< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

Category:People from Vermilion County, Alberta

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, empty, misnamed, and already replaced. Postdlf 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's Vermilion River County, Alberta Mayumashu 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per the above information; why on earth would you delete it just because it has a typo? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I didn t say - cos I already created the properly spelt page Category:People from Vermilion River County, Alberta and the miss-spelt one is unpopulated Mayumashu 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:51, 5 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.

Category:Famous androgynes

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Small category (only 3 or 4 articles) and could be controversial (and, maybe, against WP:OR (if it's based on one's own judgement). Ashadeofgrey^Talk 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone could call one of these prople famous, POV. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether or not someone is androgynous is subjective. Dr. Submillimeter 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. 'Famous' is, to my mind, one of those 'nuke on sight' words; if we can't be more specific than 'they are famous' then a category is clearly unwarranted. This is in addition to the OR concerns expressed in the nom.

Xdamr^talk 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Sumahoy 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, the "famous" part needs to go. But "androgyne" is such a subjective term that there's really no point in keeping this as a category. There's already a (pretty suspect) list in the article Androgyny which, at least, we might hope can be properly referenced. Pascal.Tesson 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for overcategorization and POV. Doczilla 01:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV (it is not overcat, however). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would require setting standards for what is an androgynous appearance. User:Dimadick
Delete. Inclusion is POV almost by definition. What's androgynous about David Bowie? JFW | T@lk 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "androgyne" is a vague term which could reference style, biology, psychology, etc. --lquilter 23:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Badger baiting dog breeds

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename from Category:Badger baiting dog breeds to Category:Badger-baiting dog breeds

Rename: Add hyphen "-" to be the same as the main article Badger-baiting and the other related articles Bait and categories Category:Rat-baiting dog breeds Headphonos 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To match the article and other categorys. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic and can be covered in an article. Sumahoy 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename: This is a just a typo fix. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion that should be done separately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename I'm inclined to agree with SMcCandlish, it's a simple typing fix so I don't see why it can't be speedied. --Xdamr^talk 15:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what are the characteristics of a Badger baiting dog? How could cross-breeds be included? Poorly defined, and highly POV. Rgds, - Trident13 14:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trident13. AshbyJnr 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minority use of these breeds, and is not a defining characteristic. Cloachland 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trident13. Craig.Scott 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Bowl halftime performers

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization of performers by performance. While the performance is notable, the same can be said for many other performances by these artists. Moreover, the category is part of the major category clutter on many of these performers' pages. The category's contents are already listed at Super Bowl Halftime Shows, which is probably better for navigation anyway. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this performers by performance category (thanks Dr S!) --lquilter 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify Probably an ok list, but as above falls under the "performer by performance" type of category. See the talk page of Wikipedia:Overcategorization for discussion on that issue. Dugwiki 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as performers by performance. --Xdamr^talk 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify (if that isn't already done). Pascal.Tesson 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as performers by performances. This is not their defining quality anyway. Doczilla 01:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law schools in New York City

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcategorization. The parent for the entire state, Category:Law schools in New York, only has 15 entries, 8 of which are the contents of this NYC-specific category. The state-level law school category and the category for all universities in NYC (which has no other such divisions) are quite capable of handling these. All of the NYC law schools furthermore have Template:Law schools in New York City applied. Postdlf 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless other reasons are found for deletion. This isn't overcategorization, it's just an issue of a possibly arguably underpopulated parent category. Specificity != overcategorization, as a generality, only when it's egregious. Given the undeniable notability of New York City, I don't think it applies here. "Law schools in southeast Brooklyn", different story. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Underpopulated parent category"? There are simply a finite # of law schools and even if every one of them had a page (they probably all do) it's still around 200 or so. 15 for a state is about as populated as this category can get. --lquilter 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's definitely overcat coming from the law school side of its cat trees, but it has more merit coming from the NYC education side. Same goes for the nav box, which is completely not useful if you're browsing through for law schools, and only makes sense as part of the NYC education organizational scheme. --lquilter 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Right; that's a much better way to put what I was only half-way getting at above; that's what I mean about NYC's notability in the context, you just said it waaay more clearly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful cross-categorization, especially at NYC level. Sumahoy 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normal subcategorisation, not at all overcategorisation. Tim! 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I said instead of "overcategorization," "unnecessarily overly specific subdivision," would that change anyone's mind? Postdlf 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the perpsective of those making observations about "at the NYC level", I don't think so; the point seems to be precisely that it isn't unnecessarily overly specific. If it were "Clovis, New Mexico law schools on the south side of the train tracks" I'm sure you'd have no argument from anyone. :-) That is to say, I don't think anyone's making a generalization about this sort of characterization, they're simply saying that NYC is huge enough (both IRL and as a topic/category area in WP) that it's not overly specific. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if I said I'd give them a dollar? Postdlf 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who live at least part-time in NYC, a dollar is chump-change. <grin> --lquilter 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's half a subway ride. Or it will get you two numbers in the lotto. Postdlf 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I totally get Postdlf's point on this one. It's something that happens a lot: A level of subcategorization that's appropriate for one tree but too narrow for another tree. I haven't been able to figure out how to solve this (except redundant categorization, which has its own problems). This is maybe just one of those things we have to suck up and make hard decisions on, until it gets addressed at a software level ...? --lquilter 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iranian polygamists

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category only contains two articles, neither of which mentions polygamy, and only one asserts any sort of notability. Ytny 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note Category:Polygamists has now been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Polygamists. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ytny's initial nomination is a reason for deleting those articles from the category, not for deleting the category entirely. Once the articles are removed, if the cat is empty for four days then it just gets the ((db-catempty)) tag. That way we don't have to argue over something that is more hypothetical than real, with little evidence of how people want to or need to use the category. (But note that I added a vote to delete per Pascal.Tennon's reasoning below.)--lquilter 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad. I've removed the cat from one of the article and added a proposed deletion tag on the other one. talk to Ytny 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category is obviously massively underpopulated at present, but in any case one article categories are perfectly acceptable. Sumahoy 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subcategories of Category:Polygamists by nationality are all pretty badly underpopulated but, I might add, all pretty useless. In many societies, past and present, polygamy is either tolerated or completely accepted. No one would seriously consider maintaining a category of divorcees or people in same-sex unions. There are in fact very few people in the categories whose polygamy is/was a major issue in their life and categorizing them in this way is subtly POV. I believe all these categories should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Pascal. We might as well have Category:Interracial marriages or Category:Unfaithful spouses if we keep this junk. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entire Polygamists category tree. I agree with Pascal.Tesson but why stop there -- if you look at Category:Polygamists it's all bad:
- A completely random assortment of a dozen historical figures;
- Subcategorization as "People associated with religion or philosophy" (what? only insofar as any behavior is associated with the philosophy that that behavior is okay; otherwise is this supposed to mean Muslims & Mormons? or what?)
- Category:Biblical polygamists which is certainly categorization by an irrelevant attribute and would be much better as a list
- Category:Bigamists - yes, grammatically, bigamy is a subset of polygamy; but these are terms from two different fields talking about different things, one legal, and one cultural: bigamy is an unlawful state of being married to two or more people at once; polygamy is a cultural practice of multiple marriages. The category Bigamists should survive on its own in the people by occupations/criminals, assuming that its members are individually cited with a conviction for bigamy, and are defined in part by that conviction.
- Category:Polygamists by nationality - marital status is just not worth categorizing people on, period, and as Pascal.Tesson points out, it's ahistorical to assume monogamy as the default.
- Category:Fictional polygamists - should only survive if real-person polygamist categories survive
- Category:Polygamous sects leaders - overcategorization, NPOV, and better done as a list
- Category:Religious organizations formerly tolerant of polygamy - overcat, NPOV, and better done as a list
- Category:Religious organizations which tolerate polygamy - overcat, NPOV, and better done as a list
- Category:Spouses of polygamists - overcat, NPOV, and why are we categorizing people based on their spouse??? Except for "First Spouses" who typically have some official status on their own, this is just not a good idea.
- And most to the point, I think that marital status is just not a useful way of categorizing people, for at least three reasons. (1) Not a defining characteristic: For most people marital practice is based on larger accepted cultural practice and is not an individually, personally defining attribute. (2) Hard to maintain: People's status changes throughout their lifetime. (Not a definitive answer but suggestive.) (3) And it's unwieldy & difficult to define and verify: It gets into questions of what is or isn't a marriage (are the modern-day Mormon plural marriages "marriages" because they're religious, or not because they're not recognized by the state?). --lquilter 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire polygamist tree per lquilter and Pascal.Tesson's arguments above. Egregiously POV, though they will probably need to form the basis of a second nomination, unless someone feels like tagging them to this debate—given that we are only one day into this discussion, you may get away with it.

Xdamr^talk 15:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to propose the deletion of Category:Polygamists. You're right though, it probably has to be a separate nomination. Pascal.Tesson 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Useful for locating articles relating to polygamy n your words "In many societies, past and present". User:Dimadick
Keep per User:Dimadick. AshbyJnr 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you can't really mean that "Iranian polygamists" is useful for locating these articles; you must (both?) mean the more general "Polygamists" category is so useful. As someone pointed out to you on that CFD, that's why there is the category Category:Polygamy. This is not for articles "relating to polygamy"; this is only for articles about people who happen to be polygamists. --lquilter 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with the above. >Radiant< 16:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We do not classify people by their marital status. Given that polygamy was once a common and accepted practice, it means little to have these categories in general. Dr. Submillimeter 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the national categories, but not the categories for organisations. Osomec 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airlines of Kurdistan and Sub-category Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan

Category:Airlines of Kurdistan

Category:Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan

The result of the debate was delete both. the wub "?!" 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category currently has only one article, which is the main article on the subject. Kurdistan is a small, geographic region, and I really doubt it has enough airlines to warrant a category; if necessary a list can be created and included under the main Category:Kurdistan. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Vegaswikian, adding Category:Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan to nomination. Airlines should be categorised by nation, NOT by region; having a category for a region beneath a category (which is up for deletion) for another region is doubly unwarranted.

Also, please note that this category was created after the main category was put up for deletion. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It is conceivable that there are more than one Airline operating in Kurdistan. - Francis Tyers · 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just found another airline operating out of Kurdistan: Air Kurdistan, and thats with 5 minutes of Googling. - Francis Tyers · 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There may be more, but conventions dictate that airlines are categorised by country. As Cool Cat states below, Air Kurdistan operates out of Iraq; and Kurdistan is not recognised as a country. Besides, one airline does not need a category unto itself. The single page can be placed under Category:Kurdistan. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per conventions. United States probably has the greatest number of airliners and all of them are categorised as Category:Airlines of the United States (not even divided by state). Airliners based from Iraq should be categorized under Category:Airlines of Iraq. --Cat out 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete when(only when) Kurdistan becomes a fully alleged country, you can establish such a category. Iraq Airlines category is appropriate for the single article I noticed.--Alnokta 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that "real country" criterion is extremely PoV. That said, I don't oppose the del. nom. (Not supporting it either.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan as a "country" has no substance. If there was a defacto Kurdistan claiming to be independent, that would be a different story. Though, I would like to add that this category does follow the Category:Airlines by country syntax implying country status to Kurdistan. --Cat out 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for proving my point for me, the more you argue in terms of "has no substance" and "implying country status", etc. Next! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? I am merely pointing out that the existing system we use relies on "country" and why this thing disqualifies... --Cat out 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything POV in declaring that Kurdistan is not a country. It's certainly a nation and an autonomous territory, but since it hasn't gained or asserted its independence, it's not a country. If we were categorizing airlines by nations, by all means, have a category for Kurdistan, but we're doing it by countries. Ytny 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it have foreign recognition as a country. Postdlf 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kurdistan is not a country. I don't think that it is remotely POV to insist on this given the present scheme of categorisation for this area.

