< February 13	February 15 >

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Category:Year of birth missing has some value in connection with Category:Living people, this is simply category clutter. There is no navigational, legal or practical value in adding such a category to most articles about people born before say 1700, and to thousands of articles about those born more recently. There is more point noting that this info is missing than in using something like Category:People whose height can't be given because they are dead and no-one wrote it down while they were alive. Choalbaton 23:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This a very useful category for biographical articles: it indicates that there is belived no reliable evidence as to the person's date of birth, and provides a useful distinction to Category:Year of birth missing, which is used when an editor doesn't have a source, but doesn't have evidence that the the d.o.b. cannot be found.
The comparison with height is, I'm afraid, fatuous: we don't categorise people by height, but d.o.b. is a fundamental piece of biographical data, and its absence is a notable attribute indicating gaps in the scholarship. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a clarification of Category:Year of birth missing, it is a totally separate system that has nothing to do with years. AshbyJnr 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops! my mistake, thanks for pointing it out. Revised vote below. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe it works well as a collection of people who are missing birth dates, and allows a Wikipedian to go through and attempt to find the dates as matter of intellectual exercise. If the information is found, it is useful for that particular biography. Neonblak 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Year of birth unknown does that. AshbyJnr 14:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Useful for biographical (although some set of "circa" ranges would probably ultimately be more useful). BrownHairedGirl is right -- DOB != height, and DOB unknown != height unknown. --lquilter 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Delete - Early comments represented inadequate investigation on my part; I assumed this was primarily used for year of birth missing. Now I see it's for date of birth missing, and I don't think that's a particularly useful category. --lquilter 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most articles are missing much information, and this is not a particularly important item. Birthdays are basically trivial; would we understand Cleopatra's role in history better if we knew when her birthday was? AshbyJnr 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't make any sense to tie people together in a category based on the fact that we don't know their birthdays. Coemgenus 16:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is essentially an internally used category for editors dedicated to maintaining biographical articles. The difference, to an editor, between "Year of birth missing" and "Year of birth unknown" is that in the former case an editor knows he might be able to find the missing information with a little digging. But in the latter case, he knows that it's probably fruitless to look for the missing information and he can instead focus on a different task. So while the difference doesn't matter much to a general reader, it probably makes a difference to the people actually actively maintaining the articles and looking to fill in missing information. (I don't use it much personally, though, so I'm going to refrain from recommending keep or delete.) Dugwiki 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neural, changing my vote. I had misread the nomination and responded as if the categ being discssed here was Category:Year of birth unknown. :(
I have never bothered using Category:Date of birth unknown, but I can see a case for it, particularly for biogs of prominent people. Do we have any evidence as to whether editors are actually using it? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I use Date of birth and Date of death UNKNOWN categories instead of Date of Birth and Date of Death MISSING. At most i think the MISSING categories should get Merged in the UNKNOWN categories, no need for both. Neonblak 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing useful about such a random category. Haddiscoe 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category might be tolerable on talk pages, but it just gets in the way on article pages. Hanbrook 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. semper fictilis 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LukeHoC 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Date of birth unknown has lasted seven months and accumulated 162 entries although, unfortunately more than half of those entries are there incorrectly and belong in the Category:Year of birth unknown. That confusion on the part of some editors does not, however, make the case for this category's deletion. Category:Date of birth unknown exists by analogy with Category:Date of death unknown. Both categorize biographical entries of long-ago individuals whose birth and/or death years are known to history, but the months and days of their birth, the months and days of their death, or the months and days of both their birth and death have never been documented or have been lost to history. The months and days in question almost always belong to years before the 20th century, athough again, there are rare exceptions, such as in the case of 20th century orphans and foundlings who grew up to become notables, or recent notables who were born in remote parts of the world where recording of such specific calendar information is not customary. The confusion for many editors is in the use of the word "date", which they take to mean "month/day/year", but in this context means only "month/day". The proper categories for most long-ago individuals are the all-inclusive Category:Year of birth unknown and Category:Year of death unknown which, again in this context, mean "month/day/and year of birth unknown" and "month/day/and year of death unknown". The "year unknown" categories should be used with individuals whose biographical entries do not indicate years of birth and/or death, or indicate "(flourished 13th century)" or "(circa 1411—circa 1466)". Further uncertainty for many editors, as judged by some of the comments, is caused by the four "missing" categories. Category:Date of birth missing (which, in this context, means "reasonably recent and/or living individuals whose year of birth is indicated, but month and day of birth are missing") is thought by some editors to mean "month, day and year of birth missing". If all those are missing for recent individuals, then the proper category is Category:Year of birth missing. The other two "missing" categories are the cause of similar uncertainty. Category:Date of death missing is, again, for recent individuals whose year of death is indicated, but not the month and day. If the year of death is not indicated, Category:Year of death missing is applicable. Still more uncertainty is caused by numerous editors making no distinction between "missing" and "unknown", and categorizing living or recently deceased individuals whose months and days are missing into the "Date unknown" or "Year unknown" categories. There are also related problems with Category:Place of birth missing, Category:Place of birth unknown, Category:Place of death missing, Category:Place of death unknown and Category:Cause of death missing (no analogous "unknown" category). Finally, to return to the matter at hand, if this category is deleted, how do we categorize this aspect of Domenico Ghirlandaio (1449—January 11 1494)? His year of birth is known to historians, but the date of birth (month and day) will, most likely, always remain undocumented. If it's historically trivial to specify such minutiae, then let us say so.Romanspinner(talk) 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unworkable and confusing. Metamagician3000 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Romanspinner. Valrith 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Romanspinner. Lesnail 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems helpful/useful enough. Pastorwayne 12:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Romanspinner. --Mais oui! 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely useless for readers. Wimstead 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no meaningful connection between these people. Craig.Scott 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. the wub "?!" 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Fictional sociopaths with Category:Fictional psychopaths under the name of the latter category. The only difference between the two classifications is that sociopaths are thought to have become such as a strict result of environment, while genetics are thought to have a role in creating psychopaths; the character concept is the same in both, and the latter seems to be the term more commonly used--208.190.153.237 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - See also CFD for fictional megalomaniacs. The same sort of POV and OR issues would apply to these categories as well. Otto4711 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - These categories encourage editors to guess at the psychological states of fictional characters, thus suffering from original research issues. Many fictional murderers may be mislabeled as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths" or whatever. Using a simple term ("murderer") would be preferable. (Are real people categorized this way? If not, then fictional characters should not be categorized like this.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per User:Otto4711 TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Although either term could potentially be applied appropriately, I don't see it happening. Even people who read the psychopath/sociopath articles fail to understand the terms. These are not the preferred modern diagnostic terms anyway. Doczilla 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least one if not both - The way this is presented seems more appropriate then a list of fictional sociopaths/psychopaths, which would be an alternative to this unique collection. --Grace E. Dougle 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semper fictilis 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as requested Most people wouldn't know the difference between the distinction. Bbagot 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanley Cup Playoffs to Category:Stanley Cup

