< July 4	July 6 >

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 rename. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicago politicians to Category:Politicians from Chicago

Nominator's rationale: Rename: Going to be cleaning up the Category:People from Chicago by sorting them. I think this current category name is too narrow, and should be changed to encompass all politicians who are from Chicago no matter where they live now. Kranar drogin 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This should not be changed in isolation. It goes against the whole way that politicians are organised at the local level, which is by where they served/represented, not by place of origin. Nathanian 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reason I would like to make it broader, is rather lumping everyone into a huge Category like People from Chicago, it would be better to seperate them, especially politicians. Right now you have to go through page after page of people to find who/what you are looking for.--Kranar drogin 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Membership in this category would not be obvious in the article since most of the entries would not be Chicago politicians. Being a politician in some location is a trivial intersection with Chicago. If expanded and this person is a politician and an actor and a musician and a porn star we would also have to add 3 more categories for this person per city where they lived. Given the current problems with too many categories in many people articles, this seems like a bad direction to take. Vegaswikian 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, if kept, someone will need to cleanup all of the articles added here that are not politicians in Chicago. I suspect this is not something that a bot can handle. Don't know how many right now, but I know that some were changed. They need to be changed back to Category:People from Chicago. Vegaswikian 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foo politicians should be politicians working in Foo (serving, trying to get elected, what have you) not those merely born, raised, or schooled there or otherwise not in the Foo political scene. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Politicians are defined by where they are active, more than by where they are born. Ravenhurst 13:04, 6 July 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: keep for now; iff the individual lists get prodded or otherwise deleted, this can be then be speedied as empty. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Lightly-populated category of cruft, and each of the individual entries should be prod'd or translated into their own categories instead of as list pages. THF 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for as long as there are at least two lists of journalists that have not been deleted. And three of the ones currently in the category (which are not necessarily the only ones that exist) have not even been nominated for deletion. Nathanian 23:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nathanian. You will find that the general feeling here is to turn categories into lists, not the other way around. Johnbod 00:55, 6 July 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 except for the zombie

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - Eponymous overcategorization. Pursuant to June 29 discussion, these categories consist of nothing but subcategories for albums and songs, in some cases members, and the article for the band and rarely a discography or similar article. Categories are not needed. Otto4711 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all those with at least two subcategories, as those subcategories should be readily accessible in one place to facilitate navigation. Nathanian 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been clearly established by what must by now be deletions in the hundreds, having the subcategories does not warrant the category. Close to 100 categories for TV shows have been deleted despite having character and episode subcats. Dozens of musician categories have been deleted despite having album and song subcats. The subcategories are properly categorized in album by artist, song by artist and member by band category structures and the material within them is reachable through the artist's article. Simplisticly counting subcats in no way addresses WP:OC and, had you reviewed the links in the nomination, you would have seen that having the subcats has been raised and was not deemed reason enough for the categories. Otto4711 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are articles other than just albums, songs, discographies, band members and the band itself As above most bands simply don't need their own eponymous category. The main article for the band serves sufficiently as a navigational hub for all the subcategories and articles. Delete all these unless we're overlooking one that has something other than songs, albums, discographies, band members and the band itself in the category. If there is such a case, though, I'd suggest taking a closer look at that particular category as a separate case. Dugwiki 14:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except: Category:White Zombie, which needs further study. All of the rest, except two, contain no more than two articles (artist and discography) and the three standard subcategories (members, albums and songs), none of which calls for an eponymous category. The two exceptions are Category:The Wiggles and Category:Robbie Williams, which each contain songwriter articles. These, IMO, could easily be put in the members category, but even if that's not considered appropriate, there is more than sufficient linkage between the articles. The White Zombie category, on the other hand, contains numerous articles about individuals who do not seem to also appear in the members subcategory, and I haven't investigated beyond that, so I simply offer no opinion on the category at this time. Xtifr _tälk 06:35, 9 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buses in Hong Kong to Category:Bus transport in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match form for other by country categories. Vegaswikian 20:46, 5 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bus companies to Category:Bus operating companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current title is unclear as to content. Is it operators or manufactures or rebuilders or whatever? Vegaswikian 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Bus company" is an extremely vague term. szyslak 08:53, 7 July 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 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 keep. Andrew c ^[talk] 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No clear criteria for inclusion; entries that I recognize on here are there because of WP:OR -- no WP:RS identifies characters as having eidetic memory, rather an editor's conclusion. EEMeltonIV 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this category has already been put up for deletion and was subsequently kept. I'll repeat here what I said then, eidetic memory is often an important and defining characteristic for many characters currently in the category. --Philip Stevens 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does this category/grouping differentiate between characters whose eidetic memory is a defining characteristic and those for whom it is not? --EEMeltonIV 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per Philip Stevens. Category should be kept, and characters who don't have eidetic memory as their defining attribute should be removed. --Piemanmoo 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as defining. Inclusion criterion can be simple: Characters explicitly identified in their source material as having eidetic memory. Period. Wryspy 16:43, 8 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 found renamed as nominated --Kbdank71 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Early (pre-1914) Association Football players to Category:Pre-1914 Association Football players

