< January 18	January 20 >

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, recreation of deleted category. Postdlf 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Block as recreated content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Block per nom. "Supermodel" has become a meaningless word, and even when it was used less profligately it had major definition and POV problems. ReeseM 02:40, 20 January 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. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Indian child actors, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 20 January 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. Vegaswikian 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by trivial characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject matter way too minor to warrant a category. Wasted Time R 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personally never heard of "Make Your Own Kind Of Music" until now. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 15:52, 20 January 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: no consensus. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per following:

Merge Category:Canadian Americans (in part) into Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States

Merge Category:Canadian Americans (in part) into Category:Americans of Canadian descent

Possible Merge Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States into Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States and rename Category: Canadians living in the United States.

Consider Delete Category:Canadian emigrants

Supposedly, Category:Canadian Americans was nominated for deletion in the past (and no consensus was reached), but I couldn't find the discussion on the archive link provided. I came across these several related cats. the other day when trying to categorize someone. I can't figure out the nuances between them. The person at the help desk couldn't offer me more clarification and suggested that I post here.

I think there are two major distinctions to consider:

(1) People who were born and raised in Canada but live in the United States -- this grouping represents the current Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States and Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States, which I propose be merged and renamed; and

(2) Americans of Canadian (including French Canadian) descent, which means that one or both parents were born in Canada, but the individual was not -- this grouping becomes Category:Americans of Canadian descent, which would now be the appropriate subcat under Category:People of Canadian descent rather than the current hodge-podge entry, Category:Canadian Americans. (Note: The cat Category:Americans of French Canadian descent is under-used; it should be a subcat here.)

The subcat Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States is problematic because it presumes access to information that, except for the most public of figures, will not readily be known. Also, the intro for Category:Canadian Americans states: "People who work in the United States, but still consider themselves Canadians only, and do not intend to settle permanently in the United States or apply for citizenship should be classed as expatriates." Are we reading people's minds now? How do we know what someone's intentions are? Or even if they hold dual citizenship?

Also, Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States is a subcat of Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States. I'm not sure that makes sense. Consider Category: Canadians living in the United States as an alternative.

Finally, Category:Canadian emigrants is empty except for the subcat Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States.

--Vbd 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 31 for a debate on "expatriate" and "emigrant" categories that implicitly includes "immigrant" categories. Other people make some strong distinctions between "expatriate" and "emigrant", as "expatriate" is supposedly for someone who will return to his or her native country and "emigrant" is for someone who will become a citizen of his or her new country of residence. However, distinguishing between the two is impractical (as a review of the articles in Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States and Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States will reveal). My suggestion would be to consider having an "expatriates and emigrants" category. Dr. Submillimeter 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: The word "emigrant" refers to a person who leaves their home country to live in another country; it is used from the perspective of the home country ("I emigrated from Canada to the U.S."). The word "immigrant" refers to a person who takes up permanent residence in a new country; it is used from the perspective of the new country ("I am an immigrant to the U.S."). They are two sides of the same coin. An expatriate is someone who lives outside of their native country. Trying to draw a distinction between who is a "Canadian immigrant to the U.S." and who is a "Canadian expat in the U.S." is tricky because it requires parsing INS status and the unknowable intentions of individuals. See new proposed rename added above: Category:Canadians living in the United States.--Vbd 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Hargreaves is a famous Canadian emigrant, so I think the underpopulation of Category:Canadian emigrants should be rectified, instead of the category being deleted. However, it should be renamed to Category:People from Canada per convention. Category:Canadian Americans is an intersection of two categories, but there are enough of the type that we can keep it and make it a subcat of Category:People from Canada. The other categories are overcategorizations that should be Deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the nomination as a whole has been made. Comments agree with dividing Cat:Canadian Americans into those who are immigrants and those with Canadian parentage but do not support merging expats who have not changed citizenship with those who have as one the fundamental ways of categorizing people on wiki is based on citizenship. disagree wholly that these categories are anything to do with intentions - it is quite simple, reference in the article of the person having gained citizenship puts them as an immigrant and otherwise they are an expat (the citizenship cat page is a subcategory of the expat page as all immigrants were once expats). this nomination should be split up into two or three shouldn t it?? - it has several parts to it Mayumashu 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to me that all the other cases being mentioned here are subcategories of the general category, and there are going to be categories not covered here. (I know Canadian citizens born in Britain, South Africa, Hong Kong, and the United States who are working and/or have moved permanently to the US. You're assuming a small discreet set of cases, but the reality is more of a spectrum. A general category can include the special cases not covered by the common subcategories. Avt tor 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies that Canadians are everywhere. The question is whether the categories, as they stand, help readers navigate through Wikipedia. Since they are so confusing, they cannot possibly be doing that. Xiner (talk, email) 02:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wrote the offending blurb about "intending to become a citizen", and I can see now why it was wrong. That being said, I was trying to keep some very different groups separated. There is a big difference between a Canadian hockey player who plays for a US team and therefore lives there for a few months of the year, or a Canadian actor who has moved to LA for good and has US citizenship, and raised their children there. "Canadian immigrants to the US" should be limited to naturalized US citizens born in Canada. "Canadian expats in the US" should include any other Canadian person living or working in the US. "Canadian Americans" is a problem because it is so vague. I wouldn't object to renaming it "Americans of Canadian decent" to show how it is different from the other two. But that would break with the conventions set by the other ethnic groups in the US categories, so I don't think it would last. Kevlar67 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevlar, i agree wholly with what you re saying and am at present by hand weeding out expats from the Category:Canadian Americans list. i m also putting naturalized citizens into Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States and wish once immigrants are listed separately (but as a linked sub-category) to rename all Fooian(-)Hooians to Fooians of Hooian descent, as you suggest here Mayumashu 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, insufficient consensus for deletion. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:My Name Is Earl actors to Category:My Name Is Earl cast members

Rename and prune to limit to recurring actors only, and exclude guest stars, per a number of recent precedents on TV show actor categories. Postdlf 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to by named properly looking at Category:Actors by comedy television series. TonyTheTiger 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to cast or cast members. Tim! 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to cast The recent trend in naming of these sorts of categories on cfd discussions has been to use cast instead of actors to make clear it doesn't apply to guest stars. This is a somewhat recent change in consensus on how to name these categories (assuming they are kept - whether or not to delete them is another can of worms entirely). Dugwiki 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to cast. Xiner (talk, email) 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll open that can of worms! These have cropped up on CFD with increasing regularity recently—looking at these debates we can see that the reasons for deletion or retention are many and varied. Personally, I regard categorisation as the wrong vehicle for this purpose. The main article on the TV programme can easily contain a list of the cast, individual articles on individual actors can contain a list of their acting credits. In my view this is far more satisfactory than using categories.

(ducks for cover)

Xdamr^talk 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Categorizing people based on every role they've every played is ridiculous and will just be cluttercruft like when Cindy Crawford had nearly a hundred categories based on all her past jobs. Delete like Scooby-Doo actors[1] or at least rename to minimum the clutter. Doczilla 06:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would clutter category section to do it for all tv series and movies. Explicit links in cast/roles sections much better.--Per Abrahamsen 12:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Bewitched and Austin Powers below. -- Samuel Wantman 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename if not deleted. Pinoakcourt 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Xiner. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename categories are neater and more consistent than lists. Mr. Stabs 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Take a reasonably well-known actress - let's choose Meryl Streep. According to IMDB, she has acted in sixty-two films - that means something in the region of sixty-two+ categories - neater? Let's look a less prolific actor - Will Smith. Twenty-six films, twenty-six+ categories - neater? Let's bring out the heavy artillery - let's try John Wayne. One hundred and seventy-two films, one hundred and seventy-two+ categories - neater?

Note that these numbers exclude tv appearances, which may add appreciably to the totals. Also note that John Wayne, despite his impressive statistics, is by no means the most prolific actor in cinema.

Now, of course, I'm being a little silly here, but I think that my point is a decent one. Categories are meant to be an aid; even if you prune each actor's categories down (and how you do that is a whole other debate), with 20, 30, 40, or more on a page, who is really going to be helped? Simply put, all this additional clutter is of no use to man nor beast. I can understand the rationale behind the attempt to use categories, but it simply one of these things that doesn't work in practice.