Merge - Category:Stanley Cup is not so bloated with articles that the articles for the various playoffs and championships need to be separately categorized. Otto4711 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very usefull category to keep categories from getting jumbled up and into a mess. --Djsasso 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three articles in "Stanley Cup" and 18 additional articles in "Stanley Cup Playoffs". How jumbled up could the category possibly get? Otto4711 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are only that many. But the Stanley cup has been held for over 100 years. The potential number of articles is way higher. Especially since these articles are being actively created as we speak. --Djsasso 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Stanley Cup playoffs have been held for over a century. Given that there are over 100 potential articles, this would be a bad merge. 132.205.44.134 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very useful. Clean seperation for future expansion of Stanley Cup playoffs articles. Neonblak 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep semper fictilis 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a parallel nomination to the CFD for Finnish Stanley Cup winners. The Stanley Cup championship is not won by individuals. It is won by teams. The justification for this category is that it contains players whose names are engraved on the cup. However, given that no one person can win the Stanley Cup championship himself, given that the Stanley Cup champions are listed by team and not individuals by the NHL and given that Lord Stanley specified that the names of the winning teams, not players, were to be engraved on the cup, there is little justification in categorizing individual players as the winners.. Otto4711 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In hockey culture when someone talks about a "Stanley Cup champion" they more often than not mean an individual not the team. When they mean the team they will say a "Stanley Cup championship team". They are two very different things. Unlike other sports winners of the Stanley Cup actually get to bring home the trophy for a day. --Djsasso 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - their names are engraved on the cup, and they are referred to as such. It is also a significant distinction in the hockey world, to have won a Stanley Cup (note won a Stanley Cup is also used referencing individuals). 132.205.44.134 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are too many categories on ice hockey players' articles and it is hard for non-experts to know which ones really matter, but I don't see how the fact that they are allowed to take the cup home for a day makes this a more meaningful way of selecting leading players than such a category would be in other sports. Choalbaton 23:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not useful in this manner. Individuals in MLB are seperated better, example: 1919 Cincinnati Reds World Series Championship Team. This way, it is rightfully seperated by team, and it also will give the individual the championship credit. Neonblak 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell they were starting to categorize them that way but its looking like those articles are about to get killed because people think they should be listed like this instead. So its quite possible that both ways end up getting deleted. --Djsasso 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per djsasso. Get rid of that finnish category though, that's just too specific. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djsasso. --Mais oui! 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this, but merge the Finnish winners into it. Tim! 07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category will mislead people into thinking that it includes the most notable players, when it doesn't necessarily do any such thing. It is essentially random and trivial, incorrectly defining individuals on the basis of team achievements. AshbyJnr 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it does include the most notable players. Anyone that has won the cup has become one of the most notable players. That is how winners of the Stanley cup are looked at. --Djsasso 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all 2200-plus of the most notable players. Otto4711 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of the 10's of thousands who have competed for it. In fact I would go as far as to say that if you have won the Stanley cup or not is the single most defining characteristic of any given player. --Djsasso 05:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't for the life of me see how this category could "mislead" anyone unless that person hadn't the faintest clue about hockey nomenclature, and last I heard, Wikipedia's purpose is not to pander to dummies. While I agree that indeed the Cup is won by teams, not individuals, calling individuals "Stanley Cup champions" is a well-known turn of phrase, whatever Lord Stanley's century-old intentions, which of course we cannot now gauge. Further, to a degree not often present in other team sports, the hockey world assesses a player's career and worth in terms of whether or not he has been on a Stanley Cup winning-team. Therefore this category is worthwhile. Finally, excuse me, but when did Wikipedia enact a threshold for how many people were allowed to be notable, and where is this, please, so I might see it for myself? RGTraynor 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this ridiculous category. Scarcely worth a list either. Hanbrook 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. semper fictilis 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning a Stanley Cup is probably the single most defining thing most of these people will do in their lifetimes. Since they are engraved it's easy to know who should be in the cat or not. Articles (rather than cats) should also be created for each championship team but that doesn't mean this cat can't exist. Kevlar67 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teams win team championships. Wimstead 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djasso. Category should be limited only to individuals whose names on the Cup which is the most significant accomplishment in Hockey. Pparazorback 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal keep until we can agree on a better way to show the information. For example a template based on ((MedalGold)). Maybe something like:

Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14
Medal record
Stanley Cup
	Carolina Hurcaines	2006

.

Keep until we can create the necessary template and add it to all the articles. Kevlar67 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Winning the Stanley Cup is one of the single most important defining characteristics for a hockey player. What this category needs is subcats, not deletion. Unfortunately, the attempt at adding subcategories has been shot down. Resolute 05:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above what has been said. Kaiser matias 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename (practically, merge, because the target exists). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Metro Manila newspapers and magazines to Category:Metro Manila media

Nominator's Rationale: Rename; this category, a subset of Category:Media by city, was inexplicably renamed to the current form after a recent CfD. choster 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename like other media by city/market categories. In the future, they can make separate newspapers and magazines subcategories if they feel the need. --Vossanova ^o< 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per proposal. semper fictilis 18:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per proposal. --23prootie 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of the debate was

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This catagory draws unfair links between dissident theories in different fields. Can we put the creationists with holocaust denialism? 160.228.152.6 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a category based on a main article that itself probably should be nominated for deletion as having questionable verifiability and references. (The only sources for claims of general acceptance of the term are a blog and an article by "The Discovery Institute".) Even if you hypothetically accept that the main article should be kept, though, the term itself is too subjective to work as a criteria for category inclusion. Where do you draw the distinction between "being in denial" and simply "disagreeing"? Recommend deleting this category, and if other editors agree also nominating Denialism for deletion as possibly unverifiable, subjective original research. (At best the article needs better sources.) Dugwiki 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dugwiki. Choalbaton 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then repeat after me: "This category never existed. Wikipedia never had a Category:Denialism". Grutness...wha? 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete − These are all categorized correctly, and I would say keep if this was my own website, since I'm a lefty neo-Darwinist. However, the category itself is POV—it implies that current facts can be used to infer the truth, when, in fact, truth lies in your gut. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category requires POV. Also, it's overbroad. Hell, everybody denies something. Coemgenus 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: either it includes everyone, or it's POV. BTW, Coemgenus, I reserve the right to deny that I ever deny anything ... umm umm oh dear. Yes, that's why I'll edit this vote to change "delete" to "strong delete". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete implicit POV and lack of internal consistency. semper fictilis 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the entries, I don't see a defined subjective basis or even a clear indication of why articles were put in this category. Bbagot 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV category. Metamagician3000 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like all the relevant links already appear (or should appear) in Carlin's main article. Generally speaking most people should not have their own eponymous category unless it's really necessary for navigating articles about them, since the links are almost always already in the main article anyway. (Imagine having a couple million categories, one per notable person.) Dugwiki 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object nominator does not appear to have checked out the articles in the category. all articles directly relate to the subject. They are all comedy routines by the subject. 132.205.44.134 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have any of these categories with works by the person in question, then the #2 all time stand up comedian from america might as well be represented as one of the best in this way. His total set of work is very large and has had more than significant impact on society. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this is purely about the eponymous part of the category, then I propose a rename. Since we have Albums by, Books by etc categories, there is no reason authored works such as highly notable comedy shows (Of which George Carlin is equally the "author" as much as he is of his books), cannot be categorized. BTW, to categorize said performances only as albums is categorically incorrect in my view, because they are a "spinoff" of the original material. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solid content for a category.--Mike Selinker 05:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the topic article rule helpful here? It doesn't say anything about when to decide if there should be topic or eponymous categories. It only says that if there are categories, the topic article & the topic category should both be categorized in the appropriate supercategory. There's no basis on saying either "keep" or "delete" from the Topic article rule. --lquilter 13:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the correct guideline to look at, for those who are interested, is Categorization by the person's name, although it is very broad and vague it is the current standard.--Iosef ^{U T C} 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is currently used for organizing material produced by George Carlin, which is useful. Dr. Submillimeter 08:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is serving a useful function in organising articles and a body of work for browsers. I guess I'm applying a home-made rule here about depth and range of non-trivial content (so I'm not automatically in favour of a cat for every artist with a handful of albums, books, or movies - see other CFDs). Mereda 09:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - There are a total 7 articles in this category. There are 3 books & 2 recorded shows, each of which could easily be linked under "bibliography" in the article. That leaves the category holding Seven dirty words (which would also be linked within the article & other relevant subheadings) and ("Bleen (number)") (Carlin's neologism). I believe each of these could easily be linked on the George Carlin article, and cross-linked to Carlin within the individual articles. So I don't see the need for a category here. (BTW: If we have "albums by artist" and "books by author" categories, we should also have "performances by performer" categories. And since the practice has been to not justify an eponymous category simply because of related "x by this person" categories", I don't think that a "performances by performer" category should be treated any differently. --lquilter 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reinforce one point here, Bleen (number) is nominated for deletion and looks like it will be deleted. Otto4711 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for some of the keepers I saw a couple of comments above that said the category is "useful for organizing articles about George Carlin". My question, then, is how is this category more useful than simply using George Carlin's main article to access the links? If George Carlin's article can serve as the hub that you visit to go to all the other related links about the man, then why do you need this category? Note that if the main article serves the same practical purpose as the category, then there the category should be deleted because keeping it around means you are effectively doubling the amount of editorial maintainence every time you need to change something related to George Carlin (ie you have to modify his main article and subarticles, AND you have to modify the category tags on all the related articles that changed.) I'm certainly willing to reconsider my recommendation to delete, but I'll need to hear a practical use for the category that the main article can't already fulfill. Dugwiki 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is showing exactly what we want. It shows that a mass deletion of these categories is unwanted because some simply deserve a bit more attention. This is not an actor, a music artist and not a writer category. Still there are clearly works that are authored by him. The articles needs proper recategorization if this cat is deleted/renamed. What is happening is exactly what Iosef ^{U T C} intended to happen when saying he would individual renominate the articles to better define the boundaries of the eponymous category deletion process. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Dugwiki's question: Because an article is a narrative (or several mini-narratives), which may or may not contain all the material in Wikipedia that relates to Carlin. The category is a basket that allows you to quickly see what articles exist about Carlin, and some are even more helpfully placed in a smaller basket (his albums). The routines could easily be placed in their own basket. But they derive up to the root article, which is George Carlin. The Carlin category provides a place for these articles to go, regardless of whether his article holds onto them or not.--Mike Selinker 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lquilter. Eight pages in the category, one of which looks like it is well on the way to deletion. Of the remaining seven, three belong in a 'Works by George Carlin' category. This leaves us with four articles—too few to justify an eponymous article, even taking sub-categories into account.

