< October 7	October 9 >

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:Alphabet books. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Children's alphabet books to Category:Alphabet books

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Main article is alphabet book; most alphabet books are for children so it's probably not worth having a separate category for adult alphabet books, but this category could include the occasional one. (The one I encountered, and added perhaps inappropriately to this category, is Runa ABC). Rigadoun (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. Johnbod 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Better to have a category like this broad than having it narrow. Snocrates 04:43, 13 October 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 merge into Category:American swim teams. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NVSL Swim Teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:American swim teams, or at least Rename to Category:Northern Virginia Swim League teams. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge. Since there are no other articles in the American swim teams, I can't imagine this category will populate very fast. This team has a good record in its league, but what are the notability guidelines for regional swim teams? Rigadoun (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 00:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematicians with Silly Names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Silly Names" is a trivial, subjective criterion. Creation of this category is the only contribution by User:SillyNames. Joseph Myers 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. This is definitely not encyclopedic.--Oneiros 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete - this is patently nonsensical, IMO. --lquilter 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete unencyclopedic category with its own silly name. Doczilla 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transplant to BJAODN. I thought the choices were apt. -- Dominus 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this suggestion, but it needs to be listified first. And I agree with Oskar, Donald Knuth has to go. (unless, of course, "Knuth" means something funny in German) Cgingold 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't.--Oneiros 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the most wonderfully funny thing I have seen all day. Okay, not encyclopedic and all, but I felt I had to register my amusement somewhere. Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sure, Norbert Wiener is a pretty stupid name, but what's wrong with Donald Knuth? --Oskar 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even though it's hilarious. No encyclopedic value. --Cheeser1 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretfully delete. My favourite reference book, Chambers Dictionary, contains many jokes, sadly Wikipedia policy does not aspire to the same high standards.DuncanHill 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, you know, if it was a funny category I would have refrained from weighing in. But it was jokes about people whose last name is "Cocke". Please. I imagine your dictionary's jokes are a little bit funnier than those enjoyed by 14-year-olds. --lquilter 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cocke wasn't there at the time the category was nominated; it was added later. -- Dominus 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, then, all I have to say is delete and listify (my answer to almost every questionable category) -- categories must be taken seriously! <g> --lquilter 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Roger Hui 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:DAFT and delete. From my experience it's psychologists who have the silliest names, anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But hey, where's Srinivasa Ramanujan. Or does the name have to have some reference to genitalia to be "silly"? Snocrates 00:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . . . but how could this list of funny names not have included Lipschitz? Myasuda 03:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• d Pavel Vozenilek 00:04, 13 October 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 Speedy delete as requested by creator for empty cat. Vegaswikian 21:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imperial Russian Navy generals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Meaningless category. Created in error by me. Empty. Greenshed 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete per author's request. Bencherlite^Talk 20:10, 8 October 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 reverse merge (ie Roman-->Ancient Roman); without prejudice however to any future determination on which form should be standardised on. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ancient Roman proconsuls to Category:Roman proconsuls

Nominator's rationale: Since there are two identical categories, the Roman consuls word combination seems to be unique: there is no title of consul related to the city of Rome itself so that the word "ancient" becomes redundant. Brand спойт 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge I don't follow the nom's argument as to why "ancient" is unecessary, but we now use the word for all ancient Roman caregories for clarity. Johnbod 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, we don't.