Xdamr^talk 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator may want to consider adding Category:Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan to this nomination. Vegaswikian 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thank you. Category was created after main category was created. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for both this category and its new name - it's simplest to categorise by (recognised) countries, not regions (even if those regions have common ethnic majorities etc). And even if this was a country, there is an insufficient amount of such airlines to warrant categorisation. - Mark 08:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - forgot to add my vote, as nominator. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian historical figures

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Canadian people. the wub "?!" 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ merge with Category:Canadian people as per comments by User:Dr. Submillimeter. people's pages linked to this page are linked to sub-cats of Category:Canadian people, but i m not sure that this is 100% absolutely true and don t mind after a merge parsing by hand Mayumashu 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not getting how a category for figures in the history of Canada is "POV." If this is somehow too POV to survive, then Merge to Category:Canadian people. Otto4711 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any Canadian who has passed away would meet the criteria, no?? user(s) have taken what they feel to be Canadians that have contributed the most or been most prominent in Canadian history, an act that is utter POV Mayumashu 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Canadian people - The phrase "historical figure" is a subjective inclusion criterion, a form of overcategorization. It looks like "historical" could be interchanged with "notable" in this context. In that case, the category is indeed redundant with Category:Canadian people, as only notable people should be listed in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This category could be POV because anyone could call anyone historical that they think is historical. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As has been observed by Mayumashu, there is absolutely no set definition for 'historical'.

Xdamr^talk 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is apparently an offshoot of Category:History of Canada and in that context it is a useful organizational category. Supposing that it needs to be merged into Category:Canadian people seems to me to miss the point. The subcategories should also be in the Canadian people, but most if not all of them already are. Sumahoy 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically that sounds reasonable, but once we start to work with such a structure problems arise. First and foremost of these is its scope; exactly what is a 'Historical figure'? As has been observed above, someone who died yesterday could reasonably be considered a 'historical' figure—surely excessively broad in scope? I suggest that this Canadian category tree would be better off adopting the practice used for other countries eg. Category:South African people. I'm not convinced that there is a pressing need, categorywise at least, to distinguish between the living and the dead, the past and the present, in this way.

Xdamr^talk 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Xdamr, please reduce the truly excessive height of your sig. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per both Xdamr posts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category looks useful and it is not being misused. AshbyJnr 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Redundant with Category:Canadian people. They are all historical. Their relative importance is another matter entirely. User:Dimadick
Oppose - what do you do with people like Joseph Oleskiw who never lived in Canada and is not a "Canadian person" but was important to the history of Canada? Kevlar67 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read about him in Ukrainian Canadian. Postdlf 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments; we wouldn't have an article on an individual who wasn't "historical." It's simply a category with no meaning or substance, and no one saying "keep" has explained otherwise. Postdlf 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We do not want individual people to be filed directly in Category:Canadian people unless absolutely unavoidable; we want all (or as many as possible) Canadian people to be filed in appropriate subcategories only. Category is useful and not misused. Either keep or come up with a different merge proposal than this. Bearcat 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, a vast glut of articles in Category:Canadian people wouldn't be the best thing. Perhaps now is the time to think about creating the appropriate sub-categories to file them under? Category:Prime Ministers of Canada, Category:Canadian philanthropists, etc, etc, etc? Having said this, for the most part the current sub-categories of Category:Canadian historical figures could easily be shifted up into Category:Canadian people; most articles would then remain sub-categorised, and the objected-to historical/non-historical division would be removed.

Xdamr^talk 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, almost all of the possible occupational subcategories already exist, so there are few if any possible groupings that can be newly created. A thorough cleanup might be worthwhile, but realistically, if an appropriate alternate category doesn't already exist then we'll have trouble finding viable new ones to create. Jacques Vieau, for example, certainly belongs in a Canadian-related category, but since what actually makes him encyclopedic relates to the United States, there's no natural or viable Canadian grouping in which he can be included. Bearcat 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is what i meant by "parsing by hand" (the list on this page), admittedly not the clearest of conveyances. I mean, I ll go through the list to make sure that each page is linked to a sub-cat page of Category:Canadian people, parsing links to this page as I go Mayumashu 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC), the nominator here[reply]

Keep This is an excellent category and it plays a valuable role in the organization of Category:History of Canada. Carina22 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone who wants to keep this please respond to the actual criticism of the category, by explaining how "historical figure" is actually a useful, manageable, and not POV descriptive term? Postdlf 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per User:Postdif, this is not manageable, and just a descriptive term - all people with wiki pages are in historical Brcreel 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the current highly relevant contents of this category could someone who wants it merged explain why they think the definition is a practical problem? Cloachland 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What subject of a Wikipedia article is not a "historical figure"? Postdlf 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that this question has been pretty comprehensively dealt with above. --Xdamr^talk 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful organization device, that is all. No-one has demonstrated that it is doing any harm. Craig.Scott 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Broadcasting Company personalities

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers (for example, Jimmy Kimmel in this category). This category (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this & similar categories per Dr. S points -- will lead to extreme category proliferation & also pointless arguments about whether someone was a personality only on X network or whether someone who is a personality gets to be in the "personality of X network" category for every network they worked for. --lquilter 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless "people by employer" category. Postdlf 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless OC and trivia. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been thinking about this group of categories for a while. Personalities seems so POV and subjective. It almost seems that everyone who is on air is in this category. Vegaswikian 07:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign-born Canadian political figures to Category:Foreign-born Canadian politicians and it sub-cats

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Irish immigrants to Canada, Category:English immigrants to Canada and Category:American immigrants to Canada as appropriate, and delete. the wub "?!" 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-born Canadian political figures to Category:Irish-born Canadian politicians and
Category:English-born Canadian political figures to Category:English-born Canadian politicians
Category:United States-born Canadian political figures to Category:American-born Canadian politicians
rename all Mayumashu 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my concern with the proposal is that it is possible to be a "political figure" without being a "politician." For example, American First Ladies are "political figures" but (in most cases) are not "politicians." Otto4711 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair point. there doesn t seem to be any non-politicians in the pages' populations at present but admittedly the potential exists. I do find the term 'figure' on the other hand to suggest a certain prominence that the run of the mill MP back-bencer, let alone provincial MLA, may not live up to. Mayumashu 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (preference) or Rename all - These categories are a triple intersection (place of birth, nationality, and occupation), a form of overcategorization. Application throughout the category tree in general would result in category clutter and in an inane, sprawling category tree. (Imagine "German-born Argentinian politicians", or "Japanese-born Peruvian politicians", or "Algerian-born French politicians", all of which are realistically possible. The list could be endless.) If not deleted, then the categories should be renamed. Generally, the term "political figure" is redundant with "politician"; Otto4711's description of "political figures" is too vague to be used as a category inclusion criterion. Dr. Submillimeter 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (preference) or Rename all Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Otto4711's concerns, and also because I don't see that the "overcategorization" label is justified. It's not really a triple intersection (in the same way that "African-American sportspeople" isn't either, while "African-American sportspeople with cystic fibrosis" would be; it's simply a narrowing), and triple-int. seems to me the only borderline overcat issue that could be being raised here unless I'm missing something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; unencyclopedic triple intersection. I've never seen the need for these under any name. Bearcat 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. if this is a delete, then should not these be upmerged to Category:American Canadians? Mayumashu 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:So NoTORIous

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category for short-lived cable tv series that isn't notable or important enough for own category Booshakla 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. So NoTNOTable. Otto4711 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary eponymous category for a television series. Dugwiki 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolindigo 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superstars competitors

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is for people who made guest appearances on a program named Superstars. This is effectively categorization by guest appearance, a practice which is ineffective for categorization and which quickly leads to category clutter. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is no different than categories for participants in any other reality-type series, e.g. Category:Survivor contestants or Category:American Idol participants. Otto4711 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is very different from Survivor and American Idol. The difference is that the Survivor and American Idol contestents are primarilly known for being on those shows. It is a large part of what makes those people notable. By contrast, though, Superstars is a celebrity game show, involving athletes that are primarilly known for their atheletic performance and are not primarilly known for being on Superstars. So while being a contestent on American Idol is a large, defining characteristic for a person, being a contestent on Superstars is little more than a guest spot for an already famous athlete. Dugwiki 22:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems to be that this category is less desirable because the people it categorizes are more notable. That seems counterintuitive. Otto4711 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good category for people researching TV at that time.Telly addict 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Otto4711 Mayumashu 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In the case of American Idol or Survivor, the contestants were introduced to the world on those shows, and their participation defined their notability (and would often be the only notability they'd ever attain). I don't see that being the case with this show, which appears to have involved only those who already had established and notable athletic careers. If Superstars never established anyone's notability, I don't see the Idol or Survivor categories as at all relevant. Postdlf 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Idol participants is not limited to contestants. It also includes judges and others who've appeared on the show. Paula Abdul wasn't introduced to the world on Idol but she's categorized as a participant. For examples that may be more on point to the objection, see Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants or Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here! or Category:The Surreal Life and so on, in which the participants were known already before joining the casts. Otto4711 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above examples of Celebrity Fit Club and The Surreal Life and "I'm a Celebrity" all sound like examples of bad categories to begin with. The general rule for all television shows should be that if the reader can find a link to all relevant articles in the cast list or guest list, then it does not need its own category. The reasoning is very similar to why we avoid categories for guest stars and for actors-by-films. So therefore, I'd certainly be inclined to support possible deletion of the three categories mentioned above since they are presumably redundant with a cast list for the show. Dugwiki 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per my arguments above, this category is better handled as a list article, as it is essentially a guest cast list for a television series. The fact that certain other shows appear to currently have such categories simply means I'd also probably support deletion of those categories as well. Dugwiki 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - a reason some of these game show participant categories exist is that removing them might possibly leave certain articles orphaned. That's because some people are notable only because of their appearance on a game show. So the only way to categorize them is under "game show participants" in some way. Dugwiki 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but then we get into the whole realm of "why does show A get a category when show B doesn't" problems. Otto4711 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could just plug them all into "Reality show contestants," "Reality show judges," and "Reality show hosts," subdivide only by nationality, and then leave it up to lists to specify who was in what show. Postdlf 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Otto's reply, even if you assume this decision might lead to reexamining similar categories, I don't have a problem with that. We handle many categories case by case anyway. The main thing is that the contestents on this show were basically guest stars who were already known for other things, and thus would fall under other categories. Dugwiki 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If American Idol and Survivor can have their own categorys, then this one can too. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this show notable enough to warrant such a category? See the "NoTORious" one above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So NoTORIous lasted something like five episodes of one season. Superstars was on the air in two continents for decades. Otto4711 03:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Doczilla 01:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. By and large these people are not notable for having appeared on Superstars. However, I could marginally support a category for the persons who won a particular season's contest. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is effectively performers by performance & can be better done by lists. --lquilter 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment have listified this list - List of Superstars competitors Mayumashu 06:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This show was a lot more notable than most trashy modern reality shows as it was a fairly serious sports competition involving elite sportsmen. AshbyJnr 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not questioning whether or not the show was notable. The question is whether or not the contestents on the show are notable because they were on the show. Since this show is a celebrity game show, though, the contestents were already well known for other things (far as I can tell). Dugwiki 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can't delete the whole reality show category system unless all the articles for people who are only notable as reality contestants are deleted, which is not going to happen. If we have some reality show categories it is hard to decide which to delete, and starting with one of the few with some credibility does not seem to make much sense. Osomec 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Performers by performance, non-defining characteristic for most of these people. Measurements of Superstars notability seem to me irrelevant to these arguments. Wikipedia users would be better served by a comprehensive List of Superstars competitors which can be properly researched and referenced. Categorisation relies on participation in Superstars being mentioned in the athletes' articles (which it isn't in Lynn Swann's or Reggie White's, to give just two examples of athletes for whom this categorisation amounts to an unreferenced assertion). Reality show arguments are not analogous because Superstars was no more a reality show than is any other televised sport. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American American football players

