< February 27	March 1 >

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Category:Neoconservatives and Category:American Conservatives had both been deleted, as consensus determined these to be POV and far too controversial categories for individual persons. (See here and here.) If so, then the categories listed above should also be deleted, as they are (most often) collectives of individuals organized to create publications, and as such ideological labels are even more difficult and controversial. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify a bit: Category:Ideological publications does not exist, this is simply an umbrella nomination for the four categories listed directly below the section header. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for POV. In some cases, it's clearcut, but often it's not. Doczilla 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is a matter best dealt with within articles rather as a blanket assertion through categorisation. As Doczilla notes, political stance is not always clear-cut.

Xdamr^talk 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might want to add Category:Conservative college newspapers if you are going to delete categories that classify newspapers based on political ideology. mirageinred 03:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a danger here that these categories are applied in ways that are about partisan criticism. It might be possible, however, that a category like "self-identified conservative/liberal/etc. papers/magazines/blogs" might be useful. (That is, the NYT may be liberal, but does not self-identify as such; Mother Jones (I think) actually claims to be liberal/progressive.) It wouldn't be a bad thing to bring such papers together in a category. semper fictilis 15:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; these categories are more useful for POV pushing than anything else. Also delete subcategory Category:Conservative college newspapers. — coel acan — 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WINAD, and lists of names have been widely deemed to be unencyclopedic. In the past few weeks nearly all lists of given names and surnames have been traswikied to Wiktionary and deleted. There is strong consensus that they are dictionary material, so I'm nominating the categories to go as well. See below for evidence of the conenses; I've compiled a list of all the list of name-related AfDs. Dmcdevit·t 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of nominations for deleted lists of names
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names

Full list of nominations for deleted lists of names

Delete - Per nom.--Niohe 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I believe that while many or most of such lists may be deleted, there are some of these name-lists that the community decides are useful enough to keep. Given that some of these lists survive, there should be a category for them. semper fictilis 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of categorizing articles by words that might be "mentioned" is a bad concept. The articles might have almost nothing to do with the website mentioned, or with education in general, or with each other. Recommend deleting as an ill-definied concept collecting what could be fairly unrelated articles, and which also appears to be relatively unnecessary since articles that are actually about education or educational websites will appear in other corresponding categories. Dugwiki 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a subcat of Category:Educational websites so presumably they are aware of that category's existence and are not duplicating it. Apparently, category starter really wants to categorize by mere MENTIONS of an educational website, which just serves no purpose whatsoever. SubSeven 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This idea is just ill-conceived. Dr. Submillimeter 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost every article in Category:Education should mention an education website, and thousands of them already do. Wimstead 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appalling idea for categorisation. Creates a trivial linkage between categorised articles, articles which will be far better categorised elsewhere.

