< June 26 June 28 >

June 27

Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers

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 16:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This subcategory of Category:Jews and Judaism does not need to exist, as its parent category does. While Category:Jews and Judaism treats the Jewish ethnic group/religion, Category:Jewish philosophers is not even directly related to Category:Jewish philosophy (since not all Jewish philosophers dealt in Jewish philosophy). Rather, Category:Philosophers of Judaism is, correctly, a subcategory of Category:Jewish philosophy, as with other philosophy categories. --Eliyak T·C 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me be a bit more specific, as requested:
The category under discussion, Category:Jewish philosophy and philosophers contains the un-natural union of both Jewish philosophy, and those Jews who were philosophers of various persuasions. No upmerge is necessary or appropriate, I think. --Eliyak T·C 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if you could further clarify what you are looking for in terms of move/delete/merge. Johnbod 15:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I apologize if I've been too long-winded/confusing here. --Eliyak T·C 19:39, 1 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.

Category:Deaths by hypothermia

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. Richard 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by hypothermia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This seems like a non-noteworthy way to die (as in it would not be a method of death that would be reported in today's news sources). It is also a very commonplace way to die, especially for people in impoversed countries or people who lived before gas and electrical heating). A category for this method of death therefore seems unwarranted. Besides, except for the people interested in obscure connections among people, are readers really going to use this category? Dr. Submillimeter 21:36, 27 June 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.

Category:Entertainers who died in a road accident

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 16:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Entertainers who died in a road accident to Category:Road accident victims
Nominator's rationale: Merge - It is unclear why entertainers who died in road accidents should be separated from everyone else who died in road accidents. Also, this category goes against previous decisions to not categorize dead people by occupation (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Dead people by occupation). The category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 27 June 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.

Category:Competition deaths

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 16:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Competition deaths to Category:Deaths in sport
Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are not quite synonymous, but they overlap so much that should be merged together anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 21:18, 27 June 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.

Category:Dead athlete categories

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 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American football players who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Baseball players who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Basketball players who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Footballers who died before retiring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:National Hockey League players who died during their careers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - These are categories that gather together athletes who died while still active in professional sports (except for Pat Tillman, who is listed because someone wanted to list him anyway). Generally, people in most other careers are not categorized this way, and I really do not see the point in doing this with athletes, especially since these people died so many ways that are mostly unrelated to the sports (from accidents, drug use, murder, illness, etc). Moreover, it was already decided to not categorize dead people by occupation (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Dead people by occupation). The categories should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sure, death can be fairly arbitrary, but when it ends your career, that seems to me to have something "to do with these people's careers". Daemonic Kangaroo 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Sorry, but can you put that in plain English. I haven't a clue what you mean. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain it any more than as to why people troll the comments of a Categories for discussion page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the patronising comment. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:46, 1 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.

Category:Female suicide in war

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 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female suicide in war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete - This just seems like an exotic triple intersection (gender, method of death, and circumstances of death). I also worry that "suicide in war" could be liberally interpreted to include people who effectively sacrifice themselves in combat to achieve an objective. It would be better to delete the category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:52, 27 June 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.

Category:Theme parks in England

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 and leave as a redirect --Kbdank71 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Theme parks in England to Category:Amusement parks in England
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Theme parks are amusement parks, but not vice-versa; at least some of the so-called "theme parks" in this category are not theme parks, e.g. Blackpool Pleasure Beach. Korax1214 19:59, 27 June 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.

Category:Gates family

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 per precedent --Kbdank71 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gates family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with many family eponymous categories, the material here doesn't require categorization. The articles are all interlinked and the article Gates family links everything as well. Otto4711 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one was "singled out" because this is the one I found. Can't say as I appreciate the suggestion that there's some sinister motive behind the nomination. Otto4711 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Singled out"? Look at our edit histories. Look at the precedents I referred to. We have deleted many, many such family categories. Doczilla 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the prominence of the family is completely irrelevant to whether a category is required. The Trump family is a pretty prominent family in American business too yet the category for that family was deleted. People !voting "keep" need to figure out that there's a difference between notability for purposes of articles and the necessity of a category. Otto4711 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why exactly is it any more convenient than the article Gates family, which not only links all of the people in the family together but also explains the relationships between them, something a category can't do? Otto4711 16:05, 30 June 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.

Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes

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 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Categorizing people by career and method of death is generally not done. Moreover, the term "unnatural death" is vaguely defined. Does this include only deaths directly related to drugs, or does it include deaths indirectly related to drugs (e.g. heart problems at 60 caused by steroid use when someone was younger), or does it include accidents (such as what happened to Owen Hart), or does it include other things as well? Would being murdered count? This term is just too nebulous. If the user really wants centralized information on this, then I suggest writing about a specific topic (e.g. drug-related deaths in professional wrestling). Categories are just not the right thing for this type of discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:36, 27 June 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.

Category:UK Robot Wars series

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 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Robot Wars series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, seems unlikely to expand. Its only article is a) already in the parent and b) up for deletion and unlikely to continue to exist in its present form. The category is not needed. Otto4711 19:24, 27 June 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.

Category:American murderers (speedied)

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 speedy close per all the comments calling for it (bold non-admin action). Bencherlite 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American murderers to Category:Americans convicted of murder.
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.

Category:Number one albums in the United States

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 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories contain lists of albums, not individual album articles. If renamed, they would be consistent with other similar cats such as Category:Lists of number-one songs in the United States and other subcats of Category:Lists of number-one songs --musicpvm 18:42, 27 June 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.

Category:WikiProject Figure Skating templates

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 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Figure Skating templates to Category:Figure Skating templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename, the templates in this category are used by, but are not specific to, the Figure Skating wikiproject. As such, a more general "Figure Skating templates" category would be better. Mike Peel 18:42, 27 June 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.

Category:WikiProject Tennis Templates

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 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Tennis Templates to Category:Tennis templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename, the templates in this category are used by, but are not specific to, the Tennis wikiproject. As such, a more general "Tennis templates" category would be better. Mike Peel 18:17, 27 June 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.

Category:Died Smoking In Bed

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 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Died Smoking In Bed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as narrow and non-defining, or Rename to Category:Deaths from smoking in bed. -- Prove It (talk) 17:51, 27 June 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.

Category:Newspapers in Cape Verde

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. Richard 07:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers in Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Newspapers published in Cape Verde, convention of Category:Newspapers by country. -- Prove It (talk) 16:45, 27 June 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.

Category:Mineral Spas in Mexico

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 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mineral Spas in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Resorts in Mexico, or at least Rename to Category:Mineral spas in Mexico -- Prove It (talk) 15:19, 27 June 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.

Category:Fictional bugs

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 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bugs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Fictional arthropods, note bug is a ambiguous. -- Prove It (talk) 14:55, 27 June 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.

Category:Chinese thinkers

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 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chinese thinkers to Category:Chinese philosophers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The categorization "thinker" is not consistent with Category:People by nationality and occupation and the vast majority of the 28 articles already in the philosophers subcategory.Andrew c 13:56, 27 June 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.

Category:Films written by Abrar Alvi

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 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films written by Abrar Alvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Screenplays by Abrar Alvi, convention of Category:Films by writer. -- Prove It (talk) 13:39, 27 June 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.

