< August 27	August 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time Magazine 100 Most Influential People 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inclusion of a yearly subjective list by TIME isn't really worth a category. Peta 23:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining, and a horrible precedent to set, we'll have dozens of these cats adding to the already cat-cluttered-bios. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a published list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete published list violation> Wryspy 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if necessary, Tewfik^Talk 00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list would be better. Julius Sahara 17:20, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Fictional octopi to Category:Fictional octopuses

Nominator's rationale: Merge to correct nomenclature per the octopus article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional octopuses per nom, thought if you wanted to be really pedantic it should be at Category:Fictional octopodes :) Grutness...wha? 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you would be correct if we spoke Greek. But English frequently disregards the rules of languages it borrows from, and, in fact, "octopi" is listed in more dictionaries than "octopodes". (And a dictionary is generally a more reliable source than, not to put too fine a point on it, Wikipedia.) The Wikipedia article is, strictly speaking, wrong. "Octopi" is not "technically incorrect"; it is technically linguistically malformed—but still correct. That said, "Octopuses" is, and should remain, the preferred plural, and should be used throughout Wikipedia. Xtifr _tälk 08:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Perhaps I should have put that smiley in bold and italics. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --This is the English language wikipedia; let's use English language plurals. LeSnail 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, though I admit I'm enjoying the grammar lesson. Tewfik^Talk 00:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Timrollpickering 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is currently only one member. Unless the category has been depopulated dring the debate, I would say Delete as too small & with no prospect of growth. Johnbod 01:44, 2 September 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete. Not a category, seems to have been set up for the sole purpose of containing (promoting?) an article someone created about themselves. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: An article pretending to be a category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:25, 28 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quack medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a rehash of Category:Quackery which was deleted last year for being a pejorative means of categorization. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is suitable and useable. Quack medicine happens and a cat will benefit the reader.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the concept is notable but the title choice is unfortunate, what to? Category:Discredited medical practices and theories or Category:Defunct medical practices and theories or something like that. Carlossuarez46 02:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A good suggestion, perhaps. But the standards for inclusion in such a category need to be rigid. (i.e. Discredited by whom? Entirely discredited or just partially discredited? Etc.) Basically, we can't let this be a subjective category guided by POV. We also have to be mindful not to let this become a Western-centric category insomuch as what the Western world may view as discredited may be considered very credible in the Eastern world. And I think this extends far beyond simply East vs. West. In essence, we have to set a standard for inclusion which doesn't rely on subjectivity. As of now, this existing category only includes one thing. As it is a pejorative, I still think it should be deleted for the time being rather then waiting until when a new category name can be agreed upon. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're throwing around bogus points already covered by Wikipedia policies in order to confuse matters. Not useful. Digwuren 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Fair enough, although there are certain practices that have been fairly debunked universally: Phrenology, and Patent medicine in its more limited meaning - e.g., that which was outlawed by the pure food and drug act in the early 1900s. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent points. I am not sure about Phrenology, though I suspect that it is far and wide considered quackery by nearly the entire world. But with Patent Medicine you bring up an interesting point. Can we blanketly label Patent Medicine as "discredited" or "quackery" even though it included surviving remedies such as Vick's Vaporub and Geritol and Luden's cough drops which have not been discredited by the vast majority? I think it is problematic to label a bag of apples as "bad" when there may be some good apples in the bunch. I think the solution to such a problem is as easy as making the decision not to label the entire bag, but rather each apple individually (i.e. Snake Oil is discredited, whereas Geritol is not). In the meantime, can we have the pejorative category "Quack medicine" deleted? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't like the name either, really, but the concept certainly exists (as does pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, etc., which could be described as perjorative but have survived here, although I don't think that pseudomedicine is a term used in the real world) and the various keepers of the patent medicine days (including those you listed above and Milk of Magnesia) all were compliant with the FDA. Carlossuarez46 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category doesn't appear to be at all like a rehash of Category:Quackery especially given it's scope and editors. Lets see what populates the cat before we start censorship and labeling things pejorative. It should be noted that a bag of bad apples is called a bag of bad apples even if there are some good apples in it. Otherwise it would be a bag of apples (or even good apples) :-). Shot info 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How do you add something to this category? Since "quack medicine" is not a clearly-defined term, we can rely only on whether reliable sources have specifically described something using those words. In and of itself, that becomes quite meaningless (Category:Techniques which one or more sources have described as "quack medicine"). I am not opposed to renaming to a more objective title, if one is suggested (I don't support the above-suggested "discredited" and "defunct" versions, as it raises the question: "by/according to whom"?). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Negative opinion driven, likely to be frequently pushing a reactionary POV & agenda, especially in science v medicine cases, since paradigm shifting science often leads medicine by several generations. Considering how often "mainstream medicine" does polar flip-flops (or belly flops), one could make a case that the category is also somewhat redundant. We already have several overlapping categories for a number of shades of doubt as well as articles & projects for related material, that are constant magnets for attacking additions and ill-defined opinion. We already flushed this kind of Category last year with considerable time lost over 3 months, and added a contentious POV project. Existing categories, [Category:Alternative medical systems], [Category:Alternative medicine]], [Category:Pseudoscience], [Category:Protoscience], [Category:Obsolete medical theories]],[Category:History of medicine], [Category:Obsolete scientific theories|Medical], [Category:Obsolete biological theories|Medical], [Category:Fraud], among others, make this appear already redundant, too. Enough rotten tomatoes & crab apples - flush and forget, again.--TheNautilus 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for administrator. It is believed the I'clast account and TheNautilus account are the same person. See here.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been discussed at length before, Guru's point appears to be some kind of combination Wikistalking and Targeted personal attacks and perhaps Threats, attempting to incite uninformed admins into erroneous assumptions or actions, cause disruption, or to discredit my comments here.--TheNautilus 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. TheNautilus notes his oft-repeated OR motivation here: "...since paradigm shifting science often leads medicine by several generations. Considering how often "mainstream medicine" does polar flip-flops (or belly flops), one could make a case that the category is also somewhat redundant." Wikipedia documents existing POV and paradigms, not unproven so-called protoscience, "paradigm shifting science," wishes for the future, or other forms of OR. His reasoning violates very basic Wikipedia editing policies, and he thus seems to himself be "pushing a reactionary POV & agenda" by wishing Wikipedia would edit "ahead of the curve." This may come as disappointing news, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it will always be "behind the curve," as that is the only place where V & RS documentation exists. -- Fyslee/talk 06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is confused or partisan. Not a crystal ball, a note about the acknowledged, significant time structure (often decades or never) and information lag between accepted science and mainstream medicine, that heavily regulated and commercially influenced medicine is often not scientifically current. That's all, I carefully differentiate the two, and I certainly don't confuse a certain partisan opinion site as a reliable scientific source. Also, historically, there outstanding legal cases that clearly demonstrate the economic and social relationships of some portions of "mainstream" medicine (and its associates), e.g. Wilk v. AMA that go far beyond any considerations of science.--TheNautilus 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When Category:Quackery was discussed, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience was still a new decision, not yet widely understood. That has changed, and now, pseudoscientific categories can stand on a solid ArbCom precedent. Keep.

