< July 21	July 23 >

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monk (TV series) guest stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as performer by performance, see also February 8th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge / Delete -- All other ethnic groups of singers i.e. Jewish-American, Irish-American and Mexican American singers that was in this sub-category has been deleted. This remaining sub-category like that of Irish-American singers should be merged with African-American muscians that is a sub category of the main African Americans Category rather than a stand alone sub-category that is virtually a duplication of other existing lists, of course all singers regardless of their ethnic origins should be included in the main category that is American singers.Vono 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was left out of the previous nomination, for reasons given there, which seem sensible to me. It is over 400 articles, and one it is proposed to be merged with seems to have over 1,000 already. What should be deleted (regardless of the outcome here) is the intervening sub-cat for "American singers by ethnic origin", now only containing this sub-category. Johnbod 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can we get a link to the previous CFD which has become an issue here? Otto4711 19:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link here Johnbod 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:African American musicians and Category:American singers. I'm not seeing any reason why this race/ethnicity category should stand in the face of the deletion of the other similar categories. The parent Category:American singers by ethnicity should be deleted and the child Category:African-American singer-songwriters should be upmerged as well. Otto4711 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:American singers; if the category is too big as suggested by Johnbod, which I'm not sure it really is for a nationality-profession cat. We should not divide it by race/ethnicity; it can perhaps be divided by time or state, or genre, if absolutely necessary. Note: even Category:Americans convicted of murder has about 500 articles; would anyone even touch the subject of dividing that one by race/ethnicity? Carlossuarez46 22:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My figures related to two African-American categories - singers has over 400, musicians already about 1,000. Personally i am sure this is too big, if a sensible way exists to sub-categorise, as here. Johnbod 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your numbers, and only midly query the need to subcategorize, the primary issue I have is why race to sub-categorize these? If that's the WP norm, then when someone gets the notion to subcategorize Category:Americans convicted of murder when it gets "too big", the creation of Category:African-Americans convicted of murder should be received as a "ho-hum" event? For some reason, I'm not sure it'll be (or even should be) looked upon that way. My feelings on this are congruent with my belief that nearly all categories based on race/ethnicity/religion here are probably wrong, but if consensus at WP is that such categorization is OK to make big categories smaller then there would be no NPOV reason to object to the division of the murder category when the time comes. Carlossuarez46 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am in agreement with the Johnbod's remarks. In point of fact, Category:African American musicians is in need of more subcategories -- not fewer. And again I ask, why are these categories viewed first & foremost as subcats of occupations, with the ethnicity component tagging along as merely a modifier of the "real category"? There seems to be an unspoken bias against treating ethnicity as having equal standing with occupation. If ethnicity -- rather than occupation -- is considered the "real category", it makes perfect sense to subdivide by occupation. And in this case, it also makes perfect sense to divide the large subcategory of "musicians" into subcats such as "singers".

If Category:African-American singers is to be deleted, then by the very same rationale Category:African American musicians should also be deleted. Is that really where we want to go? Where does it end? This mania for merging or deleting ethnic subcats seems to have taken on a life of its own, and needs to be reigned in before further damage is done. Cgingold 12:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep while I sympathise with Carlos' observation, I can't support deletion until such alternative categories are employed, as I don't see upmerging these as aiding the organisation of what is already a large category. Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students of Linnaeus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete -- Generally, we don't categorize people by who they studied with. Linnaeus is extremely notable, but that doesn't mean that we should categorize people according to whether or not he taught them. Having been taught by Linnaeus is not what makes these people notable. It isn't clear what sort of a tree such a category would fit into. At the moment it is a subcat of Category:Uppsala University, which I guess is fine, and Category:Botanists, which is clearly invalid since many to most of these people are not botanists. If we decide to keep this, we will need something like Category:Students of people to hold it. LeSnail 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify/delete - For other academics, this type of information is presented in lists; see Fulvio Melia as an example (although that article has other problems). The information is worth keeping in Wikipedia, but it should probably be converted into list format. Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/delete per Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/delete per Dr. Sub and precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Composers by nationality and instrument

Category:American composers by instrument

Category:American piano composers

• Delete -- This entire category tree is ill-conceived. It is not viable to categorize composers by every instrument they wrote for. Most them would be in dozens of such categories, if this sort of categorization were put into effect. At the moment though, all that these categories hold is Richard Swift. LeSnail 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Richard Swift needs to demonstrate notability also. Johnbod 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, though I might have been inclined to support if there was a significant amount of entries subject to this. Tewfik^Talk 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video game music composers to Category:Video game composers