Xdamr^talk 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... I couldn't have possibly said it better than Xdamr. These actor categories are out of hand. Most TV Shows and movies that have categories like this have a list that's a lot tidier than categories and usually has more information to boot. --Colage 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xdamr. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm delete after discussion. Doczilla 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note to closer Doczilla has already !voted/commented. Tim! 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These actor categories are not feasible. Dr. Submillimeter 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Half Man Half Biscuit albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:07, 22 January 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. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the Animax article correctly, it is not the originator of these shows, just a network that broadcasts them. We should not categorize shows based on their syndicated broadcasters. Otto4711 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consensus at Wikiproject Television has also strongly supported only categorizing television series by their originating, branding networks, not by syndicated or other secondary broadcasters. Postdlf 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, e.g. Sci-Fi channel program category. Doczilla 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the vast majority of the articles in this category contain shows which were all originated, branded and originally produced by Animax, including Ultra Maniac, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (and 2nd GIG), Aishiteruze Baby, Galaxy Angel, and several others. The Animax network produces and creates several original programs regularly, each month, therefore the aforementioned concerns certainly does not in anyway apply here, so if it is simply a matter of certain content, then those particular shows which do not apply can simply be removed from the category. In several other similar categories like Category:Shows on Adult Swim, Category:Shows on Toonami, Category:Cartoon Network shows, Category:Category:Cartoon Network shows, Category:YTV shows there are several programs which were only later broadcast on these networks and which were never the original broadcasters of these shows and with absolutely no prior affiliation with them, yet no concerns were never raised regarding these categories. Ganryuu (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Animax article does not make it clear that Animax is the originating broadcaster of any of these shows. As far as the other categories you mention, first, in my opinion those shows should also be devoid of programs for which they are a secondary broadcaster and second, the status of one category has nothing to do with the status of another. Otto4711 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Animax article (where, I should note, I am one of the main contributors) does make it clear that it is indeed the original broadcasters and producers of these shows, see History section: "It has been involved in the production of several anime series, such as ...". See trusted references such as Anime News Network (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/company.php?id=506) where the numerous original broadcasts as aired by Animax are listed. Animax has been directly involved in the production and original broadcasts of several original programs and anime TV series, noted by numerous sources, as I mentioned earlier. For even further confirmation, see also the Japanese interwiki, where this topic has also been similarly thoroughly expanded. If it is merely a content dispute, then please feel free to bring this up on the main talk page. Ganryuu (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if renamed to Category:Original series by Animax or something similar. This will make it very clear what the cateogry is for, and greatly reduce the amount of work required to maintain it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:38, 29 January 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. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Companies based in Wisconsin, splitting Wisconsin companies into dozens of small categories would be a mistake, it would make navigation worse, not better. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that with 150 in the parent category, it isn't unreasonable to split off the 15 in the state's capital and 2^nd largest city. I would not want to see the rest split out by city in ones and twos. ~ Bigr Tex 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge BigrTex's argument is unpersuasive - he may not wish to, but someone else may and consistency in categories is very important. --Dweller 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, splitting off this city is an invitation to split the rest. Such localized divisions are better handled as lists, either stand-alone or within larger topics. Postdlf 17:21, 31 January 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. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. The category contains only one character, Cindy Campbell, the only notable character of the Scary Movie series. Other characters would suit being listed, perhaps. Typically, fictional characters go straight into "by genre" and "by medium" categories if they cannot be grouped with a large number of similar character articles. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of a suggested upmerge destination. Otto4711 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion was implicit as I had noted that Typically, fictional characters go straight into "by genre" and "by medium" categories if they cannot be grouped with a large number of similar character articles. So for clarity, the Scary Movie category on the Cindy Campbell article should be replaced with Category:Scary Movie, Category:Fictional comedy characters and Category:Film characters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge any useful information into the respective Scary Movie articles. Doczilla 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use explicit links in article.--Per Abrahamsen 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:08, 22 January 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. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Environmental organizations based in the United States, which is much too small for a 50 way split. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom as overcategorisarion. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The cat can't handle a 50-way split, but it would make much more sense & be helpful to do a few subcats on types of organizations (land trusts, research institutes, advocacy groups, etc.). --lquilter 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the fact that Vermont seems to be home to many of these movements in the US, I'm not convinced that it should not have a sub category. Vegaswikian 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Associations in Vermont, which is currently underpopulated, can link them at the state level. Postdlf 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, overcategorization that will just hinder navigation. Postdlf 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Overcategorization. Vermont may have more than its share, but what about the other forty-nine states? It is not practical to break environmental organizations down by state. There are 89 members in Category:Environmental organizations based in the United States. That would give less than two per state, on average. Way too small for each state to have its own category. EdJohnston 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hybrid music genres to Category:Fusion music genres

Rename, Hybrid is incorrect terminology. Fusion is the term used by critics and music taxonomists, not hybrid. For example, jazz fusion. ~Switch ^t 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Switch. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename fusion is the correct term, not hybrid --LordJumper 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename for now pending verification by external sources that hybrid is not the preferred term and that the terms mean the same thing. The Fusion article lacks sources. Doczilla 19:08, 22 January 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 (both). >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely is riding a motorcycle a defining characteristic, at least for real people. Any usefulness these categories might have, though, is diminished by the inclusion of casual, and even one-time riders. Few of the real-life member articles even mention motorcycles (though most of the fictional members do). We have Category:Motorcycle racers for professional riders, and could create a fictional counterpart if needed. ×Meegs 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Motorcyclists, but keep Fictional motorcyclists. If there is already a section for professional motorcyclists, then the larger category should go, but motorcycling is a defining characteristic of - just say - the Biker Mice from Mars, though they are not "professional" cyclists. ~Switch ^t 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - The real people are notable for their careers (acting, writing, fighting the Ottoman Empire, etc), not for their mode of transportation. Many of the fictional characters are only loosely defined by their mode of transportation, although the motorcycle is clearly tied into some characters' identities (e.g. Ghost Rider). Both categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dr S. The Rambling Man 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, trivia with no possible way to objectively limit inclusion to those for whom motorcycles may actually be meaningful. Postdlf 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but restrict to articles that notably mention motorcycling This appears to be a natural subcategory of Category:People associated with sports and hobbies, which sorts people by notable association with a sport/hobby. Note that this is not restricted to simply professionals or amateur racers, for example, but also includes people who have a notable influence or interest in the hobby. So under that context, Motorcyclists appears to be a reasonable subdivision.

However, the category needs to be cleaned up, removing articles for people who are not notably involved with motorcycling. The category description likewise should be tightened. Basically an article should only appear in this category if there is a serious, notable inclusion of motorcycling. Dugwiki 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly the category should be kept, especially if some of the other sub-categories of Category:People associated with sports and hobbies are kept. Delete this and you must delete others too based on the same criteria of fairness. Those too link to non-notable people for the category title. Maybe only people wellwell known as motorcyclists should be included, for instance, from my knowledge, T.E. Lawrence, Jay Leno, Steve McQueen and Douglas Bader are/were keen motorcyclists and deserve a place on this list though I don't know about others. Maybe there should be a reference to their motorcycling on their main article page for them to be added to this category, but this has to do with criteria for inclusion not deletion. Keep it. ww2censor 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other categories should be deleted if this one is? And if you think that only those "well known as motorcyclists" should be included, you're really supporting a different category, as "Motorcyclists" is obviously lacking any limiting language. What should such a category be named so that it targets those "well known" for this, and how should that "well known" threshold for inclusion be identified?
- A side comment: Category:Motorcycle racers is a subcategory of this, and should be kept. While not everyone who may be included may be notable for racing motorcycles (such as Steve McQueen), that they have done it is a notable fact for them regardless because simply racing motorcycles can make people notable. By contrast, no one is notable simply because they are a motorcycle rider, without more, and it isn't a presumptively important fact. Postdlf 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, you are stark raving mad. Being a motorcyclist is more than choosing a method of transportation. It is also more than having professionals, paid to race/compete on motorcycles. As above, many notable people, eg Ewan McGregor, T.E. Lawrence, Steve McQueen and Douglas Bader rode motorcycles, to such an extent they were famous for that in addition to their prime notability. Take the first two on My very brief list, McGregor made the film/series "the long way round" - he is a famous actor, but his "motorcycling" is more than say him using a car to go to work. Similarly. Steve McQueen famously competed in many events, despite being a very famous actor, he even funded On Any Sunday, he rode for the US in the ISDT....
- As noted above, Steve McQueen is in Category:Motorcycle racers, which no one wants to delete. As for whether "many notable people...were famous" for riding motorcycles, this category does not target only those people, nor has there been any suggestion as to how we should determine that motorcycle-related fame if such a narrower category were alternatively created. I know T.E. Lawrence died on a motorcycle because I'm a fan of the film; I've never heard anything about Ewan McGregor and motorcycles despite being a fan of many of his films. But luckily articles aren't dependant on what we think people are famous for. Postdlf 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more a defining characteristic than any other hobby. Honbicot 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Postdlf Cloachland 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. While a hobby may not be a defining characteristic, it does help to flush out a personality. Motorcycling sets a person apart from the norm. It seems to me that Wikipedia is about spreading knowledge and any facts that help us learn more about the make up of a person can only increase our comprehension. For instance, learning that King Juan Carlos of Spain is an avid motorcyclist would tend to mold your opinion of him. I vote Keep to increase awareness.Orsoni 05:51, 2 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: merge. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodist missionaries in Africa into Category:Christian missionaries in Africa