Nominator's rationale: Rename "Early" is redundant. Æthelwold 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the 1914 cutoff point appears to be arbitrary. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 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 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. Same idea as the next two noms. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Documentaries about coal-mining, maybe. But Films? Since when was October Sky about coal-mining? Extreme WP:OCAT Bulldog123 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case the category does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. In this case, the category brings together any film that even peripherally mentions coal mining. (Even Billy Elliot is in this category, although at least Zoolander is not included.) It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful intersection of category:Films and Category:Coal mining. If this is deleted, are the films supposed to be added back to the latter? If they are, and the number grows (as it could), it will need to be tidied up by creating a category for... films about coal mining. So all that should be done is that any inappropriate articles should be removed. Nathanian 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these films about coal mining or does the plot involve coal mining? I think the latter is the case for most of the entries in the category. So their relationship to coal mining is tenuous at best. I suggest that we consider this to be films actually about the subject. Maybe as Bulldog123 suggests, rename and limit this category and all similar ones to documentaries and rename as required. Right now I'm leaning delete but open to a rename with some specificity from a new name. Vegaswikian 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nathanian states that this is a useful intersection of Category:Films and Category:Coal mining. I cannot believe that some of these films (Billy Elliot) would be placed in Category:Coal mining in the first place. I would support a category limited to documentaries about coal mining, but I would recommend deleting the "films" category and starting over rather than renaming this "films" category. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & because of the inherent problems with "films about": how "about" the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources have to tell us that that is what the film is really "about"? Carlossuarez46 00:23, 6 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: If anyone actually believes that Chocolat and Fried Green Tomatoes are about cooking, we have a seriously problem. And aside from that, categorizing films by what they are loosely about is simply WP:OCAT. The categories would be endless. Bulldog123 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case the category does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. This category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See comments on the previous listing. Also, there is no reason why films should not be included in several such categories if appropriate. Nathanian 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & see comments on previous listing. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the other vague film "about" categories. Wryspy 16:44, 8 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (though not the three subcategories). Hopelessly vague inclusion criteria; I'm all ears if someone can tell me what Top Gun, Office Space and Almost Famous have in common. PC78 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haven't heard of "occupation film" as an entity anyway. Bulldog123 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only use as a holdall for suitable subcategories. Remove articles and add a notice that the category should only contain subcategories. Æthelwold 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name is ambiguous. Could refer to films about various occupations (which I gather it does), films about military or other occupations, films made while the filmmaker is under such an occupation, and so on. Category:Films by topic serves as an appropriate container category; this one is not needed. Otto4711 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is about the worst film cat yet: I was expecting films about an occupation (in the sense of France early 1940s), but nooooo; this is about any film where a character has a job! Brilliant, unless the movie has characters limited to the unemployed, retired, or idle rich, it fits here somehow. Which is truly OCAT and not meaningful or defining. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategory. Wryspy 16:46, 8 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one entry in this, hasn't been populated. Not needed and might as well be deleted. Govvy 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a fan of a football club is not a mark of notability. Such categories have been deleted in the past. Piccadilly 14:38, 5 July 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 per nom. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Doctor Who characters, or at least Rename to Category:Doctor Who villains. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and strong consensus against "villain" categories. Otto4711 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recapitalise The Doctor Who categories require subdivision. Piccadilly 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who characters has 25 articles, 8 of which are lists. The villains category has 10 articles. Subdivision is not required. Otto4711 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Characters are not divided into "villain" and "hero" subdivisions, as characters may change allegiances over time. Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. Casperonline 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary and unwieldy (what's the definition of "major"?). All of these articles are already properly categorized as "Doctor Who races", except for the Master, who's already properly categorized under a subcategory of "Doctor Who characters". --Brian Olsen 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Do not delete in case new items are added. Nathanian 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute In fiction whether or not you team up with the heroes occasionally you're either a villain or you're not. It's not hard to define. I think the Major tag should be removed though and the category renamed "Doctor Who Villains."
Delete per nom., precedent against villain categories. Dr.Who 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you here what I just said per nom?
Merge into characters category. Very clear precedent against "Major" and "villain" categories.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 10 July 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 x2. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of California to Category:Youth organizations based in California