The result of the debate was rename. I am similarly closing the related discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is either a silly mistake or someone protesting the use of phrases such as "Irish American", "African American", etc. Regardless, it is nonsensical and should be speedy deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn my vote to delete (as the category now makes sense), but the category still needs a name change. I would like to let the discussion continue before making a decision on which name to support. As Prove It has also pointed out, many related American football categories may also need to be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. American football is the game. It's a subcat of Category:American football players by nationality, just like Category:Ukrainian American football players is for Category:Ukrainian sportspeople who play American football. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Category:American players of American football; cf Category:English players of English billiards. It's a simple-to-fix amiguity, but one that will surely lead to more CfDs like this if not dealt with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We should probably change them all, otherwise people will be adding Italian Americans to Category:Italian American football players, which is really just to distinguish from Category:Italian footballers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes; very compelling argument for a systemic rename. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:American players of American football. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Rename to the suggestion mentioned above.Telly addict 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American players of American football as per User:Prove It and support his suggestion to rename all similar ones this way Mayumashu 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to American players of American football. Rename the others too. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pan Am Flight 103

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article links together people and articles that may be directly or indirectly related to the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, United Kingdom. The category system seems inappropriate for navigation here. Some of the articles are closely linked to the topic, but the Lockerbie bombing is only one of many notable events described in the articles (e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Pierre Salinger, Scottish Criminal Record Office). Some articles are about people, organizations, or events that are only peripherally related to the incident, such as the articles about people who missed Pan Am Flight 103 or changed flight reservations before boarding the plane (e.g. Magnus Malan, Pik Botha) or the article on John Paul Hammerschmidt, a U.S. congressman who served on a commission that reviewed air security after this and other incidents. The article on John Major does not even explain why he is in the category. Instead of using the category system, articles on this topic should be linked together through the articles' text. This category should be deleted, as its usefulness for organizing articles is dubious at best. Dr. Submillimeter 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Pan Am Flight 103 does exactly what a category is supposed to do: it wikilinks articles that are related to the category. You need to read the articles concerned to see why they have been linked - for instance, alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103#South-West Africa (Namibia) explains the inclusion of Magnus Malan and Pik Botha. If John Major is not correctly in the category, surely the answer is simply to remove him - rather than deleting the whole of this (very useful) category.Phase4 14:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. John Major is presumably included because he turned down Nelson Mandela's offer of South Africa as a neutral venue for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial.Phase4 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify as this would allow the article to explain how and why each linked page is relevant. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Categories are emphatically not tags to link articles that are merely related; a direct parent-child-sibling relationship from the topic should be clear. Of the enormous number of articles in this category I estimate a half dozen at best are relevant, enough to merit a category of its own but in need of major pruning as it stands. Syracuse University!?! Nelson Mandela!?! -choster 16:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem relevant.Telly addict 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Syracuse University is included because 35 Syracuse students died on Pan Am Flight 103, commemorated each year on December 21. Two graduates of Lockerbie Academy are offered scholarships at Syracuse each year (see Syracuse University#Pan Am Flight 103). Nelson Mandela is included because he was instrumental in getting the two accused Libyans (Megrahi and Fhimah) extradited to stand trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands, having negotiated the handover with Muammar al-Gaddafi.Phase4 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is much easier to communicate in an article than in a category, which is why I advocate this category's deletion. (The article should be kept, of course.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And, of course, the articles do communicate often at great length about their link to Pan Am Flight 103. The category is important as a focus for linking what otherwise would be a disparate group of articles.Phase4 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Except for Pan Am Flight 103, the articles are disparate. After all, do Margaret Thatcher, Syracuse University, and Pik Botha share anything else in common except tenuous connections to each other through the bombing? Dr. Submillimeter 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions - Dear Dr. Submillimeter, I have three questions for you:

1. In tagging the Category:Pan Am Flight 103, you said that it was in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on CfD. Which particular Wikipedia policy did you have in mind?

2. Margaret Thatcher, Syracuse University and Pik Botha all have affinities to Pan Am Flight 103. What better way is there to demonstrate their connectivity than through the Category:Pan Am Flight 103?

3. QED?Phase4 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- For item number 1) the reference is to the guidelines on this page, i.e. it is proposed for deletion according to the procedure outlined. For 2) and 3) please read WP:CAT. "Affinity" is not the basis for categorization, a category contains "similar articles" and encapsulate a "defining characteristic" in a way that is generally "obvious." This is not PanAm103pedia; Margaret Thatcher by the standard of inclusion in this article would belong to hundreds, perhaps thousands of other categories, weighing down the article with a cluttered collection of events and places; extend it generally and the category system is rendered useless. You're actually undermining the argument for keeping the category.-choster 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but might need pruning My guess is that some or maybe even most of these articles are solely notable and currently in Wikipedia because of Pam Am Flight 103. So for those articles, this is the defining characteristic that clearly describes why it is in Wikipedia. Removing this category could possibly leave those articles orphaned in the category system. So for the sake of those articles, I'd support keeping the category. However, all that being said, it is quite possible that the standard of inclusion for the category is too broad and the category needs to be pruned, removing articles which are not notably mentioned within their article for having significant relationship to Pam Am Flight 103. Margaret Thatcher, for example, has no mention in her article whatsoever of Pam Am Flight 103, so should not therefore be included in this category. Dugwiki 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I went ahead and removed Margaret Thatcher from this category, as per the reasoning above. Articles should only be categorized based on information included in the article itself. Dugwiki 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely agree with Dugwiki, and the action Dugwiki has taken.Phase4 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and CLEANUP I have few qualms with the category itself, but I have substantial concerns with how it is being used. This category has been spread around far to liberally—as choster noted, this is not a tag to link related articles. Looking through it, I can seen 6 or 7 articles which I think are bona fide members of this category. The remainder are only tangentially connected or connected in a non-defining way—as such they ought to be removed.

Xdamr^talk 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you propose something more specific? Which 6 or 7 articles do you think belong? (I can guess, but I want to see if we arrive at the same conclusion.) Dr. Submillimeter 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd include Pan Am Flight 103, Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie, Jim Swire, Karen Lee Hunt and possibly Abdul Majid Giaka and Professor Robert Black. Some of the articles for witnesses and so forth are marginal; they could be merged to avoid deletion altogether. -choster 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Dugwiki's notability criteria (above), I'd also include a further eleven articles: Edwin Bollier, Bernt Carlsson, Alan Feraday, Tony Gauci, Thomas Hayes (scientist), Jimmy McDougall, One World Action, Sanya Popovic, Scottish Court in the Netherlands, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and Thomas Thurman, making a total of 22 pages in the category. Subject to the views of others, I suggest the superfluous 56 pages should be removed from the category.Phase4 15:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would only include Pan Am Flight 103, Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as they deal with the event, not the people, the organizations, or the films related to the event. People would not be included because that entails deciding whom to include or exclude, a subjective process that will ultimately lead to inappropriate categorization. What are other people's thoughts on this approach? Dr. Submillimeter 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your query, I would include:

As to people, I think, bar the accused, I would be loathe to add any more. Perhaps, to encompass the victims, there might be scope for Category:Pan Am Flight 103 victims or similar? As for the others, I don't think that this is a defining characteristic—although possibly Jim Swire is an exception.

Xdamr^talk 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because there are actually multiple articles specifically about Flight 103, but this category absolutely must be pruned to only those articles, rather than senselessly grouping every article that is in any way related. That's what article text wikilinks are for, or "what links here." Whomever added Margaret Thatcher should have their category tagging privileges revoked. I'm not kidding. Really, how is it remotely a good idea to categorize an article by every fact contained within it, or every fact about that article contained within any other article? Postdlf 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the discussion so far, I've pruned 56 of the original 78 articles in the category. The pages were removed because, as defined by Dugwiki above, there was no significant relationship to Pan Am Flight 103 notably mentioned within their article. The remaining 22 pages do have this significant relationship and should, I believe, stay in Category:Pan Am Flight 103.Phase4 14:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article can do the job. AshbyJnr 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As a relatively new user I won't pretend to a detailed understanding of the subject, but in its truncated form the category seems to perform a useful purpose: - if I should have an interest in the subject it is easy to see which articles are likely to be most useful to research. One puzzling fact - Lockerbie is not in the category. Is this a conscious omission? Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omission was unintended: well spotted! Lockerbie is now in the category. And Elkevbo insists that Syracuse University should be included. Revised total is 24 pages with a significant relationship to Pan Am Flight 103.Phase4 11:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Syracuse University shows that the inclusion criteria are ill-defined. The first think that I see in the article on the Syracuse University article is not the Pan Am 103 bombing, nor is the bombing the first thing mentioned in the Syracuse University website. The university was affected by the bombing, but the university is defined by much more than the bombing. If this kind of discussion is needed on the inclusion of articles, than the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Is there any precedent/convetion on this, and/or counter-precedent? What is being done with other "newsworthy topics" categorization, e.g. for "9/11", "Clinton sex scandal", "Bernardo/Homolka trial", "OJ Simpson case", etc., etc.? I think that looking into this might help decide what to do here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good question. I checked two items in the above list. The O.J. Simpson trial has its own category (Category:O.J. Simpson murder trial). However, the Clinton impeachment does not. Dr. Submillimeter 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment I just wanted to say thanks to Phase4 for taking the time to prune the relatively unrelated articles from the category. The current list looks much more focussed on articles that are more directly tied to this disaster. A nice improvement, thanks. :) Dugwiki 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is all very well removing the "relatively unrelated articles" but they are likely to be added back sometime. Carina22 14:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reluctantly, though using a template might be a better option. Osomec 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The re-structured category, with its closely related articles, looks good.PJHaseldine 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billiards

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 23:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Billiards and related:

