannot impart. It is the same argument which has led to the deletion of actor by series categories (which you know about) and writer by series categories (which you know about) and general "crew" by series categories (which you know about). Your general disagreement with this consensus is well-known. Consensus against these categories has been strong and consistent, despite your best efforts to dissuade and disrupt. Otto4711 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with a nomination, especially such a silly one, is not disruption. Tim! 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. This is a non-admin close. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by Anne Brontë (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Small with no potential for growth; Anne Brontë only wrote two novels, and both novels are listed in this category. However, these two novels are the only novels that are and will ever be in this category. It's unnecessary. María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a child of Category:Novels by author. When there is an extensive category tree, small categories with no growth potential may be maintained for organizational purposes. I would not object to upmerging all "Novels by..." categories to their corresponding "Books by..." parents but that's a different discussion. Otto4711 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Otto above, it is acceptable to have subcategories with only one or two articles when they are part of an established scheme to completely subdivide a larger parent (in this case, subdivide Category:Novels by author). Dugwiki 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Like Albums by artist, this is part of an established navigation hierarchy. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Novels by author should have a similar header as Albums by artist, I think.--Mike Selinker 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ProveIt as part of an established navigation hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, categories do not have to grow as long as they serve an organisational purpose.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:44, 29 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 23:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:One man show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete or Rename to something. The category is capturing people who have performed alone on stage. I'm not sure this is a worthwhile categorization, but if it is the category should be renamed to reflect that it's for performers. Perhaps something like Category:Monologuists but at the very least should be made gender-neutral. Otto4711 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another suggestion - Category:Spoken word performers. Otto4711 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think Spoken word applies to any all of the entries currently listed in this category; although spoken word artists could conceivably be added in the future. Agree with nom to delete this category altogether and re-categorize subjects elsewhere, such as Category:Vaudeville performers, Category:Humorists, Category:Stand-up comedians, etc. SqlPac 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the people in the category are listed in the Spoken word article, for example Henry Rollins. Otto4711 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However, not all are. I don't believe that renaming the category to Category:Spoken word performers because a single entry in the category is a Spoken word performer is the correct way to go. By the same token I don't believe it makes sense to move every one of the entries in this category to a single existing category, like Category:Vaudeville performers, just because one person listed in the category was a Vaudeville performer. I think it makes more sense to recategorize these performers and remove this category. SqlPac 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you know, that's fine, I'm OK with deleting the category obviously. Just want to be sure that's the best way to go. Otto4711 16:07, 27 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 all per (revised) nomination. --Xdamr^talk 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Poems by W. H. Auden to Category:Poetry of W. H. Auden

Category:Poems of Catullus to Category:Poetry of Catullus
Category:Poems by W. H. Auden to Category:Poetry of W. H. Auden
Category:Poems by T. S. Eliot to Category:Poetry of T. S. Eliot
Category:Poems of Robert Frost to Category:Poetry of Robert Frost
Category:Poems of Allen Ginsberg to Category:Poetry of Allen Ginsberg
Category:Works of Horace to Category:Poetry of Horace
Category:Poems by Stephen King to Category:Poetry of Stephen King
Category:Poems by Rudyard Kipling to Category:Poetry of Rudyard Kipling
Category:Francesco Petrarch poems to Category:Poetry of Francesco Petrarch
Category:Poems by Edgar Allan Poe to Category:Poetry of Edgar Allan Poe
Category:Poems by Aleksandr Pushkin to Category:Poetry of Aleksandr Pushkin
Category:Walter Scott poems to Category:Poetry of Walter Scott
Category:Poems of Shakespeare to Category:Poetry of ShakespeareCategory:Poetry of William Shakespeare
Category:Poems by Percy Bysshe Shelley to Category:Poetry of Percy Bysshe Shelley
Category:Poems by Statius to Category:Poetry of Statius
Category:Poems by Wallace Stevens to Category:Poetry of Wallace Stevens
Category:Poetry by J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Poetry of J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Poems by Virgil to Category:Poetry of Virgil