Xdamr^talk 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category of educational websites is a good idea, but a category of webpages that merely mention them is not. semper fictilis 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was oppose renaming.--Wizardman 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Native American peoples". Some of the entries in Category:Native American tribes refer to languages that the tribes spoke rather than tribes themselves. Furthermore, some tribes, such as the Ojibwa and the Cherokee, are not unified political entities, but rather are in seperate groups, such as the Cherokee Nation, The Eastern Cherokee Band, The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and so forth. Subcategories need to be made and the seperate entitites need to be in each category. Furthermore, some of the groups here aren't even tribes, they are confederations, such as the Iroquois, which are a confederation of six seperate tribes. This also needs to be addressed. Not to mention the fact that some of the articles refer to ethnic groups instead of tribes, such as the article about Muskhogean stock, Algonquian peoples, and so on. I propose renaming this category to "Native American peoples", moving the articles on languages into another category entirely, and putting subcategories for confederations and tribes that divide into seperate political entities. Asarelah 21:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. JAGO It's just HIS story... 09:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename to Category:Native American people - I respect what Asarelah is trying to do, and I think a rename would be appropriate. However, Category:Native American people will not work. Categories ending in "people" are generally for individuals, not for groups of people. The proposed rename (to sort tribes or confederations) would cause confusion. Moreover, Category:Native American people already exists (to list individual Native American people). Therefore, I strongly advise against the new name proposed by Asarelah. However, I strongly encourage him to suggest an altername name. (Perhaps Category:Native American tribes and confederations would be appropriate.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my proposed name change was "Native American Peoples", with a "S" on the end as a plural, not "Native American people". Asarelah 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose this rename. The new name is too similar to Category:Native American people, and it will cause confusion for the average reader. A word other than "people" or "peoples" is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a reasonable concern, but the problem with your proposal is that "tribes and confederations" isn't inclusive of the articles about ethnic groups (such as Muskhogean stock and Algonquian peoples) that I mentioned earlier. Asarelah 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This needs to be worked out at the Wikiproject first. Rmhermen 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added a link to this discussion on the talk page of the Wikiproject. Asarelah 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In Canada we call them First nations. Might this usage be useful? semper fictilis 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea, because the category is only for the United States, and if we called them "First Nations", it would only cause people to confuse them with the Canadian First Nations, which have seperate category. But thanks for your input. Asarelah 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Canada-only thing. They are "First Nations" in America as well, and many other countries. — coel acan — 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think any of the proposals so far are going to gather any kind of consensus in the short timespan of a CFD. This should be worked out at the WikiProject first, and then proposed. Proposing and alerting the WikiProject does not allow enough time for consensus on what will be a difficult debate. — coel acan — 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Native American cultures" rather than "peoples" (to address Dr. Submillimeter's concern. --Orange Mike 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This does not seem appropriate. These categories not only contain cultural information but also biographies on people and information on modern tribal organizations and businesses. I would not classify those things as "culture". Dr. Submillimeter 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is serving as a parent cat for two subcats which are both up for deletion (one speedy) and is also serving as a catch-all for people associated with SNL, including random writers and musical guests. No need for this category. Otto4711 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate "Profession by Project" and "Performer by Appearance/Performance" category. — J Greb 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Greb, category clutter. Haddiscoe 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. Doczilla 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague linkage. --Xdamr^talk 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per actors by series mass nomination. A comprehensive cast list exists at Saturday Night Live cast. Otto4711 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the list exists (and it looks like it since the list is in the cat...) Speedy delete as per Listify tag. — J Greb 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its been listified. PAK Man 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An inappropriate categorization of writers, artists, editors, and publishers by project. J Greb 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. Doczilla 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Television writers work for a variety of shows over the course of their careers. This is an improper creator by series categorization. I have listified the contents of the category. In the alternative, merge to Category:Television writers. Otto4711 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Listified then merge the articles that don't already reside in Television writers or a nationality sub cat of it and delete as inappropriate "Profession by Project" categorization. — J Greb 21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, whether listified or not. The article will mention the more important writers, which is what is needed in an encyclopedia. ReeseM 13:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate classification of "Person by Employer". J Greb 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. People often work for a variety of employers and categorizing them by employer is improper. Otto4711 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No "People by employer", ever, please. — coel acan — 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The character categories have been removed from the people subcats. Vegaswikian 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outmerge from the sub-categories then Delete parent and subs. People in this industry can and do change employer frequently. Hence it is inappropriate to classify them by employer. J Greb 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small question though... anyone know when characters became people. 4 of the 5 subs have the company's character cat listed as a sub. — J Greb 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Sorting people by company is inappropriate, as people work for many companies during their careers. Note that the outmerge suggestion is not practical, as the closing administrator will probably use a bot to either perform a simple merge or delete operation. If the closing administrator deletes these manually, he/she may not attempt to guess how people should be sorted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No "People by employer", ever, please. — coel acan — 20:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parent and both sub-categories are explicitly "Person by Employer" categories. Articles listd in the the subs should be relocated to the following as appropriate: Category:Comics writers, Comics writers by nationality, Category:Comics artists, Comics artists by nationality, and/cor Category:Comics creators. J Greb 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Comic book people generally work for multiple companies, so categorizing people by company will just lead to duplicate categories. It also is not clear what a "comics creator" is. If it entails creating comic book characters, then it is not very special, as most comic book writers and artists do this all the time. If it entails creating comic book titles, however, it may be worth keeping. Dr. Submillimeter 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outmerge members to the appropriate Comics writers, Comics artists or Comics writers/artists by nationality category and then delete these. You beat me to them, I was just about to nominate them myself. Otto4711 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note that the outmerge suggestion is not practical, as the closing administrator will probably use a bot to either perform a simple merge or delete operation. If the closing administrator deletes these manually, he/she may not attempt to guess how people should be sorted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merges can be listed to be done manually, but like listifying, it may take a very long time to be done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No "People by employer", ever, please. — coel acan — 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outmerge to appropriate Comics writer, Comics artist, or Comics writer/artist by nationality category and delete this category as an improper creator by project categorization. Otto4711 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outmerge and Delete as per nom. — J Greb 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comic book people should not be organized by project. It can lead to severe category clutter, especially for people with long careers like Stan Lee or John Byrne. Dr. Submillimeter 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outmerge and delete per above. Doczilla 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a useful category that avoids the need for a big list. All that outmerging will do is create a vast and amorphous blob categories which tell us next to nothing. (Emperor 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aquaman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Batman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Captain America artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Daredevil artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Doctor Strange artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Fantastic Four artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Flash (comics) artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Green Lantern artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Hulk artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Iron Man artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Justice League artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Punisher artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Spider-Man artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Superman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Thor artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Wonder Woman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:X-Men artists to Category:Comics artists