Category:Billiards to Category:Cue sports
Category:Billiards computer games to Category:Cue sports computer games
Category:Billiards organizations to Category:Cue sports organizations
Category:Billiards leagues to Category:Cue sports leagues
Category:Billiards non-player personalities to Category:Cue sports non-player personalities
Category:Billiards players to Category:Cue sports players
Category:Billiards tournaments to Category:Cue sports tournaments
Category:Cue sports films to Category:Cue sports films and television (orig. name too narrow; there are ~~two~~ 3 and AFAIK only ~~two~~ 3 TV shows to add, so they can't really justify a separate TV category).
Category:World Snooker champions to Category:World Snooker Champions (it's a proper-noun title; cf. the List of World Snooker Champions)
Category:World Snooker Championship to Category:World Snooker Championships (plural - it's an annual event; better suits naming conventions anyway.) Added to nomination, 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Rename, Per previous discussions (other than the last 2 3 cats. listed, which were just recent cat. naming mistakes), in which these proposed moves were put off until Billiards became Cue sport, which has long since taken place. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports for further consensus discussion. NB: Similar moves should not be made to categories like Category:Carom billiards, just the ones listed here. Category:Cue sport stubs (note the out-of-place singular) is being dealt with via SfD processes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, no it's not, because you haven't listed it at (or tagged it for) SfD (despite me already pointing this out at the place you actually listed it, which is for proposing new stub types). Alai 09:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You didn't point out any such thing (or I misunderstood you), but I'll go see if I can figure out what convoluted process your stubsorting WikiProject insists upon. <sigh>

Update: Renames now proposed at SfD; and Wikiproject Stub sorting's main page clarified to actually reflect that this is where such proposals go. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Using billiards as the top category is old-fashioned and confusing. Hawkestone 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per SMcCandlish. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for consensus and my edification: *Category:World Snooker Championship to Category:World Snooker Championships (plural - it's an annual event; better suits naming conventions anyway. Yes, no, maybe? Some such cat.'s seem to be pluralized, others are not (e.g. Category:Super Bowl). NB: This is not part of the nom, just a question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Merged with nomination, 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC), on the basis that most categories of this sort are in fact pluralized.[reply]
Rename, and clean up Wikiproject intrusions into article-space categories (like the appearance of the project page in the root cat, and the transclusion of ((CatMaintainPageWP)) -- actually, just get rid of that last one, from everywhere...). Alai 09:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Update: ((CatMaintainPageWP)), ((CatMaintainTalkWP)), ((Monitored category)) and ((CatMaintain)). have been removed from all the relevant cats. From what I can tell only one of these templates is in use at all in any categories any longer (and in those cases all by the same user), so I think they can all four be TfD'd with zero consequences. In the handful of places one of them is used, removing them wouldn't have any real effect.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Update: The WPP self-ref in main cat problem has been fixed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and catredirect main category. Not being a player, "cue sport" sounds completely alien, or at least jargonish to me.-choster 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No objection by me to having "Category:Billiards" still exist as a redir to Category:Cue sports. I think it's a good idea; cf. the Billiards redir to Cue sport. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the cue sports categories. The phrase "cue sports" is not very familiar to me, but I can understand what it means, but on the otherhand I was not aware that by one definition "billiards" covers billiards, pool and snooker. 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [The previous unsigned comment was added by Cloachland (talk · contribs).]

Comment: Request for clarification: Do you mean "rename to the 'Cue sports...' names per this nomination", or "rename the existing 'Cue sports...' cats to 'Billiards...' names"? Your comments were a bit ambiguous, indicating both uncertainly about "cue sports" and about "billiards". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, a great number of American's use "billiard[s]" to mean "games played on a table with a cue stick", other Americans only familiar with pool at all use it to mean "pool, period", non-American, non-UK speakers often mean "carom billiards games as a class, and no others", and UK speakers almost always mean the specific game English billiards. So it's really a quadruple ambiguity. Ick. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clear and nearly identical precedents, just for the record: Category:Water sports, Category:Water sports stubs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to deal with the ambiguity explained by SMcCandlish. Craig.Scott 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personalities

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers. This category (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally irrelevant category.Telly addict 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ abstain the similar categories Category:BBC people, Category:American Broadcasting Company personalities, etc haven t been included in this nomination and even if they were, i m not sure agree that this kind of group is irrevelant or unworthy of a cat page Mayumashu 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have now nominated Category:American Broadcasting Company personalities for deletion as well. I will also consider nominating Category:BBC people, although it may be possible to say that BBC employees solely work for BBC during their careers (unlike the CBC or ABC people). Finding an example of a similar category is never a justification for keeping a questionable category; it more frequently leads to the similar category also being nominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these categories as a variant of "performers by performance". --lquilter 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is similar to categorizing actors by film studio, which also has been routinely deleted. Dugwiki 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I ve put everyone listed on this page on List of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personalities page as it s clear this page is going down Mayumashu 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been thinking about this group of categories for a while. Personalities seems so POV and subjective. It almost seems that everyone who is on air is in this category. I think that if anyone wants to listify the data in this or any of the categories, like Mayumashu has done, that would be fine. Vegaswikian 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally created because individual people were getting filed directly in Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is inappropriate and incorrect. It's clearly needed in some capacity, or else the original reason for its creation wouldn't have been happening in the first place. Keep. Bearcat 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - People should not be categorized by network anyway. It is ineffective at defining the individuals, and it leads to category clutter. When articles on people are inappropriately placed in the parent category, just remove them. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You try telling somebody that Knowlton Nash doesn't belong in a CBC-related category and see how far you get. Bearcat 10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, Knowlton Nash's career has mostly involved CBC. However, Martin Short is also listed, and most of his career has not involved CBC. Where should the line be drawn in terms of including people as "CBC personalities"? Should they work at CBC for 10 years? 20 years? Can a line be drawn? Dr. Submillimeter 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Cloachland 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:XM Satellite Radio personalities

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers. This category (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my comment on the above category.Telly addict 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these categories as a variant of "performers by performance". (although categorizing media could theoretically have some merit, because different regulatory schemes apply leading to different types of broadcasts) --lquilter 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on later nominations. Vegaswikian 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally created because individual people were getting filed directly in Category:XM Satellite Radio, which is inappropriate and incorrect. It's clearly needed in some capacity, or else the original reason for its creation wouldn't have been happening in the first place. Keep. Bearcat 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - People should not be categorized by network anyway. It is ineffective at defining the individuals, and it leads to category clutter. When articles on people are inappropriately placed in the parent category, just remove them. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greenwich Village scene

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a category for performers who may have been in Greenwich Village in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, although some people are more prominently identified with other locations (Bill Cosby, for example, may be more closely identified with Philadelphia than Greenwich Village). This is effectively arbitrarily grouping people together by geography, a form of overcategorization. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; such categories also attempt to play the role of articles (only without explanation, context, or reference) by being "about" a subject, rather than setting forth a clear and significant classification like well-behaved categories do. Postdlf 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Postdlf says, and also because the cat name is historically generic -- could refer to many past & probably future "GV scenes". --lquilter 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Capitals in Europe

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 00:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Capitals in Europe is misleading, not all of the capitals in question are inside European continent. Cyprus for instance isn't even in Europe geographically but is considered a European country. It would be better if this was named Category:Capitals of European countries. In addition same principle can be applied to other entities under Category:Capitals --Cat out 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested Ulysses Zagreb 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The meaning of "Europe" is sufficiently flexible for this breach of convention to be unnecessary. Hawkestone 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a new convention. --Cat out 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for accuracy as suggested. RB9 7 2 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Capitals of European countries Mayumashu 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Capitals of European countries. Xiner (talk, email) 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Xiner. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Capitals of Europe, keeps it short and simple. While getting rid of any problem mentioned by the nominator (not that it sounds like a massive problem that was mentioned... almost was tempted to go oppose because it seemed a trival matter). Mathmo ^Talk 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand how the proposed renaming solves the problem. You say that Cyprus isn't in Europe geographically: fair enough but then by the same reasoning it's not a European country. And so we're back at square one. If there's an ambiguity with Cyprus, why not simply put Nicosia in two categories instead of creating an artificially complex name for the category? Pascal.Tesson 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see this category deals or is intended to deal with the "political" definition of Europe not geographic. Geographic regions almost never have defined borders while political regions always have solid borders. Cyprus is a member of EU which makes it a European country (politically) but Cyprus itself is in Asia (geographically). --Cat out 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: the name "Capitals in Europe" suggests a geographical classification since the other similar categories are dealt with on a continental basis. There is enough ambiguity to the geopolitical status of Cyprus to justify putting it in two categories. Pascal.Tesson 15:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The suggestion seems to be irrelevant to the alleged problem. AshbyJnr 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The political definition of what is or is not a European state is more important than the geographical. User:Dimadick
Thats a contradictory vote. The current scheme focuses on geographical Europe, my proposal focuses on political Europe. --Cat out 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The suggestion seems to be irrelevant to the alleged problem. --Mais oui! 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, all such regional groupings have not only geographical and political but cultural and historical definitions; neither Europe nor capitals are exceptional. -choster 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not strictly geographic indeed, hence the point of the nomination. Countries not in Europe can be considered European. --Cat out 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional femmes fatales

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambiguous category. Considering the wide range of characters so categorized, categorizing them strongly involves invoking POV. When I checked the femme fatale article to see if it had some criteria to help clarify the category, I found that it has been tagged for OR. Doczilla 07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not objectively defined. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with Radiant. Might as well have a category, "Fictional really, really, reallly baaaad dudes". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it just me, or wasn't this cat. already deleted once, about 1.5 - 2 months ago? I could swear... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was renamed from Category:Femmes fatales. Postdlf 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, ambiguous, and irrevocably POV and OR. Categories should not take on literary analysis. Postdlf 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If memory serves, this is really just a more politely worded version of Superbitches. It's still subjective and still OR. --Colage 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above plus it's ungrammatical ("Femmes fatale" is the plural) --lquilter 15:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom — J Greb 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the source article: "The phrase is French for "deadly woman", or "fatal woman". The femme fatale would try to achieve her hidden purpose by using her feminine wiles (beauty, charm, sexual skill)". By this definition any female character who has done so should be included. But wouldn't this be to broas to be useful? User:Dimadick
- A related thought: The list of examples at the femme fatale article needs to be gutted and started over. I'm just wary that some people might initially interpret that as vandalism. The whole list needs to be deleted. If the list there gets reconstructed, it should include only examples named "femme fatale" by good external sources like with the List of fictional anti-heroes article. Doczilla 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just gutted it, so it would be helpful to have some more eyes watching that it doesn't get inappropriately recreated...I'm not up for a one-man edit war on this. Postdlf 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Text