Xdamr^talk 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does the job so this is just clutter. Hanbrook 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- users are more likely to seek access to these articles through the George Carlin article and its see also section. semper fictilis 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems rather small for a category, and links to the articles presented can be contained within the George Carlin page. There doesn't seem to be a reason to keep it apart from having a personal affinity for George Carlin, and that doesn't seem to be a good enough reason in my opinion Bbagot 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an incestuous use of the categorization system. All these articles could or should be linked to from George Carlin. If they are not, this is what the "See also" section is for. All these articles also have links to George Carlin. If a user is looking for more about Carlin, the place to go is his article. There needs to be a good compelling reason to add eponymous categories. Without a compelling reason, every topic will end up with a category to go with it. Eponymous categories should be reserved for those cases where there are so many articles with relevant information about the subject such that the ONLY reasonable way to organize all of them is with a category. This means there are too many to be listed in a "See also" section, or it wouldn't make sense to list them, and the articles are not cross linked. Very few eponymous categories fulfill these criteria. Most should be deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five articles, all easily linked within the main article. Category not needed. Dugwiki 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two articles deal with Chavez; two are namesakes and one is a book about one of the namesakes. The main article doesn't point to any missing articles.-choster 02:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter is right. The topic rule has nothing useful to say about whether or not to create an eponymous category in the first place. All it says is that if you create such a category, then it recommends putting the main article in it, etc. It never says when you actually need such a category, though. Dugwiki 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthy guy but, per Dugwiki, there's not enough depth/range here to need a category as well as article links. --Mereda 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - Lots more could be written that would be applicable, but for now, the article is sufficient. Two items added to this category because they are named after Cesar Chavez: Generally, I think items should not be categorized by their name, so even if a Cesar Chavez category eventually is warranted, these should not be included in it. (List of items named after CC should, however.) --lquilter 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly connected articles to merit an eponymous category—at least at present.

Xdamr^talk 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and link from the Cesar Chavez article. semper fictilis 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as with George Carlin above Bbagot 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three articles, all of which are easily linkable within the subject's main article. Category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films directed by Stephen Chow and cleanup. 132.205.44.134 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nomination does not appear to match category content. Material is directly related to subject, as subject starred in the films contained in the category. 132.205.44.134 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a "films by actor" category.-choster 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, this is a "films by actor" category. In general, such categories are infeasible, as they lead to category clutter. Lists of Chow's movies at Stephen Chow should be sufficient. Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a one-dimensional category of "films by actor". There's not enough depth and range of content here to make me feel the category adds value rather than clutter. Mereda 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few articles—furthermore, it seems to be nothing more than a 'films by actor' category, with all the attendant problems such categories give rise to.

Xdamr^talk 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, link from the Stephen Chow article semper fictilis 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as in George Carlin above Bbagot 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Curtiss-Wright Company. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like all the links to articles in this category could be consolidated within the main article. In general it's better for individual people to not have eponymous categories unless it's really necessary for organization - otherwise stick to having links related to that person within their article or a subarticle. Dugwiki 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Curtiss-Wright Company, it looks like a corporation category, with aircraft, and subsidiaries. Needs cleanup though. 132.205.44.134 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preference) or Rename to Category:Curtiss-Wright Company - This seems to be a collection of any article with the word "Curtiss" in it. It includes Glenn Curtiss himself, organizations affiliated with Curtiss, planes made by his company, people affiliated with the company, and people who flew planes made by the company but otherwise had no connection to Curtiss. It could be salvaged as a category about the company, but deletion may be better. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and cleanup The plane articles should go to Category:Curtiss-Wright Company and without those, there's certainly not enough content for an eponymous cat. Mereda 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and clean up per Mereda. --Xdamr^talk 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above semper fictilis 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like all the articles in this category can be easily linked within the main article about the person. Category isn't needed. Dugwiki 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a grabbag of AI and Hypertext articles. 132.205.44.134 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the articles are about computer science subjects in which Engelbart is only one of several people involved. This category implies that Engelbart's contribution is somehow more important, which is false. The categorization is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki and Dr Submillimeter. There's not enough content uniquely about the individual subject for this category to add value. (The alternative would take a lot of science articles into mega-clutter.) Mereda 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and link from the main article. semper fictilis 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links in this category can be consolidated in the person's main article. Category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do we categorize musicians by their managers/management companies? 132.205.44.134 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization of artists by their manager seems inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and link from the main article. semper fictilis 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only three total links in this category, all of which can appear in Idle's main article. Category isn't needed. Dugwiki 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only Category:Eric Idle songs is necessary, this one isn't. 132.205.44.134 23:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning? Like lquilter, I really can't see any valid rationale for retention in that guideline.

