< January 15	January 17 >

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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works by artist to Category:Works by creator

Nominator's rationale: Rename (or) ... -- "creators" is a broader term less subject to misinterpretation as being about "the arts", and thus more clearly encompasses the current contents of the category.

More information: The category currently includes a variety of obvious arts-related creators (choreographers, artists, authors), and also some that are not so obviously artist-like, e.g., "Buildings and structures by architect", "Games by designer", and "Works by heads of state or government". There are a variety of other "works"-type categories that currently or eventually will have "by creator" forms that are also not easily artist-like, e.g., notable essayists, journalists, historians, scholars & academics; lawyers (famous briefs!); orators (famous speeches); engineers (notable structures of various sorts); website designers; etc. Some of these could be "squoze" into "by artist"; others would pass unnoticed by being buried in hierarchies ("... by author" is a big one). But it makes sense to me to have a semantically broad and accurate term for what we're talking about.

Having looked at this category and the various "works/publications" etc. categories, I believe that "by creator" is a good fit, so I'm proposing to rename this to "Works by creator". Parent categories still work -- Category:Creative works and Category:Works of art. I note that "Works by artist" still encompasses a variety of important topics, and may be a useful subcategory of "Works by creator" now, or in the future. The reason I'm suggesting a rename, instead of a new parent category, is that it doesn't seem necessary to me right now to have an additional layer; there aren't that many types of creators (yet). But if renamed to "Works by creator" (instead of just a new category being added on top), "Works by artist" could still be a useful category in the future.

Prior discussion on this (2007/5/2) was somewhat brief and the only proposal was to merge this category into "Works by author", which was understandably rejected on semantic grounds.

Lquilter (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, though I'm not sure what she has against architects. In fact all the subs of this category should be renamed for clarirty to replace "artist" with "performer, painter, sculptor, singer" etc. Nb for WP categories, "artist" should be reserved for those in the visual arts only, by long-established convention. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love architects! They're artists and engineers. But they're a little ambiguous, no? --Lquilter (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Artistic works by creator. Just 'works' leaves the casual reader wondering what this is all about. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the point is to get away from artists and artistic works; "works by artist" already implies artistic works. Maybe I don't understand? --Lquilter (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Category:Creative works by creator? Although I am a bit apprehensive at the ever-expanding "stuff by who made it" scheme... Otto4711 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without touching the concerns about the "works by" scheme, let me address CWBC: "Creative works by creator" matches the category "Creative works", but I'd argue that that wasn't a great category name to begin with. From my read of the history and CFDs, it looks like that category, like "Works by artist", was sort of kluged together and adapted to the use of all works. "Creative works" can mean things like legislative reports but it's not what one ordinarily thinks of when one thinks of the term. So I believe that "works", by itself, stands alone without modifiers like "creative". This category really is a container category for all the specific types of works, so it seems good to use a generic term. It's used that way in various fields (within all sorts of fields "works" is used to refer to the "works" of that field), and in copyright law "works" is the generic term. (And there's some nice historical ring to it too: Works, wrought, wreak, work again.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since we're getting into the realm of semantics and such, I might note that a building's "creators" could be the workmen who actually build the thing. Same goes for any "work" which is constructed by someone other than the designer. Feel free to create Category:Creative works by designer if that helps with the semantic incongruity for your purposes. In addition, I don't know about the director (and choreographer) cats. Again we're back to the subject of who "created" the work. In the end, after all the help and suggestions/directives from various people, it seems to me that it's whoever cinemetographers and editors are who determine what actually goes on film, and the performers (actors and musicians) and object (sets, costumes) designers, who provide the visuals and sounds to "film". So who's the creator, and who's the artist? Sounds like a need for verifiable references, to me. As such, looks like a need for listification. Personally, I think that all (or at least most) of the subcats should be listified and then deleted. (Films by actor (2006 April 3) and Films by actor (2006 November 13) have already been deleted.) However, since the subcats haven't been tagged/nominated... - jc37 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But, see, I think that would be okay. If categories for works by craftspeople or tradespeople were to exist, then they would need parent categories .... --Lquilter (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Er, you want to listify & the delete Books by author, paintings by artist etc. Extremely strong opppose to this. Have you actually looked at these categories? Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. And pulling out the few that may be worth keeping doesn't change that most should probably be listified. - jc37 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Creative works by artist. (To distinguish between the portrait or sculture, and the chair the artist may have repaired.) - jc37 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't like this at all; addresses a non-problem, since we don't have any articles on chairs repaired by painters etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you may have missed how that was a reference to the discussion above. - jc37 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all, I just think it is (like your suggestion above) a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). We should be precise in naming, and I think this is a place where it may be vague, even as noting that this category was nominated in the first place. It's clear from reading the discussion that the cat is intented to be for those works of artists which are creative art, rather than mundane construction. So adding the single word "creative" does that. We gain precision without the confusion of the stand-alone words "creator" or "works". - jc37 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So then should we de-categorize the "Works by heads of state or government" from this category? And if so, what should its parents be? --Lquilter (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How about proposing it for deletion, or at least listification? This would seem to be Wikipedia:OC#Trivial_intersection... - jc37 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I just nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 21#Category:Works by heads of state or government. - jc37 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep name & add descriptive paragraph to clarify the title rather than make an awkward title for this category. I suspect that 95-99% of wikipedia reader understand what this category is all about. --sparkit^TALK 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems like people want this category to stay as "about" artists (however understood), based on the fact that most people are trying to find names that better describe works of art by artists. (FWIW, I think the current name is fine for that purpose, but am happy to consider renaming alternatives.) But my proposal was an effort to deal with the problem of things that are already in this category that don't fit well with the "artists", and most of the discussion here hasn't responded to that issue. It seems, then, that maybe the better thing to do is just to have a parent category of this one be "Category:Works by creator". --Lquilter (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh please no! There is no major problem, and so far no concensus to change. Just leave it & maybe try again in a few months. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  While I disagree with Johnbod's reasoning, I do oppose the use of the word "creator", as I've noted above. If we call a work "creative", then we've defined the work, without getting into the issue of determining who actually creates the work. - jc37 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have waited before responding to review the argument first. I understand the nomination, but can see no substantive reason for any change. The only change that make some sense would be to add some more descriptive to the category head. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:24, 21 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete/rename per nomination. Kbdank71 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lovecraftian films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lovecraftian video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing on the basis of whether or not something has the "feel" of the works of H. P. Lovecraft is unacceptably vague and subjective. Category:Lovecraftian should be deleted and the two subcats should be renamed to Category:Foo based on H. P. Lovecraft works and restricted to actual such works. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & rename per nom. "Lovecraftian" is vague & not well-defined, and "based on" is much better convention for adaptations than "Lovecraftian" ... (not to mention that some of the adaptations may not be Lovecraftian, depending on what you consider the hallmarks of "Lovecraftian"). --Lquilter (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. However, not everything in these categories is based on the works of H. P. Lovecraft. Perhaps a list would do for the "inspired by" items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works of Edwin Seward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Edwin Seward buildings, convention of Category:Buildings and structures by architect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom & per convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category, better name. Seth Whales (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chilean footballers currently playing abroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Chilean expatriate footballers, convention of Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom & per convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xtreme Pro Wrestling alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - this is a test nomination regarding the many similar subcats of Category:Professional wrestling rosters. We frown in most cases on categorizing by current and former status. We don't appear to categorize any other sports or entertainment performers on the basis of their former associations with teams or companies. Baseball players, for instance, are in the players category for each of their teams and not in any "former players" structure. These categories also implicate WP:OC#performer by performance in the same way that categories for actors by TV series cats do. Wrestlers can and do perform for a variety of promotions and categorizing all of them on each wrestler's article leads to category clutter. I suugest listify and delete. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly a performer by performance variant as there is no real governing body overarching the various "pro-wrestling" organizations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But only because this is a NN indy fed. Alumni categories for the major organizations should be kept, but indy feds rarely have wrestlers under contract and don't need alumni categories. TJ Spyke 04:19, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year to Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing seasons

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Motorsport by year. An alternative name would be Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing by year. DH85868993 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Royalbroil 03:34, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:McMahon Stables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Template really isn't that notable. Zenlax ^{T C S} 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - having any McMahon ever is not sufficient basis for categorizing. Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless category. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.LessThanClippers (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nikki311 15:03, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete, empty, and the first 8 articles that were in the intro were already in Category:Jewish businesspeople. Kbdank71 18:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish businessman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as irrelevant intersection, or at least Merge into Category:Jewish businesspeople. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per User:ProveIt; unnecessarily duplicative category. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified the creator of this category of this discussion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as 3-way intersection not supported by WP:CATGRS, and as mal-formed (singular "*man"*). --Lquilter (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unneeded race/religion cat; and delete the Category:Jewish businesspeople while we're at it for the same reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Judaism is not sufficiently relevant to practicing business. LeSnail (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Category:Jewish businesspeople, an established and populated category, which is part of a series of in Category:Jews by occupation. Forget the deleters who want to delete all ethnic categories and push their preoccupation with this at every opportunity, disrupting other WP work. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't want to delete all ethnic categories. I want to delete this category and probably Category:Jewish businesspeople as well, following the guidelines for categorizing by ethnicity laid out in WP:CATGRS. Please don't accuse me of WP:POINT for this. LeSnail (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Jewish businesspeople - Jews have been notable for their success in business, so that this has (at least historically) been a significant intersection, but ensure there is a redirect from present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Moved to WP:UCFD per below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See here as discussion has been moved to correct discussion page. ^Avruchtalk 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CGS units to Category:Centimetre gram second system of units

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT to conform with main article Centimetre gram second system of units. Snocrates 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the system is the CGS system, like the other metric system, MKS and is known that way. (and the third one, isn't known... using base units metre, gramme, second) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those are abbreviations, as indicated by the article Centimetre gram second system of units. Snocrates 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and to match the main article Centimetre gram second system of units and established consensus policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:South African people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom & per convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename for the good consensus agreed reasons just stated Hmains (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Bill recurring actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Standard case of overcategorization. We don't keep such TV-show specific categories. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per overwhelming precedent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is one aspect of the term/category that I find bizarre. I know nothing about Islam but I've heard almost all authorities and political leaders (like President Bush) saying that Islam, as a doctrine, is diametrically opposed to acts of terrorism. If that's true, doesn't that make the term an oxymoron? And if it's an oxymoron, should it exist as an encyclopedic category? Wouldn't something like "al-Queda terrorism" be more realistic? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The notion that we can point to certain interpretations of Islam and state "this is not Islamic" is not the role of an encyclopedia. Individuals who support Islamic terrorism would (and do) argue exactly the opposite; claiming that regimes which do not support them, and their beliefs, are apostate. The role of Wikipedia is not to take sides in a theological and academic debate within Islam — we have no more authority to more call these terrorist un-Islamic then we should call Sunnis or Shias. The self-identification of these groups, and individuals, as Islamic, and the numerous references as such in reliable sources should be the standard we rely on; it is not our role to be activists for, or against, a religious interpretation. --Haemo (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recent CFD. Category was renamed from the more narrow "Islamist terrorism", and the nom seems to be suggesting we return to something similar. We should follow the main article on this one, which is at Islamic terrorism. Snocrates 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haemo. These terrorists commit these acts in the name of Islam. Therefore the label is appropriate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep, per Haemo. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haemo & Snocrates Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep, and I'd argue that bringing this up every few months (not necessarily Mr.grantevans2, but any editor who rehashes the same arguments that have been thrashed to death on the talk pages of related articles) is pushing the limits of WP:POINT. Dchall1 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haemo & Snocrates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per consensus decisions; no new facts presented; false information presented. Nominators should read the talk page of the category before wasting all our time with such stuff. Hmains (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did "read" the category talk page first but there was nothing there but a renaming reference. In any event, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. It was ill-conceived on my part. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a highly notable concept, and it definently warrents a category. Yahel Guhan 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the content of this encyclopedia's articles is influenced/directed by the terms and wording withinreliable sources, I don't think the sources' standards should also dictate the category wording or any other infrastructure of this encyclopedia. I remember as a boy looking at that expensive burgundy case with 24 books inside for which my dad spent 8 weeks salary to buy for me and knowing that inside was something elevated way above the newspapers and magazines that littered the barber shop tables and hair salons. I wouldn't like to travel to the Middle East, go into an Egyptian library, and find an encyclopedia with articles about the KKK and the Spanish Inquisition listed under the category "Christian terrorism" because I'd know that was a warped,lazy and idiotic conflation. So I have to wonder how average muslims might feel when they see this category in this encyclopedia. It just doesn't seem right to me. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When I was young, I also don't recall coming across Masturbate-a-thon in my family's encyclopedia, or hundreds of articles about porn stars, but there they are. :) I think we are well beyond the stage of aspiring to the high-mindedness of Britannica or World Book. Jeez, we're not even trying for Encarta standards of high-mindedness. Snocrates 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right, but if ya don't have a dream, how can ya dreams ever come true?:) We may not be able to elevate the content beyond what the sources provide, but we can keep the infrastructure (categories,procedures,policies etc.) as elevated as possible. Actually, right now I think Wikipedia is working great. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The concept is widely known and quite relevant to current definitions of terrorism. Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete, empty, already moved. Kbdank71 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball player biographies needing infoboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Move to talk pages ... these kind of maintenance categories should be for talk pages only. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to talk pages per nom. LeSnail (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would it be useful to have a special tag to put on the category in cases like this? I see at the moment, you've got it tagged for merging to the parent. LeSnail (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there isn't really a tag for this ... It certainly needs discussion, but none of the real tags exactly fit. If someone wants to create one I wouldn't object. However thinking about it further, it really ought to to be renamed to Category:Baseball player biographies without infoboxes, to follow the other children of Category:Articles without infoboxes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try making one. I'll post it to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion for comment when I have a draft. LeSnail (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Baseball player biographies without infoboxes to adhere to naming conventions per Prove It. As I've already done the work thusfar on this cat, I'll put together a template and start tagging the talk pages tonight. Then we can speedy close this and be on our merry way. Any objections? Caknuck (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have updated Template:WikiProject Baseball with an "infobox" parameter, which adds the talk page to Category:Baseball player biographies without infoboxes. I'll re-tag the articles tonight. Caknuck (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It turns our there was an undocumented "needs-infobox" parameter hiding in the code of Template:WikiProject Baseball which places the talk page in Category:Baseball articles needing infoboxes. It'll be easier to just use that, and we can rename it to Category:Baseball articles without infoboxes if necessary. Caknuck (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've emptied out the Category:Baseball player biographies needing infoboxes, and unless anybody has a concern, I'll go ahead and delete it. Caknuck (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Caknuck & move to talk pages per nom and convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and preferably Rename, although this is a case where I'm more open to accepting they "need" infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Christian hip hop, since the genre is Hip hop music. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; no need for overly specific subcats that are not well-defined and at present significantly underpopulated. --Lquilter (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers published in Southern California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Newspapers published in California, single member category, most of the others are Category:Los Angeles area newspapers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of the Louisiana State Senate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Louisiana State Senators, seems a little too early for a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 71.8.242.181 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I added the "suspected sockpuppet" to both 71.8.242.181 and Megafoo for doing apparently vandalising edits. As the user has now explained the problem, I see it was not vandalism but rather an editor who didn't understand how references worked. I have withdrawn my warnings to the user, and think that these categories should be deleted since I no longer suspect the user is a sockpuppet. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:51, 16 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This almost looks like a grouping by name. After reading the introduction I could see some possibilities, maybe with a rename. There might also be another category that these could be merged into. Bringing it here for a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — under the category introduction it says "Agencies are businesses that serve as a representative, acting on behalf of another company or individual." Thus it is not just the name that distinguishes agencies it is their role as a particular type of organization. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that apply to News agencies, credit rating agencies, Extension agencyies and others? it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do we need to include: architects, professional engineers, personal shoppers, concierges, vacation rental agencies, general contractors, decorators and so on? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention The Agency? Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename *OR* delete - "Agents" does have a specific meaning, but Vegaswikian & Johnbod are correct that there are problems with how it's used. (And where are law firms?) News and credit rating agencies are clearly not "agencies" in that sense and should be weeded out if the category & definition are kept. Advertising agencies is borderline - really these are often ad firms but they frequently run the campaign as well as design it. Employment agencies and Talent and literary agencies are more closely related, although talent & literary arguably is a subcategory of employment agencies. Law firms would fit closely with the latter set, too. The articles are 5 and illustrate the same sort of problems. ... So if we're going to keep it, it needs to be renamed to get rid of things like "credit rating agencies". Perhaps, "Personal representative agencies"? But frankly, I'm not sure that "acting as an agent" is a critical criteria. Still thinking. --Lquilter (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; this is too broad and while Lquilter is correct that "agents" has a specific meaning, this category doesn't reflect that. Employees are agents, as are lawyers vis-a-vis their clients, real estate agents. Some newsagents (according to British usage this is a newspaper seller, I gather) aren't agents, they are independent contractors. Talent, literary agencies, insurance agencies, etc. fall somewhere in between: many are agents but not the agent of the consumer but of the big company. But if we want to get the whole concept tackled: anything or anyone who is the agent of another (God forbid "free agents", "reagents" and other such things), most people would qualify, so lets make Category:Living people and a number of other cats subcats of this one because they belong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglo-Afro Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining triple intersection of nationality and ethnic backgrounds. The single article is already in Category:English Americans and Category:African Americans. LeSnail (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ww2censor (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - also surprised to find Muhammed Ali is not in Category:English Americans although his father Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr. is. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hairless mammals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Having hair is one of the defining characters of mammals, so for a mammal not to have hair would be pretty significant. However, most or all of these animals actually have some hair. The category intro defines a hairless mammal as one that is "hairless by more than 50%". Now, I'm not exactly sure what that means, but it is certainly an arbitrary cutoff. Is there something particularly different about animals that are hairless by 40%, compared to animals that are hairless by 60%? LeSnail (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could go in & out of this category just on waxing. Seriously, though, I think that we ought not be making up our own taxonomies. We could go wild with all sorts of random physiognomical or behavioral characteristics. --Lquilter (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wavering I'm not sure I agree with nominator's arguments. It is true that there is no such thing as a truly hairless mammal. Even a Sphynx has fine downy hair and may or may not have whiskers. Setting a cutoff of 50% hairlessness invites the fallacy of the beard (an appropriate image): setting a cutoff is arbitrary, and yet anyone who doesn't get into measurements would agree that a Sphynx is recognizably hairless (the fine downy hair notwithstanding). On that point, I'd have to say Keep. On the other hand, as the vast majority of hairless mammals are specially bred domestic breeds, and the only specific reason I can think of for anyone to want to collect them into a category is for the purposes of grouping hypoallergenic pet animals, this category seems of limited utility, small and without great probability of growth -- and yet the grouping is a useful one for specific purposes. My recommendation is to Listify and maintain the list either as a standalone article or as a subsection in an appropriate article, should such exist or be created. --7Kim (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and note: WP likes making up its own human race/ethnicity categories and keeps them Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain where 25% not 24% makes you Irish so why someone would have the hair-brained (bad pun) idea of picking 50% for hairlessness in mammals is not hard to support by WP's awful precedent on such things. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we're not in the business of creating our own novel taxonomies. --Haemo (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly vague inclusion criteria and extraordinarily broad. What exactly do Category:Baroque, Category:Literary movements, Category:Queercore, Category:Surf culture, and Category:Vegetarianism have in common? According to the intro, any change in the function of any art form, any science, or any philosophy belongs here. LeSnail (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the introduction does not quite say that. Many could and should be kept in the sub-cats like art movements, and the veggies should go to social movements, but there is a place for a fairly vague category like this Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete movements are ill-defined, why not adding various politico-cultural movements: McCarthyism, Nazism, Communism, Monetarism, or fads: streaking, goldfish swallowing, disco: or the mainstream opposites of everything already there: carnivorism, heterosexuality, and the like. No, better to delete rather than this becoming a cultural dumping ground for anything resembling "culture" and resembling a "movement". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was relisted on jan 23. Kbdank71 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand to Category:Alumni by university in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: In New Zealand, colleges are high schools. See College#New_Zealand for confirmation. High school alumni categories are part of a different tree. All of the subcats are alumni by university, and it is parented by Category:People by university in New Zealand. LeSnail (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not defining for the vast majority of persons. (Oh, and may there be a pox upon the larger scheme of categorization.) Snocrates 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Renameto Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand - the nominator is mostly correct. However, various tertiary institutions are known as colleges. Lincoln University was Lincoln College until fairly recently, and most teachers' colleges and polytechnics still use the term. The nominator is right inasmuch as the majority of "colleges" in NZ are high schools. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, even though it breaks the convention of Category:Alumni by university or college parent cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Alumni by tertiary institution in New Zealand per Grutness.-gadfium 18:15, 21 January 2008 (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 discussion was Merge to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. Deleting might have left some articles out of the alumni tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tripos Wranglers to Category:Tripos wranglers