Category:Battles involving Persia

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, deprecated in favor of Category:Military history of Persia. The convention is to structure by-country categories for battles exclusively by the specific historical states involved, and only intersect among unrelated "successor" states (which may share the same informal name) at the "Military history of ..." category level and above. "Persia" is ambiguous as a state name—as there have been a number of very distinct states that have adopted it—so this category isn't useful within that scheme. Kirill Lokshin 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fact that there are other category's about the battles of Persia refering to specific periods. 06:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete No need for this empty category, if there are already other ones that cover what this one is supposed to be used for. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Mathmo ^Talk 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Involving" means nothing. Doczilla 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the term used for all these categories, and for good reasons no doubt. I can't think of anything better. Craig.Scott 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a rename to Category:Jewish people since that is what the category is about. It would be more standardized. Cat out 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, use the most common term. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 09:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jews are still people are they not? 'Jew' can be a complicated term so restricting it to "people" would ease prospective complications. --Cat out 09:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool Cat: Do you even know what you are saying? Perhaps you can prove that you have a suitable grasp of this topic if you would go beyond one or two pat and pithy retorts here and there... See my fuller comments below. Thank you, IZAK 13:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do not discuss contributors. No one is an expert on any topic on Wikipedia. See WP:OWN --Cat out 10:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Do whatever is customary with other such terms ("commonness" isn't the issue; WP conventions are.) Look at how we are handling Navajos/Navajo people, Filipinos/Filipino people/Philippine people, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. Hawkestone 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What convention? This proposal seems to be creating a convention. Is this going to be followed by a proposal to rename Category:Muslims to Category: Muslim people? Or to rename Category:Catholics to Category:Catholic people? Are Jews not people? --Redaktor 13:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I think that calling some a "Jew" sounds racist in some sort of way. I like "Jewish people" better. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with describing someone as a Jew, it is really only an ethnic slur when used as an adjective rather than a noun.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it racist? I'm Jewish and every Jew I know calls hirself "a Jew". Kolindigo 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support if consistent with similar categories I support the rename if it makes the category consistent with similar categories such as Category:Christian people. Ideally I'd like to see all "people by religion categories use the same style naming convention for consistency. Dugwiki 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, why use something long and unwieldy? KISS. Mathmo ^Talk 04:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is the standard. All similar categories are named in this matter. For instance see Category:People by nationality to see how we categorize people by nationalities. Or see Category:Christian people if you want an even more relevant example. --Cat out 07:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect comparison Cool Cat because (a) Christians are not an ethnicity in any way, and (b) the Jews are not a "nationality" by any definition (they have existed for 2000 years without a country.) Thus, the (c) Jews are a complex mix of both a religion and an ethnicity (see the different articles of Jew and Judaism that explain this key point) so that the word "Jew" may correctly refer to them as being either part of the religion of Judaism and/or their Jewish ethnicity (descended from a particular set of Jewish ancestors), whereas (d) "Jewish people" may be confused with the label "Jewish People" that has been used as another name for the Children of Israel or may refer to only the ethnicity (like Biblical Israelites) but not specifically connected to the religion of Judaism as such. (e) You know, sometimes "Jewish people/People" can also be confused with the State of Israel's Israelis. Finally, (f) if "Jews" becomes "Jewish people" what will those who follow Judaism be called? "Judaists," "Judaism believers," "Followers of Judaism," or what??? Do you see the problems with what you are saying? IZAK 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: PoV political ranting, and has nothing to do with the disposition of this category name. (I'm not sure what Israel would be called if not a "nation" or "country" that has "existed" within the last "2000 years", by any objective definition, no matter what people might feel about that nation/country. Please leave your religio-political peeves at home; they don't have anything to do with an encyclopedia.) PS: If we need a category for "followers of Judaism who are not ethnically Jewish", so that that Sammy Davis Jr. can be so categorized, then well, whatever, that's another debate over another category. One that I don't think will go very far for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV reasons. We don't have categories for "Arizonans who don't believe in God" for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Umm SMcC: Gosh, I mean talk of rants, you've given a good example of one right here. We are not talking about a relatively petty subject like Arizonans here (not to demean Arizonans, but how can you possibly compare a complex subject touching upon the very definition of Jews?, one of the world's oldest civilizations, and Judaism, one of the world's key religions that spawned Christianity and Islam.) Instead of yelling and screaming your head off at me which only shows how little you know about this subject, why don't you go read up about it and then come back and criticize specific points that you disagree with. I am not sure what you didn't like about my comments concerning Israel, but not all Israelis are Jewish! The over one million Arab Israelis are not Jewish and neither are about half a million Russians who have settled there recently, they say so themselves when they ask to be buried in Christian cemeteries. But that is not the point of this vote. The idea is to remain focused on the concise word Jews - a word that denotes an ethnic identity as well as a connection to a religion (Judaism) whereas "Jewish people" has no direct bearing or connection to the word and institution of Judaism. Thus, this category does an admirable job as is, so what is so controversial or POV about that?, as it conveys the way Jews and Judaism look at that interconnection, or is Wikipedia (or some obviously ignorant editor/s) now going tell what to call Jews and their connection to their own religion? IZAK 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Weak oppose, and Comment: What's controversial is proposing category naming on the basis that Israel is not a "nation" or "country" that has "existed" within the last "2000 years". Nonsense. The fact that there are some non-Jews in Israel doesn't have any effect on the facts of Israel's founding, its policies and politics, or its majority demographic. BUT ANYWAY, I'm actually siding with the oppose votes here, not because of the impassioned arguments you are bringing, but the simple fact that the "Jews" is the correct cat. name, by religion, and "Jewish people" is by other categorization schemes, so until there are two separate categories to deal with the conflict, stick with the status quo. Highly debatable socio-political arguments like 'the word "Jews" by definition refers to an ethnicity which is a people, thus having "Jewish people" is redundant' are not necessary at all, and just a big distraction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Jew is the word to use. It is a neutral word and is descriptive. No known object can be a Jew without being a Jewish person. "I am a Jew" is something uncontroversial - "I am a nigger" or "I am a spik" is not. I think that is the confusion here. David Spart 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because Category:Jews is based on the lead article: Jew -- no ifs ands or buts. The word "Jews" by definition refers to an ethnicity which is a people, thus having "Jewish people" is redundant. Please read the Jew article. IZAK 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any reason to change the name of this category as I agree that "Jewish people" is somewhat redundant. Also without assuming bad faith I have to ask why people would be so concerned with moving this category..- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk
Oppose The nominator did not provide a single reason for the rename. Beit Or 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per IZAK. Danny Schoemann
Oppose: I don't see a problem with keeping the category "Jews" except that it is too broad to be very diagnostic. However, it can exist as a kind of top-level category within which more specific categories reside, such as "Jews of Egypt" or "Jewish philanthropists", etc. I don't really see why it needs to be removed or renamed. It is the inclusive term that Jews use to refer to themselves, so what's wrong with it? —Dfass 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with Jew but on wikipedia we have a categorization scheme. We add "people" to people related categories. --Cat out 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are 'we'? I gave two more examples of lists which do not include 'people' ands there are undoubtedly more. --Redaktor 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per IZAK, frankly I'm shocked that this is even up for discussion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cat as it currently stands. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Currently, there is no convention and most ethnic groups are described without 'people' becoming the noun as opposed to the people itself. This is actually a philosophical question in that we are all people and having an adjective added. If wikipedia by large argrees to rename all cats Muslim people, Scientologist people, etc... then support. For now, oppose. --Shuki 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Jew" is not a perjorative term: it's the term used by Jews to refer to themselves; the State of Israel [1], the ADL [2], and the Chief Rabbi of England [3] all use the terms "Jew" and "Jews". The word "Jew" is not offensive unless incorrectly used as an adjective or verb. -- The Anome 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should stick to the most common English term. People often refer to "Jews", seldom to "Jewish people".
Oppose for reasons stated above. --Redaktor 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG support Jewish people sounds more neutral; "Jews" just doesn't seem right. —Mets501 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no need for disambiguation here, keep it short and sweet. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The terms are interchangeable, "Jew" is shorter and covers pretty much everything. Share Chabuk's outrage that we're even voting on this. JFW | T@lk 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because thats how people know it, being Jewish I have had more than once where people refered to me as Jew, it has never happened that anybody refered to me Jewish Person.--Shmaltz 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true of most other people-categories as well. Being Greek I have had many people call me a Greek, but it has never happened that anybody refered to me as Greek Person. --Delirium 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Izak, Shuki, and The Anome. JoshuaZ 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that is the way people call Jews. love it or hate it. One may assume the correct way to name jews is "Abraham's grand grand grand grand grand etc. sons". It is a matter of fact how people name Jews. This encyclopedia is not a "school for how we should name things in a politically correct way" IdeasLover 20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since that's the way we seem to name all our ethnicity and nationality articles. I wouldn't oppose getting rid of the people qualifier in all of them, but either way it should be done consistently. Either move Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people, or else keep it there, but move Category:Greek people to Category:Greeks, Category:Christian people to Category:Christians, and so on. --Delirium 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter seems like a better idea; doing so would remove hundreds of thousands of redundant instances of the word "people" from articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IZAK. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per multi points above. --Mais oui! 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 'nough said. The Prince 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. I've got no preference myself (I'd say go withwhatever is "more standard" but haven't checked which form that might be yet) but I'm rather baffled by some of the vigorous opposition to this proposal. Could you expand a bit on your reasons here? Bryan Derksen 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, standardization is good. I'm not understanding all the opposition here. -Amark moo! 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IZAK. Also, "Jews" (as opposed to "Jewish people") is more fitting for a category. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IZAK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose wouldn't Jews be a subcategory of people in any event? Same for christians, muslims, zoroastrians, satanists, etc. I like consistency as much as the next person, but the time to enforce it is when a category is created; once it's got a zillion members who would have to be edited, i'm afraid we have higher priorities right now. that horse has sailed. Gzuckier 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IZAK's concise yet clear summary. Jews, for better or worse, are an ethnicity indelibly and indivisably tied to a religion. -- Avi 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Jews" is more accurate and precise than "Jewish people," IMHO, as being "Jewish" usually implies belonging to the Jewish faith while "Jews" includes secular ones as well. Also, "Jews" is the more commonly used term. -- Nahum 16:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm usually 100% in favor of naming consistency, and I was fully planning to base my vote on that, and on that alone. But then I find an interesting problem: if we want to be consistent with Category:People by religion, we'll keep it at Jews, but if we want to be consistent with Category:People by nationality, we'll change it to Jewish people. I am aware that we tend to think of "Jew" as both an ethnicity and a religion, which complicates matters -- as a third option, is it perhaps time to consider splitting the two? I don't know. The main article, Jew, would be another weight towards keeping things as they are. Beyond that, I'm frankly surprised at the imagined "offense" some of the oppose votes are seeing -- this was obviously proposed in good faith, people. Luna Santin 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, largely on the basis of it being the status quo. As Luna says, this is a difficult instance to be completely consistent about the NCs with, even supposing those are crystal clear in the first place. Given that the two are essentially equivalent, give or take nuances of self-identification by various subjects (Jonathan Miller springs to mind), or ILIKEIT preferences either way by editors -- which obviously we can't accommodate on a case-by-case basis, it doesn't make a good deal of difference. I do wonder if the present category makes it entirely clear that it's a category for specifically for biographies, as opposed to religious/ethnic issues, but it may not be any clearer at the other name, other than by way of the (alleged, partial) convention. Alai 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category is for persons who happen to be Jews. "Jewish people" is a reference for Jews as ethnosocial category. In common usage, if spoken about Rabinovich, Weissmann and Cohen, it is said "they are Jews", not "they are Jewish people". If compared with category:Greek people, the problem is that it conflates Greeks by ethnicity and citizens of Greece, which is not good, so I wouldn't consider this form as a good example. I'd rather suggest to split it in two: category:People of Greece and category:People of ethnic Greek descent. In the case of Jews this would be category:People of Israel, category:People of Jewish descent, and category: Jews, because if I am not mistaken the question who is a Jew? is a category in itself. `'mikka 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone. How is this even up for discussion? Kolindigo 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a good faith nomination, and it would be correct if there were no secular Jews and hence no need for two terms. Craig.Scott 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IZAK. Shlomke 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who villains

