< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Category:Beer and breweries by region

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:Beer and breweries by country and populate as necessary with sub-categories. Whilst noting Hmains's comment that the concrete proposal was made late in the discussion, it was clear to me that it was a proposal that was generally supported in the discussion before that point, and so relisting was not necessary. BencherliteTalk 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beer and breweries by region to Category:Discuss
Nominator's rationale: Split and rename. This nomination is the result of the closing of this nomination. Breweries should not be included in the name of the category since it is ambiguous. It means both a company that brews beer as well as the building used to brew beer. So this category needs to be split into Category:Beer_brands, Category:Brewing companies (beer) or Category:Breweries (company), and Category:Breweries (building). Beers are in many cases regional and not restricted to the state or country where they are produced. Brewing companies may distribute over a large areas from several plants, some of which may be notable. The only way to organize this is to split out the various parts. Each of the children will probably have different parents, so a company like Anheuser-Busch will be listed as Category:Companies based in St. Louis while its beers will probably be included in Category:American beers. I have not tagged all of the children since this is really a split and if there is agreement, then most of the parents here can remain with the new children. Vegaswikian 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Red

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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Red (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Shades of red, convention of Category:Colors. -- Prove It (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Freemasons

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. As recreation of the category is likely, the category will also be salted to prevent future creation outside the channels of deletion review. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Freemasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category was previously deleted in November of 07 (see discussion here). The cat was recreated in good faith, but the reasons for the original deletion are still valid. Also duplicates List of Freemasons. The main issue was, and is still, that of verification. The category becomes a magnet for unsubstantiated claims that people were or are currently Freemasons. This was and is a real nightmare for the members of the Freemasonry project who constantly have to monitor this category to removed unsubstantiated additions. Even when it is verifiable that the subject was or is a Freemason, the fact of his membership in the Fraternity is of very minor note (often amounting to a "trivial" one sentence mention in the article) that had no real importance or influence on the subject's life. It has been suggested that this category be remamed to something along the lines of "People who contributed to Freemasonry"... which would result in all but five being cut. Those should be listed in the broader Category:Freemasonry. The category was deleted for good reasons, the List serves the same purpose and is much easier to monitor and maintain. Blueboar 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Secretism? Oh, please... I simply hit 5 tildies instead of 4 when signing. Now corrected. Blueboar 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment But lists are a far inferior way of organising information compared to categories. They are far more prone to edit wars and they do not have the flexibility of categories. JASpencer 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just one opinion. I find lists to be far superior for other reasons you've failed to discuss. Snocrates 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this I've just stumbled upon Category:Opus Dei members, they have both a list and a category. Surely the same objections would apply here? JASpencer 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree... Keep the list and delete the Cat. Blueboar 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the members of Opus Dei category? On what grounds? JASpencer 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overcategorization of a subject that is better handled by a list. But this is really besides the point here... We are not talking about some other category... we are talking about Category:Freemasons. "Other stuff exists" has never been a good reason for oppose a deletion. Each deletion nomintation should be judged on its own merits. Blueboar 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid to say that as this is a natural category that doesn't clearly breach any Wikipedia policy, this means that every year or so someone else will create it. I know that there is a well organised minority who dislike the idea that people should be identified by their affiliation, but Wikipedia is about verifiability and not about being sensitive to club rules. JASpencer 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um... this is about verifiability. I am also not sure what you mean by "being sensitive to club rules"? This nom resulted from a mistaken (but good faith) recreation of a category that was deleted for valid reasons several months ago. The issues that resulted in its first deletion are reoccuring. In my opinion, the reasons for the original deletion are still valid, and it should be redeleted. Blueboar 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reasons were about sensitivity rather than about Wikipedia policy. This is a natural category with no deviation from Wikipedia policy. WP:V can be enforced within the articles. JASpencer 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Not following you. What reasons were about sensitivity? Blueboar 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply - Obviously, I disagree that this is a "natural" category. To repeat what I stated in the nomination, in the vast majority of the articles tagged with this cat, the fact that the subject was a Freemason is trivia, with nothing more than one sentence stating, "He was also a Freemason". It certainly does not define who they were or what made them notable. As such I think the categorization amounts to WP:Overcategorization (Non-defining or trivial characteristic). As for the issue of List vs. Category, reading the comments from the original November deletion page there seems to be an opposite opinion. It was clear that at that time it was felt that this topic should be listified and not done as a category. I suppose it could be considered a matter of choice, but it is clearly not something for which there is a "principle". Blueboar 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I have to take exception to this last comment... I never stated that I was concerned about the fact that being listed as a Freemason could endanger the subject's life... that was a worry expressed by another editor at the old CfD. As for citing policy, while I did not explicitly point to a policy or guideline, I did discuss issues that relate to policy and guideline criteria. But to be explicit now: see WP:Overcategorization (this category fits several of the criteria, but especially: Non-defining or trivial characteristic). Blueboar 13:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it can be verified that the membership in this society, about whose actions historically very little if anything is known, is clearly and explicitly not a defining characteristic, then I would agree. The remarkable lack of information about the subject in many instances, however, makes it very hard to make such judgements, particularly when dealing with an organization that has historically expended so much effort to draw as little attention to itself as possible. In those instances, I can and do think that at this point saying something is not a defining characteristic is not something which can be supported by the often fragmentary information about the organization and its activities. John Carter 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue this the other way... we can not assume that being a member of a fraternity (any fraternity) is a defining characteristic. We need reliable sources that tell us that it is/was defining (And if the sources tell us that it is/was defining, the article should have more than a one sentence "trivia" comment.) Yes, there have been a few notable people for whom membership in Freemasonry was a defining characteristic (indeed there are one or two for whom membership in the fraterinty is the defining characteristic, the thing that makes them notable - James Anderson (Mason) being an obvious example), but we can not say the same for the vast majority of subjects in the category. And if we limit the category to include only the few people for whom we do have evidence of it being a defining characteristic, we end up with a different form of WP:Overcategorization - a category that is Small with no potential for growth. Blueboar 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court