Nominator's rationale: Lowercase w is always used in Wrangler (University of Cambridge) (except in the title). I'm not sure whether this should be kept at all. See the discussion below on senior and second wranglers. Being a tripos wrangler is at least as defining as any of the alumni categories, but not much more. LeSnail (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a flavor of the rightfully deleted Valedictorians category. This is not an alumnus category or its equivalent. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are dozens of these per annum. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or rather upmerge to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge as otherwise this info might be lost. (There are only 3 or 4 in this cat.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Roundhouse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or upmerge per above. --Kbdank71 19:09, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Disney Afternoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - while some of the included series were created for the programming block, many weren't, and we have consistently deleted categories for syndicated programming blocks. A schedule exists in the main article so it serves for navigation. In addition there is a template that includes the shows. No need for this category. Otto4711 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was relisted on jan 29. Kbdank71 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senior wranglers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The senior wrangler is the person first in their class in mathematics at Cambridge University. A great many of these people went on to do great things and become famous. The concept of "senior wrangler" is famous because these people did great things--the people are not famous because they were senior wranglers. Being senior wrangler does not define who these people are. There is already a list at Wrangler (University of Cambridge). Overcategorization by something like an award. LeSnail (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominating Category:Second wranglers which is for people who came in second. LeSnail (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I didn't make this clear: I meant Category:Second wranglers to be part of this nomination. Please comment on it here. I will leave notes on talk pages for every one who has already participated, in case they want to add/change anything. LeSnail (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this one (ie the Seniors) as sufficiently defining - even a stub biog would be defective if it omitted this information, which is my definition. I'm not too sure about the other 2 cats (Seconds & tripos - what this last one means is unclear to me). addedJohnbod (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as varieties of the rightfully deleted Valedictorians category. This is not an alumnus category or its equivalent. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and distinctive. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both Agree with Johnbod. Strong keep for the Senior and medium keep for 2nd Wrangler. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need valedictory and salutatory categorizes for every bleeding college, university, or for some people's pleasure high school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 and Carlossuarez46. No need to listify since it already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. The people who have attained this distinction may not necessarily be notable because of it, but this is a significant characteristic of their career. Just as with any category: consider Category:mathematicians -- the people there are not notable because of being in that category, but some notable people fall in it,and collecting together the notable people in WP who are mathematicians is appropriate for browsing and organization. Valedictorians is a much much broader category, and inappropriate,but I would however be open to the suggestion that Harvard Valedictorians was an appropriate category. DGG (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving aside for the moment the bias inherent in the notion of categorizing some valedictorians but not others, you're conflating an occupation category (mathematicians) with an achievement category (did really well at maths at Cambridge). These people are already collected together because they are listed. Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, some colleges are more notable than others, and Senior Wrangler at Cambridge has been historically as notable as they get. I do not necessarily support the lesser categories. DGG (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the sources that indicate that coming first in maths at Cambridge is notable are...? And the sources that indicate that being senior wrangler at Cambridge is "as notable as they get" are...? And the idea that even if finishing first in maths at Cambridge is notable that a category is required is...? Otto4711 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was genuinely important in its day; being senior (or near to senior) wrangler meant that you were very likely to hold important posts in British life. [1] is a fascinating little article about it; on page 4 is a table of the mathematics Professors at Cambridge; for a period of about 170 years only one man was Lucasian Professor who hadn't been Senior Wrangler! Throwawayhack (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! 5/9 Professors involved (1760-1930 odd) served during the 1820s, and you could get a degree with 2% of the marks. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually even better than that. In Littlewood's Miscellany, he gives some details of the 1881 paper. There were 33,541 marks available, and the Senior Wrangler got 16,368 (just under 50%); the Wooden Spoon only managed 247 (0.7%). Throwawayhack (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a defining category - top mathematics graduate from one of the top two English universities. EVen if the standard of some degrees in the 19th century was deplorably low, I cannot believe that applies to the top graduate! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Objective criteria, notable and defining achievements. As the article says: "The examination was the most important in England at the time, and the results were given great publicity". "The securing of the top position as Senior Wrangler was regarded, at the time, as the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain and the Senior Wrangler was feted well beyond Cambridge and accorded pre-eminent status among his peers" - [2]. Much more notable, in its time, than say Category:American Idol participants. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How notable it may or may not have been in comparison to some other category is irrelevant (WP:WAX). Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me its just as relevant as the references by yourself and others to Category:Valedictorians. As you focus on my final sentence, I take it you can find no fault with the earlier and more substantive parts of my argument. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I was rather intoxicated when I saw your comment and the last sentence was what caught my drunken eye. As for the remainder of your comment, while it may justify the senior category (and I don't agree that it does) it in no way justifies the second wrangler category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per otto, carlos, and precedent of Valedictorians. --Kbdank71 19:07, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete, already merged. Kbdank71 18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Art of Colombia to Category:Colombian art