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of San Diego to Category:Youth organizations based in San Diego

Nominator's rationale: Rename, capitalization and standardization ("Based in" is prevalent for categories of organizations. Wilchett 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The San Diego category turns out to be empty, so it should be deleted unless it is populated before closure. Wilchett 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/delete if empty at closure per nom. Piccadilly 14:40, 5 July 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. Would suggest a new debate for deletion of this and several sibling cats. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Live action films based on cartoons, or Delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which option do you think is best? Casperonline 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify as interesting but not categoric. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to fix the capitalization. This seems like a reasonable subcategory of Category:Films by source which includes categories for films based on comic strips, comic books and the like. Otto4711 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: seems like a reasonably defining characteristic for these films, and, unlike many bad film categories, this one doesn't seem at all ambiguous, vague or subjective. Xtifr _tälk 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If renamed, it should be "Live-action films based on cartoons", as "live-action" is a compound modifier of "films". --EEMeltonIV 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Bartelby's says, "If there is no possibility of confusion, or if the hyphen would look clumsy, omit the hyphen." The Chicago Manual of Style agrees if the compound is widely used without a hyphen. In this case, I think there is no possibility of confusion ("live film" is a bit of an oxymoron, so there's no danger of reading this as "live action-films"), so that only leaves the question of whether "live action" (no hyphen) is widely used as an adjective. A quick google survey suggests the answer is yes, even by reliable sources, although with-a-hyphen is also widely used. ~~Therefore I neither endorse nor oppose the use of a hyphen here.~~ Correction: after reflection, I mildly oppose the hyphen per Bartleby's. Xtifr _tälk 08:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Live-action films based on cartoons - This category describes a defining characteristic of many films, and it can be objectively defined. It should be kept, but the name should be edited to comply with Wikipedia style standards. Dr. Submillimeter 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am flexible regarding the use of the hyphen. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another creation by repeatedly banned user. Doczilla 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn, and a repeatedly banned user can occasionally create a decent category. Otto4711 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "movies based on books" category? "Movies based on video games" "Movies based on wallpaper" "Movies based on urban legends"? Do movies get cats for every source? Wryspy 07:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Category:Films by source. The equivalent categories exist for books, fairy tales, games, comic strips, poems, plays, etc. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, creation by a banned user is grounds for speedy delete (criterion #5). Wryspy 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

See: Category:Films by source parent of 19 like subs, including books.
Speedy is not a guarantee. As pointed out by others, the cat has merit, regardless of who put it up.

- J Greb 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This category does not qualify for speedy deletion. Its deletion has already been contested. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 9 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Film festivals, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree. This category's name is POV. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The "A" category appears to separate "prestigious" film festivals from "other" film festivals. The problem with this approach is that it suffers from severe POV problems, as it requires editors to make subjective judgments about which festivals are the most prestigious. (Presumably, everything on Wikipedia is already notable anyway or else it would not be in Wikipedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge POV. There is always merit in being able to identify the leading items in Wikipedia's vast range of articles, and frankly the means for doing so need to be improved a lot (eg by making it possible to browse the articles in a category by number of hits or edits), but this is not an acceptable way to do it. Casperonline 15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clear POV. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Undeniable and unresolvable POV issues. Xtifr _tälk 19:45, 6 July 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 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 Nick 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobic films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - fatally POV. No possible objective inclusion criteria. Otto4711 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AshbyJnr says it all. Quietvoice 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looking through the list, most of the films are not even about gay issues. It's like creating a category on films that at some point make a "Polock" joke or a "blond" joke. Not a defining characteristic by any means.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew c. Nathanian 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Obvious POV. Some of these films - like Blacula, Coonskin, Dune and She's Gotta Have It are guilty only of having gay characters, and aren't necessarily homophobic. (Ibaranoff24 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
delete per Otto, Andrew and Ibaranoff. To expand on Ibaranoff's example, Dune seems to be here because one of the villains is a pedophile. JoshuaZ 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Impossible to be NPOV. --Piemanmoo 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. Ford MF 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Also, it's a terrible name. People can be homophobic. A film cannot. Wryspy 07:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defined inclusion criteria - horribly POV - thought this was a bad joke, sadly 'taint. SkierRMH 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having one or two gay jokes does not make a film homophobic. And as others have said, it's horribly POV.Raymondluxuryacht 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Homophobic film? Why not claustrophobic film? Tex 02:31, 9 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 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical members of the Executive Council of New Brunswick to Category:Members of the Executive Council of New Brunswick