Merge - At the moment, not enough articles are present in Category:Christian missionaries in Africa to warrant the subdivision by subdenomination and by country of activity. Division by the country of activity (Cameroon, Sierra Leone, etc.) would be preferable for organizational purposes at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom: no need to subdivide yet. See also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Division by country unlikely to succeed as missionaries in Africa predate the countries, eg Livingstone; and the countries have mostly changed names and some have merged/split. roundhouse 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:38, 19 January 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. Vegaswikian 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Problematic as an umbrella cat. If its subcats could perhaps work on their own, grouping them into one category is absurd and unmanageable. Dahn 12:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sub-cats may work (e.g. Sporting controversies, Royal Family controversies, Oil spillage controversies) but I doubt that too. An umbrella cat like this would be, per Dahn, unmanageable. The Rambling Man 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess I just don't see the problem, looks like it's being more or less managed right now. Recury 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does fulfil a somewhat useful role, but it might benefit from a batter name, although I can't think of one now. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up The category description states it is "for topics explicitly about controversy, not for topics that may engender controversy." So basically articles with the word "controversy", for example, are probably ok under that definition since they are specifically about a particular controversy. However, artilces like The Reagans which are not specifically about controversy but which might include some controversial subject matter would not fall under this category. So I think the category is ok in principle, but there appear to be a number of articles that are inappropriately assigned to it. A sweep of the category's articles to remove inappropriate articles appears to be in order. Dugwiki 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have to be a weekly sweep, and no one is going to do that. Pinoakcourt 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, unmanageable category. Doczilla 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Rambling Man. Pinoakcourt 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would include an unreasonably high proportion of all WP articles, and with no connection between them. DGG 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla and Pinoakcourt. Sumahoy 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Controversies obviously exist. Therefore they are an encyclopedic subject, therefore they should be categorized. -- Freemarket 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've stated two non sequiturs, because not everything that exists is encyclopedic, and not everything encyclopedic should be categorized. Postdlf 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a random selection of topics from unrelated fields. Honbicot 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to Cameroon to Category:Christian missionaries in Cameroon