Furthermore, I would point out that many supposedly medical practices, such as all kinds of patent medicines, as well as court-proven cases of medical fraud from the twentieth century, are unequivocally considered quack medicine and thus, belong to this category. Digwuren 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per arguments of Levine2112 & TheNautilus. Although it would be nice to have such a category for those things that every last one of us would agree are completely bogus, I just don't see any way to restrict this category to only those few items, regardless of what improved name we might come up with. This will be a POV-magnet, par excellence. Much better to deal with the entire subject through the article on Quackery, where at least there's an opportunity to hash things out. And one more thing: I'm not even sure there are actually enough articles out there that would meet that test of true concensus to warrant a category in any event. Cgingold 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How about explicitly applying the criteria of fraud to the category? A supposed medical activity can be filed in Category:Quack medicine if, based on WP:RS, it is possible to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a fraudulent activity. Digwuren 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though one of Carlos' names may work if all is verifiable, Tewfik^Talk 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Delete per Cgingold. MaxPont 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Problematic, subjective. TheDoctorIsIn 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Seems pretty obvious per excellent reasons given by Levine2112 and many others. Appears to be mostly subjective and pejorative labeling in order to push POV. Steth 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Our probelm here is more that the term "quack medicine" refers to "compounds falsly advertised as cures for diseases". Already this leaves out phrenology, because it is not a compound. In this sense, medicine is a noun with "quack" being the adjective. Realistically, the name could be considered an oxymoron because if it is quack then technically it is not medicine. Yes, several patent medicines might fit the category, but realistically, we would have to list them seperately rather than under one category of "patent medicines", because some don't advertise anything wrong, such as Luden's which certainly "soothes the cough" as they say (these are my favorite cough drops because I like cherry). If someone is thinking that "quack medicine" might be a category to place phrenology and the types, then they would be better left under pseudoscience, or historical medical techniques. Regardless, this is a NPOV nightmare that will be hard to determine the reliability of verifiable sources. Too subjective. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an artefact of homology in English language: both the practice of medicine and a medicinal compound are referred to as 'medicine'. This particular definition of quack medicine you're citing is centered on the compound concept, but quack medicine as a concept applies to both. Digwuren 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess then that sounds like the same list as Category:Quackery that was deleted last year for being a pejorative means of categorization as Levine was saying. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep POV pushing from the nominator. Since #1 hits on Google for medical information is invariably Wikipedia, it is important that quack "alternative" medicine is listed as what it is--pseudoscience and unproven. The POV-pushing of pseudoscience on this project is unconscionable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "...it is important that quack "alternative" medicine is listed as what it is--pseudoscience and unproven". And I am the one who is POV pushing? :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:19, 4 September 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protected deleted categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty, made obsolete by Wikipedia:Protected titles. Kbdank71 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless -Flubeca^Talk 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete obsolete project-space cat per CSD:C1, Tewfik^Talk 01:02, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unitarian villages in Transylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Villages in Transylvania, just like villages all over the world, are not divided "by religion". Even if the population of those villages is 99% or 100% Unitarian, the villages themselves will not be "Unitarian" (and the same would go for any other religion, Orthodox, Catholic, or Buddhist). Furthermore, those "villages" are actually communes. Dahn 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but relevant list & info should be added to Unitarian Church of Transylvania Johnbod 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable approach. One could also consider adapting the present-day categorization to a Category:Unitarian Church of Transylvania, but I'm not sure if all the articles concerned can be/should be moved there. Dahn 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - are the communes officially Unitarian and if so should they be categorized as such? Otto4711 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't - not according to either present or past legislation, and the same goes for all other religions/communes. I don't even know if they all have Unitarian majority at the present time. Dahn 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ they have Unitarian majority. The villages were converted with the overlord, to who they belong to. This part of Transylvania was Unitarian, Little farther Calvinists, further to the East Catholics (in Csik e.g. - there are no Calvinists and no Unitarians) in bigger towns there were settled also Pravoslav Rumanians, as officials, policeforce. Of course, the country is not officially Pravoslav and the villages are not Unitarians officially. But Ireland is not Catholics either officially, but you know they are in fact. So are Rumanians Pravoslav, Saxons Lutherans, Hungarians in Csik Catholics, in the Partium Calvinists and here Unitarians. Svabians also Catholics, Tatars Muslims, etc. --Vargatamas 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• the villages have most one Unitarian Church, no other, populated by 90-100% Hungarian Unitarians with no other religion (apart from Rumanian policemen, to whom in some villages Pravoslav churches were erected in the 1920s). It helps users to e.g. from article Unitarism to find the physical places if to visit or imagine. The Churches are medieval, one part of UNESCO World Heritage. I do not think all non-Rumanian sites in Rumania are to be deleted, especially 1,4 million Hungarians living still in the country, and of which 80-100.000 are Unitarians. As Unitarian I created teh link, because I thought it useful to other Unitarians as well, not necessary is it to Pravoslavs. --Vargatamas 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vargatamas: you are mixing up nationality, creed and religion, and you seem not to be aware of the fact that, even though many categories could be created, they shouldn't all be created. As a side note, ethnic Romanians are themselves many things (not just "Pravoslavs"), and bringing this issue up is equivalent to poisoning the well. Although I'm non-religious, I too would fit under your definition of "Pravoslav" - you imply that I'm not "interested" in this subject, you imply that I'm biased, you imply that I'm hostile, and yet it was I who created the article on the Unitarian Church of Transylvania. To explain myself further: the connection between a place and a religion (any religion) should perhaps be evident for holy places and the like, but places with an x majority do not become "x cities", unless this usage is validated by some other criterion than "what Vargatamas though is relevant" - in this case and most others, an objective one would be a law, but there is no such law. For the "interesting" argument, see WP:INTERESTING. Dahn 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those trying to decipher Tamas' screed: by "Pravoslav" he means "Orthodox", but anyway it's odd he uses that term, since the Hungarian equivalent is "Ortodox". No one is proposing that "all non-Rumanian sites in Rumania ... be deleted", so please relax and let's follow policy. Biruitorul 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think some variant of Jonbod's suggestion should be adopted. However, as Romania is, to my regret, an officially secular state, this category is foolish. Even if those communes are inhabited by 90-100% Unitarians, they are not Unitarian in any official sense, and such a category obscures that fact. Biruitorul 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please, change the title communities instead of villages, valid category, do not understand move to delet it --Vargatamas 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with additions to the article along the lines of Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yesterday, I created the Category:Unitarian Church of Transylvania, which hopefully addresses the issue. Dahn 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I am entitled to determine who is what. I honestly believe it is the ABSOLUTE right of the person to decide who he is. For Pravoslav, I did not meant to hurt, since majority of the subject religion defines himself, proudly, Pravoslav.