Otto4711 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are moving that way, and have converted dozens of categories. I hadn't lifted that particular stone. Johnbod 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all cases this stuff IMO should be standartized one day. --Brand спойт 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge for consistency with "Ancient Rome" and "Ancient Roman" 132.205.44.5 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Japanese musical instruments. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japanese instruments to Category:Japanese musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename, specific meaning of instrument, consistency with other members of Category:Musical instruments by nationality. Rigadoun (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Doczilla 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for the sake of clarity. --MChew 08:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Equity Media Holdings. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Equity Broadcasting to Category:Equity Media Holdings

Nominator's rationale: Equity changed their name as of a few months ago, and hence this category should change with it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Wikipedia articles, templates and categories should reflect accurate subject name. Category:Equity Broadcasting should redirect to new category until all category members' articles have been updated. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:West Africa. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Africa to Category:West Africa

Nominator's rationale: More widely-used name. Picaroon (t) 14:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Article is West Africa not "Western". Simple google searches can demonstrate commonality of one term over the other. Snocrates 04:46, 13 October 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 Closed as keep WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is a "proposed deletion" section at the category's talk page. If deletion is proposed, this is where that happens. Cheeser1 14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - this was nominated for deletion a month a go, and two weeks before that too. It was also nominated for a rename (for the same reasons we're talking about it again), and that failed. To repeat myself verbatim: We've been over this repeatedly, very recently. Homophobia is a well documented, reliably sourced, verifiable social phenomenon. Academic papers expound that it is more than a "fear of" or a slanderous accusation. Certain groups, people, institutions, etc are associated with homophobia. That's the point of a category. It's not an accusation, and it's not a statement that "the subject of this article is homophobic." It means "the subject of this article is associated with homophobia." I'll also point out that this article was first "proposed for deletion" by someone who objects to the categorization of the American Family Association as being associated with homophobia - why? Because he's using the AFA's website as a benchmark for article content[1]. --Cheeser1 14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - we've been over this before. I'll assume good faith on the nominator's part, but this has been done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Satyr, I actually voted to speedy keep. Just so we're clear. There is a "proposed deletion" section on the category's talk page, in which editors are explicitly trying to avoid the CfD process - because they don't like what the outcome might be. I'm simply putting the discussion in its proper place, in order to appropriately build consensus one way or the other. --Cheeser1 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can't avoid the process, whatever they say on the talk page - this nom is not really necessary. Speedy Keep per all. Johnbod 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. Indeed, if you'll read the category's talk page, you will see that no one has suggested bypassing the CfD process at all. Cheeser1 is simply trying to make a WP:POINT as well as end discussion on how this category should be applied and whether or not applying this category to people is POV (per the two Category:Homophobes CfD discussions - both of which resulted in delete for POV reasons). Rklawton 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy WP:SNOW keep - how many times must we go through this? Otto4711 14:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as very well put by Cheeser1, SatyrTN and Otto4711. I'll just add that the multiple repeats of unsuccessful nominations seems a bit pointy to me. Cheeser1 has acted in good faith by bringing it here from the talk page, so it can be dealt with properly. DuncanHill 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW I can't add anything that Cheeser1, SatyrTN, Otto4711, & DuncanHill haven't said, and I agree with them. Thank you Cheeser1 for bringing this here. It looks pointy to me also. And how many times? — Becksguy 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal: i propose that this poll be summarily dismissed by appending a reference to the polling that ended on 5 september. it shouldn't be required to entertain every single challenge on the subject particularly since the previous outcome was resounding. --emerson7 17:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - none of the articles in this category are remotely controversial or POV in relation to this category, and the proposals to delete it are quite obviously based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ELIMINATORJR 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the other reasons given. I couldn't add as it was all said by Cheeser1, SatyrTN, Becksguy, and others. Jeeny ^(talk) 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per previous CfD. Personally I think this trouble magnet should be deleted. The term homophobia gets used in too many terribly defined ways that don't meet the criteria for a phobia. However, there's no reason for this to have been so promptly re-nominated for CfD when the previous CfD was recent and nearly unanimous in support for keeping it. There's no new reason to reevaluate. Don't put us through the same CfDs over and over. Wryspy 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Homophobia is not a phobia, but that doesn't mean it's "terribly defined." It's never been a phobia (a phobia would appear in the DSM). No, the term is essentially an academic/sociological one. There are dozens (at least?) of papers in the literature about homophobia, and many are about the term itself. --Cheeser1 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - For reasons already stated above and on Category talk:Homophobia, June 18 2007 CfD, and August 30 2007 CfD. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problem here is that the consensus to keep is not being followed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Pages that are added to the category spark long and pointless discussions, with arguments that boil down to "The category itself is bad so let's remove it from this article". That, to me, seems to be deletion by the back door. Personally I'm in favour of keeping the category, but I would also support renaming it if that's necessary. The value in the category comes not so much from the term as from the link between the articles that are in it. I don't think it *needs* to be renamed, as homophobia is a term that can be used in a neutral way and it's also the most concise way of describing the category. However, if it's necessary, I think it's better to rename than to delete. Orpheus 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the discussion I'm referring to is on Talk:American Family Association. Just follow the sound of the database groaning. Orpheus 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - but only because this is an obvious case of a WP:POINT violation. The nominator doesn't actually oppose this category and has posted this simply to kill of discussion on how the category should be applied. The category's talk page makes this point abundantly clear. Rklawton 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only pointy behaviour is from those who are trying to open a deletion debate on a talk page, instead of bringing it here. The nominator brought it here to open the debate up to the broader community, which IMO is a good thing in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. DuncanHill 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Duncan, that's exactly it. --Cheeser1 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Speedy Keep Ridiculous that this is even being discussed again, and go so out of hand that someone had to nominate it for deletion just to calm the place down. Kudos to the nominator for bring it to delete. People need to understand that Wikipedia is not ran by Donald Wildmon. It's ran by its editors and when the consensus is to keep after several attempts to delete based on POV, people with an agenda should just deal with it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per all above. Isn't there a policy on how often these things should be voted on as this would probally be voted on in 2 weeks again. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's rather the point. Cheeser1 supports this category and only nominated it in order to end discussions about it on its talk page. That's disruptive and highly inappropriate. In reading the comments above I see two points on which just about everyone agrees: 1) keep the category, and 2) this nomination should not have been made. I recommend sanctions against Cheeser1 should he nominate this category for deletion again. None, on the other hand, is saying that we should not discuss how this category should be applied in the category's talk page. And, if you'll take a moment to read the talk page (it's not overly long), you'll see that's exactly what we were doing prior to Cheeser1's disruptions. Rklawton 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish to formally object to Rklawton's blatant misrepresentation of the debate at the talk page. The thread in question starts with an explicit call for the deletion of the category. I do not know why Rklawton is making these false statements here, or how he imagines anyone will be fooled as all they have to do is read the talk page. DuncanHill 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here Category_talk:Homophobia#Proposed_deletion. The clue is in the heading - "Proposed deletion". DuncanHill 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsuccesful assassinated United States Presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Presidents of the United States, non-defining, or at least Rename to Category:Unsuccessfully assassinated United States Presidents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You may be reading the intent wrong, Prove It. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps the name of this category means exactly what it says: US presidents who were both "unsuccesful" and "assassinated". I'm pretty sure we need a category like that. Cgingold 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a good list/article on this, which is enough. My first thoughts were as Cgiingold, but reality must prevail... One for the Dr Sub memorial list. Johnbod 14:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't an assassination 'require' a death? --emerson7 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure what Cgingold means. Jackson and Reagan, the contents of this category right now, were both successful presidencies (in that they were fairly popular and re-elected), but were both victims of attempted (unsuccessful) assassination. ProveIt's rename thus makes sense to me, though a deletion is probably more appropriate (these people are surely already listed in the presidents category, so no merge would be necessary). Rigadoun (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, as the late, great Foghorn Leghorn was fond of saying, "That's a joke, son!" Oh, well -- I suppose my humor was entirely too subtle. :) Cgingold 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete misspelled, senseless category. "Unsuccessful", even if spelled correctly, is subjective. Even if it were objective, this would be overcategorization, unnecessary intersection of variables. Wryspy 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - regarding Cgingold's comment, there's few enough assassinated presidents that readers can make their own judgement of their success by looking at the articles. It doesn't need a category which is going to have, at most, one new article every few years. Orpheus 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Rigadoun above. Cgingold 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Basicly Every president that hasn't been assassinated would be in this list, becasue I am sure at one point or another that they had attempts. Basicly this would be a copy of the category of all US Presidents with out the ones assassinated on that list. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even the ones that were assassinated no doubt had a few goes beforehand, so it would be an item-for-item copy. Orpheus 23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't this be called Category:Presidents of the United States of America who have survived assassination attempts, if kept ? 132.205.44.5 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify 132.205.44.5 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After all, how do we whether they were successful or not? what if the presidents were replaced by robots? That sort of detail can't easily be captured by a mere category. (More seriously, there are levels of detail that really can only be captured in an article / list -- like what if there were multiple assassination attempts, several of which failed before one succeeded? I'm just thinkin' ahead here.) --lquilter 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify as Assassination attempts on Presidents of the United States, where it could form the start of what could potentially be a very good article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

As I mentioned above (without linking) List of United States Presidential assassination attempts is already pretty good. Johnbod 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Thanks to Johnbod for providing the link to the article -- which definitively clinches the case for deletion. Cgingold 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ovecategorisation (changing my !vote). Thanks to Johnbod for the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional wealthy-first characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - single-entry category (not counting redirects), possibly created as a work-around of the consensus against "fictional wealthy characters" and "fictional millionaires"-style categories. If a category requires the amount of explanatory text this one does, IMHO the category is too problematic. The sole actual category member is listed in two other occupation categories. This category really doesn't work. Otto4711 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_12#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_1#Category:Fictional_affluent_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_12#More_fictional_wealth_categories
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_12#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_17#Category:Fictional_billionaires
• Delete per many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do a list if you must. Johnbod 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an awkwardly-named category, and any category that requires as much long-winded explanation of its criteria as this one does probably isn't worth having.--Redeagle688 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category is too vague and possibly a WP:Overcategorization. It has alot of explanatory text which shows this. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We've gone through this before. Except for billionaire, inclusion criteria on all of these are subjective and/or arbitrary. Wryspy 18:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had no idea what this meant until I read the definition, and then it was apparent that this category was designed just to capture somebody's brilliant idea of a common feature. Is there ever going to be an article on this topic? And if there ever were, would it be called "wealthy-first characters"? No. --lquilter 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 03:48, 12 October 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 relisted on oct 15. Kbdank71 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Documentation subpages to Category:Template documentation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the former into the latter, as they serve precisely the same purpose, and the latter is better named. There really isn't anything in the latter that does not qualify to be in the former, other than a few metapages sorted to the top, such as the template documentation templates themselves. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Documentation subpages. It was created along with the ((documentation)) and ((documentation subpage)) templates, which merge several older templates and add new functionality; see my sandbox. The newer templates are replacing the myriad older methods described in my sandbox, and they use Documentation subpages to accommodate their compatibility with non-template pages (like userboxes in the user namespace).

I'd say merge Template documentation to Documentation subpages. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:52:40, 09 October 2007 (UTC)

• (Up)Merge Pretty much the same thing. "Template documentation" is a better name, but "Documentation subpages" is slightly more encompassing. Rocket000 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hubris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Proposed action: Delete