Nominator's rationale: Merge - People are generally not sorted according to status ("alive", "dead", "retired", "active", etc.). Therefore, this category should be merged into its parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Casperonline 15:06, 5 July 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 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 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical women who lived as male to Category:Women who lived as men

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category was nominated for deletion on 28 Jun 2007 with no decision as to whether to keep or delete it. Several people commented that the category needs to be renamed if kept, but no consensus was reached on this. I suggest removing the term "historical", as this term has multiple meanings (such as "retired", or some arbitrary age, or living so many years ago). I also suggest changing "male" to "men", as this will improve the English in the title. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the term "historical" is because modern "women" who live as men are called trans men and are considered men. But historically some women lived as male maybe only to get the rights and social privileges that only men had, and they were sort of radical feminists of the time. Or maybe some of them were indeed transgender males. But we'll never know today, because it was a different context back then, hence the need for this special category for historical women who lived as male.--Sonjaaa 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, but what do "historical" and "modern" mean? What is the dividing line between the two? 1950? WWII? 1900? 1980? Is "historical" for dead people and "modern" for living people? The term "historical" needs to be defined better. I know from experience that the term has a broad range of uses here on Wikipedia. Just look at the other nominations of "historical" categories on this page. Dr. Submillimeter 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do think this needs keeping seperate, per Sonjaa. Perhaps 1950 is a suitable arbitary cut-off? Johnbod 13:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; trying to define a difference between "historical" and "modern" is impossible or just someone's POV. Carlossuarez46 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I examined this category today, and it contains 4 articles and a subcat (I think the subcat is fine, and shouldn't be deleted, so I won't discuss it). One is about a woman who smoked a pipe and wore mens clothing before it was fashionable to do so. She clearly still identified as female, and the word "disguise" is used in quotes. Another article is about a female pharaoh, who adapted the male term for "King", because there was no equivalent of "Queen" in ancient Egyptian. She still identified as female. Then there are two 20th century transgender individuals who are already categorized in related LGBT categories. So no one in this cat currently belongs there, the word "historical" is strange, and the proposal to just leave it "Women who lived as men" doesn't seem like a valid categorization. Are there individuals that currently aren't in this category that belong there? -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents now in fact seem to have changed completely, but still lack famous figures like Pope Joan, St. Mary of Alexandria and others. I agree the sub-cat is essentially ok, although the name is odd, and might perhaps usefully divided between the career and the emergency cross-dressers. Johnbod 01:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do the contents of this category seem to change every time that I look at it? People voting to "keep" in the 28 Jun 2007 discussion stated that the category was well defined. If that is so, then why is the category so unstable? Maybe a more stringent category name is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 06:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Sand was removed from it by this diff with a strange non-sequitur edit summary. I don't think she belonged here, but disapprove of depopulating categories under discussion. Johnbod 12:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Listify per Andrew's rationale, plus the fact that the category content appears to be disputed and/or ill-defined, as judged by its instability. An annotated list is better for explaining the circumstances for these people. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 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 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - In the case of Category:Historical upper houses and Category:Historical lower houses, the term "historical" is actually used as a synonym for "defunct"; see the nominations below. Category:Historical upper houses of the United Kingdom, however, contains nothing but Category:House of Lords, which is an entity that still functions as a legislative body (unless Gordon Brown has proposed some radical government changes that I am not aware of). So, "historic" in this case is not a synonym for "defunct". My best guess is that it is being used as a synonym for "old". Still, the term "historic" could cause confusion. Also, I cannot conceive of a situation where more articles would be added to this category. I recommend just deleting it, as it looks unnecessary and as the term "historic" could cause confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The House of Lords is still functioning. Casperonline 15:06, 5 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical upper houses to Category:Defunct upper houses