Rename - This category's contents are entirely about Christian missionaries. The word "Christian" should therefore be added to reflect that. Also, the word "to" should be changed to "in" to reflect the convention in the majority of the missionary categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. (See also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Christian missionaries in Africa - Cameroon has a complicated history post 1900. roundhouse 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't object to "Christian" being added, but "in" is 100% the wrong word. These were missionaries to a place, not in a place. The category should absolutely not be "upmerged" per roundhouse; these folks had a strong impact on Cameroon and need to remain on the categorization tree at that country's level. — BrianSmithson 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that "in" is apppropriate, because not all missionaries in a country come from overseas. See discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#"to" or "in". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I can accept that. I now support renaming but strongly oppose upmerging. I am the primary maintainer of the Cameroon-related categories, and if this gets upmerged, it will seriously hamper my ability to maintain the pages involved. Certainly there are other notable missionaries to Cameroon for whom we could have articles on Wikipedia; the reason we don't is because of our systemic bias and our lack of editors from Cameroon. Please don't throw another wrench in the works for someone like me who is already spread very thin in this area. — BrianSmithson 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or Rename. Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:39, 19 January 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. Postdlf 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary subset of Category:The Simpsons episodes, containing one episode from each season. It should be merged. >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Ulysses Zagreb 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This is an interesting subgrouping of episodes, but not deserving of a category. ~ Bigr Tex 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Merge per Zythe below. ~ Bigr Tex 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to give this category some benefit of the doubt. The Treehouse episodes are all notably linked to each other, and are decidedly different from normal episodes of the series. Knowing that an episode is one of the Treehouse Halloween episodes immediately tells the reader a great deal about the episode. In fact, it's probably an even more defining characteristic than, say, identifying in what season the episode took place. So since this is, in my opinion, a strong identifier for the reader of the nature of the episode, and all such episodes share very similar characteristics, and the episodes appear across the entire series in multiple seasons, and since there is little risk of overly diluting the number of categories in these articles, categorizing them as Treehouse episodes sounds reasonable to me. Dugwiki 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While that is true, the fact that they are TOH episodes is obvious from the episode title being "TOS" with a number :) They even appear together in the regular cat. >Radiant< 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category. The articles on the individual episodes are all already linked through Treehouse of Horror. Doczilla 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing ((Treehouse of Horror)) template already does the job.--Per Abrahamsen 12:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all contents into Category:Halloween television specials which needs populating anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:39, 29 January 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 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Unnecessary subset of Category:South Park characters, containing those characters of a certain age. It should be merged. >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Park characters seems a bit big... Ulysses Zagreb 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but note that most articles in the 'children' cat are also already in the 'characters' cat. >Radiant< 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strong precedent of "no fictional characters by age" since the South Park main cast aren't always portrayed as children. Also, childhood is in itself difficult to define. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if needed. Don't create lame categories just because one is "too big." Recury 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom, and per Recury. Postdlf 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the category is necessary, so I'd probably support deletion. But it does beg the question of whether or not subdividing South Park Characters would be worth pursuing. I also wanted to point out that while South Park cast occasionally are portrayed at different ages, the overwhelming amont of the time the relative ages are constant and there is a clear dividing line on the show between "kids" and "adults". The divide is both physical (eg height) and plays highly noticable roles in South Park Plots, as in many episodes the "kids" are talking or thinking in one way, while the "adults" are reacting to the same things in very different ways. So South Park is a show that probably could be subdivided into the subcategories of "children" and "adults" with very little ambiguity and in a show where the ages of the characters plays a very significant role in the plots. At the very least, an article comparing the children to the adults of South Park would make for a good read. Dugwiki 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary subcategory. Doczilla 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That Category:South Park characters is getting so large informs me mainly that it is overpopulated with trivia in the most basic sense. Mr. Adler?? Not to single out South Park, of course. Aristotle Amadopolis, Stacey Carosi... yet nothing for The Gootch. Tsk tsk. :-) -choster 15:07, 24 January 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 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Basically, "cartoon series that have a spinoff with the same characters several years later, or are a spinoff of such a series". Should be a list for extra information (e.g. what series it comes from). >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete becuase category doesn't make a lotof sense. Ulysses Zagreb 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the classification is not well defined, it is much better covered solely in Older versions of cartoon characters. I'm not totally comfortable with the article either, but I guess it's meant as a companion to Younger versions of cartoon characters. ×Meegs 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe listify I think the category definition is pretty clear; they're cartoon spin-offs of other cartoons where a significant amount of time has passed. I think Batman Beyond spinning off of Batman: The Animated Series would be another article that fits this category. That being said, this appears to be mainly an unnecessary way to try and subcategorize cartoon spinoffs by "type of spinoff", differentiating these spinoffs from cotemporaneous ones where a breakout side character goes off on their own and has their own adventures(eg Daria spinning-off of Beavis and Butthead ). Dugwiki 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Touching on that, Daria was a few years older, too. Is she inclusive? Delete, valueless category. Perhaps the All Grown Up article can mention Quack Pack or something, but these two shows have little connection anyway. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly defined category. Doczilla 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pebbles & Bam-Bam are the same characters whether infant or teen rock stars. Some of these will have separate articles, and some won't. Category won't be useful. --lquilter 05:29, 23 January 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 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Characters that are male but have a female voice actor, or vice versa. The reason this cat is problematic is that it requires a ten-line disclaimer at the top of characters portrayed by the opposite sex that nevertheless should not be in the category. That's not useful. Besides, the information is rather trivial and hardly defining. For instance, just about any male character under fourteen is portrayed by a female voice actor, and many cartoons use people with "weird voices" as an in-joke. >Radiant< 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. Ulysses Zagreb 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And it's historically and culturally impossibly vague (English actors until the 18th century routinely portrayed female characters with male actors; specific theatrical traditions around the world have done likewise). And it's "characters by performance". --lquilter 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Across cultures, this occurs under very different circumstances, and far too often to make a useful category. ×Meegs 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - You will all note that the category consists largely (maybe entirely) of anime characters so I suspect it was a well-intentioned category to contain those characters. List could be appropriate. --lquilter 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't support it, but I would be happier with a category or list along the lines of Animated characters voiced by the opposite sex. ×Meegs 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Interesting. --(trogga) 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am offended at the exclusion of Tyler Perry and Eddie Murphy characters. (not my usual standard of logic, but I would probably vote delete anyway).TonyTheTiger 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe do list article Not a very defining category. As above, a large number of male children are voiced by female actors. Might be an ok list article, espcially if the article has an introduction that talks a bit about how and when and why male characters are voiced by females, and identifies particularly surprising examples. Dugwiki 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no list necessary. Most of the entries here appear to be voice actors where the practice of having young male characters (and in some cases, older ones) be voiced by female actresses is common and not notable. JRP 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia (my pov admittedly!). Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion page, so whether or not something is "pov" is irrelevant, what matters is whether this category is in the interests of wikipedia or not. Pinoakcourt 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vague, unmaintainable, and sometimes unverifiable category. Doczilla 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd hate to say that any category is stupid, but the category is vague, incomplete, and not able to provide notability. It's like this category was written by a 12 year old. 192.133.12.101 21:39, 27 January 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 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) We already have a "by mental disorder" category, and this one partially overlaps with that, and partially is just "characters who eat a lot" (Taz or Goku, anyone?) Not a useful categorization, at any rate. >Radiant< 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In theory, this seems like a useful subcategorization of Category:Fictional characters with mental illness, which is extremely broad, but I agree that it will probably be overrun with comical overeaters. Category:People with eating disorders doesn't have this problem, I'm assuming. Maybe replacing the fictional cat with one reserved for anorexia and bulimia could work. ×Meegs 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per repeat deletion of fictional overeaters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're referring to this Nov 23 discussion. The category considered here is quite different, though it's no more useful unless comical overeaters are excluded. ×Meegs 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is subjective to describe who possesses a disorder, then it cannot exist. Fictional characters by eating habits shouldn't be allowed. Vegans however are a self-identified sect with a firm definition, to be included the character must explicitly be identified as such. Perhaps the Mean Girls would think a lot of people are overeater, whereas Homer Simpson might not. Can't stay because it incorporates overeaters. This is a backdoor category recreation. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Zythe. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation, etc. --Xdamr^talk 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:16, 22 January 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 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep categories are easier to use than lists. Mr. Stabs 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories cannot be annotated and properly sourced. Lists can be. Doczilla 19:05, 22 January 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 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating these two categories as a test case for all the subcategories of Category:Actors by film series. I propose that these categories be deleted in replaced with cast lists that would offer more information than the categories can. The big problem with these categories, is not the categories themselves, but what they do to the articles about the actors placed in the categories. For an example, look at the categories for Michael Caine. Bewitched and Austin Powers are the only two of thes "actors by performance" categories listed for him. Looking at Michael Caine's categories gives the impression that Bewitched and Austin Powers were significant roles for him. This is a false impression. Someone looking at the categories might be inspired to add categories for all his film appearences, and not just these two. Even if they were to restrain themselves to his most "significant" roles, they would have to add several films. This would just lead to a huge amount of category clutter for actors. There is already consensus that we should not categorize actors by their individual films, but there hasn't yet been consensus about not categorizing actors by "film series". This is long overdue. Michael Caine is not an isolated example of this problem. Pick virtually any film actor with numerous roles and you will hard pressed to understand which performances deserve categories and which do not. A much better way of dealing with this information is to create cast lists and filmography lists. Then we can ban all categorization of artists by their productions or performances. This is why we have lists. If these two categories get deleted, I'll propose more of them be deleted. Samuel Wantman 08:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep- Doesn't it make it easier to search for actors by what they appeard in>? Anyway Bewitched is a tv series not a film ;) Ulysses Zagreb 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would be just as easy to find in a list. A list for the Bewitched series would have let you know that he was in the film and not the TV series. -- Samuel Wantman 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Categorizing actors by film role is inappropriate. TV actor categories have "all inclusiveness" problems. Dr. Submillimeter 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, I think deleting them all is the right thing to do. According to IMDB, Kevin Bacon has been in 62 films so far, imagine what his article would look like if we added a category for every film. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename each to Category:Austin Powers cast members and Category:Bewitched cast members in line with current (17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)) suggestion for Category:Ugly Betty actors to be renamed Category:Ugly Betty cast members. And if a cast member's personal Wiki page becomes more complicated after doing this, re: Prove It, it's no proper reason to delete. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Michael Caine's categories make sense? Are you saying that all actors performances should be categories? Only the ones that are series? Only the ones that art TV series? I am looking for us to come up with a rational way of dealing with all of these categories. Which films, series, TV series, plays, etc... deserve categories like this and which do not? What is your problem with converting these into lists? They would be just as easy to find, would be in exactly the same location in the category structure, and would include much more information. Explain why converting these categories into lists would be a disadvantage.-- Samuel Wantman 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to cast members and oppose deletion per my reasoning. Tim! 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your reasoning was the accepted guideline, how would you categorize Michael Caine, and which actors would remain in these two categories? How would you explain the criteria you used for making these determinations? I'm very skeptical that what you suggest could work, and that both the partial populating of cast categories and the partial categorization of actors based on notability will be straight forward, easily maintained, and not result in a massive POV edit wars. -- Samuel Wantman 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that he only appears in two series categories, both of which merit no mention in his article other than in a filmography so his absence from those categories would not be missed. As there is no category based on Alfie and no other category particularly well known for appearing in that film, probably Caine would not appear in any performance categories. Michael Caine is best known for being Michael Caine. Tim! 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would categories for film casts be acceptable to you? If so, assume that most of the films that Caine appeared in have categories. Which ones would he belong in? If film cast categories are not acceptable, why TV and not Film? -- Samuel Wantman 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film series casts are acceptable, hence I am in favour of keeping these two cats, also things like Star Wars and Harry Potter where a number of actors appear in all of the films in the series. Alfie cast wouldn't make a good category. Tim! 11:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I think IMDB is a better resource than this type of categories. Xiner (talk, email) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Bewitched actors to "Bewitched (TV series) cast members" or something similar to exclude the film actors and TV guest stars, and delete the Austin Powers category. There's simply no way to reasonably limit the inclusion of film series actors to those for whom the role was significant; everyone who appears in a film is part of its "cast." By contrast, only those who have regular roles in a TV series are "cast," making that relationship significant and capable of reasonable limitation. Postdlf 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you would allow categories for TV shows but not films. If this is where we draw the line, doesn't it seem odd that Dick York would not be categorized for Bewitched but not for Inherit the Wind, that Agnes Moorhead would not be categorized for The Magnificent Ambersons (film), that Paul Lynde would not be categorized for Bye Bye Birdie? That Rock Hudson is in Category:Dynasty actors but not in a category for Giant (film), that Barbara Stanwyck is in Category:The Colbys actors but not in any of her starring roles in films? She was nominated for four academy awards. What makes an actors TV work more significant than her film work? This problem can be easily solved by making lists out of these TV categories. -- Samuel Wantman 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wouldn't shed a tear if all of the series actor films were deleted in lieu of lists. But yes, I do find less of a problem with TV series cast categories than categories for individual films, because having a recurring role in an ongoing TV series is more likely to be more significant for an actor than an average individual film role, and more likely to be defining of their notability (Dick York is definitely better known as "Darren Stevens" than "Bertram Cates"). The TV series cast categories are also more prone to reasonable limits than film cast categories. I also believe that it is better to limit the TV series categories to exclude guest actors, for which there is a clear consensus, than to push for outright deletion, for which there isn't. Postdlf 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see the concern for article category length as a sufficient reason. TonyTheTiger 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify, and do the same for all the subcategories of Category:Actors by film series. Categorisation of actors by film will generate horrible category clutter if it spreads. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Listify (as in "List of cast for..." for the 4 movies and 1 television series, and, if desired "Filmobraphy for..." for each actor), and cat the lists ("Category: List of casts by film", "Category: List of casts by television show", and "Category: Filmography by actor"). The parent topics are better serviced by lists. Further, the lists would be less a source of POV issues ("recurring", "regular", and "notability" need not be defined/debated) and trivial usages and/or associations. It also "levels" things. As the nom points out current practice elevates the notability television shows over that of film, theatre, and radio.
Last point: the Bewitched cat is as bad as the deleted and salted "Batman actors". It links two un-related production in one grouping. — J Greb 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently consensus against actor-by-film categories for individual films (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization), I am generally opposed to actor-by-TV-series categories for the same reasons (although there's not strong consensus with TV series). However, the exception is actor-by-franchise categories, which accumulate actors from multiple films and television shows and other spinoffs in one category. So using Michael Caine as an example, I would definitely be opposed to Category:Alfie actors since the entire cast list already appears in that article. However, if you wanted to view actors from all the Bewitched shows and films and spinoffs, you can't do it from a single main article because it covers multiple main articles. So Category:Bewitched actors might be a useful way to accumulate all those actors in one place.