Merge all - Comics artists can and do work on a variety of series in the course of their careers. This is a form of performer by performance categorization and should be merged to the parent category. Would weakly support listifying. Otto4711 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent, or to appropriate Comic book artist by nationality. All listed are "Profession by Project" which is untenable due to writers moving from one project to another. In most cases the up/out merge destination should already exist on the article. — J Greb 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Comics artists - Comic book people should not be organized by project. It can lead to severe category clutter, especially for people with long careers like Stan Lee or John Byrne, who have worked on many different titles. Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - present cats are not workable as someone may have worked on many series. Metamagician3000 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge all per above. Doczilla 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aquaman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Batman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Captain America writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Daredevil writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Doctor Strange writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Fantastic Four writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Flash writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Green Lantern writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Hulk writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Iron Man writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Justice League writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:New Warriors writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Spider-Man writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Punisher writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Superman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Wonder Woman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:X-Men writers to Category:Comics writers

Merge all - Comic book writers can and do write for a variety of series over the course of their careers. This is a variety of performer by performance and should be merged to the parent category. Would weakly support listifying. Otto4711 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent, or to appropriate Comic book writer by nationality. All listed are "Profession by Project" which is untenable due to writers moving from one project to another. In most cases the up/out merge destination should already exist on the article. Also in the parent and tagged by the nom but missing from the list is Category:Flash writers — J Greb 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLash writers category now added above. Otto4711 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Comics writers - Comic book people should not be organized by project. It can lead to severe category clutter, especially for people with long careers like Stan Lee or John Byrne, who have worked on many different titles. Dr. Submillimeter 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - more workable. Metamagician3000 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge all per above. Doczilla 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics editors to Category:Comic book editors