• Rationale: This category is being used for articles which presumably illustrate the notion of hubris in the eyes of various editors -- a highly subjective assessment, to say the least. I note the absence of 2003 invasion of Iraq (and Invasion of Kuwait, for that matter). There is no real need for a category for articles that are about the subject of hubris, since there is no likelihood of multiple articles being written on that subject. Cgingold 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; this is just plain silly and highly POV. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Picaroon (t) 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Arbitrary, original reasearch and POV. Jeeny ^(talk) 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - wouldn't it make more sense to have this applied to articles like: Daedalus, Hamlet, etc? It seems to me like this category should be kept, but perhaps something needs to be done to curb widespread abuse. How about renaming it to Literary Hubris and removing the offending entries? --Cheeser1 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any of those articles here, they must have been removed, appropriately. However, there are both the articles that Cheeser1 mentions, as well as articles about concepts related to hubris, such as chutzpah, pride goes before a fall, victory disease, megalomania, etc. Grouping them together is neither POV nor OR. I dispute Cgingold's claim that there is no likelihood of multiple articles on the subject, because there they are (perhaps hubris is a poor name, but they are clearly related). The entries Cheeser1 could be moved to Literary hubris, but these others are not just literary, but provide concepts related to hubris, rather than specific (subjective) incidents. Rigadoun (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, yes, it is rather poorly named, isn't it? I think it's far better to delete this outright, and then start from scratch with a brand new category that might have a sound rationale, if you're so inclined. Cgingold 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:Pride? It is more NPOV (it is used both positively and negatively), and thus better reflects the spectrum of these concepts, and seems less likely to be abused like Hubris might be. It is also probably the most common term here. The literary examples would have to be moved elsewhere. Rigadoun (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that's appropriate. It has a particular meaning, relating to figures in literature and the classics (like the examples I gave). "Pride" is an oversimplifcation. --Cheeser1 23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically meant to exclude the examples you gave, as the literary examples that should be elsewhere, perhaps Literary hubris as you suggest. That leaves the conceptual ones, not instances of hubris per se, which I thought were "types" of pride. Rigadoun (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the King James Bible, so Category:An haughty spirit strikes me as appropriate (tongue just slightly in cheek:)). DuncanHill 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the articles that the nom considered inappropriately cat'd as "Hubris" have all been removed - "delete per nom" doesn't seem to make much sense, unless I'm missing something? --Cheeser1 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned there are at most two articles that would rightly belong in this category if it were retained. All the rest are at best indirectly related to the concept of hubris. Cgingold 10:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Johnbod 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective category. Not all selfishness has anything to do with hubris. This could just as easily have been a narcissism or egotism category. Doczilla 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cgingold's well-reasoned nomination. There aren't many articles on the concept of hubris, and those that exist can be link from the article hubris; if kept, this category will be a permanent POV-magnet. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rigadoun. People have made important points about the fact that labeling people who you think are prideful or stupid is not fair. But hubris is itself a literary motif and if people took the time to look at Category:Hubris, they'd see that. It includes such entries as: Faust, Hamlet, Character flaw, Phaëton, etc. --Cheeser1 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate (as in understand) your interest in the subject of "Literary Hubris", Cheeser -- I think that an article on that subject would be of real interest, and I sincerly encourage you to write that article. But I'm not persuaded that it makes sense as a Category. Cgingold 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even those remaining items could or not depending on POV exhibit or equate with hubris. Still POV remains. Carlossuarez46 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do you mean to say that verifiable literary analysis in reliable sources does not exist that associates the play Hamlet with hubris? I would beg to differ. Hubris is a literary device, not an insult. It's not even applied to any articles about (real) people. --Cheeser1 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Hamlet were in a category for every quality attributed to him by "verifiable literary analysis in reliable sources" he would smash all records for numbers of categories held (current holder is - remind me, guys?). Personally I doubt hubris would come in the top twenty - remember it has to beat melancholy, scepticism, doubt, indecision, intellectual, rashness, playfulness, wit, agressiveness, confusion, uncertainty, Oedipal complex, impatience, hesitation, immaturity, emotional, depressive, arrogant, unconfident and horny. Johnbod 02:00, 13 October 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 keep. Kbdank71 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IPCC lead authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing people on the basis of being the lead author of a chapter of a reports feels like overcategorization by a somewhat trivial intersection. Otto4711 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as performer-by-performance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. the analagy w. performers by performance is inappropriate. These are not actors. The four IPCC reports are arguably the most significant documents produced in the last 50 years. This category is a non-subjective, non-abritary way of identifying a cadre of the most important scientists in the climate change 'establishment'. Ephebi 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Performers" covers aspects of performance beyond acting. For instance, Category:James Bond screenwriters would fall under performer by performance as would Category:Doctors who have been published in The Lancet. Otto4711 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with you if we were referring to the media... WP:Overcategorization only refers to performers (unsurprisingly enough)... but that's not the approach that we've taken with scientists who have worked on major projects before, e.g. Category:Manhattan Project people. Ephebi 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See the Nascar sponsors CfD below; it's incredibly arbitrary, and if allowed to flourish would result in any notable scientist's article festooned with dozens or more "[Name of notable paper, study or report] lead authors" categories. The fact that the scientists in question have articles at all and that they are categorized by field is enough positively identify them as "the most important scientists in the climate change 'establishment', all without reverting to the highly-POV identification of IPCC as representative itself of that importance, I might add. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That 'doom & gloom' scenario you paint hasn't happened, there is no festooning of non-media 'performance' categories across WP, unless you count such major projects such as Category:People who have walked on the Moon (=astronaut's by performance?), Category:Nobel laureates by nationality (scientists classified by achievement, and by country too)... Even so, the category here has the clear benefit of being totally unambiguous. Your statement that WP should not give consideration to the IPCC as its opinion is 'POV', would appear to be a red herring and at odds with the plethora of articles that address IPCC issues within WP itself. Regardless of opinions of individuals like you and I, its here to stay and no significant government dissents from the IPCC's 4th report (The last dissenter, the USA, actually changed its position 2 weeks ago after Bush's senior scientist publically endorsed its findings, though US TV news channels ignored him, and chose to cover Bush's big Iraq announcement that day!) A minority of scientists disagree to a lesser or greater extent with the reports' methods and conclusions, and WP does credit them and their criticisms. Ephebi 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Ephebi. The argument for delete appears to be based on a fear of over-generalization. This category can be expected to include over 100 scientists eventually. That doesn't sound like over-generalization to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you actually meant to say "over-categorization", rather than "over-generalization". Cgingold 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep useful category, no evidence of abuse, being an IPCC lead author is hard to see as trivial (unless you know nothing about the subject) William M. Connolley 16:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Convinced by Ephebi and Connolley. Note that the number of people in the category is expected to grow by adding scientists that were neglected and by future reports (if any). Brusegadi 04:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There was already a good case for keeping this category per several arguments above. Now that the IPCC has won the Nobel Peace Prize, each of these scientists has, in a sense, won a sliver of that award as well -- so being one of the lead authors is now that much more noteworthy. Cgingold 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm the one who started classifying authors this way. I was looking at which of the IPCC authors had articles, and found the IPCC's own specific role of 'lead author' significant and related to notability. It's not like "lead authors of journal papers in general"; it's rather more like having chaired a professional body for a term. Also, don't be too concerned with the term "chapter" - each such section is a quite substatial document embodying a broad review of the applicable scientific literature. Birdbrainscan 03:00, 13 October 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 merge into Category:Diplomatic incidents. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomatic incidents in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete and upmerge
• Rationale: There are no other sub-categories by country, and this has only a single article in it. Cgingold 12:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom; we don't create subcategories for no reason, and there's aren't enough articles to provide such a rationale here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom, though I have my doubts about the whole top category. Johnbod 01:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this sub-category and parent category Category:Diplomatic incidents as well. All articles better classified under existing "Country x-Country y relations" categories, and/or "Foreign relations of "Country X" for each country instead of a vague and redundantCategory: Diplomatic incidents. --MChew 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Diplomatic incidents. By definition diplomatic incidents involve more than one country, so "in Japan" tells us little about the protagonists (a diplomatic incident in Japan need not necessarily involve Japan to any great extent e.g, if two foreign ships started hassling each other). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NASCAR sponsors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category seems to imply main NASCAR sponsors (The official Sponsors of NASCAR) rather than who sponsors who sponsor cars. This list has grown to be trivial and should 1. be cleaned to only list companies that are Sponsor NASCAR directly or 2. Delete this Category as it probably isn't really needed. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 06:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Nom Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 06:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - this is just an attenuated case of performer by performance. A really thorough job of this sort of overcategorization could result in virtually any major corporation having 100+ "X sponsors"/"Sponsors of X" categories attached to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per above. We can't categorize companies by every single event they sponsor. Doczilla 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:21, 14 October 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.