Mind you, I also am aware of the concern that this might place "Bewitched" on equal footing with other films in the mind of a reader when they view the category listing. But the trade off would be that without that category, it might be more difficult for readers interested in looking at and comparing actors from the Bewitched franchise to find the information they're looking for.

The only alternative that comes to mind would be creating a list article for the franchise. That might be acceptable too, although the advantage of the category is that it's slightly easier to maintain a large number of articles in a category than a list.

Anyway, at this point, I'm undecided on these two particular franchise nominations. For now I'll defer to whatever consensus there might be on the topic of categorizing actors from media franchises, since there are pros and cons on either side. Dugwiki 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I can see how it would be desirable to bundle the information for franchised properties. However, it seems that "See also" link in the heads of the lists would work for small one (2 or 3 films, plays, and/or shows). For larger ones (like Law & Order or Phantom of the Opera) a cat holding the lists and explicitly related articles would be in order. This would also satisfy concerns for article size for the cast lists of long running shows. — J Greb 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. The use of Categories for actors by film series (or by tv series) results in unwieldy overcategorization. Dugwiki's "franchise" argument raises an interesting point, but not enough to sway me.--Vbd 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categories simply aren't the appropriate vehicle for this type of information. --Xdamr^talk 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these useless categories per Category:Batman_actors precedent. Doczilla 07:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more "precedents" to keep or rename than the Batman example: most recently Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_15#Actors_to_Cast_Members. Tim! 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories are consistent compared to lists. Mr. Stabs 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Using categories for cast lists does not scale, each actor would be in way to many categories.--Per Abrahamsen 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Honbicot 17:31, 25 January 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 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malay diaspora
Category:Arab-Malays
Category:European-Malays
Category:Turkish-Malays
Category:Albanian-Malays
Category:Austrian-Malays
Category:Bosnian-Malays
Category:Bulgarian-Malays
Category:Croatian-Malays
Category:Czech-Malays
Category:Danish-Malays
Category:Dutch-Malays
Category:English-Malays
Category:Finnish-Malays
Category:French-Malays
Category:Georgian-Malays
Category:German-Malays
Category:Greek-Malays
Category:Hungarian-Malays
Category:Irish-Malays
Category:Italian-Malays
Category:Lithuanian-Malays
Category:Macedonian-Malays
Category:Malay-Scots
Category:Maltese-Malays
Category:Norwegian-Malays
Category:Polish-Malays
Category:Portuguese-Malays
Category:Russian-Malays
Category:Serbian-Malays
Category:Spanish-Malays
Category:Swedish-Malays
Category:Swiss-Malays
Category:Ukrainian-Malays
Category:Welsh-Malays
Delete - as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Malays, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Malays & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Malays, these categories consist of original research using a definition of Malay which is extremely broad, which has been shown in Talk:Malays (ethnic group) to be false and misleading. (Caniago 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - this category has been created using a falsely broad and exagerated definition that has no verification. Merbabu 06:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. Most of the categories are empty anyway. - Longhair\^talk 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. SatuSuro 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per norm. I assume these categories are going to be used for another X Malays articles, which is not notable. There is no academic sources support these race definition. How many X Malays categories are there going to create? — Indon (reply) — 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree deletion, there seems to be confused which way these are upposed to work: Giovanni van Bronckhorst is in the Dutch-Malays but he is Dutch of Maly descent not the way round the category says.Ulysses Zagreb 09:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awful misnomers and unlikely cats. Dahn 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all, or consider dumping the 127 sub cats found here Category:American people by ethnic or national origin.--JJay 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a misunderstanding - the American catories are populated categories SatuSuro 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your analogy doesn't work. Malay is not a country like America, and so its an invalid comparison. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arab_Malays for more details. (Caniago 13:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep or change name--as with afd at Arab Malays and European Malays. However, I agree with the deletion of the empty cats for now. Mr Tan 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Topar 12:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:18, 22 January 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.