Merge, The category is an example of "Profession by Employer". Editors can, and do move from company to company so it is more appropriate to categorize by profession only.. J Greb 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Otto4711 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Metamagician3000 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per above. Doczilla 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most people listed in this category are more notable for other activities. Many of the people in this category are high-profile politicians, including George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, Jesse Helms, Augusto Pinochet, and Margaret Thatcher. Clearly, this classification has little meaning for most of these people, as the Rotary Club plays a minor role in their notability. The category should be deleted (even though some of the associations are very funny). Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A reasonable sounding list, but as above not a very good category. Generally speaking since people can belong to any indetermintate number of various organizations simultaneously, it's probably not a good idea to create "members of" categories for most of them. Use lists instead unless there's a compelling reason for the category. Dugwiki 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If not deleted, at the very least the category should be restricted to those articles which specifically include the membership in the club as a detail. Articles which don't mention the Rotary Club shouldn't be included in the category. Dugwiki 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We might as well have Category:Oxygen breathers. Quatloo 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining info. Doczilla 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate way to categorise people as it has nothing to do with what makes them notable. Metamagician3000 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 70.51.8.30 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to listify this trivia. ReeseM 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, these are honors bestowed by City of London organizations upon famous British people who receive many honors anyway. While the honor itself is notable, the categories themselves seem imappropriate, as these individuals are more notable for their other achievements, not for winning this article. Approximately half of the articles in these categories do not even mention this honor in the text. Moreover, classification by honors like this leads to category clutter, where the large number of categories becomes difficult to read. See, for example, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. For these reasons, I suggest deletion these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:The Simpsons characters, that is good enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that isn't already in Category:The Simpsons characters. SubSeven 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Created by User:LedgerJoker, who is a sock of indef blocked User:EJBanks and User:Creepy Crawler. CovenantD 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Architecture schools, or Keep. There really aren't a lot of these, but if we wanted to split it up this would be the first step. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a bunch, the category was just not being used. There are even some not listed in the parent category. Someone needs to populate both categories. Vegaswikian 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Obviously useful for navigation. Haddiscoe 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. semper fictilis 15:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Guilford County High Schools into Category:High schools in North Carolina, listify contents in Guilford County Schools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in North Carolina, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It should be a list on a Guilford County Schools article and not a category, as it is too narrow a subject and as per the convention above.--TinMan 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is yet another minor award given to people who win many awards anyway. In this case, this award is given to anyone from St. Louis who has done anything notable (including Maya Angelou and Bob Costas.) Since many of these people win many awards anyway, the category should be deleted. Also note that the people on the walk are listed at St. Louis Walk of Fame so listifying is not necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasoning in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners, just use a list instead. Dugwiki 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: CfD Not applicable, nominator notified. Duja► 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a stub article masquerading as a category, but the standard Category:Ethnic groups in South Asia already exists. LukeHoC 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BiH division taken to an extreme: all articles in these two categories also exist in the parent category, needless to say. It's unusual to sort the ethnic groups according to country subdivisions, especially for a small country. Duja► 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge (to Category:Dungeons & Dragons planes of existence). --RobertG ♬ talk 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles related to the astral plane in Dungeons & Dragons (one race, one city, one bit of geography). Since this is very small and unlikely ever to grow, I'd suggest upmerging into the cat about planes in general. >Radiant< 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. pretty ambiguously named, too. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. semper fictilis 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small and unlikely to grow. It's a collection of oddities like February 30th and January 0th. These would already stand out in regular date cats, and can easily interlink. >Radiant< 13:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense, which would be wholly subjective anyway. Doczilla 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful and a collection of coincidences. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a unitary phenomenon (Feb. 29 and 30 are genuine calendar trivia; some of the others are fictional; Jan. 0 is a computer programming trivium). semper fictilis 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge all except the first into Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters, with the goal of repurposing that category as non-superpowered characters and purging the superpowered ones into Category:Marvel Comics superheroes and Category:Marvel Comics supervillains. Lots of positions here, but there's a consensus to change somehow, and this seemed a reasonable temporary fix.--Mike Selinker 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:Marvel Comics characters - This classification of characters as "supporting characters" makes little sense. First, the classification of a character as a "supporting character" is ill-defined. Some of the characters are central to the storylines surrounding the individual characters (e.g. Mary Jane Watson in Spider-Man comic books) and can hardly be called "supporting characters". Furthermore, some of these characters have developed to become independent characters known for appearing outside the comic book in which they originally appeared (most notably Wolverine (comics) listed in Category:Hulk supporting characters and Elektra (comics) in Category:Daredevil supporting characters). Aside from the characters who become popular enough to appear in their own comic books, some of these "supporting characters" appear with multiple superhero characters, so classifying a character as being a "supporting character" for a specific superhero or superhero group makes little sense. Therefore, I advocate merging into Category:Marvel Comics characters.Dr. Submillimeter 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In my opinion, these categories allow to know in which comics these characters appear, an information we lose by merging all into a super category that wouldn't differentiate a character that is specific to Spiderman and a character that is specific to Hulk. If a character appeared in more than one comic, it can fit into more than one category. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - These characters are not necessarily specific to any comic book series. For example, Wolverine (comics) appeared in several other comic books series besides the Incredible Hulk. (This is a silly example, but I can easily find more examples.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the parent - I see some small utility in distinguishing supporting characters but this is another of those "I wouldn't weep salty tears if it went away" sort of things. The character-specific ones are to an extent being improperly used as ersatz "enemies of" categories, capturing characters like 3-D Man as "Hulk supporting characters" when the only "support" 3-D Man ever offered was a ten-page battle in one issue. The character's article should make it clear where the character appeared and what role the character played in the series. Otto4711 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "parent" I mean Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters. Otto4711 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per above. Doczilla 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you please specifiy which category to merge into? Dr. Submillimeter 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ugly one... Merge and prune seems the best option given the nature of things. But merging to what isn't clean and simple. Some of the characters only exists to fill supporting roles. So while most should migrate to Category:Marvel Comics characters, Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, and Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, if they aren't there already, that small minority should migrate to the tea parent cat listed by the nom. — J Greb 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Merge heroes to Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, villains to Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, and all the rest to Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters. The latter would be mostly for the J. Jonah Jamesons of the world. We could put notes on each one to suggest that only people who are mostly heroes go in the heroes cat, and so on.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The closing administrator may give this to a bot to merge and/or delete. The above suggestion is not practical. Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all into Category:Marvel Comics characters. -Sean Curtin 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge all except the first into Category:DC Comics supporting characters, with the goal of repurposing that category as non-superpowered characters and purging the superpowered ones into Category:DC Comics superheroes and Category:DC Comics supervillains. Lots of positions here, but there's a consensus to change somehow, and this seemed a reasonable temporary fix.--Mike Selinker 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:DC Comics characters - This classification of characters as "supporting characters" makes little sense. First, the classification of a character as a "supporting character" is ill-defined. Some of the characters are central to the storylines surrounding the individual characters and can hardly be called "supporting characters". Furthermore, some of these characters have developed to become independent characters known for appearing outside the comic book in which they originally appeared. Aside from the characters who become popular enough to appear in their own comic books, some of these "supporting characters" appear with multiple superhero characters, so classifying a character as being a "supporting character" for a specific superhero or superhero group makes little sense. Therefore, I advocate merging into Category:DC Comics characters. (I apologize for not citing specific examples like I did with the Marvel Comics characters, but I am less familiar with DC Comics.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Azrael, Batgirl, Huntress, Renee Montoya, Maggie Sawyer :) CovenantD 13:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Category:DC Comics supporting characters - as with the Marvel characters above, I see some measure of utility in categorizing supporting characters but would not be upset if the structure were deleted entirely. Otto4711 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. Doczilla 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you please specifiy which category to merge into? Dr. Submillimeter 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is like the above dealing with Marvel characters, an ugly one... Merge and prune seems the best option given the nature of things. But merging to what isn't clean and simple. Some of the characters only exists to fill supporting roles. So while most should migrate to Category:DC Comics characters, Category:DC Comics superheroes, and Category:DC Comics supervillains, if they aren't there already, that small minority should migrate to the tea parent cat listed by the nom. — J Greb 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all into Category:DC Comics characters. -Sean Curtin 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North Flowing Rivers to Category:North flowing rivers