Xdamr^talk 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The songs should be categorized, but the parent category is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to justify an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semper fictilis 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Wimstead 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only five links in the category, all of which can be collected within the main aticle. Category isn't needed. Dugwiki 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and link from the main article. semper fictilis 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see reasons for George Carlin above Bbagot 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one article link in the category, which should appear in the person's main article. Category isn't needed. Dugwiki 21:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category contains one article. 132.205.44.134 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one article does not need a category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. semper fictilis 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only three links in this category, all of which should appear in his main article. Category isn't needed. Dugwiki 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep & rename to Category:McFarlane Toys, and then cleanup. 132.205.44.134 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could turn into a category for all of McFarlane's comic works, which is inappropriate. Articles like Spider-Man and Hulk could be overwhelmed with categories for each writer and illustrator who ever worked on the characters. Dr. Submillimeter 08:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to just be a small collection of images of the person. Not enough links here to require an eponymous category. Dugwiki 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to be a gallery... perhaps rename to Category:Images of Luis E. Miramontes and place into the image heirarchy... or delete 132.205.44.134 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the images are already available on the Commons, and those that do not are licensed so that they could probably be moved over.-choster 02:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the articles in this category should instead appear in either the "Books by..." or "Films by..." subcategories. The links to those two subcategories already should appear in both Moore's main article and in the appropriate "Books by..." and "Films by..." parent categories. Doesn't appear to require having an actual "Michael Moore" eponymous category. Dugwiki 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment half the articles in this category appear to be crticism of Michael Moore. If this isn't directly related to Michael Moore, then what is? 132.205.44.134 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly legitimate umbrella category.--Mike Selinker 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the material is directly related to Michael Moore, works produced mainly by Moore, or criticism of Moore, making the category useful for navigation. However, the category looks like it could use clean-up. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm going to ask the same question, then, that I asked about George Carlin above. There are claims above that the category is useful for navigation, but what sort of navigation is this category assisting with that can't already be handled by the main article? If the links can be accessed by Moore's article, then why use the category? And if there is no additional navigational use that can't be fulfilled by the article, then keeping the category makes it more difficult to maintain information about him because it's increasing the number of changes you need to do as an editor when new information arrives. So I'm willing to reconsider, but only if someone can give me a practical example of something the category is doing for the reader that the article isn't doing. Dugwiki 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs to be cleaned up a little, but there seem to be a good number of directly relevant articles/sub-categories here.