Merge / Redirect into Category:Rhythm and blues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge No redirect. Xiner (talk, email) 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and yes do redirect as there is no reason not to. Pinoakcourt 01:54, 21 January 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. Vegaswikian 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Where is the pressing need to categorize psychologists by ethicity or religion? Why single out Jews? This is the only subcat of this kind, and I don't think we want to have any more like it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need. Xiner (talk, email) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The division of psychologists by religion does no appear to be warranted, as psychology practiced by Jewish people is probably going to be identical to psychology practiced by non-Jewish people. If Jewish psychologists have faced religious discrimination from other psychologists, than that should be written as an article. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as irrelevant intersection. Listify if it interests anyone enough to do so. --20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete inappropriate to have these sort of divisions. --Xdamr^talk 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre overcategorization. If anybody comes along and starts making semi-coherent arguments for keeping this category, please let me know on my talk page, though I don't forsee that happening. — coelacan talk — 06:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 07:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish identity? Why is the term "Jewish" an identity to be ashamed of? Only if a named person objects to being included should we delete this article. Most personal articles describe the subject in a geographical or ethnic context to avoid confusion. To eliminate a category or article based merely on the religious identity of the subjects, may be "well meaning" but in this case borders on Anti-semitism. I agree that any article or category which "targets" a specific religious group should be deleted, but surely it is a decision for the religious group involved to decide if simply being identified as belonging to a particular religion causes harm. It is not easy to identify the intentions of any contributor, and the naming of this category as "Jewish Psychologists" is unusual, however the name alone and the possible offence to the Jewish community for excluding the name should be taken into account. Joshua De Moulineau 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this is about psychologists being embarrassed to be considered Jewish and to say it "borders on Anti-Semitism" is unfair. I think the deleters feel that this is not a notable intersection, but that the psychologists in it should still be in Jewish categories when appropriate. I'm on the fence myself as cultural background can be relevant to psychology, but at the same time I find no other ethnic category for psychologists. There is no Category:African American psychologists or Category:Arab psychologists.--T. Anthony 04:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason why there aren't such categories is because there aren't enough people to fill them - otherwise there should have been one as well.
    - That's a bit unfair. When you search for "African American psychologist" (in quotes) at Wikipedia several relevant names pop up and probably more can be found searching it as "African American" psychologist. I found nothing for "Arab psychologist" though.--T. Anthony 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no questions that there should be a Jewish Psychologists category. Jewishness is BOTH ethnicity and religion, and is unique in that way. There are categories for Jewish painters, scientists, philosophers, architects, actors etc etc, so what's all the fuss about? There is no questions that Freud and Frankl are at least as Jewish as Einstein if not more because their work was actually informed by their Jewishness.Eliyyahu 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:19, 22 January 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: delete. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague term frequently applied improperly. lquilter 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually suggesting deletion or renaming; just raising it for discussion. I don't have a proposal and can only shake my head. This category, created today in the supercat Category:American people by political orientation, is certainly an important topic. And the supercat survived CFD (11/16) just a couple of months ago with referral to later discussion. But in the meantime the Category:American liberals cat, at least, is being greatly populated and really wrongly.
- I will take it to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#people by political belief -- I hadn't thoroughly read the original discussion. --lquilter 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a very vague term; it could apply to Thomas Jefferson in one context, Howard Zinn in another LaszloWalrus 07:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as an ill-defined category which will in effect be POV. Given the variety of current uses of the term in the USA, it's very unhelpful to try to lump together the various sorts of social liberal, economic liberal and civil libertarians. There are plenty of social liberals who are strongly opposed to economic liberalism and vice-versa, and classifying them all as "liberal" would incorporate most of the political spectrum (e.g. George W Bush and Ronald Reagan as economic liberals, Bill Clinton as a social liberal, etc). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I can't stand this category & completely agree with all the objections raised here (and so many more) but the category is part of a larger tree, which this group previously deferred working on stating strongly that such large decisions ought to be discussed elsewhere. I can't find other discussions, and would also like to delete this category, but it may render this category scheme inconsistent or asymmetrical. --lquilter 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. All these categories should be deleted, but you can't just bring a very well populated group to deletion without bringing everyone else. Xiner (talk, email) 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to nominate some of the categories, you should do so, but that's no reason to oppose this one. But I don't .think that it would be appropriate to delete all the subcats of Category:American people by political orientation: some of the, such as Category:American pacifists and Category:Segregationists seem reasonably well-defined. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The category is way too liberal in its application. Unless the subject in the article declares being liberal, produce citation into the article. Does not need a category. Ronbo76 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually nom it for deletion ... just for discussion ... for exactly the reason that Xiner lists, which is that it is an entire cat tree (albeit a really bad one). --lquilter 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incapable of precise, objective definition and meaningless without cultural/historical context and explanation. The meaning of the term has shifted too much over its centuries of usage and has too much breadth for this to accomplish anything informative. The other American [political orientation] categories can be nominated later, with this as a precedent. Postdlf 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can't delete this and keep the conservates cat, can we? If a bio article describes someone as a liberal, and that info is sourced, then they should be in this cat. --JJay 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Liberal' is a vague term, encompassing a wide range of opinions over a wide range of topics. This category fails to define itself in any meaningful way. If we want to categorise people by outlook then we need to be far more specific, eg Category:Pacifists, etc as noted above.

Xdamr^talk 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, undefinable and unmanageable and unnecessary. Wasted Time R 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too-broad category, hopeless. Get more specific if you want to categorize the people currently in this cat. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assignments to categories should be justified by actual words in the article text, according to an objective rule, and I don't see how it could possibly be done in this case. Better to get rid of the category. EdJohnston 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Irk_(talk) 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is already a category for "American conservatives" and has been for quite some time. That's why this category was created. -- HowardDean 17:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting the category while keeping Category:American conservatives is obviously blatant pov and bias. -- AmeriCan 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Agree with User:AmeriCan. The person who nominated this category must a personal bias. -- OldRightist 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political news commentary. Regardless of your affiliation, if you vote to delete this category, then you must vote to delete the conservative category, and vice versa. Political bias cannot get in the way of truth. You cannot lable someone a conservative, without being able to label them the opposite. As AmeriCan stated prior, this is blatant POV. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't looked at Category:American conservatives to see if it's as badly misused as Category:American liberals, but I agree, in principle, that the AmCons category is unlikely to be any better manageable than AmLibs. More particularly, I think we'll find that having one anot the other will draw the sort of arguments we're seeing here--accusations of bias for one term or the other, from folks who see these two terms as two opposing political perspectives. --lquilter 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with points others made for keeping this category. -- Freemarket 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There really haven't been any points, just people pointing out the existence of "American conservatives," but I don't see that anyone supporting the deletion of this category would oppose the deletion of that one as well. That one will likely soon be nominated as well based on this very strong precedent. Regardless, "keep because X exists" is never much of an argument, and "liberal" is an unworkable term for a category classification regardless of whether any other terms happen to be (though I do believe that "conservative" is as well). Postdlf 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. I would happily vote for deletion of Category:American conservatives for exactly the same reasons as I have here. Whether Conservative or Liberal, these classifications encompass social issues, economics, personal morality, etc, etc, etc. 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' is simply too broad a brush to cover such a breadth of possible opinion.

Xdamr^talk 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I propose one of you gentlemen nominate the conservative category for deletion, and see where the chips fall. But we need to agree - if one category goes, they both go. If one stays, they both stay. Veracious Rey t • c • r 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We agree insofar as I want to see both of them deleted. I don't wish to tie these two debates though, I don't really want to see them survive under any circumstances.

Anyway, per your invitation, I have nominated Category:American conservatives for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives.

Xdamr^talk 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionThere is a user going around soliciting votes for one side on like-minded talk pages. And they are coming here and voting. Is this allowed or is this vote stacking? Just a question.Jasper23 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, AmeriCan? Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't seem to deal with this issue with any real clarity. It's certainly disappointing to see that his canvassing message (eg [2]) seems to automatically presume that this is a bad-faith nomination. Doubtless whoever closes this debate will take these solicited votes into account in determining whether consensus has been truly reached.