Nominator's Rationale: Capitalization would normally fall under the speedy rules; but, I think this category, or one with a similar name may have been discussed and deleted last year. Listing it here for discussion. Neier 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely useless. Overcategorization, too. - Darwinek 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - North-flowing rivers in different locations are going to have very little to do with each other. For example, the several rivers in Florida included in this category have little in common with the Nile, nor would they have anything in common with the Ob River or the Rhine. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. IIRC we also deleted the List of rivers flowing north (what was the exact name?) et al. last year. Duja► 13:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia that also happens to be inappropriately capitalized. Doczilla 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as this is actually a very useful category since not too many rivers (comparitively) flow north. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are relatively few rivers that flow north is something I remembered (and which surprised me) from the previous discussion. It is likely that if it was a List which was deleted, last year, the ever popular "already a cat" reasoning was probably applied; in which case, this category should not be deleted. Unfortunately, I can't remember, and can't find the old discussions either. Is there a way to search deletion logs for non-specific article titles? Neier 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps there was another (category or list) discussion as well, but this the one I remember: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's river. Conclusion was (apart from the fact that there are not enough good sources to keep that as an article) that most rivers flow in many directions (e.g. the Rhine ends westwards), and that there are quite a lot of generally North flowing rivers anyway, even among the very large rivers, especially in Europe and Siberia.
Delete, trivial and hard to define (what direction does the Scheldt flow? North, East, West, or all three?). Fram 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per for all reasons previously stated. ReeseM 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not a particularly helpful category; it's unverified in many ways (ie. some players' articles don't show proof of ancestry, and only going by looks and/or surnames); and this is the only "NHL players by race"-type category out there (there's no category for other races). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't categorize by race or ethnicity unless it can be shown to be relevent. I made a related nomination a while ago, but it failed. -- Prove It ^(talk)