Sorry, if you conceived hurt, it was not meant so. I come from Budapest, there in Szentendre there are Pravoslav Serbs. The word Orthodox for me it is an adjective, and my first association is Orthodox or Neolog Judaism. What I read from Euagrius Scholasticus or Socrates, they defined themselves Catholic.

But as said everybody should determine for her/himself.

The worst thing is to press someone be different then he belives to be. And that is what was done to Transylvanian Hungarians in the recent past (fortunately it slowly changes with democracy in Rumania).

I got irritated that someone just delete my entries, without any suggestion, and when I try to trace him, I see he is supporting any kind of justified separation movements except the one in his own country. For me in that moment it was similar to the billboard in Cluj (say welcome in 20 languages, except Hungarian, when 19% of the population, ca 60.000 people in the same city are Hungarians). and I assumed some malice. And on the other hand "List of Transylvanian Saxon localities" disturbs nobody for example.

Why cannot you ceate collection of Maya towns in Mexico, Muslim villages in Bosnia, Basque villages in France, Aroumanian villages in Greece or Unitarian villages in Transylvania or Csango villages in Moldva? If the population of the place justifies it (you did not question this), 90% or more belongs to the same group, declared who would oppose I thought? Only who has national feelings agains would oppress this attemt.

The solution what was proposed I find fine, but the first attempt to eliminate it not. --Vargatamas 20:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamas, you begin with an explanation to nuance your position, which almost got me thinking that I overreacted. But then you end up with "Only [the person] who has national feelings agains[t] would oppress this attem[p]t", which again implies that all people voting "delete" here have something against a particular culture.

I have already answered why wikipedia does not accept subjective categorizations, as valid as they may seem to you (and all your answers here rely on personal assessments - in breach of policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV). I also created a category to cover what can be rescued from your category, in a more wikipedia-like manner. Furthermore, if you start exploring the implications of the system you propose above, you will note perhaps that it is bound to be absurd (for one, just try and picture it for New York City or Paris). We have both stated our opinions about the article, you have insisted on questioning people's motivations. I and all others have shown good faith, and have since met all of the concerns you raised that were in any way relevant. As far as I'm concerned, continuing this discussion would merely take up space. Dahn 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added what seems to be the pertinent information to Unitarian Church of Transylvania, in two para (all one edit). I'm neutral on the new category, but it might be questioned (partly on the grounds used against this one) so the info is now in the article anyway. Johnbod 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A note on the new "Unitarian Church of Transylvania" category: the category is, I believe, valid - meaning that the articles on the communes themselves might not belong there, but at least three other articles do. It is also conceivable that articles on the churches themselves will be created at some point - for both the communes cited and places such as Braşov.

It is also conceivable that we will have articles on at least some Transylvanian Unitarians other than the founder, and they could be included in a subcat (as in Category:Romanian Orthodox Church).

I have tried my best to fill in or streamline the Romania-related religion articles and categories of all creeds, but getting them all on the same level will likely take time, and the few people interested (me included) cannot maintain a constant level of interest. Especially since messy articles and categories such as this one pop up continuously. Dahn 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this intersection, as I find it hard to believe that Unitarian Transylvanian village is a unique and enyclopaedic concept. At best, if there were some official regime of religious communities, a general category on the phenomena within the country might be in order. Tewfik^Talk 01:06, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy Central Roast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - contained a bunch of stub articles for the various roasts which I've merged and redirect to the main article. No need for the category. Otto4711 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. Wryspy 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per extensive precedent, Tewfik^Talk 01:06, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Category not needed for the small amount of material. Otto4711 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per extensive precedent, Tewfik^Talk 01:07, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LCD Soundsystem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:La 5ª Estación (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Left For Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Legendary Pink Dots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Lemonheads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Les Cowboys Fringants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Les Variations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Level 42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Liberators (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:Limp Bizkit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Live (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:Luna Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Luttenberger*Klug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lynch Mob (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lynyrd Skynyrd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories consists of some combination of the following subcats: albums; members; songs; (and in several cases no subcats) along with the artist's category and in some instances a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. The only exception is LCD Soundsystem which has James Murphy (electronic musician) in it. Murphy is LCD Soundsystem and the two articles are interlinked through text so the category isn't needed just for his article. Otto4711 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dahn 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lordi has been linked here, but isn't listed above. If Otto4711 could confirm that he intends the same fate for the cat? BTW, I vote to delete per nom, although I wonder if it's really nescescary to split them into albums, members etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sorry, I missed listing Lordi here. It is now listed above. Otto4711 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps I've missed a previous precedent. I monitor the Lillix articles, and noticed Otto resorting the articles into "member" and "album" categories, where all Lillix articles used to be in the main "Lillix" category. I then find this, where he says this master category should be deleted because of overcategorisation? Wouldn't there be no overcat'ing if those subcats hadn't been made? I just find this unusual. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the conventions of Category:Albums by artist, Category:Songs by artist and Category:Musicians by band, albums, songs and band members are sorted into categories and placed as subcategories of that structure. There weren't any for Lillix so I created them and placed the appropriate articles in them. Otto4711 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. This is why I'm an article editor and not a category editor. Still, it seems less-than-useful for similar categories to not be tied together under a common theme, but c'est la vie. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per extensive precedent. The connections that you seek, Hunster, would be in article-space. Tewfik^Talk 01:09, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Alleynians to Category:Old Alleynians (Dulwich College)