Nominator's Rationale: Rename all - per the outcome of April 10 CFD it was decided that "Poetry of..." is the preferred construction. Otto4711 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll suggest "Poetry of William Shakespeare" instead. Otherwise, rename all.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, with suggestion of Mike Selinker to rename Category:Poems of Shakespeare to Category:Poetry of William Shakespeare. SqlPac 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per SqlPac Good point on William Shakespeare. The category name should match his main article's title (which is his full name). Dugwiki 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated nomination to reflect Shakespeare's full name. Otto4711 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per revised nom for consistency, per previous CfD in which this format was agreed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all I'm a little frightened by the Poetry of Stephen King category! A Musing 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Please Revise - can I strongly suggest we change this to "by" instead of "of". This would be more consistent with the parent category name and with most of the other 'literature by author' category conventions. Why have a convention if there are so many? Also if we are changing to "Poetry" then the parent category name should become "Poetry by author" too :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. The "by" in the parent category refers to how these are categorized, not to the fact of authorship. It is analogous to Category:Guitarists by genre or Category:Actors by nationality. I hope you wouldn't suggest that Category:Flamenco guitarists be renamed to "Guitarists by flamenco" for consistency with the parent cat! :) And the "literature by author" argument was rebutted in the previous CfD. The important thing is to be consistent within a given category, and "of" seems to be the current consensus for this one. Xtifr _tälk 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purhaps I wasn't making myself clear "of" tasks of ownership, whereas "by" talks of authorship or creative activity. As that is the purpose of the clause it would make sense to use that as does the parent category. i can't answer for other categorization naming but most of the authorship related categories have so far standardised on "by" it would be a "real" shame to have this diluted into two different "standards". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier CfD, I'd argued for "of" for the simple reason that it allows us to place both individual poems "by" a poet in the category and critical works about a poem in the category. With two or three exceptions, most of these categories are quite small - there are not many articles on wikipedia about individual poems, and, indeed, we've struggled with how to author articles about single poems and when an individual poem (particularly a short poem, like a sonnet or haiku) are appropriate topics for individual article. I'd like to keep the "of", I think articles on individual poems are likely to be focused on poems that are either considerably longer or that so prominent that they attract critical articles as well (e.g., Nabokov's Notes on Prosody and Eugene Onegin), which qualifies as both long and prominent), and it's best to keep them together.A Musing 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that would place articles "about" poems beneath a category called "poems by author" - now we are getting confussed. I do see what you are trying to acheive but it is mixing terminology and content. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 17:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was originally deleted in an April 13 CfD. DRV overturned, holding the view that the debate had been too terse for consensus to have developed. The category is resubmitted for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if someone will just better define who is and is not included and how the category relates to nature writers and travel writers - the DRV discussion was much clearer than the earlier CfD discussion. A Musing 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Outdoor literature provides a definition. -- Stbalbach 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a need for this - I see Alfred Wainwright - surely the classic example - was/is not in the category (now he is). Bill Bryson is in general a travel-writer, but wrote a whole book just on walking the Appalachian Trail. The category title isn't snappy, but it will do. Travelling through countryside on foot, bike or boat is how I see it - with sailing & mountain-climbing being different - no ropes allowed. Johnbod 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly I was being irresponsible in standing by with only a comment. Nevertheless, even given what I said earlier about my unfamiliarity it seems clear-cut that these are not the same as nature writers. The argument that one term is used more than the other still does not establish that they are necessarily the same. –Unint 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a clear genre, albeit one which can sometimes overlap with Category:Travel writers and Category:Nature writers. The definition at outdoor literature could be improved, but will do as a starting point; but I disagree with Johnbod in excluding sailing (which is listed in outdoor literature). There currently appears to be no more specific category for writers about sailing. I have added a few sailing writers to the category, but I think that they might be better sub-catted as Category:Non-fiction sailing writers, which could be parented under this and other appropriate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I have to admit I assumed sailing & mountaineering writers already had their own cats, without checking. If not, then yes they belong here. Thanks for adding Wainwright to the cat, which I was too lazy to do. Johnbod 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm confused. The article that covers this genre is called Outdoor literature and we have an existing Category:Outdoor literature for that purpose. Never mind, makes sense. This category could have lots of sub-cats like "Sailing literature", "Mountaineering literature", "Exploration literature", etc.. -- Stbalbach 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category may overlap somewhat with Category:Travel writers and Category:Nature writers, but there are many writers who fit neither of those categories but do fit this one. So this category is distinct and necessary, even if not easy to define. Perhaps I will try to give a definition by example: authors of hiking guidebooks, rock climbing guidebooks, backcountry skiing books, avalanche safety books, etc., would all fit in this category, but they are clearly not "nature writers" or "travel writers". Sorry I can't come up with a solid definition at this time, I'll keep thinking.