I agree. If it was nationality, it'd be different (as for hockey, it can determine which country/countries a player is eligible to play for), but race isn't relevant in any notable factors. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buchanan-Hermit. ← amiИa (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep as it is. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish Centre Party politicians to Category:Members of the Centre Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Christian Democratic politicians to Category:Members of the Christian Democrats (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Green Party politicians to Category:Members of the Green Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Left Party politicians to Category:Members of the Left Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Liberal Party politicians to Category:Members of the Liberal People's Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Moderate Party politicians to Category:Members of the Moderate Party
Category:Swedish Social Democratic politicians to Category:Members of the Swedish Social Democratic Party
Rename: I think these categories should be renamed so they can include also people who are members of any of the parties but not necessarily politicians. This includes for example some authors, artists musicians etc. /Slarre 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for many reasons:
- The politicians by party-by-country categorisation is a widely-used triple intersection, and an important way of grouping say politicians across countries (e.g. Category:Green politicians) and sub-dividing politicians in each country (e.g. Category:Swedish politicians by party). The renaming would effectively be a deletion, because many of the parent categories would no longer apply.
- political party is a defining characteric of a politician; it is not usually a defining characteristic of a painter or a poet. If there is a case for say Category:Members of the Green Party (Sweden), then create it as a new category and add Category:Swedish Green Party politicians as a sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the idea of categorising non-politicians by party membership, as it will add to clutter for very little purpose. Haddiscoe 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons laid out by BrownHairedGirl. I would also oppose wide use of Category:Members of Party (Country)-type categories as it is inherently difficult to verify inclusion or exclusion in such categories, as the political affiliations of non-political people are usually not publicised. It may be useful in certain rare cases (e.g., if the party only has 20 members, most of whom are notable), but even then, one could just classify such people under Category:Party (Country). -- Black Falcon 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. semper fictilis 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:In Living Color characters into Category:In Living Color. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In Living Color characters to Category:In Living Color

Merge, The characters subcat has two unique entries and the parent cat has six. Not enough to justify a split. CovenantD 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all important publication… categories. I think the debate can be summarised as follows. "Important" is subjective and at the very least there should be a rename to remove it. "Publication" is singular and at the very least there should be a rename to "publications". What that leaves is Category:Publications and subcategories. Note, Category:Publications exists and its contents appear to make it a valid parent category of this category tree, but it certainly isn't what this category tree is trying to be. There already exists a whole category structure at and under Category:Scientific literature, and the categories under consideration here are (or probably should be) redundant with those. Nobody proposed a merge (thank goodness), so the only option left to me is delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Category:Important publication and all its subcategories for deletion. First, the name is ungrammatical (should be plural, "publications").