Propose renaming Category:Old Cholmeleians to Category:Old Cholmeleians (Highgate School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Clavians to Category:Old Clavians (Bury Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Elizabethans to Category:Old Elizabethans (Royal Grammar School Worcester)

Propose renaming Category:Old Fullerians to Category:Old Fullerians (Watford Grammar School for Boys)

Propose renaming Category:Old Gowers to Category:Old Gowers (University College School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Gregorians to Category:Old Gregorians (Downside School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Mancunians to Category:Old Mancunians (Manchester Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Priorians to Category:Old Priorians (St Benedict's School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Stoics to Category:Old Stoics (Stowe School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Verlucians to Category:Old Verlucians (Warminster School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Waconians to Category:Old Waconians (Cheadle Hulme School)

Propose renaming Category:Old Waynfletes to Category:Old Waynfletes (Magdalen College School, Oxford)

Propose renaming Category:Old Wykehamists to Category:Old Wykehamists (Winchester College)

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The terms for former pupils of individual British schools can be deeply confusing and this in turn makes the categories on pages confusing - see the previous CFD Old Citizens which renamed it to Old Citizens (City of London School). Another category where the name of the Old Pupil doesn't immediately reflect the school name so clarity is provided is Christ's Hospital Old Blues. These categories are amongst the most confusing and should have the names modified to include reference to the school's name for consistency. Timrollpickering 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Johnbod 14:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and previous discussions. Otto4711 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. Old Citizens was a special case because of the double-meaning of "Citizen". On the same day as the Old Citizens discussion, this discussion led to the renaming of "Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys" as "Old Fullerians". Similarly, the Christ's Hospital category was previously just "Old Blues" and was renamed in this discussion as "Old Blues" could have led to confusion with Oxford and Cambridge Blues. To extrapolate from the Old Citizens and Old Blues discussions a general rule that such categories should include the school name if it's not obvious from the name of the category is to go too far. Any potential confusion about what the category is for should be dispelled when the category is browsed (e.g. the text at Category:Old Wykehamists: "Former pupils of Winchester College. The abbreviation OW is sometimes used for an Old Wykehamist.") The proposed renames are cumbersome and unnecessary. Bencherlite^Talk 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to category:Alumni of (X school). This has always struck me as an unnecessarily twee exception to a generally useful rule of naming people in a neutral manner. We don't categorize alumni of Duke into Category:Blue Devils, we put them in Category:Duke University alumni. I don't see why British schools, no matter how ancient their traditions, constitute the sole exceptions to this approach. (I also think we will eventually want to decide whether the British categorization of "Alumni of (X school)" or the everywhere-else categorization of "(X school) alumni" wins out, but that can wait till another nomination.)--Mike Selinker 00:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom for clarity. Also oppose use of the term alumni which is not used in the UK. Standardisation is one thing, but using the terms that the people concerned use should take precedence. --Bduke 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename, per Bencherlite. If this multiple proposal is successful, then for consistency many more of the English school categories which now have succinct and unambiguous names should be renamed on the same pattern, making them more unwieldy than they need to be. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions under Use common names of persons and things: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I regret Mike Selinker's comments: it seems the Brits should learn to do things the American way? If he were successful in his proposal, that would overturn at a stroke these three very relevant recent CfD discussions -
  1. Category:Old Blues (begun 20 May 2007) - this resulted in the category name Christ's Hospital Old Blues (instead of the proposed Christ's Hospital alumni)
  2. Category:Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys (begun 23 June 2007) - this resulted in a change from the category name Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys to Old Fullerians
  3. Category:Old Citizens (also begun 23 June 2007) - this resulted in the category name Old Citizens being changed to Old Citizens (City of London School) instead of to the proposed Alumni of City of London School.