  Although the deletion of this category was overturned at DRV, the numerous writers who were moved to Category:Nature writers due to the previous CfD merge had not been put back following the DRV. So I've just done it myself manually right now, since most of the current population in Category:Nature writers (just that category, not its subcats) does not belong there. I also fixed the categorization of a few others in there at the same time, so Category:Nature writers is now empty except for its three subcats and their contents. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 21:14, 28 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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete all - as with so many family categories, these are unnecessary for navigational purposes. The articles on individual family members are easily interlinked through each other. In many cases there is already an article on the family, which serves as an appropriate navigational hub and does a better job of explaining the relationships between the members of the family than the categories do or could. Otto4711 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. SqlPac 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Doczilla 07:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. ~I'm anonymous
• Delete all per nom Sleep On It 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sam Blacketer 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more fraternity membership categories, which are not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per countless previous CfDs which have agreed that membership of a student fraternity is not, in general, a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 26 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: keep. The precedent of student fraternities is not particularly useful here: the Skull and Bones Society is significantly different from a fraternity because of the significance of its members, the secrecy of its organisation, and the suspicion (whether well or ill-founded is irrelevant) that it is influential. The keep voters make substantial points that have not been counteracted. Sam Blacketer 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more fraternity membership categories, which are not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and many precedents. Haddiscoe 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (and thanks for separating this one out). Previous CfDs have agreed that membership of student fraternities is not a defining characteristic, and in I have agreed with all previous nominations; but I think that Bonesmen are a different kettle of fish. As the article Skull and bones says in its intro: "retention of selective membership, masonic-inspired rituals and other aspects that have engendered 175 years of continued fascination, glamour (or notoriety), and mystery. In regards to the influence of its members on US government and business, it is peerless." That membership includes at least three Pressidents of the United States (G. H. W. Bush and Taft, G. W. Bush, John Kerry, several supreme court judges etc
  That marks it for me as a very notable and (arguably) defining characteristic; even if one doesn't agree with the (arguably hyped) assertions of its influence, the degree of interest in the bonesmen means that it is a category which will be very useful to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, there is also List of Skull and Bones members, which is a good and detailed list ... but the category is handier for the reader as a starting-point for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think the uniqueness of this fraternity is being overstated; I'd give more credence to keeping masonic categories, where they can point to in many cases a lifetime of association and a lot of collective charitable works, but precedent says those don't make it. The list is plenty. Given what's happening to the other fraternities, this will soon be an "orphaned" category, nonsensical within any broader context.A Musing 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every fraternity is unique, but all are trivial; there is a list in the article of its notable members, if the membership is important to the biography it'll be mentioned there; if anyone cares to follow that link they'll see all the other notable members, so nothing is lost. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepThere is legitimate significance to identifying these "old boy network" connections--and not just for conspiracy theorists. It is absolutely incorrect to state that all fraternity connections are trivial. The Skull and Bones connections have been the subject of numerous books, articles and documentaries.DIDouglass 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Greg Grahame 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? BHG voted strong keep! Bencherlite 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ample precedent. There's a list, so no information is lost, and anyone who wants to identify "these 'old boy network' connections" is still able to do so. The fact that some people find categories handier to browse doesn't change the fact that we don't categorize people by fraternity. There are lots and LOTS of fraternal organizations that boast presidents and chief justices on their roster. That's nothing special. Freemasonry has been the subject of far more books, articles and documentaries than the Bonesmen, and that category was deleted by consensus. This may be interesting, but that does not make it a defining characteristic. Xtifr _tälk 18:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not really a category; the list takes care of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I agree with what the users BrownHairedGirl and Greg Grahame have to say and makes a very strong case to keep. Additionally, there has been many movies that have become the backdrop or subject of the Skull and Bones. -Signaleer 08:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there have been a whole lot more movies (and books) on the topic of the Freemasons, but that category was deleted on the grounds that it's clearly not a defining characteristic. While I generally find BrownHairedGirl to be a very insightful XfD commentator, in this case, she seems to have succumbed to WP:ILIKEIT-itus (something I confess I have not always been able to avoid myself). While my arguments could be dismissed per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or doesn't, in this case), I think there's something to be said for