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who villains into Category:Doctor Who characters

Merge - per all recent "villains" CfDs, merge to the parent cat. Otto4711 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto4711. Doczilla 07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave alone; as long as the villains cat is a subcat of the chars cat, no harm is done, and given how many DW chars there are, the distinction is probably useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Merge. I somehow missed the 'per all recent "villains" CfDs' part. — SMcCandlish [talk][contrib] ツ 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per earlier discussion. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's pretty clear which characters are villains in Doctor Who. Tim! 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Um, that alleged fact would actually seem to support the deletion argument. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk][contrib] ツ 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of this book Doctor Who: Monsters and Villains were able to distinguish between types of characters. Tim! 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — perfectly good and valid category (addendum: someone needs to correctly tag the category) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I put the CfD tag on it. It's now tagged with CfM. Otto4711 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re: "perfectly good and valid" - Arguments like this are not helpful and likely to be discounted because they simply assert (what sounds like) a highly POV personal opinion without reference to policy, guideline, convention or precendent. You might as well say "Keep — I think it is groovy, and my little brother likes it, too, because it rhymes with 'spinach'". :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no valid deletion reasons yet stated other than other apparently similar categories were deleted, but such arguments are irrelevant. Tim! 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Um, no, it demonstrates evidence of precendent and a consensus on a convention. And no one has demonstrated or even suggested vaguely that there is anything different about this category and the previously deleted similar ones. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Make good use of lists and navboxes. List of Doctor Who villains or a navbox is helpful, category however is not. The Dalek and Cyberman have little in common aside from being Dr Who characters. In a category you cannot give a brief summary, on a list you can. --Cat out 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They have everything in common - they are the Doctor's enemies, and have nothing in common with the companions. I'm not sure what advantage a cluttery template would have over the category. Tim! 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, Cybermen and Dalek hate each other they are not related in any way aside from a common enemy. A list is more meaningful way to link to their articles. --Cat out 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom if nothing else. Though Tim! has a bit of a point. It may be valid to rename the cat Adversaries of the Doctor. That would avoid the POV issue to an extent. — J Greb 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anyone remember all of the other villain CfD's from this past week? —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per precedent. I'd be against this if Category:Doctor who characters were full, but it's almost empty. Percy Snoodle 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike with Buffy or The Simpsons, Doctor Who villains are clear cut.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind, merge as we already have an extremely comprehensive list. Sadly an adversaries category would be populated into the same thing. Shame the Big Bad category was deemed unmanageable. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - villains are characters: the only difference is that villains have a specified preference towards evil rather than characters who are neutral, indifferent or unspecified. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per various. Craig.Scott 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational institutions named after Thomas Aquinas

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is an important group. Many schools are named after St Thomas Aquinas. Smbarnzy 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, grouping of unrelated items. Use a list in Thomas Aquinas instead. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is organization of articles by name, a form of overcategorization. It generally does not unite related topics. Dr. Submillimeter 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: There's nothing "useful" (which isn't necessarily a perfect criterion anyway) about this category at all, since aside from the trivial fact of their names, there's nothing at all generally in common between any of the so-categorized institutions. I wouldn't even call this overcategorization, just flat-out pointless categorization. It's like having categories called "Sports with the letter 'r' in them", or "Mountains named after European-Americans" or "Salamanders with blue spots". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmcCandlish, and per all the other recent precedents deleting "X named after Y" categories (see, e.g., this CFD). Postdlf 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn category and pointless to have. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe do as sublist article Might be an ok sublist article under Thomas Aquinas. As a category, though, it's probably not necessary. Dugwiki 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish. Sumahoy 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per small with no potential for growth, and per nominator. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems an helpful cat. Thanks. Pastorwayne 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Simpsons episodes featuring..." categories

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Mr. Burns
Category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson

Delete, overcategorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's Eeeex-helent nomination (someone was going to make the joke, i just got there first). Otto4711

Homer Simpson cat was not in the nom when I !voted, so I'm adding my delete !vote to that as well. Homer Simpson appears in AFAIK every episode of The Simpsons (or near enough to it) so a category for episodes "featuring" him would amount to a duplication of Category:The Simpsons episodes and its seasonal sub-cats. It can be assumed that an episode of The Simpsons includes Homer and there is no need to list his appearances in his article. For "minor" or "supporting" characters like Mr Burns, a short "appearances" section in the character article listing linked episode titles in which the character appears would suffice, would not add that much bulk to the articles and would sidestep the judgment calls required to decide whether an episode "features" a particular character or not. Otto4711 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you mention it - I'm quite the die hard fan and I can't think of a single episode not containing Homer, Marge, Lisa or Bart. I'm not entirely sure about Maggie. >Radiant< 17:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats why the category has the word featuring in it. And, the user Otto's vote should not be counted due to to the fact that it is a revenge vote. -- Scorpion 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you know, one small problem with your revenge theory, I made my initial comment on this nomination 10 hours before you made your presence known. Otto4711 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Huh? Scorpion0422, what does your personal beef with Otto4711, or the matter before us here, have to do with athlete/model J.P. Calderon? Anyway, they're not actually votes. No one is going to discount Otto4711's comments just because you don't seem to like him or allegedly vice versa; they'll be evaluated on their merits just like anyone else's. Sheesh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ahoy-hoy, quite agree. A bit too spcific. IronDuke 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this painful overcategorization/trivia. Doczilla 07:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I would like to direct everyone here where consensus has already been reached on the use of character speicific categories. The Simpsons WikiProject decided to use categories instead of cruft filled lists of character episodes. It's not overcategorization because there is only 1 category for existing Simpsons episodes, and we are limiting it to main characters only. -- Scorpion 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly a consensus, that's your idea proposed yesterday, and a bunch of people thinking about it and some agreeing. You can hardly call it a "decision made" on such short order. >Radiant< 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overcategorization, no. The episode articles only has one category. Trivia, no. It is useful for finding which episodes are essentiel for this character. It is a better alternative to having crufty lists in the character pages. --Maitch 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides which epiodes constitute "essential" appearances for a character? Otto4711 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly listify. This is trivia. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is worth mentioning in the characters' articles, but it is an inane form of categorization in general. Among other things, such a system requires making a judgment call on whether an episode "features" a character, which may not always be clear-cut. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the big deal? A list also requires said judgement calls. The Simpsons WikiProject decided to make the list to avoid cruft and make things easier. And, where are all thse delete votes coming from? More people have voted delete here than have voted delete in the last 4 cfds combined. -- Scorpion 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia doesn't exist to make it easier to find out which episodes of the Simpsons feature which character (WP:NOT). It's essentially just inane categorization. --Colage 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with Colage, Radiant, et al., w/r/t these particular categories and their style/intent. But Subcategorize otherwise, to satisfy the Simpsons WikiProject's concern; I would suggest by season or year, which is arbitrary (in the original sense of the term), verifiable, and requires no judgement calls whatsoever. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ridiculous overcategorization. I'm sure the Simpsons Wikiproject would love to have more Simpsons categories, but I don't think you can say the same about everyone at Wikipedia. Well, not me, that's for sure. Recury 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete posthaste, I agree that it is overcategorization and it's a bit much, and for that reason, I vote to delete it. I say this as the creator of this page. My reason for creating it was that "Scorpion" went through the individual character articles and took out the lists that contained this information merely because somebody proposed a "slash and burn" cleanup campaign on Simpsons Wikipedia articles and Scorpion felt that including this information in the article was "cruft". By creating this category I hoped to save the information from being slashed and burned out of every single Simpsons character article that Scorpion got his pincers on. It was my proposal that this category be created and to see how it fared among Wikipedians generally. If it was deleted, then the information about episodes containing Mr. Burns would remain in the article about him (and the same went for every other Simpsons character). Since it looks like it will be deleted by an overwhelming consensus, I shall join with the majority of the rest of you and urge this category be deleted, to quote Mr Burns, posthaste. --takethemud 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Although I was in favour of making a full list similar in style to List of guest stars on The Simpsons for this subject, listing each episode, and who it centred around, but the category idea was chosen instead. And, although I prefer my idea, I don't see anything really wrong with these. Maybe rename them "The episodes centering around XXXX character", but what do I know. I feel they have potential. Gran2 22:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any such categorization other than "...in which character X appears" (which I am definitely not suggesting) is going to have the same problems. Just to take one episode almost at random: Krusty Gets Busted. Is that an episode that "centers around" Krusty, or does it "center around" Bart, or Lisa, or Sideshow Bob? Which "centers around" category would one choose, or would one choose as many as four? Your initial instinct of a list was right. Otto4711 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OC and trivia. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand the desire here is to create a useful index for episode articles for The Simpsons. The problem with this category is that it's not clear how to define "featuring", as described by other posts above about the POV problem with the term. Dugwiki 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Homer Simpson cat and Weak Rescope and Rename the Mr. Burns category to remove featuring. Featuring is too POV to be useful and expanding to all appearances would make the Homer Simpson episode cat the same as that of all Simpson episodes. Either a cat or a list of episodes with appearances by the supporting characters would be acceptable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per nom. Additionally, the information and related articles would be better served by listifying. — J Greb 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. It's not clear that "featuring" necessarily means anything more than a character appeared in that episode, which is completely pointless. If it's more than that, it's a matter of original analysis as to whether that character was the "most featured," or whatever. As a good article on a fictional character will necessarily list and explain the specific works that have been important to that character's development and portrayal, these categories simply don't serve any function but trivia. Postdlf 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Maitch. Mathmo ^Talk 04:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Determining which episodes feature a character is POV. --The Dark Side 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mad over-categorization, this is better handled on the indiv. episode articles or better yet at the simpsons wiki. L0b0t 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way over the top. Carina22 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf Cloachland 16:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but maybe create categories about episodes in which those characters does not appear! Souris2005 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video games

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer and video games to Category:Video games