Also, there are not many articles on Wikipedia dedicated to a particular book or publication. I guess only notable books and publications get Wikipedia entries. Trying to categorize the existing entries by importance does not make much sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to closing administrator. If it is decided that these categories be deleted, I can use a bot to do the work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete of category and subcategories that wholly invoke POV. Wikipedia has standard for words like notable, but not for important. Doczilla 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we all agree that the name is problematic. If so, do you agree to rename the category to "publications in X" or "notable publications in X"? APH 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I fully agree that the title is ungrammatical, and that it does not make much sense to start deciding which publications (say, in algebra, or geometry, or whatever) already having an article in Wikipedia are important or not -- this opens up a whole can of worms, so better to not go that way. On the other hand, it may make sense to have a category about books in a given field (say, Books in Algebraic Geometry), provided such a category were to be well populated. So I wouldn't close the door on that... Turgidson 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most advances in modern science are published in journals and not as books. Hence, the justification to a category of publications is just as the one of a category of books. Do you agree to rename the category to "publications in X"? APH 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer. That's an idea. I thought this was a debate about books, but yes, of course, almost all advances in modern science occur in articles -- some not even in journals, but only posted on the arXiv. As just one example, take Grigori Perelman's arXiv articles on the Poincaré conjecture. If somehow the scope of these categories could be broadened to not just include books, but important articles as well (sorry, I did not pay attention to that aspect previously), then yes, it would make more sense to me, though I'm still mindful of the various objections raised by other people... Turgidson 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. I agree that there is a grammar problem in the name that should be fixed. In case that the word "Important" is a problem the category can be renamed to "notable publication in X" or "publication in X". We tried discussing the proper name but there is no decision. As for the existence of the category, I don't think that the size of t should be an argument. First, there is a place for small categories. Second, We plan to write article on these publication. The publication we consider are indeed notable ones that should get an entry at wikipedia. Actually, it is wikipedia that should get an entry on these publications. APH 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose addressing the POV issue? By definition if the publication has an article it is notable. So every publication with an article would be a member of this category. Vegaswikian 09:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. APH 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "Publications in X". These categories will get expanded in time. For example quite a few of the entries in List of important publications in chemistry deserve articles and will populate the chemistry category. --Bduke 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do categories improve on what is already included in List of important publications in chemistry? Vegaswikian 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The categories should aid to the list. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science). APH 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main category and subcategories - The term "important" is subjective. Many of the categories are empty or mostly empty, and the categories probably duplicate other publication category trees in Wikipedia, so keeping these categories is not even worthwhile. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't want people's plans for good work being frustrated but this doesn't seem like the right way to go. The word "important" is just too subjective. Metamagician3000 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we should avoid the word "important". None of the categories should be empty. If there is such an category then this is a mistake and we will fix it. Some of the categories contain few article but that is since we still have plenty of work. Do you agree to rename the categories? Unsigned comment added by APH 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. The concept of "important" is too vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we should avoid the word "important". Do you agree to rename the categories to one of the options above? Unsigned comment added by APH 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply I don't see any clear proposal that I could say yay or any to, and I can't think of one that makes sense. It seems to me that this job is best done by lists --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The categories should aid to the list. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science). As for a rename options, what about "publications in X"? APH 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A list of publications is better than a category. Users who care about such things may want to learn about publications (that they exist!) even when that pub doesn't have its own article. DavidCBryant 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The categories should aid to the list, not to replace them. They both should coexist. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science).APH 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - A category cannot begin to explain why an article is considered notable or important or who makes that claim. Lists can be annotated to show that this isn't just what a Wikipedia editor thinks is important. That List of important publications in chemistry that's being used as a standard? Totally unsourced. CovenantD 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, indiscriminate and POV list; it duplicates other categories. Duja► 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Which categories it duplicates? if there are already other suitable categories, we can use them. APH 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Scientific literature and its subcategories. Duja► 09:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice them before. Thanks for telling me about them. I should check it a bit more but it seems that The "Scientific literature" sub categories are exactly what I meant in the "important publication" categories. Thanks again, APH 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all POV categories. LukeHoC 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be an internally used category for Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. I do agree that it presents POV issues, though, and I'm not sure if internal project categories that probably aren't valid for general use should appear in the category space. I'm not all that up on the details of how projects work, though, so I won't immediately say "delete" in case there are technical or practical reasons to keep that I'm not familiar with. Dugwiki 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV by design. This one makes my head hurt. Quatloo 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly subjective. The WikiProject can make its own lists to cover this sort of thing. Sam Blacketer 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal I see why one would want this information to appear on a list. But categories are different. Arbitrary editors add articles to categories, and will not be aware that a category has a history or special requirements of debate. Furthermore when looking at a category page the additions and subtractions are not visible, since they appear on individual article pages, some of which may no longer be pointing to the category page. Thus, things are far less transparent. It isn't clear why categories are required at all for this. Quatloo 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I must admit that I didn't thought about the transparency issue. However, some wikipedians, including me, are maintaining the lists and categories. In case of problematic categorization we will take care of it. The categories are needed for some reasons. Note that the categories should aid to the list, not to replace them. They both should coexist. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science).APH 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But... I understand and accept that it is desirable to have categories for publications. I've spent quite a bit of time placing scientific and cultural journals in categories and making appropriate new categories for journals, and hierarchicalizing the journals categories. What I don't understand is why the importance of the publication needs to be part of the category, or even why that would be desirable. That has never been fully explained. Your example of the flexibility and length of lists is solvable easily by simply creating a hierarchy of lists. Quatloo 00:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Your arguments are are true but apply to all categories. It seems that categories are a more convenient mechanism for , duplicated entries, a none flat graph structure and a large number of items. The search in categories is also easier. APH 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply again You haven't answered the question. Categories are great, when it's readily apparent to nearly any editor that an article belongs or does not belong in a category. But introducing value judgements into the categories themselves puts categorization into the realm of a specialist, and furthermore, is unnecessary because those articles are already in appropriate categories for their fields. The category doesn't need to know the article is an important publication on game theory, only that it is an article on game theory. And then your arguments conflate the goodness of categories with the the value judgements of importance being included in the category, when we should only address one thing here: Why do we need value judgements as part of the category. Quatloo 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to mix judgment and categories. I just found out the there are "Scientific literature" categories that might just be what I had in mind while creating the categories and giving them that awful name. I'll check it some more. In case that the categories are redundant I'll change my vote to delete too. APH 07:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename loose the importance so we have Category:publication in geometry etc. There is some overlap with other categories of publications by topic for example Category:Mathematical literature and Category:Mathematics books and if the categories are deleted it should be done with some care so we do not loose topic-specific lists of publications. There is some merit in List of important publications in mathematics etc. where it is easier to moderate the inclusions of peoples favorite text books. I have thought a bit about how to organise Category:Mathematics books and one means of doing this was to seperate out the clasic historical works (say Euclid's Elements), from text books (Calculus (book)), advanced research works (Grothendieck's Séminaire de géométrie algébrique) and popular writing (Gödel, Escher, Bach). --Salix alba (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as misformatted and misconceived. Wimstead 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or at least rename to ditch that very ugly word "important". A quick browse shows that some of the publications may be interesting or curious, but hardly POV "important". linas 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (or, failing that, rename). semper fictilis 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename all subcategories~~ to remove "Important". All of these subcategories are useful, and are suffering here merely because the creator(s) misunderstood WP:N and thought they had to include some word like "notable" or "important" in order to avoid deletion. This is a common mistake, and useful categories should not be deleted for that mistake. The parent category, of course, can be deleted. — coel acan — 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note to closing admin~~: if you believe there is consensus to delete the subcategories, please go ahead and procedurally open a DRV instead of listing these immediately for the bots to take down. It is my opinion that the delete votes here are mistakenly predicated on nothing but a bad naming scheme, and if deleted I will take this to DRV, so please save people the work of adding the articles back into the the categories should the DRV succeed. — coel acan — 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and do not comply with request by coel. If there is a consensus to delete it should be implemented in full. No variant on "important publication" can form the basis for a legitimate category. ReeseM 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a salient observation, but I didn't propose any variant on "important publication". I said drop the "important", which is the usual approach taken when dealing with articles that have these unfortunate qualifiers at the beginning. However, digging deeper into these categories reveals that they are essentially duplicates. For instance, Category:Important publication in geometry, which would become Category:Publications in geometry, is redundant to Category:Mathematics publications. Similar situations exist across most if not all of these categories. So I'm withdrawing my earlier recommendations, and wishing very much that I had looked closer the first time. Delete. — coel acan — 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A list for this already exists. The categories are badly named and no suitable alternative has been proposed. Better to delete what we have and then create something in the future if a structure that is not POV can be developed. Vegaswikian 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 28

Category:Ideological publications

Category:Lists of given names and Category:Lists of surnames by ethnicity or nationality

Category:Articles mentioning educational websites

Category:Native American tribes

Category:Saturday Night Live people

Category:Saturday Night Live cast members

Category:MAD Magazine people

Category:Saturday Night Live writers

Category:DC Comics executives

Category:Comics people by company

Category:Comics creators by company

Category:2000 AD creators

Category:Comics artists

Category:Comics writers

Category:Marvel Comics editors

Category:Rotary Club members

Liverymen categories

Category:The Simpson family

Category:Architecture schools in the United States

Category:Guilford County High Schools

Category:St. Louis Walk of Fame

Category:Ethnic groups of South Asia

Subcategories of Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Category:Astral plane

Category:Unusual dates

Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters

Category:DC Comics supporting characters

Category:North Flowing Rivers

Category:Asian NHL players

Swedish politicians by party

Category:In Living Color characters

Category:Important publication