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for upper (governmental) houses that no longer exist. The term "defunct" communicates this much more clearly than "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". The category should therefore be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Former upper legislative houses for maximum clarity and accuracy. Johnbod 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Former upper legislative houses per Johnbod. Piccadilly 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a reason for choosing "former" over "defunct" here? Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former lower legislative houses. "Defunct" is unnecessarily colourful, it sound almost as if wikipedia is celebrating seeing the back of them. that it not quite neutral in a political context. Casperonline 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as defunct - The 1st through 109th Congresses of the United States are "former" legislative bodies but they are not "defunct." "Former" is ambiguous. "Defunct" is not. I am mystified as to why this prejudice against the word "defunct" exists. It's a perfectly cromulent word. Otto4711 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former upper legislative houses. The 1st through 109th Congresses of the United States are not former legislative bodies, they are past sessions of a current legislative body. Nathanian 23:53, 5 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical railway companies of Germany to Category:Defunct railway companies of Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" could mean many things in this context. It could be used to indicate that the railways are old, that they have received some type of "historic" designation from the German government for preservation purposes, or that the railroads are set up to take tourists on train rides in vintage (19th century) trains. In this case, "historic" is used to indicate that the railroads no longer exist as orgnaizations. I suggest using "defunct" instead of "historic", as the interpretation of "defunct" is much less ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Nathanian 23:54, 5 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical programming languages to Category:Programming languages

Nominator's rationale: Merge - According to the description in Category:Historical programming languages, it contains "programming languages which are of historical interest but are not used significantly in industry or academia". The categories inclusion criteria are too subjective, as it requires editors to assess which languages are of "historical interest" and which are not "used significantly". Because of these problems, the category should be merged into its parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Casperonline 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nathanian 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Vegaswikian 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep/do not merge It shouldn't be hard to make an objective criterion, like the presence of reliable sources saying that the language is no longer extensively used. It shouldn't be hard to source that B (programming language) and ALGO have not much use now. JoshuaZ 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "No longer extensively used" is still a subjective criterion. How much use must be made of the language before it crosses the threshold between "extensively used" and "not extensively used"? Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 6 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical lower houses to Category:Defunct lower houses