Category:Chinese scholars

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 --Kbdank71 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Scholars by nationality supercategory, as there are for most other of the Category:People by occupation and nationality. Everyone in this category could fit into "Chinese academics", "Chinese educators", or one of the subcats of "Chinese scientists". I'll personally go through the cat and make sure every article has an occupation other than "scholar" attached to it.Andrew c 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange argument. Would you apply it to Category:Academics? Who was Confuscus, btw? I think you will find most of the philosophers and scholars were confuscian; it is not really a subject in the modern academic sense, but a cultural frame of reference. Specific sub-cats are fine, but that does not replace the need for a head-cat. Actually I see we have a number of sub-cats under Category:Scholars (I suppose I'm tempting fate by revealing this here), to which I will add this one. Only a few are national categories, and I would not want to see the full range, but this fits nicely with the Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox etc other categories. Scholars is the term usually used for these people; categories for Western intellectuals do not face these demands to choose the pigeon-hole that fits. Johnbod 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Scholar categories for people of specific religions or philosophies is useful, as it is clear what the people studied. Scholar categories for nationalities, such as "Chinese scholars" is not useful, as it does not indicate what the people studied. I also do not see the "Chinese scholars" category functioning as a useful head category, either. (I also do not think that people should be listed directly in Category:Academics, as this says nothing about what the people did. I can call myself an academic, and this says nothing specific about what I do for a living.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just some background, I think it is important to group scholars. I just do not believe that is the word used in current wikipedia naming schemes. I browsed through Category:People by occupation and nationality, and as I said, there was no Category:Scholars by nationality, while there was precedent with Category:Academics by nationality, Category:Educators by nationality, Category:Scientists by nationality. Rightly so, we have Category:Chinese academics, Category:Chinese:Educators, Category:Chinese philosophers Category:Chinese scientists, while we don't have Category:American scholars or Category:English scholars or Category:Polish scholars. I'm not saying that being a scholar isn't notable, I'm just saying that particular word isn't used in the current categorization scheme, and there is redundancy and more specific cats that all these articles could easily fit under if Category:Chinese scholars was deleted. I guess the issue is Category:Scholars which has "Chinese" and "French" and "Spanish" which could be taken to mean scholars of the language, not People by occupation and nationality (judging by the articles included in these subcats, that isn't the case). Using google it seems like we have Swedish, Pakistani, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh scholars as well, see Category:Academics by nationality. I think I want to list all these to be merged or renamed. What do others think before I make this bold move?- -Andrew c 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still failing completely to see the problem. "Scholar" is in my experience invariably the term used to describe intellectuals of traditional Chinese culture, even in modern works, and even when they are mainly famous as, say, painters. As I'm sure you know, the concept of the scholar was of enormous importance to that culture. A comparable term in the West is Renaissance humanist, which equally covers many actual types of activity. Looking at individual articles, most seem very well-categorized: Zhao Mengfu as painter, calligrapher and scholar; Zhang Yanyuan as painter, calligrapher, historian and scholar; whilst the polymathic & very successful Shen Kuo is in no less than 15 categories beginning with "Chinese". The modern ones are in the "educator" "academic" etc cats as well. If there was a single specific activity that characterised the traditional Chinese Scholar-bureaucrats, it was (as in the Classical European world) the study of literature - something WP categories seem not well equipped to deal with - lets see if there is a Category:Men of letters. We have Category:Classical scholars but of course that means study of the Western ancient classics. This still seems to me likely to force a very distinct Chinese phenomenon into categories that fit Western history. Johnbod 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I don't object to the reclassifying of the French and Spanish articles, or the articles in the main scholars category. But these should be emptied "by hand" and the empty national sb-cats then put up for deletion. This is fiddly work - where should Baltasar Alamos de Barrientos go? We can't just sit here waving our magic wands. The other sub-cats should certainly stay. Johnbod 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I see where you are coming from Johnbod. If we can set up some criteria, and actually write what the category is supposed to classify on the actual category page, that would help. It seems like this category could be helpful in classifying a historical category of people that were the learn'd of Chinese society. I could accept keeping this category if it was limited to non-Modern scholars (or at least, structure it so that people who have post-graduate degrees, and work in research or at universities don't qualify as "scholars" i.e. Liang Shih-Chiu). Perhaps there is a better name we could use so editors won't be tempted to put your average scientist or academic in this category?-Andrew c 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm fine with removing those with university degrees (unless there are odd transitional individuals, as there may be) to the normal cats. Renames might include "Chinese scholars (traditional/classical/pre-modern...) but I think I'd rather leave it plain & define the category contents on the page. Chinese classical scholars might be ok. Or Chinese Confucian scholars per the Dr., although I don't know if that is wholly accurate for the Taoists etc. Johnbod 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to cause some people problems, cetainly. I have suggested above that having a modern university degree would be a straightforward cut-off point for exclusion. The other side of that coin would be to include only those who had taken the traditional Imperial examinations for the Civil Service, abolished in 1905 . No doubt a few individuals held both kinds of qualification, and should be categorised in both ways accordingly. Johnbod 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the same type of people in modern Chinese history (past 100 years or so) and in the modern day are called "intellectuals" in English, not "scholars". I don't know if there's a specific date where we can say that a "scholar" becomes an "intellectual". But it's pretty safe to say that educated people that lived before the events that eventually led to the fall of the Qing dynasty generally wouldn't be called "intellectuals" by English-language academia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there really a genuine need to rename the cat, or is this a fig leaf for the pride of those who Oppose? Ling.Nut 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Imperial exam/modern degree criterion is the simplest for C19/20 figures, as it relates to the individual. I can't see how one based on 1911 would be applied in practise. Johnbod 17:15, 30 June 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.