Xdamr^talk 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the main category. File everything under books by or films by subcategories. -- KelleyCook 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasoning as George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete after merging appropriate articles into Category:Hypertext. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the links in this category could easily be found in the person's main article instead. Eponymous category isn't needed. Dugwiki 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Hypertext of all appropriate articles (most of them). 132.205.44.134 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, that rule only says what you do if the category happens to exist. It doesn't say anything about which categories should be kept and which should be deleted. So it's irrelevant to these cfds. Dugwiki 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful. Range of works which do not necessarily reference one another, but make a useful category for an individual's choice artistic comparison! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm going to somewhat disagree with Zythe. It looks to me like all the links in this category already can be collected (an7d probably are collected) in both Parker's and Stone's main articles. So I don't see the search benefit to having this category. The main reason I labelled it a "weak" delete is that, since this category is for a duo, it might be useful as a way to seperate out links that the two of them collaborated on as opposed to things they did seperately. Dugwiki 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do Parker and Stone have a production company? IT could be renamed that... 132.205.44.134 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers a wide range of contributions.--Mike Selinker 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the material here is primarily the work of Parker and Stone, thus making it useful for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these links already can appear in the Penn & Teller main article, so the category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as most of these articles are the comedy routines of Penn & Teller, I fail to see how the nominator makes the claim that these do not relate to the subject, the comedy duo Penn & Teller. 132.205.44.134 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one's loaded with good content.--Mike Selinker 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The articles are all on material produced mainly by and featuring Penn and Teller, thus making this category useful for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 08:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think this nomination quite fits in with the other eponymous category nominations, because articles under this category pertain to Penn & Teller's magic and comedy act, not necessarily Penn Jillette and Teller themselves. I do see that you nominated Category:Penn Jillette as well - that one is more understandable. --Vossanova ^o< 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have the same question here as Carlin above. All of these links can, I think, be accessed by the reader from the main article Penn & Teller. So what additional navigational benefit is being offered by the category? If there isn't any, and the main article acts as a good hub of information and links about the duo, then the category should be deleted as redundant and producing unnecessary extra maintainence for editors handling the subject. I'll certainly reconsider if someone can explain the practical benefit to the reader of the category that isn't already handled by the main article. Dugwiki 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the reader isn't always going to get to these articles from Penn & Teller. They might see an unrelated article linking to Bullshit!, then from there have a consistent way of linking to all other articles related to Penn & Teller. This is why we have categories and not just portals and lists. --Vossanova ^o< 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the user is at Bullshit!, then either way she has to click to Penn & Teller the article, or click to Category:Penn & Teller the category. The Bullshit! article links to Penn & Teller up at the top of the article, which is certainly more useful than having to scroll all the way down to the category list to Category:Penn & Teller. And if you go to Penn & Teller it is a much more user-friendly and informative document, with embedded lists, than the automatically-generated, alphabetical, unreferenced, and unannotated list generated by the category. --lquilter 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright then, a different argument. In the case of Penn & Teller's Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends and Penn & Teller's Sin City Spectacular, Category:Penn & Teller is their only (non-template) category. If we deleted it, we'd at least want to recategorize those articles. It can be done (books, videos, TV, etc) but it would be good to keep this category for cross-referencing (in the same way that "foo bar" would go under both "foo things" and "bars" categories). --Vossanova ^o< 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we do need a "Category:Works of Penn & Teller" type article to go under Category:Works by artist. Maybe we should rename this category and pull out the non-works. --lquilter 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. The articles that only have this category are mis-categorized. -- Samuel Wantman 07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the links in the category already can appear in the main article about the person, so the category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Songs by RuPaul and file under the Songs heirarchy. 132.205.44.134 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:RuPaul songs per naming convention and remove non-song entries. Otto4711 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Delete as unnecessary with the new songs and albums categories. Otto4711 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created category:RuPaul songs and put all the songs in there.--Mike Selinker 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I created Category:RuPaul albums and put the albums there. Otto4711 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:George Carlin above: The topic rule doesn't help decide keep or delete. --lquilter 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:RuPaul songs fulfills the original organizational purposes of this category. An umbrella category is not needed for the other materials. Dr. Submillimeter 08:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. --Xdamr^talk 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Works, performances, albums, etc., by the individual in question can easily be linked from the main article. If you look at the example eponymous categories, they gather numerous other articles about that person. Category:George W. Bush includes 6 subcategories, four of which are things about George W. Bush (Books about, fictional representations of, movement to impeach, songs about), plus two about his administration; and 55 articles about aspects of his life, his campaigns, his role in politics, and so on. Category:Abraham Lincoln includes Abraham Lincoln in fiction, Lincoln conspirators, and 92 articles about aspects of Lincoln's life or death or significant memorials (as distinguished simply from things named for Lincoln). Each of these categories could probably be weeded, but they stand as examples of the sorts of eponymous categories that are actually useful, because the included articles are about the eponymous category. By contrast, Category:RuPaul includes 2 subcats (RuPaul albums and RuPaul songs, and a single article "RuPaul Is: Starbooty!" about a RuPaul film. Each of these would be linked from the RuPaul article. --lquilter 21:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All five links in this category can already appear in her main article. Category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Martha Stewart Omnimedia and file under the corporations heirarchy. 132.205.44.134 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, which would rescope it include all the articles linked from Template:MSLO. Only two of the six articles actually discuss Stewart the individual, plus the odd-man out The Apprentice: Martha Stewart.-choster 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in the above cfds with this comment, an irrelevant rule to the question of whether a category should be kept or deleted. Dugwiki 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:Martha Stewart Omnimedia is too specific.--23prootie 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discuss this with the Economics WikiProject. 132.205.44.134 00:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup There are eleven articles. Three are for namesakes, which I would de-tag as they have nothing else to do with Smith the person. Two are for theories associated with Smith, but he only coined one of them. Four are works and two are biographical, including the main article. I did not see any articles obviously missing from perusing the main article.-choster 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discard Internal links and See Also do the job of connecting articles with related information. Categories are awfully open to interpretation, not to mention abuse. I say let the articles "categorise" themselves by specifying internal links and See Also. Wikipedia might want to emphasize, especially to newbies, that the Toolbox bit "What links here" is very important for tracing related articles. SueHay 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Tim! says.--Grace E. Dougle 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in all the other cfds where Tim referred to the topic article rule, that rule is irrelevant. All it says is what to do if you already have decided to keep the category in place. It says nothing at all about when such categories should be kept or should be deleted, so has nothing to do with the cfd discussions. Dugwiki 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of room for growth in this category.JQ 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have the relevant wikiprojects been apprised of this? 132.205.44.134 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant rule to cfd discussions as per comments in the other similar cfds today. Dugwiki 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia generally does not categorize individual scientists' works in general; see Max Planck and Carl Friedrich Gauss, for examples. The categorization system could become very messy. This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful. Range of works which do not necessarily reference one another, but make a useful category for an individual's choice artistic comparison! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful. All these links can comfortably be found in the main article, and the only subcategory link (Books) doesn't require an eponymous parent since it already can easily be located both from the main article and the "Books by author" parent category. This category adds no additional search utility. Dugwiki 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zythe. Catch-all categories for important auhtors are usefull. --Bduke 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant rule to cfd discussions, as per comments in the other cfds Tim mentioned it. TAR only tells you how to organize the information if such a category happens to be kept. It tells you nothing about whether or not to delete or keep a category in the first place. Dugwiki 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for keeps As I asked in some of the cfds above, some people above are saying this is "useful" without saying how it is more useful than just using the main article itself. All of these links can be accessed from the main article about the person, so why additional use does the category give you as a reader? If the main article already fulfills the navigational needs of the reader, then the category should be deleted since it is increasing the maintainence required whenever changes are made (you have to modify both the main article AND change category tags in related articles). I'll reconsider, but only if someone can give me some practical benefit to the category above and beyond navigational functions that the main article already serves. Dugwiki 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why have a category for an author? Can't his works be mentioned on his main page? Seems like overkill. Bbagot 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The articles in this category seem to be only vaguely related to each other. Among other things, they include Salinger himself, his daughter, a couple of articles on his characters, a list of cultural references to Catcher in the Rye, and Shoeless Joe by Kinsella, which features Salinger as a fictional character (played by James Earl Jones in the movie). Grouping these items together makes little sense. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hamdard University. 132.205.44.134 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category—both for the man and the University. --Xdamr^talk 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have the relevant wikiprojects been apprised of this? 132.205.44.134 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant rule to cfd threads, as per similar comments in other cfds today. Dugwiki 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia generally does not categorize individual scientists' works in general; see Max Planck and Carl Friedrich Gauss, for examples. The categorization system could become very messy. This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of its content (14 articles) relate to Norbert Wiener. Systems science is a huge field, there may be more to come. Useful category.--Grace E. Dougle 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule deals with placement of articles in eponymous categories. It states that if an eponymous category exists then the topic article should be placed in it. It does not require that there be an eponymous category, otherwise every single article would have its own eponymous category. Otto4711 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Although Steve Woz influenced the desktop computer market, it doesn't qualify this category to exist. The category has few links, some indirectly dealing with Woz. Madd the sane 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has little content, much of which does not directly relate to the subject and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these seem to be redundant categories. This is also a renomination of a withdrawn umbrella nomination so each could be discussed individually.Iosef ^{U T C} 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Comics by Jhonen Vasquez and file in the appropriate category heirarchy (did anyone notice we have a novels by heirarchy?) 132.205.44.134 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule deals with placement of articles in eponymous categories. It states that if an eponymous category exists then the topic article should be placed in it. It does not require that there be an eponymous category, otherwise every single article would have its own eponymous category. Otto4711 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasons as those I mentioned with George Carlin above. -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was irrelevant (was speedily deleted by admin Cbrown1023 on 15th Feb). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category is empty 8 months after creation and there is no apparenr reason why UGK has a category. Wilchett 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Coemgenus 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty, unused, unloved. --Xdamr^talk 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (I listified it at List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile, although I would not be surprised if that became an AFD candidate). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and optionally listify. See WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. I couldn't find any other "roads by length" categories. If there's enough interest, one could certainly start a List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile or List of shortest state highways in the United States. --Vossanova ^o< 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization of roads like this could quickly become inane. Besides, would the roads have anything in common other than length? Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat per nom. ~ Bigr Tex 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitary inclusion criteria, per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or refactor into a list. One mile is hardly an arbitrary distance; now, if one were to make a category for state highways shorter than 2.35 miles, than that would be arbitrary from my point of view. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my feeling is that any length will be arbitrary, because, for all other purposes, an X mile long state highway is no different than an X+1 mile one. Now, if the US government officially called any highway under 1 mile a "miniway", for example, and gave them different funding and regulations, then I could see a special category. --Vossanova ^o< 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or refactor per TMF. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian hilltowns to Category:Hilltowns in Italy