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for lower (governmental) houses that no longer exist. The term "defunct" communicates this much more clearly than "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". The category should therefore be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Former lower legislative houses for maximum clarity and accuracy. Johnbod 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a reason for choosing "former" over "defunct" here? Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former lower legislative houses. "Defunct" is unnecessarily colourful, it sound almost as if wikipedia is celebrating seeing the back of them. Casperonline 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as defunct - The 1st through 109th Congresses of the United States are "former" legislative bodies but they are not "defunct." "Former" is ambiguous. "Defunct" is not. I am mystified as to why this prejudice against the word "defunct" exists. It's a perfectly cromulent word. Otto4711 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conceivably this is a American/British difference, but I find the use of "defunct", especially as a leading ardjective, for things that were not living organisms, odd and (lets say) grating, though I agree there is a shortage of terms here. Closer please note this category should be consistent with the "upper" one above, where a consensus for "former" seems to be forming. Johnbod 10:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that Otto4711 is a British person, and he supported using "defunct" in the "upper houses" nomination up above. Dr. Submillimeter 10:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 is a red-blooded American. Sorry to undermine the argument... Otto4711 04:14, 10 July 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. Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it. If people think the list clutters the article, that is not automatic grounds for making a category out of the clutter. A list article would arguably be better, as it could e.g. include relevant degrees held by the signing people. >Radiant< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is for signatories of a proclamation. Not defining. Æthelwold 01:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/listify~~ - If categories were added for every proclamation that these people signed or every document that they supported, the list of categories at the bottom of each article would be very cluttered and very difficult to use for navigation. ~~This should probably be converted into a list, possibly in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism or possibly on a separate page.~~ Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Merge into Category:Intelligent design advocates~~ - After some discussion below, it appears that this is a lengthy, growing list of people who cannot be listified easily. However, I really see no difference between these specific intelligent design advocates and intelligent design advocates who have not signed the document, so I just recommend merging everyone into Category:Intelligent design advocates. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete/listify - After further discussion below, it appears that these people are not all intelligent design advocates, but the parent categories added to this "signatory" category certainly give that impression. I therefore am shifting back to my original recommendation that the category be deleted. Again, these people have probably signed many documents and will probably sign many more, so this particular document is not necessarily the most definitive one that states their positions. Again, a list would probably be appropriate, and it could even explain more details about people's motivations for signing the document. Also, making a list with 700 names is not too difficult, especially if broken up into subpages. Dr. Submillimeter 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I can see no point in reproducing the full 700+ list, as it already exists at [1]. There is also the question of the copyright status of reproducing it in its entirety. A category that contains the articles on signatories that are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia on the other hand is useful, and has no potential copyright problems. Hrafn42 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument against a list of signatories in the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article itself was that the article would get cluttered (maybe there are 30+ notable persons who signed the proclamation). There are also categories about Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors Category:Intelligent design advocates If the cat Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is deleted, what about those? If "delete" is the consensus, then we would at least need to make a separate page. Northfox 11:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not always necessary to create a category as a solution to removing a lengthy list from an article. Adding these names to a new article entitled List of signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" would probably be more appropriate than this category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: A list was one of the options contemplated when the formation of a category was originally discussed. Is there some rule that requires the use of a list in preference to a category, where feasible? Hrafn42 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - No actual hard-set rule has been set, although some guidelines have been written up at WP:CLS and WP:OC. Given that this signatories list is a short, finite list and that this may be one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people, then creating a list just seems more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Then what "guidelines" does this category violate? The actual list of signatories is 700+ long and increasing, but most of its membership aren't notable so don't have articles, so aren't included in the category, which therefore just includes the notable ones (notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks). And no, it is not "one of many expressions of support for the intelligent design movement by these people," it is one of the main Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns and in Category:Discovery Institute campaigns. Hrafn42 09:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - I did not realize that the list was so long. Still, categories are not needed to specify how people support intelligent design. How many other documents will these people sign to indicate their support for this viewpoint? At this point, I would just say that the people who sign the document are going to be intelligent design advocates anyway, so I would recommend merging into Category:Intelligent design advocates. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment:"How many other documents will these people sign to indicate their support for this viewpoint?" How many documents that are in Category:Discovery Institute campaigns, and thus (as the DI is by far the largest and best-funded promoter of ID) notable? Potentially, only one: signatories who have both an MD & a PhD could conceivably also sign the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity. Hrafn42 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: Keep in mind not all the people who signed the document actually support intelligent design or creationism. Some of them didn't know what the discovery institute was when they signed. Mainly the category was created to solve disputes over whether or not the article should go into detail about what qualifications or affiliations the signatories had, and allow the reader to see for themselves. ornis 16:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not category material. The list isn't that long, and if you list the names left to right, rather than one per line, it will only take up about five or six lines. AshbyJnr 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify per the Dr. Categories are for the most notable aspects of a person's life/career. Signing onto this document isn't notable enough for categorization, however retaining this information in an independent list could be beneficial.