Category:Photographs by year

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 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are only 30 photographs with articles at the moment, and there is no need yet to subcategorise them. In any case, all the articles should remain in the main category, and not be migrated to "by year" subcategories". It is not necessary to subcategorise everything "by year", and this just encourages excess subcategorisation. Carcharoth 10:35, 27 June 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.

Category:Australian soccer players

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 Close, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Australian_soccer_players. -- Prove It (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian soccer players to Category:Australian football (soccer) players
Nominator's rationale: Rename - I propose that this category be moved back to Category:Australian football (soccer) players. This category was moved 2 days ago. No one from the Australian football community knew this was happening, nor was given any chance to comment on it. Following on from discussion at the Deletion review I have relisted it here. Tancred 10:42, 26 June 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.

Category:Vocalese musicians

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 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vocalese musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename Category:Vocalese musicians to Category:Vocalese singers, as that is the only variety of musician pertaining to the genre; aside from composers, which would belong in another category. (Mind meal 07:07, 26 June 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.

Category:Brazilian jazz musicians

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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Brazilian jazz musicians to Category:Jazz musicians of Brazil

Incidentally, I just ran into this propblem AGAIN with Category:Latin folk musicians. Now, while there is not [[Latin folk article on here yet, it is a genre. This has become somewhat retarded. Perhaps we must rethink current categorization practices of musicians entirely, since they obviously have discrepencies. I would think we would want to clear confusion up and create coherency and accuracy, and to hell with "precedence" if it just doesn't work in a certain instance! (Mind meal 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Not sure why you'd have the same problem with Category:Latin folk musicians since "Latin folk" doesn't have the same problem of double meaning (nationality+genre vs specific name of sub-genre) as "Brazilian jazz". Discussion is taking place at WP:MUSCAT if you want to take part - probably best if we avoid turning this page into a general discussion about your views on the current system! Bencherlite 17:27, 28 June 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.

Category:Smooth jazz

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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Smooth jazz into Category:Smooth jazz musicians

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.

Category:Dead Pro Wrestlers

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 13:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead Pro Wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category in unnecessary. There are no other profession-specific subcategories of Category:Dead people. Mike Dillon 05:11, 27 June 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.

Category:Singers by style

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 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Singers by style into Category:Singers by genre

Comment Is there some way for a bot to make that process happen without conflict? (Mind meal 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not as many as perhaps you thought, Xtifr: just Category:American singers by style, Category:British singers by style, Category:Canadian singers by style, Category:Greek singers by style, Category:Norwegian singers by style and Category:Venezuelan singers by style. see my sandbox for a lot of redlinks! Bencherlite 21:35, 27 June 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.