Umbrella entry has been added here. I will get the CfD notice added the listed pages later today. BcRIPster 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, This is to correct usage of terminology agreed upon through a rework of the root Video game page. Discounts possible super-catagory of Electronic game. BcRIPster 03:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be made into an umbrella nomination that includes the various children that currently use Computer and video in their name as well, but I don't have time this evening to do it myself or I would. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, to do this correctly would be a really big job. There's dozens and dozens of subcats and templates, and then there's a project and it has cats of it's own and a dozen or so assesment cats. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and there's a portal too ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Special:Prefixindex/Category:Computer_and_video_game -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not all that worried about the scale of the job, I'll spend every weekend for a year on it if I need to and there are a good number of users willing to work on the effort as well. I don't think scale should necessarily be an issue that keeps something from being done. The real question is, given the scale do we CfD every single CVG page or just high profile pages (to insure visiablity) or do we create a project notice to put on all of them if an agreement is come to on the issue.BcRIPster 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing to do is to make a big umbrella nomination listing all the affected categories, including the project, portal, and assesment ones. It would probably take about an hour to make the list and several more to tag them. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I'd like to see the scope of the proposed change. We've been using "Computer and video games" for a while, and I do think it is a bit awkward, and might support such a simplification. But it has to be done consistently across the numerous uses. — brighterorange (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to try and have this posted tomorrow my time (about 12 hours from this post).BcRIPster 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There are bots that can do this, you know. It doesn't have to be done by hand. Axem Titanium 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object, systemic bias. A large part of the world calls them "computer games" instead. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean this is a geographic thing? Where do they call them "computer games" and where do they call them "video games"? I haven't really noticed a geographic split on the terms, although I haven't really been looking either... Recury 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Poland we call all games "computer games" and people don't use really often "video game" or "console game" terms. And because of this can I propose renaming this category to "Computer games"? No, because of several countries cv-games are called different. Hołek ҉ 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Radiant! please cite references to back up this statement. Besides, this isn't a who calls it what where situation, it is a realignment of terminology to be technically correct. Are you trying to say that people call ALL video games of ANY sort as computer games in some country/region? If so, then this might be a case for a call out in the Video game article about that country/region alone IMHO. BcRIPster 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Have to side with BcRIPster, et al. on this. It's not a matter of what is the most popular usage, nor a matter of some people somewhere preferring one term or the other (and I don't see any evidence of this being an entrenched debate, so "bias" doesn't really apply; contrast Derry vs. Londonderry, in Northern Ireland). Rather it's a matter of "video game" being accurately descriptive (more so than "computer games" which arguably is a misnomer when applied to console games, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, no this is rather due to people not understanding what is meant by a computer. Is merely something that computes! Consoles are computers, of course if you tried to call them PCs then you would have a problem... Mathmo ^Talk 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mathmo I think more people understand what a computer is than you give them credit, and while MOST consoles are computers, not all of them have been. Also computer gaming has always represented games found on computers (Apple, IBM, etc...). ~~You show me a credible reference where someone has identified people who play games on the PlayStation as "computer gamers" and I'll PayPal you $5 US right now.~~ On second thought that's clouding the issue. If people missuse the term then there should be a redirect to capture the traffic and send it to the correct place. BcRIPster 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; still correct by definition and will help avoid tongue-twisters like Category:Computer and video role-playing games or Category:Computer and video games with textual graphics. Marasmusine 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the user directly above me. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I prefer "video games" as well, as that is what the industry refers to itself as. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised this isn't listed there. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object, systemic bias. As per what >Radiant< said. Now I'll diverge to my own personal opinion/experience... I commonly hear/see/say computer games but much more rarely so for the phrase "video games". Mathmo ^Talk 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to say again, where can you show us people calling a game for the Atari 2600 or the Gameboy a Computer game? But more than that, even if they did it's still technically wrong. "systemic bias" is not an applicable complaint. BcRIPster 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Poland (see above; yes, that's weird). Hołek ҉ 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not "technically wrong", the definition of "computer game" does not refer purely to personal computers. The only fundamental difference is if it's a computer game system which doesn't use video as its primary feedback. - hahnch e n 04:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The reason for this rename, is not because there is any real difference between the phrase "computer game" and "video games", but that they are the same thing and that either phrase will do. There's no reason to use two, in the same way that we don't have a Category:Music albums and LPs. That being said, it's an awful lot of work for not much payoff. - hahnch e n 04:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Personally I use the two terms to differentiate between what I play on my PC and what I play on my consoles and handhelds, but in reality they refer to the same thing. Renaming will avoid aforementioned tongue-twisters in other categories. --Scottie theNerd 05:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object per my opinion (above) and Radiant! Hołek ҉ 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I still support the renames, I've just noticed there might be an upset with one or two genre categories - the aforementioned 'Computer and video role-playing games' for example; nobody calls them 'video role-playing games', they are always CRPG's or Computer role-playing games. That's the only exception I can think of at the moment. Marasmusine 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with exceptions based on actual use whatever way this goes. The only issue with that it the one we have with examples like disaster film v disaster movie where some editors can not accept the fact that there are valid exceptions. Some editors believe that everything must follow the convention even if there are valid reasons not to. Vegaswikian 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think more common term would be just RPGs, and in theory the catagory should be either "Video game based role-playing games" (which is what I'm recommending), or "Role-playing game (video game)". Just IMHO. But please make suggestions. BcRIPster 00:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Console role-playing games" is perhaps what you're looking for? It conveys the same meaning and is the vastly more common term. I don't see why it can't be an exception. "Computer and video role-playing games" sounds just as silly in my opinion, anyway. Axem Titanium 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm wondering if maybe this this should be a disambig page forking users to the various platforms? What about hand-helds? I'm trying to think of this from the highest view possible on the specific category though. Let me know everyone's thoughts and I'll revise the CfD on the page. (please follow this up on the umbrella page thread). BcRIPster 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I've always found it odd that the distinction existed. Anyway, rename per nom. Axem Titanium 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's been long established by now to use the term "Computer and video game" * in Wikipedia. "Computer games" refers to games on personal computers (Windows PC, Mac) and "video games" refers to games on consoles (PS, Nintendo, Xbox), so these categories include both. --Vossanova ^o< 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But CVG doesn't cover just PC and Console games, it covers all gaming where a video screen is used as the primary feedback system. Please see the re-write going on with the root video game page, and related Talk issues. Video game is the descriptive term for the whole collection of platforms.BcRIPster 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Abstain. I see that Video game is defined on WP to include both Personal computer game and Console game. However, I don't appreciate the argumental replies by BcRIPster to every Oppose vote. --Vossanova ^o< 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Please accept my apology, I found myself drawn into the process and admit I have been a bit over active in responding. I'll make a point to be more restrained. Thank you for your observation.BcRIPster 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, with concerns. As an ODP editor who works quite a lot on video games, I've seen a lot of VG sites. By "a lot" I mean thousands. Very often, "computer games" is used to distinguish games played on a PC from "video games" which are played on consoles. The whole "electronic game played using a video screen" is the definition ODP uses for the Video Games category, although there is a "Computer Games" symlink pointing to the video games category. I agree with the rename, although I could have predicted some of the arguments presented above. I'll also bet real money that someone will create a "Computer games" category to parallel "Video game" in the not-too-distant future. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is computer game article and video game article category. not a video game article only category.--Tujn 10:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feedback to the recent round of keeps. Computer games are video games. What they are not is Console Games. Please read the definition of a Video game that we are working with. If we were to use your logic then the catagories should be called "Computer and console and handheld and arcade and cellphone and pda and etc... game". The computer isn't so special a platform that it needs to be called out seperate above all others. (sorry to post a challenge to these Vossanova, IMHO people need to read the definition before they vote.) BcRIPster 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename Let's get this stupid debate over with already. --SeizureDog 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ski areas of China

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ski areas and resorts in China, convention of Category:Ski resorts. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename too match the convention. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orsini to Category:Orsini family

Rename for clarity as with other family categories. Sumahoy 02:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past such deletions. It's not like there's only one Orsina family on planet Earth. Doczilla 07:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been no past such deletions, or hardly any. There are hundreds and hundreds of such categories, and I merely added the wrong tag in error, I did however type "rename" as I intended to do and not "delete". Sumahoy 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Doczilla. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, there may be many Orisini families, but there is only one Orsini family article. Tim! 10:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename A very important family for Roman and Papal history but the category name should make clear what is categorised. User:Dimadick
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military veterans

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military veterans to Category:Military personnel
Category:Fictional veterans to Category:Fictional military personnel
Category:Lists of veterans to Category:Lists of military personnel
Category:British military veterans to Category:British military personnel
Category:British World War I veterans to Category:British military personnel of World War I
Category:British World War II veterans to Category:British military personnel of World War II
Category:Korean War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Korean War
Category:United States military veterans to Category:American military personnel
Category:American World War I veterans to Category:American military personnel of World War I
Category:American World War II veterans to Category:American military personnel of World War II
Category:Gulf War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Gulf War
Category:American Iraq War veterans to Category:American military personnel of the Iraq War
Category:Native American veterans to Category:Native American military personnel
Category:Vietnam War veterans to Category:Military personnel of the Vietnam War
Category:British Korean War veterans to Category:British military personnel of the Korean War
Category:British Iraq War veterans to Category:British military personnel of the Iraq War

Rationale, based on discussions at WP:MILHIST: Wikipedia categorization of biographies is generally not dependent on whether someone is still involved in the topic of the category, or was only involved with it at some point in their life; thus, there's no Category:Retired scientists, Category:Former monarchs, or Category:Footballers who no longer play. Military "veterans" should simply be categorized in the normal categories for all military personnel. Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename per nomination. Makes very good sense to me. However, one caveat; this discussion, which applies to individuals, should not be considered precedent for categories for veterans' organizations; organizations can and do choose to focus on veterans as distinct from active military personnel. --lquilter 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite true; that's why none of the organization categories were listed here. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question does this mean that the articles in say Category:Lists of veterans will also be renamed? Personally, I'm not inclined to support this move, if only because because the identification as a veteran is frequently very strong, but I don't consider the move to be a problem, so I'm neutral on the issue itself. However, I do think that the question I brought up should be considered. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly speaking, this is intended only to apply to categories, not to articles; I don't believe there's been any significant discussion on how such lists should be named, so I wouldn't necessarily anticipate any article moves. There are relatively few lists there that actually include "veterans" in the title; and those tend to focus more on people notable as veterans rather than everyone who was a vet, in which case keeping "veterans" may actually be the more appropriate option. Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, given that these categories do include lists with such names (I counted over half a dozen), I do think it would be appropriate to have such a discussion. List of Gulf War veterans is possibly viable renaming, but Last surviving United States war veterans is obviously not a candidate for renaming. In fact, given the content of some of the lists in that category, I think Category:Lists of veterans should remain unchanged in name, and anything that's not appropriate for it moved into some other category. No reason one can't have both that category and Category:Lists of military personnel. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair point. Given that it's split about equally, I don't see much of a practical difference between keeping the existing one and moving the non-vet half or renaming the existing one and creating a new sub-cat for the vet lists, though. Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. Sumahoy 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom with one refinement. Rename Category:British military veterans to Category:British military personnel by war. Greenshed 13:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Wachholder0 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, because categories lack the context necessary to distinguish past or present status. Lists obviously can do this as FrozenPurpleCube pointed out, so the "Lists of veterans" category can remain as is. Postdlf 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think "military personnel" sounds better than "veterans". —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The former implies they survived their war while the other is more inclusive. User:Dimadick
Support for consistency, etc. Carom 02:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category:Soldiers to Category:Enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:Fictional soldiers to Category:Fictional military personnel~~
~~Category:Soldiers by nationality to Category:Enlisted personnel by nationality~~

Categories that are already intended for enlisted personnel:

~~Category:Australian Army soldiers to Category:Australian Army enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:British Army soldiers to Category:British Army enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:British Indian Army soldiers to Category:British Indian Army enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:Canadian soldiers to Category:Canadian enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:Chinese soldiers to Category:Chinese enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:French Army soldiers to Category:French Army enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:Japanese soldiers to Category:Japanese enlisted personnel~~
~~Category:United States Army soldiers to Category:United States Army enlisted personnel~~

Categories that do not appear to already be intended for enlisted personnel:

~~Category:Australian soldiers to Category:Australian military personnel~~
~~Category:Austrian soldiers to Category:Austrian military personnel~~
~~Category:Belgian soldiers to Category:Belgian military personnel~~
~~Category:Soldiers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzgovinan military personnel~~
~~Category:British soldiers to Category:British military personnel~~
~~Category:Burmese soldiers to Category:Burmese military personnel~~
~~Category:Croatian soldiers to Category:Croatian military personnel~~
~~Category:Cuban soldiers to Category:Cuban military personnel~~
~~Category:Czechoslovakian soldiers to Category:Czechoslovakian military personnel~~
~~Category:Dutch soldiers to Category:Dutch military personnel~~
~~Category:Egyptian soldiers to Category:Egyptian military personnel~~
~~Category:English soldiers to Category:English military personnel~~
~~Category:Eritrean soldiers to Category:Eritrean military personnel~~
~~Category:Fijian soldiers to Category:Fijian military personnel~~
~~Category:French soldiers to Category:French military personnel~~
~~Category:Ghanaian soldiers to Category:Ghanaian military personnel~~
~~Category:Greek soldiers to Category:Greek military personnel~~
~~Category:Hong Kong soldiers to Category:Hong Kong military personnel~~
~~Category:Hungarian soldiers to Category:Hungarian military personnel~~
~~Category:Israeli soldiers to Category:Israeli military personnel~~
~~Category:Italian soldiers to Category:Italian military personnel~~
~~Category:Liberian soldiers to Category:Liberian military personnel~~
~~Category:Luxembourgian soldiers to Category:Luxembourgian military personnel~~
~~Category:Mexican soldiers to Category:Mexican military personnel~~
~~Category:Montenegrin soldiers to Category:Montenegrin military personnel~~
~~Category:Norwegian soldiers to Category:Norwegian military personnel~~
~~Category:Paraguayan soldiers to Category:Paraguayan military personnel~~
~~Category:Peruvian soldiers to Category:Peruvian military personnel~~
~~Category:Polish soldiers to Category:Polish military personnel~~
~~Category:Portuguese soldiers to Category:Polish military personnel~~
~~Category:Puerto Rican soldiers to Category:Puerto Rican military personnel~~
~~Category:Ancient Roman soldiers to Category:Ancient Roman military personnel~~
~~Category:Rwandan soldiers to Category:Rwandan military personnel~~
~~Category:Scottish soldiers to Category:Scottish military personnel~~
~~Category:Serbian soldiers to Category:Serbian military personnel~~
~~Category:Spanish soldiers to Category:Spanish military personnel~~
~~Category:Sri Lankan soldiers to Category:Sri Lankan military personnel~~
~~Category:Sudanese soldiers to Category:Sudanese military personnel~~
~~Category:Swedish soldiers to Category:Swedish military personnel~~
~~Category:Venezuelan soldiers to Category:Venezuelan military personnel~~
~~Category:Welsh soldiers to Category:Welsh military personnel~~

Rationale, based on discussions at WP:MILHIST: "soldier" is a very ambiguous term; it can refer either to all military figures, or only to figures serving in the land forces, or only to enlisted ranks; thus, using it in category names is unnecessarily confusing. The current categories fall into two broad groups: those that are used only for enlisted personnel, and those that are used for all military personnel. In the former case, the proposal is simply to rename the categories; in the latter, the proposal is to merge them into the military personnel categories, and allow enlisted personnel categories to be split out if/when they are needed (to avoid having large numbers of articles incorrectly categorized, as they would be if these categories were renamed to enlisted personnel). Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Obviously, there are a number of issues here that weren't considered, and the issue is too complex for a short discussion to be able to figure them all out. WPMILHIST will conduct further discussion on these categories here; anyone with an interest is invited to join in. Kirill Lokshin 17:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose The first category includes subcategories that contain vast numbers of articles about officers. "Military personnel" is not a synonym for "soldiers" as the former includes naval and air force personnel. The proposal is also anachronistic as "enlistment" does not fit well with the pre-modern period. Overall, there are too many issues here for the multi-section block nomination to be appropriate. Sumahoy 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, yes, that's the whole point; "soldiers" is also used, in practice, in a way that includes non-land-forces personnel (note how many of these categories include them). That's why we're trying to get rid of the term in category names.
- As far as the categorization of officers under "soldiers": that's what the second half of the list is all about. Those sub-categories that contain officers will get pulled directly into "military personnel", and thus will no longer be included in "enlisted personnel" after the entire series of renamings. The only categories that will stay under "enlisted personnel" are the ones in the top list, which include "enlisted" in their title.
- As far as anachronistic usage: fair point, but the consensus at MILHIST, at least, is that it's an acceptable price to pay for getting rid of the ambiguous "soldiers". Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Military enlistment isn't a universal constant, and as Sumahoy said, there are a lot of officers in there. But, in many cases across all time periods (mercenaries, conscripted soldiers, tribal warriors, and slave soldiers, to name a few), "Soldier" fits, but "Enlisted personnel" doesn't. With due respect to MILHIST, I don't think this is a good idea. It just creates more confusion than it addresses. --Colage 06:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. We need some clear purpose for these categories, though; as noted, the present setup uses "soldier" both as a generic synonym for "military personnel" and in various more narrow meanings. I have no objection to keeping the term around in principle; but somebody needs to come up with a way of delimiting its use that doesn't result in a massive set of redundant categories. Kirill Lokshin 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Military personnel; oppose enlisted personnel Bluap 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support military personnel; oppose enlisted personnel. "Enlisted" is confusing or meaningless to anyone not familiar with the military; "military" is unambiguous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Sumahoy. In British and Commonwealth English it is an error to describe a member of the navy or air force as a soldier, they are sailors and airmen respectively. Greenshed 13:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So is the usage of "soldiers" basically equivalent to "army personnel" in B/C En? Perhaps that would be a doable rename, to avoid the ambiguity? We already have Category:Navy personnel and Category:Air force personnel in Category:Military personnel by branch. Kirill Lokshin 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Soldiers" is roughly equivalent to "army personnel" in B/C En. There are (at least) two complications. First, marines could be decribed as soldiers on ships although normally they are treated separately. However, members of the Royal Marines are certainly not members of the British Army (the Royal Marines forms part of the Naval Service). Secondly, army officers could be classed as soldiers or as officers (ie as opposed to soldiers). More generally, I will try and think of a postive suggestion as although I don't agree with the proposed change, there are problems with the cats. Greenshed 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all as above. "Enlisted personnel" is an Americanism, and these renames are totally misleading to us Brits. Soldiers, sailors and airmen should be kept separate. Hawkestone 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above: would "army personnel" be equivalent to "soldiers" in British English? Or is the term only for "other ranks" in the army? Kirill Lokshin 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object for Ancient Romans. Those were really not "military personnel" in those ages. >Radiant< 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian hip hop

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Postdlf 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One entry, multiple empty sub categories - non notable sub group of Indian music. Sfacets 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has also begun an AFD of Indian hip hop, following suggestions below.

Keep: There are several Indian hip hop musicians and Indian hip hop is a huge scene.--Urthogie 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentThere is no independent Indian hiphop genre - mostly either incorporated into filmi or bhangra mixups. But that's not why it's up for deletion, it's up for deletion because it is empty, and contains multiple empty sub cats. Sfacets 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian hip hop has an article. Perhaps if you think its not an independent concept you should have started by AFD'ing that. Until then, I don't think the claim that its not an independent genre/concept is basis for a CFD. Also, several Indian hip hop musicians should be expected to fill up that category soon.--Urthogie 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least merge - Why is there "Indian hip hop" (empty except for the article and subcat), "Indian hip hop musicians" (empty except for subcat) and then "Indian rappers" which has one person in it? That's three categories for two articles. This category has been around for almost a year, so I'm skeptical that it's going to fill up soon. --Colage 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changing my earlier vote with the new additions and (hopefully) continued additions to the category. --Colage 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty subcats; Retain Indian hip hop and Indian rapper categories since they actually have articles. There's not any really compelling reason to merge them into Indian music[ians] just because they aren't brimming with entries yet. All it will take is one singleminded editor to expand the article selection. I wouldn't conflate them either - rap and hiphop are not synonymous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user makes clear they want to retain the Indian hip hop category (which is what we're voting on) as well as the Indian rapper category. There are no empty subcats here.--Urthogie 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure I follow you. Direct quote: "multiple empty sub categories". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for those who claim there aren't enough notable Indian hip hoppers, try actually doing a google search and seeing the notable folks who turn up.--Urthogie 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what Google has to do with this. This isn't about popularity, it's about the necessity of the category, and after a year, two articles don't seem to fit that bill. If there are scores of notable Indian hip hop artists out there, then you're welcome to expand on Wikipedia's entries and make the category necessary. --Colage 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added three people to the category. The category will continue to grow if we don't delete it! --Urthogie 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. There's growth potential for the category, and if editors are willing to add some pages to it, it seems reasonable to keep it. I've changed my vote above. --Colage 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, there aren't enough Indian Hip-Hop artists - Urthogie has been adding artists such as Rishi Rich who is a bhangra/2Step artist and also a hiphop producer but who doesn't perform hip hop himself.

BHangra is not a subgenre of hiphop. I have removed two of the entries, the first because he wasn't indian, the second because he isn't a hip hop artist. Sfacets 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment, no evident function being served. The subcategories are fine, such as Category:Indian rappers, as they fit into a "X by nationality" scheme. But nothing is accomplished by floating this otherwise empty category on top of those sparsely populated divisions. I think someone with a lot of patience should take a look at the other categories in Category:Hip hop by nationality, which also contains plenty of other categories of questionable utility (Category:Tanzanian hip hop) and substubs of mainly redlink content (Cape Verdean hip hop). Postdlf 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's organized this way so that people can browse easily through the hip hop categoires of a given country-- the musicians, the songs, the albums, etc. It's not exactly convenient to have to go to hip hop songs by nationality, hip hop musicians by nationality, etc. Categories exist for easy browsing, and this category accomplishes that.--Urthogie 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I guess it's more that I just wouldn't care if it got deleted than that I feel strongly about it. I struck through my "delete" vote to make it a comment instead. More of a vote for "meh." Postdlf 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm willing to give this cat the benefit of the doubt. It could be expanded into something decent and useful. Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Logical, standard subdivisions are useful even if not hugely populated at a given moment in time. Given the English-language / US/Anglo bias of Wikipedia, it only stands to reason that non-US categories are taking longer to fill up. And India -- one of the largest countries in the world -- is certainly likely to fill up categories over time. --lquilter 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lquilter. Osomec 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page does have potential if editors are willing to contribute to it.--Xxplosive 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs expansion though....--NPswimdude500 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]