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, w/o prejudice to list of signers article. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, I've moved the names to a list, as seems to be consensus of this discussion. ornis 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries. This is being done gradually because of the effort involved. For most of these people, signing this list is one of the main things that makes them notable, because it identifies them as being a leader or prominent member of the intelligent design movement. For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable.--Filll 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Listify. Filll, isn't your last point actually an argument for deleting the category? If most people are only notable because they are signatories, would this justify a whole category? I think that Ornis' idea of making a list is better. More background info about the signatories can be added easily. Information that is not covered in the original Discovery Institute list. Northfox 05:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: No, I disagree. It is possible that some of the signatories are not notable for this reason, but not the category itself. However, since this is a very important component of the Discovery Institute campaigns and the most celebrated and longest of the half dozen or more creationist lists of its kind, this list is unique and special and I think deserves to be singled out.--Filll 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Their anti-evolutionary/Creationist advocacy is generally what makes them notable. Membership in this category is the most easily verifiable indication of such advocacy. If you want details on an individual signatory, it is easy enough to follow the link to the signatory's article. Being in this category is also a good indication of the signatory being on the fringe of science, and is useful information on the signatory, which would be lost if the category were to be replaced by a list. Hrafn42 05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Being a signatory to this petition is a strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement. This is frequently "defining" as it tends to colour the signatory's views on Methodological naturalism, the Scientific method and Science. Hrafn42 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Of the 23 signatories currently in this category, 18 have mention in their articles of Creationist and/or ID affiliation or of anti-evolutionary statements, and one further signatory has his signing explicitly mentioned in the text of his article. Of the four remaining signatories, two hold otherwise idiosyncratic views on science (argued that living creatures do not obey the second law of thermodynamics, author of an anti-global warming petition). I think this is a good indication that the petition is "defining." Hrafn42 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: On further reflection, SDFD would be a subcategory of Anti-Evolutionists (should such a category be brought into existence) and, arguably of Pseudoscientists. It will contain (some, but never all) ID advocates (which, given that it is promoted by the DI, will be the largest group of notable signatories), Creationists affiliated to groups (e.g. ICR) unaffiliated to the ID movement, anti-evolutionists unaffiliated to any specific Creationist movement, and fringe/pseudo-scientists attached to a number of fringe/pseudo-scientific ideas. A list would be superfluous, such a list already exists maintained by the DI. What is useful is a category containing those signatories who are sufficiently notable to have articles on them on Wikipedia. Also useful is to have the category-tag on the signatory's articles, indicating that they are likely to have an idiosyncratic understanding of science, and that their opinions may be unreliable (and, as far as I know, this is the only PhD-only anti-Evolution petition, and undoubtedly the most notable one). It should thus be neither deleted, 'listified' nor merged with ID Advocates. Hrafn42 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Hrafn42 mentioned, signing this petition is an important piece of information about the signatories - it puts them in a small group far outside of the scientific mainstream. Signing this petition is a very strong political statement and is highly informative about the signatories. Guettarda 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are better ways of putting people in a category than simply whether or not they have signed a particular letter. this is enshrining the importance of the letter.It would be better to have a more generally named category, specifying the letter as one of the criteria for inclusion. DGG 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Any "generally named category" is likely to cause considerable ongoing controversy (as does anything not entirely cut-and-dry in the field of Creationism). The most likely candidate would be 'Intelligent design advocate,' but I have run into considerable disagreement in the past calling Richard Sternberg such, in spite of the fact that not only is he a signatory, but he is also a member of the ISCID & has presented at RAPID. A category with a simple, unambiguous, verifiable criteria for inclusion is best for this, IMO. Hrafn42 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Hrafn, Filll, and Guettarda. This is critical reference material for several articles. Orangemarlin 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of the those expressing an opinion to date, those who I remember as being active on the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism parent article and/or other Creationism-related articles have been consistently in favour of keeping the article, I do not remember any of the editors in favour of deletion as being active in these areas. Odd. Hrafn42 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The editors in favor of deletion are all people who frequently work on general category maintenance or who regularly comment on WP:CFD discussions. We have seen a lot of categories like this one. Occasionally, editors from a specific project do not realize that their categorization scheme goes against the convention used at Wikipedia or that their categories are poorly named. This then leads to debates like this one here at Wikipedia. Does this explain the disagreement? (The nature of the debate here may be comparable to the "retired NASCAR drivers" category that was merged into its parent category a few months ago. Several people from a NASCAR WikiProject protested the idea, but other WP:CFD regulars indicated that the division of people into "retired" and "active" people was against convention for Wikipedia in general.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: "Does this explain the disagreement?" No it does not. (1) Why was this nomination-for-deletion not notified on Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism? (2) How is this category "against the convention used at Wikipedia"? (3) What efforts did these "people who frequently work on general category maintenance or who regularly comment on WP:CFD discussions" go to to familiarise themselves with the place of the SDFD in the ID movement, before opining that it was "not defining" or just one of "every proclamation that these people signed" (neither characterisation strikes me as accurate)? Your comparison to NASCAR drivers seems to be way off point (beyond a somewhat patronising "we know best" implication; though I notice that there likewise, you fail to clearly identify which "convention" is being violated), which does not suggest a high understanding of the specifics of this category. Hrafn42 08:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - 1) I do not understand why the nominator did not place a notification at Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. However, talk pages for specific articles are not always the best place to leave notifications about WP:CFD discussions. (WikiProjects and possibly individual editors' pages are better notification areas.) 2) Most people are not categorized as to whether they signed specific documents, petitions, etc., although people are categorized as advocates of specific issues. This category simply seems too specific. 