Merge, into the correctly formatted Category:Hilltowns in Italy and keep as a redirect. CalJW 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. AshbyJnr 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect per AshbyJnr. semper fictilis 18:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "Italian hilltowns" is the term most aficionados of these towns use, shorthand for a walled fortress town on a steep hill built in medieval or renaissance times and preserved in close to its original state. Also, the subcategory listing hill towns on the blank "Hilltowns in Italy" page lists only 4 of Italy's 20 regions, appropriate subcategories would be North, Central, South and Island, which is what is generally used by Italian websites such as Il Borghi pui belli d'Italia, an authority on these towns. Silvia Marina Manno 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as the one who compiled the names of the vast majority of these Italian hill towns, I would urge keeping this as is, the term is in common use and as SilviaManno says means a lot more than a town on a hill in Italy. I am troubled by the proposed working definition that "a hilltown is an inhabited town on a height that appears to define it with respect to the surrounding landscape." This completely misses the point. First they actually don't need to be inhabited, a number important ones are nearly empty, second it isn't about elevation, though you must have a hill, it's a type of walled fortress town constructed in the middle ages through the Renaissance. They tend to be centers of art, churches, and architecture.(Take a look at Fodor's, Rick Steve's, or Rough Guide to Italy.) Also Prof. Manno is right on the subcategory question. However, reading the naming protocols for man-made objects, I see the preference for putting the object first and the place second. Therefore, I suggest the category Hill towns in Italy,(might as well spell hill town right) eliminate the sub category regions as it is "childless", and use as a definition: "medieval and Renaissance towns built upon a hill for defensive purposes, usually surrounded by defensive walls, steep embankments, or cliffs." This would cover them all. -- MGerety 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ditto to the above on the name, Italian hilltowns conjures up something special. Capdefendr, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Italian hilltowns is better than Hilltowns of Italy. Don't mean to be pedantic but if you are going to re-categorize, why not be grammatically correct and use "hill towns". Better to keep the familiar Italian hilltowns. User:Presemeritus 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Speedy merge per nom. There doesn't seem to be any substance to the arguments against sticking with the older category beyond travel agent romanticism, and the onus should be on the user who created the duplicate to prove why it is better. Craig.Scott 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Contemporary Christian music albums. the wub "?!" 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Christian music albums, or at least Rename to Contemporary Christian music albums, is this a real genre or just a neologism? I'm hardly an expert. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Contemporary Christian music is IMHO more of a format than a true genre, but we do have Category:Contemporary Christian music.-choster 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) IS an important genre! Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Metamagician3000 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Collège Saint Marc graduates to Category:Collège Saint Marc alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Collège Saint Marc alumni, per the usual naming conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ~ Bigr Tex 15:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with other honor and award categories, this award is one of many that the category's one member (Norman Borlaug) has won in his lifetime. The category says little about his achievements while significantly contributing to the category clutter. As with other honorary citizen categories, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as clutter. The sole member doesn't even mention it in his article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Bbagot 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - crew people work on many different projects over the course of their careers. Categorizing on this basis generates clutter. Otto4711 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We should not categorize crew based on the projects that they have worked on, as crew members may work on many projects during their careers. Every crew member would end up with vast numbers of categories.
Delete In addition to the reasoning above, note that links to the entire cast and notable crew can be accessed from the main article. There would be no reason for a reader to go to this category to find articles about the crew - they can more easily do so and are more likely to do so from the Alias article itself. Dugwiki 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clutter is insufficient reason to delete a category and no evidence that even exists has been presented. Tim! 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't use the word "clutter" in my reasoning above. What I said is that the main article already serves as a perfectly adequate navigational hub for this information. Creating a category that serves the same function for the reader (and which is probably less efficient at it) is simply creating additional work for the editors without helping the reader at all. Dugwiki 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find it easier if all the people of the same type are categorised together because otherwise you end up reading the articles over and over again to find what you want, and it is not consisent from one series to the next Mr. Stabs 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Divide into "Alias writers", "Alias directors", etc., because those fit into existing category scheme (Category:Television writers by series and the like). These categories can be useful navigational tools, and there's no evidence of "vast numbers of categories" here. Note also that not all the members of this category are mentioned at Alias (TV series). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument that applies to "crew" categories also applies to "writer" and "director" categories and in fact I'm planning on nominating those categories as well. TV writers can work on a wide variety of shows, as can directors. Just to take one example, if J. J. Abrams were categorized by every project, he'd be a Lost writer, Lost director, Lost producer, Felicity writer, Felicity director, Felicity producer, Felicity composer, Alias writer, Alias director, Alias producer, Alias actor (he said "Joey's Pizza?" on the phone in season 1) and Alias composer, along with some more that I'm probably missing. That's 12 categories to describe his roles on just these three shows. Do we really need multiple categories for the same person working on the same project? No. We don't even need one, the nominated one, because his role as a "crew" member is noted in both the Alias article and his own article. Otto4711 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOtto4711's point is well taken Bbagot 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again I agree with Josiah Rowe Mr. Stabs 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clutter is sufficient reason for deleting categories. Removing clutter is essential to keep the category system useful. Wimstead 14:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Categorizing creative people by their productions creates clutter, very little (if any) utility, and is an unproductive use of our efforts. Typically, all this information will be listed in the person's article, if not, a list can be created. -- Samuel Wantman 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussions over the last few weeks. Vegaswikian 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a self-published company article created in category space. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This meets criteria A7 at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion; it is a non-notable company. Dr. Submillimeter 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO delete and re-create as Category:Companies based in the Tampa Bay Area as there is enough content for the broader category from within Category:Tampa Bay Area.-choster 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-create as is. Place in Category:Companies_by_city. TonyTheTiger 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TonyTheTiger. Moved into appropriate area Bbagot 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to remove cfd tag. Blatant SPAM. Pedro | Talk 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-defining trivial intersection. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categories for intersections like these would quickly become complicated. Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any blanks-that-blank category is generally a bad idea. --Vossanova ^o< 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not so useful. Any stadium should be in categories for both leagues. Its dual use will be apparent. The list is likely short enough that it could be mentioned in each article as a fact if necessary. TonyTheTiger 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 132.205.44.134 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial, plus would open the door for stadiums/arenas that support MLB and Soccor, or NBA and NHL, etc. Neonblak 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial intersection, per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't do Songs by album, and can't do Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, apparently this band has gone out of their way to not name themselves. As one of the linked articles says, it's a "self-indulgent PR stunt." I don't know what to do with the cat. ×Meegs 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When they get a name, they'll get a category. Until then, they'll be victims of their own post-modern nonsense. Coemgenus 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Self indulgent stunt or not, we shouldn't care. We're impartial, and we optimise Wikipedia for our readers. Thus, these articles need to be categorised and this is a decent enough name for now. --kingboyk 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm content to pretend that that's the band's name, keep the cat, and stick it in Category:Songs by artist. ×Meegs 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we could have a category of Unnamed bands' songs. NoSeptember 07:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Gotta go somewhere, and this is as good as I can tell.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 21 February 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 all.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Maria Lawson songs, per discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and add the three below. ×Meegs 10:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Sonic Youth singles to Category:Sonic Youth songs
- Category:Hawkwind singles to Category:Hawkwind songs
- Category:Delirious? single to Category:Delirious? songs
Rename all.--Mike Selinker 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:04, 18 February 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's rugby to Category:Women's rugby union

Nominator's Rationale: There are two different sports commonly called 'rugby' - rugby union and rugby league. This category covers rugby union and should therefore be renamed accordingly. GordyB 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Choalbaton 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category:Members of Black Sabbath to category:Black Sabbath members
category:Members of Kiss to category:Kiss members
category:Members of Queensrÿche to category:Queensrÿche members
category:Members of The Waterboys to category:The Waterboys members
category:The E Street Band to category:The E Street Band members
category:P-Funk musicians to category:P-Funk members
category:Member of H.O.T to category:H.O.T. members

To match all others in category:Musicians by band. (Note: Some added after nomination in process of building the ubercategory. If there are issues, we can relist.)--Mike Selinker 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per conventions of Category:Musicians by band. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:39, 14 February 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 all.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category:Europe members to category: Europe (band) members
category:Current Europe members to category: Europe (band) members
category:Former Europe members to category: Europe (band) members