precedent (in this case, pretty much uniformly to delete) and the matter of undue bias weight (a form of original research involved in keeping this in the face of precedent. Xtifr _tälk 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This absolutely does have a whiff of conspiracy theorising. OrchWyn 10:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per BHG & GG Johnbod 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Strong keep This is not trivial. --85.226.4.211 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per Above -Deathregis 10:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 99.99% of fraternity memberships are not notable enough for a category, but Bonesmen are in the 0.01%. SnowFire 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a frat. The end. If the Mason's don't cut it, there is no reason to keep one far less influential organization out of a class of them that are being mass-deleted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When were the Freemason categories deleted? That deletion isn't showing up in any of the logs since January. The the only CFD I can find via Search was closed an overwhelming keep. SnowFire 02:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion can be found by going to the deleted Category:Freeemasons, and then checking the logs. The date was March 13, so I started checking CfD records starting five days earlier, and quickly found Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:Freemasons. Then, as now, the primary argument concerned whether this is really a defining characteristic. When you think of, say, G.W. Bush, is "Mason" (or "Bonesman") really very high on the list of things you think of? Does the article on Bush even mention the fact that he is, allegedly, a member of this somewhat-obscure masonic group? Xtifr _tälk 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Sleep On It 05:43, 2 May 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories about a student fraternity are pretty much empty, generally containing the article on the frat itself, a member list, a few templates, possibly a member or two, and in a few cases also articles on other frats, for some reason. >Radiant< 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. In numerous previous CfDs on categories relating to individual student fraternities, the consensus has been that it is inappropriate to categorise biographies by fraternity (because frat membership is not a defining characteristic of the person), so they shouldn't be used that way; and the underpopulation of these shows that there is clearly no need for such small categories to organise the basic articles on the fraternities.
  Category:United States student societies is getting too large, and I'm not clear on how these articles should be categorised if these categs are removed: it seems to me that at the least we need a categ along the lines of Category:Lists of members of United States student societies. I'll happily chnage my vote once a solution is in place which also accommodates the likes of Category:Alpha Phi Omega, which is currently parented under both the US and Australian branches of the student society categories.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also under the Philippine branch. Naraht 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lists of members cat is a good idea. I also think the cat is too large, but I don't think that this particular split is helpful. >Radiant< 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The removal of the categories for members has left this almost empty, and if they are kept there is a strong risk that they will be used to categorise individuals, when there is a consensus not to categorise individuals by fraternity. Haddiscoe 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Armenian-Americans and Category:American actors. --Xdamr^talk 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian-American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge to Armenian-Americans, An invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, Armenian-American acting is no different from any other, so Armenian-American actors should be upmerged and deleted like Scots Irish American actors and others which have been deleted before. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Your argument would seem to imply to everything in Category:American actors by ethnicity. Is there a reason you're doing this one at a time?--T. Anthony 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presumed that it was to allow for the possibility that editors might feel that there were different issues pertaining to different ethic groups. For example, I would be loathe to see Category:African-American actors removed, so I think it's useful to discuss these on a case-by-case basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't nominated them all, I cannot see how the story of English-American actors differs from American actors in general, I cannot say the same for African-American actors, and others that remain in the parent category. Carlossuarez46 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to both Category:Armenian Americans and Category:American actors. I agree that this is an invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, but result of removing this category should not be to remove the articles from either actors category or the ethnicity category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is no more invalid than every other acting by ethnicity category. Get rid of them all, or else it reeks of bias. Siyavash 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge definitely Sleep On It 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, overly specific. >Radiant< 12:29, 2 May 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 into Category:English Americans. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge to English Americans, An invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, English American acting is no different from any other, so English American actors should be upmerged and deleted like Scots Irish American actors and others which have been deleted before. Carlossuarez46 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge for overcategorization and per precedent. Doczilla 06:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to both Category:English Americans and Category:American actors. I agree that this is an invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, but result of removing this category should not be to remove the articles from either actors category or the ethnicity category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge same as Armenians Sleep On It 05:46, 2 May 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. Sam Blacketer 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opera ballet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category (which now only has one item) is ambiguous, referring to either (1) ballets in opera, or (2) the specific French form of opéra-ballet. It should be deleted because in the case of (1) it is too general to be useful, and in the case of (2) there is already a Category:Opéras-ballets. (Category:Opera ballet is also singular). --Kleinzach 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnbod 23:19, 28 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:SQL keywords. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SQL statements to Category:SQL KeywordsCategory:SQL keywords