3) I do not know about other people, but I did look at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism briefly. I really do not see the difference between that document and any other document that anyone else signs in favor of anything else (with the exceptions of a few documents (the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, for example). I would also nominate for deletion a similar category for anti-creationists who signed any specific document. This category is just too much detail on how these people are intelligent design advocates. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment"However, talk pages for specific articles are not always the best place to leave notifications about WP:CFD discussions. (WikiProjects and possibly individual editors' pages are better notification areas.)" As far as I can tell (from inspecting their contributions), the nominator did not notify this nomination anywhere other than placing the CFD template in the category page itself. This leads to the implication that CFD runs as a 'closed shop,' with little consultation of the users of the categories that they are 'discussing.' I think this cavalier attitude needs modification. Hrafn42 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable and useful, the only two criteria that matter. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and the Dr, although the fact should be mentioned in all the relevant articles, with explanations for those who have subsequently said they thought it was something other than it is. The list is potentially much more useful. Johnbod 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Guettarda. (although Dr. Submillimeter makes a good argument for merging) JoshuaZ 13:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Intelligent design advocates I agree with Doc's reasoning above. Presumably anybody or almost anybody who signed this document is also an active Intelligent design advocate, so merging into that category makes sense. The actual literal signatories themselves should be done as a list, though, not as a category because it's quite possible for people to sign multiple petitions and advocate multiple political and scientific positions. Prolific or famous individuals in particular will have their name affiliated with potentially hundreds of causes, and if you were to create individual categories for every major petition they signed and event they took part in it would create a massive category clutter. Moreover signing a major petition is similar in many ways to being an active member of a voluntary organization, and in most cases we use list articles, not categories, to identify members of organizations. Dugwiki 15:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not all SDFD signatories are ID advocates (see my 2nd addendum above), nor are all ID advocates SDFD signatories (as many lack the qualifying PhD). Also, I suspect it is unlikely that signatories of it would be "affiliated with potentially hundreds of causes," but rather with a small number of fringe/pseudo-scientific and/or Religious Right causes often closely correlated with anti-evolutionism/creationism (e.g. HIV/AIDS-denial, Global Warming denial). Hrafn42 04:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. No merge. A merge would be inaccurate and useless as not all members of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" would be members of Category:Intelligent design advocates, and having all the signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" who have Wikipedia articles in one category is very handy; remember, information wants to be useful. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I would believe that this was true if Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was not a subcategory of Category:Intelligent design. However, givfen that the signatory category is a subcategory of the intelligent design category, I am forced to conclude that these people are intelligent design advocates. Dr. Submillimeter 07:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Submillimeter is incorrect. Over one quarter of the current members of this category are not known ID advocates: John Baumgardner (a member of the Institute for Creation Research, an organisation which rejects ID's stripped-down Neo-creationism), Maciej Giertych, Israel Hanukoglu, Mae-Wan Ho, Arthur B. Robinson, James Tour. Hrafn42 07:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Since some of the people do not specifically support intelligent design, I suggest having a separate category for creationism advocates. This signatory category is still set up to give the impression that these people specifically support intelligent design (as the signatory category is a subcategory of Category:Intelligent design), and I am beginning to wonder if it is being used to somehow promote the standpoint of the Discovery Institute over other pro-creationist groups. Dr. Submillimeter 11:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: The SDFD is a legitimate subcategory of ID because it is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns(Category:Discovery Institute campaigns). That does not mean that all signatories are ID advocates, or even explicit Creationists (only two of the six I listed above are). ID Neo-creationism is a strategic position rather than a theological one. Some Young Earth Creationists agree with that strategy and have joined ID's 'big tent,' others disagree and remain in organisations outside the 'tent' (e.g. ICR, Answers in Genesis), but sharing an opposition to Evolution (which is why some of them, as well as anti-evolutionists with no known Creationist ties, are willing to sign the SDFD). While the DI is not the only Creationist organisation active, it has by far the highest recent profile, being involved in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Kansas evolution hearings, and the Santorum Amendment, as well as numerous lesser controversies. Hrafn42 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And the existing name is accurate and useful. Odd nature 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Non-definitive, and irrelevant to the specific fields of expertise of most of the signatories. -Sean Curtin 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kind of thing is good evidence that the insanity of the Creationists has infected the anti-Creationists. Steve Dufour 05:44, 9 July 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< 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pages Needing to be Archived to Category:Talk pages needing to be archived

Nominator's rationale: I would nominate this for speedy renaming due to its capitalization, but I think the word "talk" should be added for clarity. szyslak 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Piccadilly 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Question - isn't it up to the owner of the talk page to decide whether or not to archive it? Otto4711 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom. Never mind, for some reason I was thinking this was about specifically user talk pages. Otto4711 19:18, 5 July 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.

July 5

Category:Chicago politicians

Category:Lists of journalists

Eponymous band categories - W

Category:Buses in Hong Kong

Category:Bus companies

Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory

Category:Early (pre-1914) Association Football players

Category:Films about coal mining

Category:Films about cooking

Category:Occupation films

Category:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. fans

Category:Major Doctor Who Villains

Category:Youth Organizations of California

Category:Youth Organizations of San Diego

Category:Live Action films based on Cartoons

Category:"A" Film Festivals

Category:Homophobic films[edit]

Category:Historical members of the Executive Council of New Brunswick

Category:Historical women who lived as male

Category:Historical upper houses of the United Kingdom

Category:Historical upper houses

Category:Historical railway companies of Germany

Category:Historical programming languages

Category:Historical lower houses

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Category:Pages Needing to be Archived