While beginning to populate category:Musicians by band (come help!), I came across this. Seems like we shouldn't have living/dead categories for band members either.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Categorization as current / former suffers from upkeep issues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 09:08, 15 February 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 rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian people by region to Category:People by Italian region (non-Italians long-term resident to the these regions are / can be included)
Category:Natives of the Abruzzo to Category:People from Abruzzo (article Abruzzo does not refer to the name using the article 'the'
Category:Natives of Val d'Aosta to Category:People from Aosta Valley (article is entitiled Aosta Valley)
Category:Natives of Basilicata to Category:People from Basilicata
Category:Natives of Calabria to Category:People from Calabria
Category:Natives of Campania to Category:People from Campania
Category:Natives of Emilia-Romagna to Category:People from Emilia-Romagna
Category:Natives of Friuli-Venezia Giulia to Category:People from Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Category:Natives of the Lazio to Category:People from Lazio (artcle Lazio does not refer to the name using the article 'the')
Category:Natives of Liguria to Category:People from Liguria
Category:Natives of Lombardy to Category:People from Lombardy
Category:Natives of the Marche to Category:People from Marche (article Marche uses 'Marche' to refer to the region more than 'The Marche')
Category:Natives of Molise to People from Molise
Category:Natives of Piedmont to Category:People from Piedmont
Category:Natives of Puglia to Category:People from Apulia (article on region entitled Apulia)
Category:Natives of Sardinia to Category:People from Sardinia
Category:Natives of Savoy to Category:People from Savoy
Category:Natives of Sicily to Category:People from Silicy
Category:Natives of Trentino-South Tyrol to Category:People from Trentino-South Tyrol
Category:Natives of Tuscany to Category:People from Tuscany
Category:Natives of Umbria to Category:People from Umbria
Category:Natives of the Veneto to Category:People from the Veneto (article Veneto uses the article 'the' in refering to the name of this region)
Rename all as 'people from' naming becoming established convention to allow for non-natives to be included Mayumashu 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "to allow for non-natives to be included" - huh? Why? These categories are clearly only for people actually born in these places. Of course people not born there should not be included in them: we should create supercategories of "people associated with" these places to allow us to categorise non-natives.
- "'people from' naming becoming established convention" - Indeed? Prove it! A block nomination is needed to thrash this out properly. --Mais oui! 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for flexibility. CalJW 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean exactly by "for flexibility"? Votes here at CFD can only be considered if the voter supplies a substantive reason, or is supporting the substantive reasoning of another contributor. --Mais oui! 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you want to change the WP:CITEable "natives of" to the WP:POV "people from", then at least have the courage of your convictions, and bring the whole issue here to CFD. This ad-hoc, higgeldy-piggeldy, arbitrary process is a total waste of everybody's time. --Mais oui! 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Choalbaton 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have. But have you? Judging from your past record here at CFD, when debating with me, I sincerely doubt it. My statement was in no way a personal attack on User:Mayumashu, but a comment on the months-old ad-hoc, higgeldy-piggeldy, arbitrary process of many different Users nominating odd categories, or groups of categories, here-and-there for renaming. It is a total and utter mess, and someone needs to grab the bull by the horns and do a proper block renaming nomination, so we can thrash this out properly. Until that is done, I will consistently be voting against this drip-drip "people of" renaming malarky. It truly is a waste of all of our good time. --Mais oui! 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your user page is a long saga of complaints and conduct warnings from many different editors. Mine isn't. Choalbaton 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find it highly significant that you accuse me of breaching WP:NPA, including slapping a preposterous warning on my Talk page, on zero grounds; and yet when another User describes a reasoning of yours as "fatuous" you do not say a peep. I strongly suspect that this is due to her being an Admin, whereas it is pretty much constant open season on Mais oui! That is fine, I am a big boy and can cope fine with the persistant bullying I receive from certain quarters, but I will not be taking any lessons from you. You ought to have a good read of WP:KETTLE. Bye bye. --Mais oui! 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "People from" is more widely used and more useful. Choalbaton 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, that is symptomatic of the problem here: you have not actually made any substantive point there, but just made a vague reference to some sort of perceived precedent. Votes here at CFD should only be considered if the voter makes a substantive case: and arguments like "more useful" are totally invalid. What on earth do you actually mean? --Mais oui! 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to avoid pedantic arguments about what is a "native". ---BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "People of" is highly subjective, and thus very susceptible to WP:POV. A "native of" somewhere is not open to any sort of interpretation whatsoever: a native is someone who is actually born in a place: it is crystal clear, and conforms to our WP:CITE and WP:RS policies. According to his categories, Alexander Graham Bell is "from" (sic) 4 places!! That is just total nonsense: he is only "from" one place (Edinburgh), however he is strongly "associated with" at least 3 other places. I repeat, we need to deal with this as a block nomination. --Mais oui! 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous discussions. There has been consensus in the past that being a native of a place is not always a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "There has been consensus in the past that being a native of a place is not always a defining characteristic". Indeed? Prove it! I repeat: we need a block nomination. --Mais oui! 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename People don't necessarily have any substantial connection with the place where their mother happened to have been staying when her pregnancy ran its course, so it is essential to use a form of category which allows them to be categorised to the places with with they were most closely associated in later life. AshbyJnr 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all "People from" is more adaptable. Hanbrook 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is precisely why it is inappropriate: it is wide open to (mis)interpretation and POV. --Mais oui! 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:McLaren people to Category:McLaren Formula One people

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - The current name is unclear, as it does not adequately explain who or what McLaren is. The new name is much clearer. Dr. Submillimeter 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Olborne 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "McLaren Formula One" a little cumbersome as an adjectival, so how about People associated with McLaren Formula One...? (Yes, longer, but...) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:McLaren Formula One people, which is less cumbersome than the alternative proposal. Hanbrook 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:McLaren Formula One people. DH85868993 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This CFD was closed by me as delete, and the category depopulated. The CFD was reopened as requested at DRV. ~~If, on closure, the category remains, I will repopulate it.~~ Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another honors category that goes to people who win many honors anyway (science fiction writers in this case). It is not even clear that it is a particularly notable honor in science fiction. However, it does contribute to category clutter, as seen in the articles on Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. Like other honor and award categories, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial "honor" that's so unimportant it doesn't appear that it's even mentioned in the Worldcon article. Otto4711 12:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as trivia and category-clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The person making this motion appears to believe that all honor and award categories this should be deleted. If you agree, then you should vote to delete this category, along with the Oscars, Grammies, and (arguendo) Nobel Prize winners. Of course, I am not actually suggesting that Worldcon guests of honor are as worthy of note as Nobel Peace Prize winners, merely that it is absurd to strip all award listings out of WP.
The question, then, is whether being a Worldcon guest of honor is a sufficiently significant achievement to make retaining this category appropriate. I suggest that it is: The World Science Fiction Convention has been held annually since 1939. Its members award the Hugo Awards, SF's most important award. Yet Worldcon's have honored particular individuals as guests of honor for longer than they have awarded the Hugo, and there are multiple Hugo winners for every Worldcon guest of honor. Guests of honor are selected for their lifetime contribution to the field. Selected authors typically are those who have written important works in the field over a career of at least thirty years, and most have won multiple Hugo or Nebula awards. These are the best of the best.
--JohnPomeranz 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have been nominating award and honor categories like this one for over a month. This category really suffers the same problem that other award categories suffer: it indicates little about the individuals' accomplishments while adding to the vast mess of categories at the bottom of articles on people. This nomination effort is not specifically aimed at science fiction writers. If the information is needed in Wikipedia, then it should be in a list, not a category. (Interestingly, JohnPomeranz has said more about the notability of being a Worldcon guest of honor than the article on Worldcon.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Useful clarification, Dr. S., thanks. I think that the question of appropriate uses of categories versus lists is an interesting one. Here, however, the category aids many WP users by linking their inquiries about a particular author to that author's (or, as Orangemike notes, fan's, artist's, or editor's) place in the larger context of the genre. With only a list, I can't as easily make the leap from (for example) Connie Willis to a broader exploration of her peer authors, the annual Worldcon, or the subculture of SF fandom. In short, it helps wikify Wikipedia.
    Thanks also for the reminder that there is still much work to be done on Worldcon. Let's see what we can do about that.
    --JohnPomeranz 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnPomeranz. Hanbrook 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This category is not only about writers, but also about that tiny elite corps of science fiction fans who have been honored by their peers by being made Fan Guest of Honor. I am sorry if this does not interest or concern those of you unfamiliar with the field, but science fiction culture is a gestalt made up of the fans as well as the writers. Maybe some of the pros have got a case of category glut, but that doesn't apply to all the past GoHs. --Orange Mike 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is actually a quite workable and discrete group. Metamagician3000 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JohnPomeranz. Topic is notable, verifiable and useful. TheQuandry 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The category is useful and is considered by many to be a great honour in the SF community - many writers for instance have their Worldcon GoH status in their bios and book jackets. Agree about updating the Worldcon article itself with more on this. VJDocherty 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm bucking the trend here, but as a long-time SF fan and attendee of multiple Worldcons, let's get a grip. We're not, in fact, talking about something that's considered a great honor in the SF community. We're talking something that's considered an honor in the far smaller SF fandom subculture, and as a former Worldcon committee member, I know for a fact it's much less a mark of distinction than "Who's the biggest name pro we can get out here who's currently popular and hasn't been a Worldcon GOH before?" Hundreds of thousands of people who read such books haven't the foggiest, and care even less, about the subject (heck, I have no idea where last Worldcon was, let alone the ID of the GOH), and equating this in notability with Academy Award or Nobel Prize winners is breathtaking in a manner I can't possibly describe without smashing civility rules. As others have suggested, this is something that belongs in a table in the main Worldcon article, not as a stand-alone category. RGTraynor 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to be clear, I agree that Worldcon GoHs are not as notable as Nobel Prize winners or even Academy Award winners. --JohnPomeranz 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JohnPomeranz and VJDocherty. This is a unique lifetime-acknowledgement honor within the genre. It may be less well-known but it is a higher honor than the Hugo award itself, IMO; more than any other award, this is the list of people who have made a difference in science fiction. I know for a fact that most Worldcon committees treat this very seriously and that every effort is made to pass on traditions to new committees. Recipients (and their spouses, argh) take this very seriously, as do many people in the community. Avt tor 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an exclusive group of science fiction authors, editors, publishers, etc. who are set apart from the rest by this honor, which is bestowed after quite a bit of wrangling. It is a sort of lifetime achievement award which indicates a consensus opinion that the individuals so honored have reached the pinnacle of the field. Shsilver 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JohnPomeranz. Most of the Worldcon GoHs have Wikipedia topics, so, therefore, this is a useful category. Lauriemann