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 merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Chief Justices of the Philippines, as duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 elements from video games

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 merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Fictional elements from video games to Category:Video games
Nominator's rationale: Merge - not seeing the organizational utility of splitting out these categories from the parent. Otto4711 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Enemies from The Legend of Zelda 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 merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Enemies from The Legend of Zelda series to Category:Characters from The Legend of Zelda series
Nominator's rationale: Merge - a variation on the deprecated "villains" and "antagonists" categories that we deleted months ago. Otto4711 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Elements

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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Elements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorization of unrelated things that are referred to as "elements." A form of overcategorization. Otto4711 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 teetotalers

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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fictional teetotalers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the real-life teetotaler categories were deleted and all of the same arguments apply to the fictional counterpart. Otto4711 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Scabs

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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Scabs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non-defining, POV slang, or at least Rename to Category:Strikebreakers. -- Prove It (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not an issue now, but it might be defining for some - say if one got killed for it, as I think has happened. Johnbod 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Century eras

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 merge all. Most of the categories would be emptied by the removal of the corresponding ##th century Jewish history category, which should have taken place even if the categories had been kept. (The division into centuries of the history of a religion and people is a matter of convenience, whose merits can be separately debated; however, the centuries themselves do not constitute meaningfully distinct eras.) That leaves only a few categories to consider. Some, such as Category:19th century eras, include few articles and are arguably overcategorisation, as the contents would fit just as well in the main parent category. Others, such as Category:21st century eras, are populated by articles about subjects whose designation as eras is highly questionable (e.g. Iraq War, Iraqi insurgency). The combination of these factors, plus concerns about the interpretation of the term "era", suggests that a separate categorisation scheme for eras is unnecessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge: no reason to split them out, confusing. Possibly non-standard definition of "era". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
incomplete nomination, await AMbot request to build ((cfm)) templates. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 15:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Argentinian lugers

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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Argentinian lugers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Argentine lugers, convention of Category:Argentine sportspeople. -- Prove It (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

More Irish politicans

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 both as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming
  • Category:Irish Progressive Democrat party politicians to Category:Progressive Democrats politicians
  • Category:Irish Democratic Left Party politicians to Category:Irish Democratic Left politicians Category:Democratic Left politicians (Ireland)
Rename. neither of these Irish political parties used the word "party" in their title; however the adjective "Irish" is retained for the Democratic Left (Ireland) because there have been organisations in other countries also called Democratic Left.
See also the nomination below for other #Irish_politicians_by_party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 bloggers

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

The result of the debate was no change in name. We are busy expanding abbreviations rather than the other way round. WP:SNOW Carlossuarez46 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American bloggers to Category:US bloggers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As stated in this discussion, currently this category includes Canadian bloggers and probably other "american" (in the sense of continent) bloggers, but obviously is intended to categorize only "american" bloggers in the sense of US bloggers, so the term "american" is technically unclear.
This is a procedural nomination. Found this on the talk page while doing October cleanup. Vegaswikian 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Character actors