Xdamr^talk 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The word "liberal" in American politics is much weaker and more vague than "conservative" (and if there is such a category, I'd support its deletion as well if other editors agree it is poorly administered. The quick glance at the list at present includes a conservative Democrat, a Socialist Party leader, two radio shows, a historian commonly identified as a "fellow traveller" (at least by his foes), a civil rights leader, etc.--Orange Mike 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for various reasons stated above. The debate over the wording of "liberal" or "conservative", as it applies to individuals who may or may not maintain affiliation to Republican or Democratic parties, shouldn't demand the deletion of this category. You are what you are...either a liberal or conservative, a Republican or Democrat. Yes...there are liberal minded individuals who call themselves Republican, and vice verse. If that is the case, then it should be noted in the individuals biography, as it applies to their political thinking/affiliation. Deleting this category only serves to hide the true scope of entries within Wikipedia, and modify them in some way that may be "appropriate" to some. I believe this is a grave mistake and only serves to degrade the quality and completeness of articles in question. Wrightchr 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that you're ignoring is that contemporary politicians are not the only ones at issue in this; it's impossible enough to get a stable, meaningful definition at present, but the words simply don't even mean now what they did decades or centuries ago. The result is that the category equivocates unlike things: a 21st century liberal is not the same as a 18th century liberal. The "completeness" of articles will hardly suffer as article text can explain a subject's political philosophy without it being necessary to reduce that to an ultimately ambiguous category classification. Postdlf 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we need to define what is "liberalism" here...when many of the individuals listed in this category openly define themselves as being liberal. That in itself, in my honest opinion, gives the category credibility. The same can be said for the conservative category. Whether or not liberal ideology in the past is truely compariable to like minded individuals of today, isn't the issue here. Issues and subject matter change over time, but the definition of liberalism in the minds of many, has lead to the labeling of their political philosophy. I believe the argument here should be about whether certain individuals belong here...not about the purpose of the category. Wrightchr 07:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Orangemike. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many people have made their political philosophy well-known. It SHOULD be categorized. That's what makes an encyclopedia thorough. -- Voldemort 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get your argument. Could you elaborate and explain why this works as a category, in response to the criticism above? Postdlf 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of one poorly defined category does not justify the existence of another, especially since it seems to be the only argument for the category. A requirement for neutrality does not imply a requirement of fairness.--Per Abrahamsen 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adding my vote to "delete" b/c unworkable (I nominated for discussion, feeling it needed to be deleted but wanting to know if there could be any approaches that would work; I haven't seen any). --lquilter 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with the argument User:Voldemort has made. -- Judson 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Voldemort's point -- that it's important and well-known -- doesn't address the fundamental problems that the term "American liberals" is unusably vague and subject to multiple different interpretations over time and, these days, political persuasion. --lquilter 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, and that only supports that it should be documented in articles (which no one disputes), not that it's workable as a category. Postdlf 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Wikipedia is going to have the broad category of "American people by political orientation", it must be specific with subcategories such as "American liberals" and "American conservatives". -- TrojanMan 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are specific categories in there, such as for socialists, libertarians, or pacifists, that are far less vague than "liberal" or "conservative." Your comment is simply irrelevant to this CFD. Postdlf 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A vague term being used for polemical purposes. StudierMalMarburg 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you're going to keep any labels, and you're keeping conservative, then it would only be fair to keep liberal as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Mount (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the debate on conservatives hasn't been canvassed to a lot of people, so it's running all one way: delete. So if this is a contingent "keep" ("If you're going to keep ...") then it should go the other way. --lquilter 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and its conservative counterpart. Remember that many people's political beliefs change over time. It's unfair and inaccurate to categorize them so broadly. Lovelac7 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Term is undefined, POV, and generally unsourced in articles. If this is kept, authoritative sources would be necessary. Avt tor
Delete per my comments on the conservative counterpart. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete undefined, generally unsourced category that calls for POV and leaves too much room for abuse. Doczilla

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical templates to Category:Mathematical function templates

Rather than templates to add to articles on mathematics, these templates perform mathematical functions. David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. Are any of them actually used in articles, or have they been created because you can? I would be interested to see some articles that use them. I could not find any. --Bduke 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mathematical template performs a mathematical task.--Patrick 16:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any view, though, on the potential for ambiguity between "Mathematical templates" and "Mathematics templates"...? Cf above for rationale. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have Category:Mathematics and abstraction-related templates and some subcategories, incl. Category:Mathematics templates.--Patrick 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, "mathematics" and "mathematical" seem similar to me, so I guess I'm suggesting something more distinctive for those templates that "do" some math rather than describe/link to it. Thanks, though, for pointing out the "Mathematics and abstraction-related" category. Yours, David (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Award templates to Category:Wikipedia award templates
Category:Date math to ~~Category:Date math templates~~ Category:Date mathematics templates (see below)
Category:Current daylight saving offset to Category:Current daylight-saving offset templates

Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but s/b Category:Current daylight saving offset templates. I see no reason for a dash. TonyTheTiger 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's because "daylight saving" is being used as an adjectival. Any grammarians...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all but Comment re Category:Date math—is there any reason not to rename this as Category:Date mathematics templates? I know that 'math' is very much a USism, but is it not also a colloquialism and therefore best avoided? (This has always been my impression, I'm willing to be corrected if it is also used in more formal contexts).

Xdamr^talk 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "math" is an abbreviation of "mathematics", so have amended proposal accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per (refined) nomination. Mike Peel 22:30, 3 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 Delete. Vegaswikian 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Star Trek characters, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only entry is already listed in the appropriate category so just delete this. Otto4711 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary subcategory of Star Trek characters. No other similar subdivisions currently exist (the main subcategories for Star Trek characters are by race or show.) Dugwiki 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, should we also nominate Category:Star Trek villains for deletion, as per other similar "villain" categories that have been previously deleted? I noticed it while looking into this cfd. Dugwiki 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename first, keep second. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest

Category:Microsoft templates to Category:Microsoft-related templates

as as Microsoft itself uses the term "template" in its software; and

Category:Temporal templates to Category:Time-related templates

as more straightforward. David Kernow (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename first, keep second. First as nom, second because temporal templates is no less straight-forward than "Time-related templates" in my view. --GunnarRene 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename first, keep second per GunnarRene. Temporal templates is the right phrase to describe ((future)).- Gilliam 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stephen Baxter short stories → Category:Short stories by Stephen Baxter
Category:David Brin non-fiction → Category:Non-fiction works by David Brin
Category:Lord Byron works → Category:Works of Lord Byron
Category:Jinyong's wuxia novels → Category:Wuxia novels by Jinyong
Category:Arthur C. Clarke short stories → Category:Short stories by Arthur C. Clarke
Category:Philip K. Dick short stories → Category:Short stories by Philip K. Dick
Category:Ernest Hemingway works → Category:Works of Ernest Hemingway
Category:Kurt Vonnegut works → Category:Works of Kurt Vonnegut
Category:Works by Yeats → Category:Works of William Butler Yeats
Category:Roald Dahl children's books → Category:Children's books by Roald Dahl

Rename per recent Books by What's 'Is Name convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename them Ulysses Zagreb 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom, :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ugly Betty actors to Category:Ugly Betty cast members

Rename - per a number of recent renames to restrict TV show actor categories to recurring cast only. Cat will need to be pruned following rename which I'm happy to help with. Otto4711 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename as it refers to members of a media production, not a professional fraternity. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Tim! 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; these categories should always exclude guest stars because the relationship to the show simply won't be significant enough to merit classification. Postdlf 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per many recent previous similar renamings. Dugwiki 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning for debates on Category:My Name Is Earl actors, Category:Austin Powers actors, and Category:Bewitched actors, listed above.

Xdamr^talk 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how many of these cats is there going to be? -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per Otto4711. Mr. Stabs 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least Rename per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all our other discussions about how impractical it is to assign a category for every job someone has ever had. Doczilla 06:42, 1 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: merge. >Radiant< 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailors who committed suicide into Category:Military personnel who committed suicide