How does five votes to Delete and six votes to Keep constitute a consensus to Delete?? This is a wrong decision!Avt tor 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- This is not like receiving an award, which is an objective criterion. Conventions are commercial operations, and anyone who has ever put together a convention knows that "guests of honor" are basically whatever celebrity-in-the-field that you can convince to come. --Tenebrae 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted--Wizardman 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat. Quuxplusone 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is overcategorization. 132.205.44.134 03:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment user Michael Drew also apparently doesn't like putting it in the proper overcategory (Category:Stanley Cup champions) and instead likes it in a higher top level (Category:Stanley Cup). 132.205.44.134 03:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stanley Cup winners do not need to be sorted by nationality or ethnicity. Dr. Submillimeter 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I don't think individuals involved in winning the Stanley Cup should be grouped at all. Teams win the Stanley Cup, and biographical articles accumulate too many categories. Olborne 13:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Olborne. This is a team-level achievement. Otto4711 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - actually people do win the Stanley Cup. Unlike other North American trophies, the winning teams gets to engrave the names of all it's members on the cup. Currently there are ~2000 names on the Cup. Winning a Stanley Cup is considered a major personal acheivement as well. Mediocore players who have won a Cup are suddenly treated as respected leaders, sought out by other teams. Otherwise great players who have not won a Cup carry a stigma, which may even prevent them from entering the Hall of Fame. Given that most of the people who have even won the Cup are Canadian nationals, it is interesting information to see which ones are not. At the very list it should be a list if not a cat. Kevlar67 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically, no one actually wins the Stanley Cup itself. The trophy is held in trust by the winning team until the next team wins the championship. Given that no one person can win the Stanley Cup championship himself, given that the NHL Stanley Cup champions are listed by team and not individuals and given that Lord Stanley specified that the names of the winning teams, not players, were to be engraved on the cup, there is little justification in categorizing individual players as the winners. (edit: forgot to sign) Otto4711 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kevlar67. TonyTheTiger 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevlar67. In the NHL its often talked about how many Stanley Cup champions you have on a given team. --Djsasso 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are Kevlar67, TonyTheTiger, Djsasso in favor of keeping Finnish Stanley Cup winners? Their comments seem to indicate they are talking about Stanley Cup champions (ie, not the Finnish subdivision of such) ??? 132.205.44.134 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am in favour of keeping both. Dunno about the other two. --Djsasso 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing individuals should be grouped within the team, no other sports on WP are categorized by nationality. Neonblak 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neon. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevlar67 and Djsasso. --Mais oui! 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad intersection between nationality and non-national accomplishment.--Mike Selinker 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Stanley Cup champions Tim! 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments on Category:Stanley Cup champions above. AshbyJnr 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is far too detailed. Haddiscoe 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorisation. Metamagician3000 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doubly overdetailed categorization. Wimstead 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nationality of the Champions is overcategorisation. Category:Stanley Cup champions is sufficient. Pparazorback 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Sport on the Gold Coast. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports on the Gold Coast to Category:Sport on the Gold Coast

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in Australian English as per Category:Sport in Australia, the other Australian city, state and territory sport categories, and (for example) the name of the relevant section of The Australian. ReeseM 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Olborne 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge, and ((category redirect)). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British jurists to Category:British legal professionals

Merge, Category:British legal professionals was created as a replacement for Category:British jurists in 2005 because the term "jurist" is largely unknown to the average Briton, who is highly likely to confuse it with juror. Merge again and keep as a redirect this time. Osomec 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Olborne 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and delete, per prior CFD; this is a recreation of a deleted category. Postdlf 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per prior CFD. Choalbaton 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and delete, per Postdlf, and salt. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge, delete, and redirect - Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Bbagot 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Metamagician3000 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Agricultural shows in the United States. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Agriculture Shows to Category:United States agricultural shows

Nominator's Rationale: Rename; correct case, and consistent with other category nomenclature. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inconsistent with agreed usage of American/United States. Rename to category:Agricultural shows in the United States. Osomec 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Agricultural shows in the United States per Osomec. Olborne 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Osomec. TonyTheTiger 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Osomec. --19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

February 14

Category:Date of birth unknown

Category:Fictional sociopaths

Category:Stanley Cup Playoffs

Category:Stanley Cup champions

Category:Metro Manila newspapers and magazines

Category:Denialism

Category:George Carlin

Category:Cesar Chavez

Category:Stephen Chow

Category:Glenn Curtiss

Category:Douglas Engelbart

Category:Brian Epstein

Category:Eric Idle

Category:Penn Jillette

Category:Alex Jones

Category:Todd McFarlane

Category:Luis E. Miramontes

Category:Michael Moore

Category:Ted Nelson

Category:Trey Parker and Matt Stone

Category:Penn & Teller

Category:RuPaul

Category:Martha Stewart

Category:Adam Smith

Category:Claude Shannon

Category:J. D. Salinger

Category:Hakim Said

Category:Norbert Wiener

Category:Steve Wozniak

Category:Jhonen Vasquez

Category:UGK

Category:State highways shorter than one mile

Category:Italian hilltowns

Category:Contemporary Christian Music albums

Category:Collège Saint Marc graduates

Category:Honorary Citizens of Sonora

Category:Alias (TV series) crew

Category:Companies based in Tampa

Category:Stadiums where both NFL and MLB play

Category:The Good, the Bad and the Queen songs

Category:Maria Lawson singles

Category:Women's rugby

Members of ...

Europe

People by Italian region

Category:McLaren people

Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor

Category:Saadi

Category:Finnish Stanley Cup winners

Category:Sports on the Gold Coast

Category:British jurists

Category:United States Agriculture Shows