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Per quick review, most national art categories follow the form Fooian art Colombian art is a little less populated but it is categorized better. Scarykitty (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional information I checked naming conventions and it is supposed to be Colombian art, so I stand by my suggestion. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Categories_by_nationality. --Scarykitty (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After researching the naming convention, I moved everything out of Art of Colombia, so now this is a proposed deletion. I also discovered there is a whole Category:Arts by country which is supposed to encompass more than just visual arts (as Fooian art is, I guess supposed to do). Adds a bit to the confusion, but I´ll save that for another day --Scarykitty (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mormon martyrs to Category:Latter Day Saint martyrs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent Category:Latter Day Saints. Latter Day Saint is a somewhat broader classification term than Mormon. Snocrates 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. LeSnail (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, with the added note that there appear to be some strong semantic issues between the terms "Mormon" and "Latter Day Saints" that may lead to concerns rooted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). I'm not an expert on the subject, so I will not presume to speak authoritatively, though. --7Kim (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Mormons to Category:Former Latter Day Saints

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent Category:Latter Day Saints. Latter Day Saint is a somewhat broader term than Mormon. Note: This category was nominated for deletion in 2007 JUL 23 CfD. The result of the debate was no consensus. Snocrates 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent It isn't a good idea to categorize into "current" and "former" subcategories. If someone is notable for being a Latter Day Saint, they should be in Category:Latter Day Saints along with other people who are notable for that, even if they later converted to another religion. If kept, the rename makes sense. LeSnail (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at length in the previous CFD, which is why I linked to it. There was no consensus there to delete the "by former religion" categories or to upmerge them. The people in this category are notable for being former Latter Day Saints, not for being Latter Day Saints. That's the intent, anyway. In many cases they were not notable at all until they were excommunicated from or resigned from one of the Latter Day Saint churches. Snocrates 03:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I was hoping consensus might have appeared. LeSnail (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom; do not merge given the good reasons stated by Snocrates and a read of several of the articles. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, with the added note that there appear to be some strong semantic issues between the terms "Mormon" and "Latter Day Saints" that may lead to concerns rooted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). I'm not an expert on the subject, so I will not presume to speak authoritatively, though. --7Kim (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom since that is the preferred form of the church's name - Those who have converted from what I refer to Mormonism ought to be a significant group. This should cover those who have left the Latter Days Saints, whether by excommunication, by resignation, or by joining another church or other religion. It should not include those who are "former" merely because they are deceased. I would support similar categories for former Muslims, etc for converts, but would oppose one for converntional Christian denominations (for those who have moved from (say) Anglican to Baptist). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional Mormons to Category:Fictional Latter Day Saints

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent Category:Latter Day Saints. Latter Day Saint is a somewhat broader classification term than Mormon. Snocrates 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. LeSnail (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, with the added note that there appear to be some strong semantic issues between the terms "Mormon" and "Latter Day Saints" that may lead to concerns rooted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). I'm not an expert on the subject, so I will not presume to speak authoritatively, though. --7Kim (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining and unnecessary religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dimadick (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juggalo Championship Wrestling webcasts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too broad of a category at this time, as well as overcategorization. The one article should be in Category:Juggalo Championship Wrestling only. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I assume you meant the category is too narrow right now. Snocrates 02:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. I created it because I saw that there was a Category:World Wrestling Entertainment webcasts, and SlamTV! is a JCW webcast. But if you insist on deleting it because it is only SlamTV! at the moment, then do so. But I'm sticking with Don't Delete seeing as is the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggalobrink (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - small category with little to no apparent growth potential. Should there suddenly be a slew of JCW webcasts that are notable then the cat can be recreated. The one article looks to fail WP:WEB anyway. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Nikki311 04:05, 22 January 2008 (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.