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, SQL statements is an inaccurate description for the content of the category. Per the ISO/IEC 9075-n:2003 (SQL) standard, this category lists SQL clauses and other non-statement SQL keywords, as well as SQL statements. A more accurate title for this category would be SQL KeywordsSQL keywords. SqlPac 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but use Category:SQL keywords, according to Wikipedia titling policies. No need to capitalize "Keywords". --GreyCat 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, per GreyCat, rename using Category:SQL keywords. SqlPac 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, per GreyCat, rename using Category:SQL keywords. Nswinton 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated nom to rename to SQL keywords with keywords lowercased. SqlPac 14:44, 27 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: repurpose to talk pages then delete. Sam Blacketer 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Date of birth missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repurpose to talk pages, as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Place of birth missing and considerable other precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Category:Year of birth missing is a defining characteristic and belongs on the article, but the precise date is not so critical, and its presence in article space simply adds to category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least move to talk pages. Haddiscoe 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Neier 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A couple of times, I have actually been motivated to hunt down the information after seeing this category at the bottom of an article. If it had been on the talk page, I doubt I would have noticed it. I don't know if that's sufficient reason to oppose, but I wanted to at least mention it. Xtifr _tälk 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply comment: I would suggest that is for WP:BIOGRAPHY to deal with, perhaps by adding more fields to their elaborate super-banner, such that missing deets like this show up prominently in that banner. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Related idea: What about Category:Living people too? That mega-bloated Überkategorie is utterly useless for anything but WP:BIOGRAPHY maint. purposes, and ((WPBiography)) already has code in it that can be adapted to handle this in about 30 seconds. By contrast, the YYYY births and YYYY deaths cats are arguably useful to readers for timeline comparison purposes. The living people one, way not so. Just kind of bringing it up informally here first before rushing off to slap up a CfD template and so forth, in case I'm being a bonehead and there's a clear reason not to "go there". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have wondered why we have that category. I think that WP:Overcategorization has a point or two which can be applied to it. Also, we don't categorize by "former ", and I thought there was a policy/guideline somewhere that said something to that effect (to not remove someone from a category, just because their status as a XYZ has ended). So, taking that at face value, Category:Living people (in article-space) should contain everyone on Wikipedia. Moving it to the talk pages is a good idea. Neier 12:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the "Living People" cat was because of WP:BLP, which is policy, but I'm not sure about that. Xtifr _tälk 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close discussion - as per suggestion of SMcCandlish, should be a subject for discussion at WP:BIOGRAPHY. Poor nomination which should have used the correct procedure. Rgds, --Trident13 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply comment: You misquote me; I said that doing something with their talk page banner to draw attention for birth/death detail needs is a matter for WP:BIOGRAPHY; nothing at all to do with whether these categories should remain on articles or be repurposed to talk pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:44, 1 May 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: repurpose to talk pages then delete. Sam Blacketer 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Date of death missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repurpose to talk pages, as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Place of birth missing and considerable other precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Category:Year of death missing is a defining characteristic and belongs on the article, but the precise date is not so critical, and its presence in article space simply adds to category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least move to talk pages. Haddiscoe 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Neier 00:20, 27 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: repurpose to talk pages then delete. Sam Blacketer 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Place of death missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repurpose to talk pages, as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Place of birth missing and considerable other precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Place of death is not (in most cases) a defining characteristic, so this useful maintenance categ should not clutter up article space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least move to talk pages. Haddiscoe 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Neier 00:20, 27 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.