Bencherlite has already explained why Old Citizens and Old Blues were special cases. I supported their renaming to Old Citizens (City of London School) and Christ's Hospital Old Blues (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, to avoid conflict with the names of other people or things), but that argument does not apply to any of the present nominations. Xn4 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I'm afraid Mike Selinker is mistaken when he says "I don't see why British schools, no matter how ancient their traditions, constitute the sole exceptions to this approach" - see Category:People by school in Australia. He also refers to "the British categorization of "Alumni of (X school)" ", by which he means (X college or university). The British use of the word 'school' doesn't include what the US refers to as 'college', and 'alumni' isn't a British use, either, it's a word hardly ever used in the UK. Most of these categories were renamed from Former students of (X college or university), no doubt for consistency with the US usage. Xn4 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment "Alumni" is very commonly used in the UK, but exclusively for former pupils of universities. See [Google search of the UK domain where the only "schools" in the first 100 results are departments of universities or constituent colleges of the University of London. Timrollpickering 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename for reasons of clarity, brevity, correct usage, consistency, and in accord with previous discussions as mentioned above. As for the alumni proposal, this is not used in British English, and I understand that WP policy is to use British English when writing about British subject-matter. DuncanHill 08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - Oppose renaming as per Bencherlite. This change would detract from the correct usage - as long as the category has the school name on the category page this is sufficient. Kernel Saunters 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are not opposing the nomination, you are are opposing Mike Selinkers interjection, which ignores previous discussions & misses several points, as others are pointing out. (Parts of previous comment since removed) Johnbod 11:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reject the nom. I've adjusted my entry to make it clearer. Kernel Saunters 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • How are "Old Elizabethans", "Old Mancunians" and "Old Stoics", to take but three, any more clear than "Old Citizens" which needed to be renamed? Timrollpickering 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that, as with many English words and expressions, they are clear once you know what they mean, although no doubt those three are less well known and less obvious than (say) Old Etonian or Old Wellingtonian. No one would say that the word existentialism is unclear because its meaning isn't immediately obvious to most people, or because at first sight it could suggest something else. Xn4 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as a deviation from normal British usage. Even changing "Old Citizens" was dubious, and the argument that the names are confusing is weaker in every one of these cases than it was in that case, including the three listed above. Alex Middleton 11:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, before anyone else accuses me of being anti-British, please understand that my proposal is based on this: no one outside the UK has any idea what these categories mean. The phrase "Old (unfamiliar word)ians" doesn't convey anything to someone not familiar with the "old boy" system. Timrollpickering's suggestion is a large step to solving that, and it should be implemented in absense of a greater effort to bring these categories in line with the naming system that works for every nation outside the UK and Australia. I would embrace "graduates," "former pupils," "attendees," or any other phrasing that actually made the category names make sense to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter.--Mike Selinker 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - Oppose renaming as per Bencherlite. If there is confusion, let the confused reader consult the category. -- roundhouse0 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to some form containing the school names, be it Timrollpickering's hybrid proposal, or something else like alumni, pupils, students, or attendees. Whenever possible, the general subject of a category should be apparent to all readers based on its title, and not require further investigation. In this case, we're able to make it clear that these are school attendance based categories. ×Meegs 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose disambiguation, which is not the proper method for relieving the tension between maintaining the "old" (which I realise was confirmed in CfD) and the lack of clarity it causes. Yes, I also disagree with the prior discussion. Tewfik^Talk 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hybrid names such as those suggested above are unecessary unless the category could be easily mistaken for something else (as with Citizens or Blues). Otherwise there is minimal amount of effort involved in clicking on the link and finding out what the category means. When it is necessary to do so, I prefer the Christ's Hospital model, elimintating the brackets (which I think are a bit ugly).--Jackyd101 07:52, 4 September 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete, we should not categorize people by the language they speak, nor by opinion or advocacy. If necessary, there is already a list of speakers/advocates at Esperantist. Kbdank71 14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this seems like overcategorization on the basis of opinion or advocacy. Inclusion criteria, based on the definition of Esperantist in the article, seems rather arbitrary. Otto4711 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom OCAT by opinion. Carlossuarez46 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the definition is indeed rather vague, the core meaning is clearly people who actually spoke or used Esperanto. The nomination is therefore misleading in bringing in "overcategorization on the basis of opinion or advocacy". I suppose we don't have many categories based on languages-spoken, as they are normally covered by national or ethnic ones. But better arguments for deletion are needed. Johnbod 11:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that as the core definition at all. I can only go by what the lead article says, and it says An Esperantist is a person who participates in the diffusion of Esperanto. Etymologically, an Esperantist is someone who hopes. A person who speaks Esperanto is an Esperantist because speaking the language encourages its diffusion. However, Esperantists do not necessarily speak Esperanto or speak it well, as there are other ways to support the language besides speaking it. The term may also imply somebody disposed towards Esperanto without strictly implying a partisan of Esperanto. So an Esperantist can be someone who simply likes Esperanto. The Esperantist article lists John Paul II as an Esperantist because he delivered a single benediction in Esperanto along with dozens of other languages in 1994. It lists Pele because he once said that he thought Esperanto would be useful in international sport. True, neither of them is categorized on that basis, but why couldn't they be based on the definition posited? Otto4711 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, I think John Paul II would be someone that should be listed in this category. He addressed the 50th meeting of the international Catholic Esperanto union (IKUE) in 1997, and it is reported that he made several addresses using Esperanto. Being Polish, living in the birthplace of Esperanto, he would have been in a great place to pick it up when he was younger. He not only spoke the language, but advocated it. That being said, I think there are some people in the category that do not deserve to be there: For example: According to this article in Libera Folio, Leena Peisa really only parroted the language when she was a background singer for Dolchamar. -- Yekrats 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had wondered if her name would come up (although I will only ever refer to her as 'Awa'). If you don't mind, while I apreciate she didn't know the language other than a few odd bits she picked up with the band (which don't exactly count) I would apreciate it if you treated her with a bit more respect than to say she "really only parroted the language"; it's unnesesary, and could just as easily have been said as "She sang backing in Esperanto with Dolchamar, but doesn't actually speak the language." Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant no disrespect to Ms. Awa. My brain was thinking in Esperanto and the word "parrot" means in Esperanto "one who sings in Esperanto, but doesn't really know the language". Sorry, no disrespect intended. -- Yekrats 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, it has a meaning of it's own in Esperanto. You are completely forgiven. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Johnbod, categorization based on ability to speak a language is really unnecessary and unwise: (a) how well must one speak it to get so categorized; (b) what WP:RSes tell us that the person speaks it at least that well; (c) it is not really defining. The ethnic and nationality categories are poor proxies for language abilities: many people in Category:German Americans speak no German, and many people who are from Wales speak little or no Welsh, and then we have some countries that have multiple official languages so what linguistic ability should be inferred from membership in Category:Swiss people? Carlossuarez46 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to suggest that you think the speaking of languages is not suitable material for categorisation under any circumstances. I think this is going too far, and whilst I accept there are difficulties with verification etc, I think that this category avoids many of them. It is never likely to be huge, and there are at least no native Esperanto speakers, so that cannot be made a test. Johnbod 15:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or change name: The ambiguity of the name seems to be a problem. The category page itself has no summary of who is to be included, but that wouldn't really solve the problem, as any editor could edit the summary. If there's an argument that we need a category for those who speak Esperanto, as Johnbod suggests, then I'm with Carlossuarez46. There are tens of thousands of wikibiographies, and once you start categorizing all those people by the ability to speak (or not speak) certain languages, then you're in deep waters. If, on the other hand, Category:Esperantists is about the active advocacy of Esperanto, I have less of a problem with it, but then in my view the name of the category should be changed to reflect that. Xn4 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as this is clearly and verifiably about Esperantists, as this is more an activity than an opinion. Tewfik^Talk 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But indeed, this category should include people who have played a significant role in the Esperanto movement. It should definitely nót include people who just happen to speak the language, nor should it include politicians or other celebrities who've said something nice about the language in the past. The category itself, whatever its name, is definitely warranted. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, and as an Esperantist myself, I agree that it should only be for people that knew or used the language. To speak Esperanto is to advocate for it. -- Yekrats 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and devolop guidlines for the use of the category. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the category is useful for compiling the list of eminent Esperanto-speakers. I am sure there is a plenty of those, who would like to have a look at such a list while reading the article about Esperanto or Esperantist. --Alaudo 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - categories are not lists (WP:CLS) and categories based on speaking a language are not a good idea. Otto4711 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily that is certainly the case; as I said above national & ethnic categories deal with these matters much better. But clearly Esperanto is a unique case, which does not create a precedent. Johnbod 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a valuable category for such a language. AllyD 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a useful category for finding articles about Esperantists. The category bears some resemblence to national and ethnic categories, and deserves existence just like those categories deserve existence, despite of the obvious differences between belonging to a nation and being an Esperantist. Marcoscramer 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Esperantists are people who speak the language. Category:Esperantists lists people who whether advocate for it or worked for or in Esperanto (writers, scientists, linguists, musicians, singers, actors, ...). It's as an overcategory for Esperanto writers, Esperanto actors, etc as we have categories for french writers or dutch musicians and so on. Arno Lagrange ✉ 07:02, 4 September 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lollipop Lust Kill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - everything in it is an album and already housed in Category:Lollipop Lust Kill albums. Otto4711 13:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 01:25, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Doesn't meet the exception laid out in the guideline. Everything is for people associated with him in some way and are interlinked appropriately. If kept should be renamed to Category:Franz Liszt. Otto4711 13:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added the compositions cat as a sub-cat, thus expanding the category contents greatly. If kept should be renamed per nom. Not sure about keep/delete yet. Johnbod 13:18, 28 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major Media Scandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Journalism scandals, convention of Category:Scandals, or Delete as subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective: a "scandal" by the category's definition is one that leads to the firing of someone. Since different media handle personnel matters differently (and have different standards of ethics or integrity), it is a somewhat random assortment of scandals. Notably, the fake Hitler Diaries is not categorized here because those who authenticated them weren't fired. Then we get to debate whether the organization is "major media" or not. Carlossuarez46 14:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Invites rampant mislabelling for POV reasons. We deleted a similar category several weeks ago (I think it was something like "Journalistic fraud", iirc). The problem is that the great majority of people don't make the necessary distinction between "fraud", "hoax" or "scandal", etc. and "controversy", which is the more accurate term in most instances. Case in point: the creator of this very category placed the article Killian documents (about the Dan Rather/George Bush/Vietnam War brouhaha) in this category, because that suited him politically. Which supports the inference that there was a POV agenda behind the creation of the category, IMO. (I just learned about this on his talk page. There probably should be a Category:Journalism controversies, but I would rather start from scratch on that. Cgingold 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subjective. Dahn 15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subjective. Putting an article in this category would violate WP:NPOV. And the name of the category is confusing. I initially thought the "Major" referred to "Major scandal" but apparently it refers to "Major Media", a phrase I'm unfamiliar with. --Pixelface 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation if we could articulate criteria which are not fraught with these problems of subjectivity. Tewfik^Talk 01:30, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soleilmoon label to Category:Soleilmoon artists