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 all. Far too broad and no objective criteria for inclusion. Character actor doesn't help in formulating a useful category definition either. BencherliteTalk 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Category:Character actors
  • Category:American character actors
  • Category:Argentine character actors
  • Category:Australian character actors
  • Category:Austrian character actors
  • Category:Belgian character actors
  • Category:British character actors
  • Category:Canadian character actors
  • Category:Croatian character actors
  • Category:Cuban character actors
  • Category:English character actors
  • Category:Filipino character actors
  • Category:French character actors
  • Category:German character actors
  • Category:Hungarian character actors
  • Category:Irish character actors
  • Category:Israeli character actors
  • Category:Japanese character actors
  • Category:Mexican character actors
  • Category:New Zealand character actors
  • Category:Portuguese character actors
  • Category:Scottish character actors
  • Category:Spanish character actors
  • Category:Swedish character actors
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Character actor is a subjective term and not a definitive one; also, the category contains several actors who've been in leading roles. Irk Come in for a drink! 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's not the point; the point at hand is that actors are actors. Why isn't there a category for Category:Hollywood leading men? Irk Come in for a drink! 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That an actor may also play leads occasionally in no way invalidates their membership in this category, just as a film actor is also capable of being a stage actor. Yes, that's why this category is completely useless--the category would include just about every actor, because all actors play supporting and leading roles alternatively. Irk Come in for a drink! 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's clearly not useless, since the industry and critical culture use it constantly, without any of the confusion you're imputing. You misunderstand its definition, it seems, or else misunderstand the nature of cultural categories. It is not merely about the difference between lead and supporting, but types of characterisation, positioning within the industry, and ways of approaching the role. "Character actor" is a profile that certain actors within the industry are given or develop. It is similar to the categorisation of films with genre; there are overlaps. These overlaps in no way invalidate the categories. You might chose to apply the term to any and all actors, but you do not constitute a verifiable source. The question is: is it possible to verify a particular actor's membership in this category? The answer, clearly, is yes, by all of Wikipedia's definitions of a "fact" in this area. The label has an independent existence outside of wikipedia. It is citable. Disputes over membership are able to be resolved with reference to objectively-existing, citable sources. Not every actor is called a "character actor" in the relevant literature. DionysosProteus 14:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I didn't misunderstand the definition, primarily because there isn't a a standard definition. According to the Wikipedia article, nine unrelated things constitute a character actor, meaning that a character actor is somebody who chose to be one, can't get good roles, can't find work in a foreign country or is a victim of ageism. The problem is that there are no subcategories for character actors, so why is one a character actor? It could be any of the nine listed in the article, and is thus confusing. Also, since you stated that there is no clear definition about who is and isn't a character actor, that basically means it's up to one's interpretation and is thus entirely POV. Also, in reference to your categorization of movies with overlaps, I could think a movie is so laughably bad it was trying to be funny. That certainly doesn't mean it deserves to be placed in Category:Comedy films.Irk Come in for a drink! 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • According to TheBlazikenMaster Yes you wanted to say something to me? Ok, I admit I'm not expert on this subject. If you want to keep this, I'm not stopping you. It's just that the name looked suspicious. TheBlazikenMaster 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Eurabia

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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Eurabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Disputed neologism and Category:Islam-related controversies isn't so loaded it can't handle these.--T. Anthony 10:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Irish politicians by party

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 all as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: None of these political parties need to be disambiguated by the prefixed adjective "Irish", because the party names are not shared by any parties outside Ireland. Nor should they include the word "Party", because the names of the organisations do not include "party", either in Irish or in English. I have identified the creator of these categories[4] [5] [6][7][8], who was clearly a clueless newbie, but I will show no mercy in punishing the editor responsible for such badly-named categories.
Note that some of the English-language party names in Category:Irish politicians by party may also be over-disambiguated, but this will need further checking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also rename these which are in Category:Irish politicians by party:
  • Category:Irish Democratic Left Party politicians
  • Category:Irish National Progressive Democrats Party politicians
  • The rest of those categories seem fine. For example, Category:Irish Green Party politicians should stay because "Party" is a part of the the name of the Irish Green Party. Tim Q. Wells 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[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