Category:American murderers

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 to Category:Americans convicted of murder to match the category intro. Readers shouldn't have to navigate to a category to find out what it means, it should be evident from the name itself. --Kbdank71 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete this inherently prejudicial, unnecessary, and POV category. If we are going to keep it at all it should be relabeled "Category:Americans convicted of murder to make clear from the category name that it includes people if they have been convicted of murder whether or not there is substantial disagreement about whether they committed the murder they were convicted of (e.g. Leonard Peltier), and does not include those who are widely considered "murderers" if they were not convicted (e.g. O.J. Simpson). csloat 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? There is apparent unanimity on the category talk page that it should be renamed. csloat 05:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not. Look how old those comments on the category talk page are. It's not like that's a current discussion. I also think the name should be changed, but let's not overstate the case. Doczilla 05:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a single comment against renaming the page. It looks like unanimity to me. The fact that the unanimity goes back months (even over a year) indicates that the renaming is long overdue, not that the case is being "overstated." And you even said you agree with changing the name. Seriously, what are we waiting for? csloat 10:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description now on the category (see above) makes it clear the category is already only for those convicted. Johnbod 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description is then inconsistent with the category name. Mind meal's understanding of the category shows exactly why its name should be changed. csloat 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was a bit different, & you can't have 2 open at the same time on one cat. I think this one is well underway & the options clear, so I suggest this one is continued. You can amend the nom here (just strikethrough), but add a line at the bottom to show the point in the debate you did this at. Personally I would leave it - keep or rename are clear enough.Johnbod 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information:I have speedily closed the re-nomination: 4 editors had already called for that to happen, and rather than be the 5th, I thought I'd do it. Bencherlite 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My error - sorry; this is probably the first time I've made any suggestions for changes in categories here, and I am not clear on the proper procedures. csloat 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard a single such reason yet - can you please expand? Thanks. csloat 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would just be a pain to include all the criteria for every category in full, like adding "who have played professionally in a foo league team" to sports categories, and so on ad infinitum. Johnbod 00:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's advocating that. What I'm advocating is that for this specific category, not including that particular information makes the category extremely ambiguous, inherently POV, and potentially incendiary. I don't think that is the case with the example you gave. csloat 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why POV and incendiary? Like any category, if the wrong people are added, they can be removed as not meeting the definition. Johnbod 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because calling someone a "murderer" is a subjective value judgement whereas saying someone is "convicted of murder" is an objective statement of fact. You're right it can be removed, but this sort of thing makes endless back-and-forth on some pages (e.g. Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, O.J. Simpson, perhaps even Ted Kennedy) a virtual certainty. I don't understand what you have against clearing this matter up with a more specific and unambiguous category name. csloat 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umpteenth? I see no evidence this has ever been raised before on this category, and every single comment in the category talk page going back two years supports the change. You claim it is untrue that no single argument has been made why the word convicted would detract from this category, yet you don't offer one and you don't point to one. I'm really confused as to why you would say that. In fact the word convicted is in the category description; what motive could there be for hiding it in the title? csloat 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the category description says only those convicted of murder are included; are you proposing a change in the category description to include people as "murderers" who have not been convicted? csloat 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not all muderers are convicted." Well, that's just it! By law, if you have not been convicted of something, you are in fact not guilty of it. That must be proven in a court of law. Otherwise, you are begging for a lawsuit from these individuals that get lumped in there that in fact were NEVER convicted of murder. But if you want to slander others, be my guest. Your pocketbook. (Mind meal 02:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The law is not the only or the highest form of truth. Greg Grahame 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the current definition, but would agree it should be extended to those declared by inquests to have committed murder (ie when the murderer has died), which I presume is what happens in such cases. Johnbod 17:18, 30 June 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.

Category:School massacres in Australia

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 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School massacres in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:School massacres in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is currently empty and there is insufficient content to populate it. -- Longhair\talk 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty category and I doubt there will ever be sufficient content to re-create it in the foreseeable future. Thewinchester (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I hope it will NEVER be populated.--Flamgirlant 06:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Monash University shooting article is currently within the School schootings in Australia category, which I've also added to this discussion. It's effectively the same thing. -- Longhair\talk 10:49, 27 June 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.

Category:Batman characters

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 13:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization. Per many precedents, this is not how we categorize fictional characters. (Why can't Wikipedia stop this guy from creating new sockpuppets? He has a static IP.) It's also redundant to Category:Batman. Doczilla 01:24, 27 June 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.

Category:Pianists by style

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 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category:Singers by style. Musicians perform in both styles and genres, but I accept there are more WP categories with genre in the title. Johnbod 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American pianists by style is a category redirect to Category:American pianists by genre, so we don't need to worry about it. Bencherlite 08:27, 27 June 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.

Category:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder

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 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - I can't believe that this category is inclusive as it contains only ~20 members and I can't believe that it is a defining characteristic for those who are. After Midnight 0001 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have deigned to supply links, I have indeed checked the articles. Johnbod 18:37, 27 June 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.