Nominator's rationale: Rename - everything in the category except the label article is artists. Rename to clarify. Otto4711 12:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per music conventions, Tewfik^Talk 01:31, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Afghan politicians, per conventions of Category:Politicians by country, plus discussions of July 27th and August 20th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Dahn 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. LeSnail 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per convention, Tewfik^Talk 01:32, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ray Lamontagne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Main article plus album subcat doesn't need an eponymous category. Otto4711 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per music conventions, Tewfik^Talk 01:33, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Denny Laine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline and everything in the category is appropriately interlinked through the main article and elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 12:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per music conventions, Tewfik^Talk 01:33, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete as empty and as creator had made mistake. Bduke 11:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian Philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I created this category, gave it an inappropriate name (capital P) and didn't realise there was an equivalent page Category:Indian philosophy because it was not in the philosophy by region category. I.e. I messed up. Anarchia 10:24, 28 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: I think this category is a bad idea. This category was created due to a dispute between two editors over the proper usage of the word "documentary." One editor's opinion was that certain films should be called "reality films" and one editor provided sources that referred to them as documentaries).[1] No sources have ever been provided that refer to any of the films in this category as "reality films", with the possible exception of The Real Cancun -- which was called "the world's first reality feature film" by it's distributor, New Line Cinema: It's fun and sexy, unscripted and uncensored. It's The Real Cancun, the world's first reality feature film. Produced by the creators of "The Real World" and "Road Rules," this film brings together 16 people for eight days in a beachfront Mexican villa for the ultimate Spring Break vacation.[2] I don't think the film's marketing department counts as a reliable source. The encyclopedia entry for The Real Cancun refers to it as a documentary, as does the Internet Movie Database[3], Metacritic[4], Rotten Tomatoes[5], Box Office Mojo[6], and All Movie Guide[7]. Joel Stein of TIME magazine said "Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap"[8], but he never directly called The Real Cancun a "reality film." Tom Ryan of The Age wrote an article[9] and used the phrase "Reality film" as the title of his article -- not as an all-encompassing category of all the films he mentioned. Even if we accept New Line's Cinema claim that The Real Cancun is a "reality feature film", that's still not quite "reality film" and this category would only have 1 article in it. Please see Talk:Reality_film#Comment by Pixelface for my long comment on the topic. Pixelface 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too few reliable sources label films as reality films. I think established categories (such as Category:Films based on television series and Category:Comedy films) verifiably describe movies like Jackass without resorting to our original editorial judgment. (Note: it would be almost as dubious to label some of these movies "documentaries," as partisans on the opposite side might wish, but that's a debate for individual articles; this category has no use at all.) Cool Hand Luke 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant, subjective category per above. Wryspy 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective etc. per nom, Tewfik^Talk 01:36, 31 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was wrong forum - nominator was trying to nominate Image:Avery Small(Football Warrior).jpg for deletion at WP:IFD, it seems - no such category, anyway. (Non-admin action) Bencherlite^Talk 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avery Small(Football Warrior).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: nonsense, self promotion PGPirate 05:52, 28 August 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 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 below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parody characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Aside from being quite broad (the category may well include every character in every comedy), it is difficult to actually prove that a character is a parody of someone else (real or fictional) without delving into original research. The only possible exceptions are cases like Saddam Hussein (South Park) and when the character's creator explicitly states: "X is a parody of Y". Thus, I think that the inclusion criteria for this category are not objective enough. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 14:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV, insanely broad category lacking objective inclusion criteria. Wryspy 04:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "insanely broad category" :-) Tewfik^Talk 01:37, 31 August 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.