Merge, category consists of only six entries and has not been edited since its creation in Apr 2006. All but one of the entries are military personnel. RJASE1 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think in the creation of these categories, I hit Frederick Fleet and didn't know what else to do with him. He's not a military person, and is most definitely a sailor. Hence, this category.--Mike Selinker 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete otherwise keep since not all sailors who off themselves are military. Otto4711 07:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't there be a difference between falling on your sword (saving your honor), jumping on a grenade (heroism), participating in a forlorn hope (glory), and depression driven death? 70.51.8.140 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Not the kinds of value judgments we make here.--Mike Selinker 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then a sailor standing in support of a line batallion in line of battle, stopping a bullet with their body (duty) would be suicide? (Technically it should be, it's suicidal to stand in the front rank of a musket era army) 70.55.84.218 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:22, 22 January 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 Relist. Vegaswikian 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category is not about musicians who perform religious music but musicians who are Roman Catholic. Hence, people such as Jon Bon Jovi and Gwen Stefani, whose religion has little apparent impact on their music, are included in this category. Hence, the category is an arbitrary intersection of religion and occupation and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standing in place of the nominator, who unfortunately has left for reasons other than the category having merit. Pinoakcourt 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also will gladly re-nominate this category for deletion based on Wikipedia guidelines on overcategorization re: intersection by religion,[3] so why waste the discussion we've already had? Doczilla 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Yes there's been abuse, but this is a perfectly valid intersection. Just as Category:Christian musicians or Category:Muslim musicians is. Still if you'd accept a rename to Category:Roman Catholic music people, to make it just Catholic music, I could tolerate that as a compromise.--T. Anthony 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with any category or subject, there will be abuse or perhaps the category might seem un-important to you but is to the person in the article and those who read it. Some entertainers, who are Catholic, even entertain by singing in church or on religious specials or Christmas albums. Ronbo76 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that it will seem important to many or most of the people that read it? Have you commissioned independent research? Wimstead 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. We should keep All or None of Category:Musicians by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the worry is about abuse or non-performance as a Catholic, then perhaps the other category for people who are Catholic should be used on those articles where that issue might be valid. But, that determination of tag usage should be made by the editors who tag the article. A great example of this would be Bing Crosby who performed numerous times for the church or as a Catholic entertainer/musician. Ronbo76 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On its talk page someone actually complained about Enya being in the category. Her song "Pax Deorum" is in Latin and translates to "Heavenly father, God is with us..Heavenly father, God is with me Believe that every day has dawned for you as the last. Believe that every day has dawned for you as the last" plus she said she's Catholic in an interview.--T. Anthony 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty irrelevant I say Ulysses Zagreb 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prove It. Simple case. ~Switch ^t 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all religions irrespective. How can you remove just one? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've been deleting this type of intersections. Xiner (talk, email) 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this does not document a categorically meaningful relationship, only one that is meaningful for some. The complete inability of this category to limit entries to those for whom this may be a relevant intersection means that it will unavoidably include those for whom it is not relevant, which no one seems to dispute. If you would like to group together musicians for whom their religion has been significant for them as musicians, explain it in an article; trying to do it in a category accomplishes nothing of the sort except to bury the relevant entries in coincidentally related ones from all of recorded history, without regard to cultural context or individual biographical differences. That other similar categories have not been nominated is irrelevant because those can—and will—be nominated later under this precedent. Postdlf 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly don't find much for "Roman Catholic musicians", but outside of Wikipedia Catholics apparently just call themselves "Catholics" rather than specifying Roman-rite. (What to call Catholics is admittedly difficult. "Roman Catholics" seems to exclude Eastern Catholics, but just plain "Catholic" is insulting to Eastern Orthodoxers and Anglo-Catholics) Anyway there is a Catholic Association of Musicians and although most artists here aren't in that, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. (For example I think the association is US based, etc) I'd be okay with "Roman Catholic Church" musicians even if that'd annoy some, but compromises like that are never deemed tolerable by either side.--T. Anthony 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because there are others like it, so if you delete this, i just thinks you should delete the others categoriesDomingo Portales 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. Wimstead 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and restrict As above, a category like this is ok if it is for musicians whose Roman Catholic beliefs directly impact their musical career. Roman Catholic choir singers would be a good example (or the Pope's Roman Catholic rock band if he had one.) Singers who happen to be Roman Catholic but for whom being Roman Catholic has no effect on their music should be excluded from the category. Dugwiki 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The keep votes seem to be based on the fact that other similar intersections are not being proposed for deletion. That is not a valid reason to keep this one. If there are other categories that need to be nominated, then they should also be listed and deleted. So to those who voted keep citing other categories, please consider changing your vote and nominating those other categories that should also be deleted. Also how does someone propose to restrict what is placed into the category if kept? Category contents can not be watched for changes like an article. Vegaswikian 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Religious background is part of someone's bio. It is entirely valid that someone might want to find muslim, hindu, jewish musicians etc. Our job is to make it easier for readers to find the info they need. Why people are afraid of that is beyond me. --JJay 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And why you think that anyone is "afraid" of anything is beyond me. Pinoakcourt 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this discussion reaches no consensus, I will renominate this category for deletion as well as all of the other categories within Category:Musicians by religion. Apparently, my failure to nominate the whole tree for deletion has caused some objections to this specific proposal. Dr. Submillimeter 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly renominating the same articles/categories for deletion can be seen as disruptive and/ or a violation of WP:Point. This is the second time this category has been nominated and many of the others have been previously nominated as well. Many of these categories replaced lists that were then deleted. Consider not renominating. --JJay 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. Also I'll just say keep again. If you proposed something more like "delete these, but create these more specific versions" I might feel different, but you only ever say "delete" on intersections.--T. Anthony 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will withhold from a repeat nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator's comment about renominating begins to concede defeat as well as WP:DISRUPT if not WP:SNOW. Ronbo76 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Faith in this case is trivial intersection. As far as musicians who actually play Catholic music, they should go under musicians by genre. --Colage 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a category for Catholic music as a genre?--T. Anthony 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind we do have Category:Catholic music. However it's of music, it doesn't contain any musicians that I can see. Putting everyone in List of Roman Catholic Church musicians, they all did Catholic music I check that one more thoroughly, in Category:Catholic music might look kind of weird

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 07:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. This is my vote, not to be counted twice with my support for the re-nomination up top. Doczilla 06:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was essentially withdrawn. You should also maybe read the overcategorization essay better. Religion often is relevant to music, even secular music see some U2 for example, and Catholic musicians are an established intersection.--T. Anthony 08:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am standing in place of the original nominator. IN my opinion the idea that just one person out of many that have commented in favour of deletion can suddenly turn around and say that the discussion is no longer going to take place is patently absurd. Pinoakcourt 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may it can be done. Although usually it's done when the vote is going strongly for keep, rather than no concensus as this one most likely will.--T. Anthony 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is so patently ridiculous that it is impossible to believe. Where is this absurd policy? It if exists it needs to be changed immediately. Sumahoy 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the policy, but it apparently exists. I wanted to withdraw the CfD on Category:Former Christian Scientists and asked how it could be done. An administrator was informed and it was done. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 2#Category:Former Christian Scientists.--T. Anthony 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl of nomination - I see no reason to continue this discussion if I will be accused of disruptive behaviour. Dr. Submillimeter 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say again I'm sorry if I hurt you. Sometimes Internet communication is so impersonal you don't think about other people's feelings. I think you're wrong in many ways, but you have your reasons.--T. Anthony 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restated the nomination. Dr. Submillimeter I don't think you have the right to unilaterally say that the opinions of all the people in favour of deletion should now be ignored. Pinoakcourt 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's how CfD works, nominator can withdraw request, regardless of what votes have accrued. But you can start a new CfD, without waiting, since no decision was rendered, however, people have to vote again. IIRC. 70.55.84.218 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a marginal intersection. Sumahoy 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If fully populated this would contain many thousands of articles, and it would be of next to no value for the identification of people whose work is strongly connected by style or theme or anything else. Honbicot 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if all musicians by other religious denominations are being Kept; Delete if all others are being Deleted. Which means that I am re-stating my vote per the last CfD nomination. Nothing changes my original point (which nobody else commented much on, it seems - perhaps someone will this time). Please also consider quotes from the previous nomination, namely: "Apparently, my failure to nominate the whole tree for deletion has caused some objections to this specific proposal. Dr. Submillimeter 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"; and: "Repeatedly renominating the same articles/categories for deletion can be seen as disruptive and/ or a violation of WP:Point. --JJay 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)". Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would've objected regardless. That many musicians just happen to be Catholic, or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, doesn't change the fact that musical careers can be strongly effected by the musicians religion. Category:Roman Catholic writers includes debatable examples like Karel Čapek and Jules Verne, but that doesn't negate that there is such a thing as Catholic writing or writers. Same with Category:Sufi poets or whatever.--T. Anthony 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC, because most "keep" comments are either procedural (based on the suggestion that its parent cat Category:Musicians by religion should be deleted in its entirety) or variants of "I like it". >Radiant< 14:19, 6 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.

January 19

Category:Supermodels

Category:Indian Kids Actors

Category:Songs Performed on "Make Your Own Kind Of Music"

Category:Canadian Americans

Category:My Name Is Earl actors

Category:Half Man Half Biscuit albums and EPs

Category:Series broadcast by Animax

Category:Madison Wisconsin based companies

Category:Scary Movie characters

Category:Environmental organizations based in Vermont

Category:Hybrid music genres

Category:Motorcyclists

Category:Methodist missionaries in Africa

Category:Controversies

Category:Missionaries to Cameroon

Category:Treehouse of Horror episodes

Category:South Park children

Category:Older versions of cartoon characters

Category:Fictional characters portrayed by the opposite sex

Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders

Category:Austin Powers actors

Category:Bewitched actors

Malay diaspora

Category:Rhythm & Blues

Category:Jewish psychologists

Category:American liberals

Category:Mathematical templates

Template category disambiguation

Category:Starfleet personnel

Template categories

Last of the book categories

Category:Ugly Betty actors

Category:Sailors who committed suicide

Category:Roman Catholic musicians