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The use of "music" in the title is redundant. None of the sibling categories in Category:Composers are called "music composers, that is implied by the word composer itself. And just so we are clear, writing software is not composing, and for the poetry argument, there is already the Category:Poets. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong rename - this should have been renamed the last time as the arguments in opposition frankly make no sense. As the nominator points out, software is not "composed" and while poems may be "composed" people who write poems are not referred to as "poem composers." Otto4711 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The reasons for opposing in that last discussion were pretty weak. There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word, and anyone who is confused by "composer" should consider it their own problem, not Wikipedia's. Category titles are not the place to be attempting to define or clarify the meaning of words anyway. Miremare 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per hierarchy convention, Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename -- there's a slight redundancy, yes, but it's a potentially useful one, and it's not like having "music" in there is harmful in any way. It's possible that somebody unversed in video games might not realize that creators are not called composers. Keep in mind Wikipedia must be for the layman as well as people familiar with the subject area. Andre (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with a number of recently deleted "films about" categories, the category is vague and too open to interpretation. Songs can touch (heh) on any number of themes in their lyrics. Otto4711 12:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems ok as a member of Category:Songs by theme. I was more dubious about the parent Category:Songs with sexual themes, which maybe should be renamed. Johnbod 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - doesn't seem vague to me at all. --emerson7 | Talk 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How much of a song needs to be "about" masturbation to qualify it for the category? The entire song? One verse? One lyric? Otto4711 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a song is not about everything that it mentions, so only songs which are actually about masturbation should fall under this category; however, if people consistently misuse this category then perhaps it could be renamed to Category:Songs primarily about masturbation or Category:Songs deliberately about masturbation or such. D4g0thur 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that songs are not about everything they mention, which is kind of the point of the nomination. There's no objective standard for determining whether a particular reference in a particular song makes the song "about" masturbation. Otto4711 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per Otto4711. Leaving Las Vegas isn't about suicide. The Hours (film) isn't about suicide. Only one single film deserves to be in that cat and it isn't enough to justify a cat. Bulldog123 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure you're looking at the right category? This is for songs about masturbation, not films about suicide. 17Drew 18:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops. I just realized that. Still, per Otto Bulldog123 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, subjective criterion. --Eyrian 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are obviously songs that are about masturbation. Heck, Blender has a list of eight, some of which are in the category. If there is a song that only mentions masturbation, don't include it; if it's borderline, then discuss on the article's talk page. 17Drew 18:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An article with quotations from a celebrity that mentions the word "masturbation" three times? Not really convincing. Bulldog123 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete suffers the same problems as all "songs about": how about the subject must the song be and what WP:RS tells us that it is at least that much. Without prejudice to a sourced list. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't all of these "by theme" categories have to have an two nontrivial RS mentions to be included, as elsewhere? If that is the case, than a category like this could theoretically exist... Tewfik^Talk 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Independence to Category:Scottish independence movement

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other members of Category:Sovereignty movements. Tim! 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and because Scottish independence is an aspiration, not a fact. Alex Middleton 11:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per both above. I am not sure the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly should be here, as (although this is not clear from the article) I think by no means all those involved wanted full independence at any point, and this was not included in the declared aims. Johnbod 12:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all above. - Crockspot 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:2006 in team handball to Category:2006 in handball

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The two categories cover the same subject. I think the latter title should be kept, to be consistent with other "year in handball" pages. Gentgeen 05:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as while the main entry is titled "team handball", this would fit with the other categories. Tewfik^Talk 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Wikipedia Korean name tables to Category:Korean name tables and infobox templates

Category:Korea-related Wikipedia tools to Category:Korea templates

Category:Korea-related Wikipedia disambiguation tools to Categoy:Korean name disambiguation templates

Nominator's rationale: Proposed name changes follow a general cleanup and reorganization of these categories, and better reflect their contents. PC78 02:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think templates are categorized based on its functionality. If you are doing this for an easier access to Korea-related templates, it would be better to merge them into Category:WikiProject Korea templates. We might want to have subcategories such as Category:WikiProject Korea infobox templates, Category:WikiProject Korea navigation templates. eDenE 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reasoning seems flawed. Just because these templates fall under the scope of the Project, it doesn't mean that they belong to the Project, and they certainly shouldn't be categorized as such. I created Category:WikiProject Korea templates specifically for the few templates that do belong to the Project; it shouldn't become a hold-all for everything else, which should be regarded as general use. I've already cleaned up these categories to improve access (many of the templates weren't categorized at all before), so the proposed name changes are just to make them more descriptive. PC78 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Category:WikiProject Korea templates can be used for templates that are maintained WikiProject Korea. There are some other WikiProject categories such as Category:WikiProject Beer templates, Category:WikiProject Canada templates. I don't think there's any rule on how to categorize templates, but what I can see from Category:Template categories is that templates are categorized based on its specific purpose and topic. eDenE 03:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They already are categorized by purpose and topic, but I can't agree with your suggestion that everything should fall directly under the Project. Category:WikiProject Korea templates should be a subcategory of Category:Korea templates, not the other way around. As I've already said, these templates generally don't belong to WikiProject Korea, and many of the nav templates and infoboxes are just as much a part of other Projects (((Infobox Korean film)), to name but one). PC78 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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