< October 17	October 19 >

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diver training agency to Category:Underwater diving training organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was a speedy to change to a plural name but it has other issues. Diving is ambiguous. The proposed rename would conform to the naming of the two parents, Category:Underwater diving and Category:Diving organizations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 18 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All the people in this category are tied only loosely to the animated series, they have nothing else in common. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. With the performers removed two articles would remain, making this also a small category with little likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First upmerge the two relevant articles to parent-category "Beauty abd the Beast", then delete. Dimadick (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That category is also up for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge -- most of the contents seem to be in the parent category already. I will however vote to keep the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 22 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nobel laureates in Economics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Nobel laureates in Economics". The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel prize (a prize bequested by Alfred Nobel) and the Nobel family strongly objects to any use of the name Nobel prize in connection with the Sveriges Riksbank Prize. The category should be deleted and replaced by the Category:Recipients of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize BrunoBarn (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note also Category:Nobel Memorial Prizes, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and List of Nobel laureates in Economics which would potentially be affected. -choster (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Nobel Foundation does not use the phrase suggested--they call it Laureates in Economics -- see [1]. They give the exact term in full once in the header as "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel ", and then they essentially ignore it. Whether we should take their use, or the conventional one, or even the full one, is disputable, but the term proposed here is simply not part of the language. I favor the conventional one, on the authority of the sources that use it: NY Times "Professor and Columnist Wins Economics Nobel" , Washington Post "Krugman Wins Nobel for Economics". The WSJ uses it in the headline WSJ "Real Time Economics : Nobel Laureate McFadden" and "Nobel memorial economics prize" in the text. DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. As shown at Nobelprize.org, the Nobel Foundation treats the Prize in Economic Sciences as effectively equal to the five prizes established under Alfred Nobel's will. And it's the Nobel Foundation, not relatives of Alfred Nobel, which is responsible for making such decisions. If the Nobel Foundation wanted the economics prize winners to not be known as Nobel laureates, I'm sure they would make their wishes known. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Though not arising under Nobel's will, the prize is frequently referred to as the Nobel Prize for Economics. The category title is thus that in common usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 22 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Zombie comics to Category:Zombies in comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistancy with the parent Category:Zombies and revenants in fiction and the similar Category:Vampires in comics. J Greb (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose it depends on what we are after - is it a genre or a theme? Or is it a collection of characters by topic? Because the category largely holds comics with zombies in, while the Vampires in comics largely contain vampire characters who appear in comics (and there aren't that many zombie characters). It could be we need to rename vampires in comics to "vampire comics". Typing that out I suppose "zombies in comics" is a broader name as it could conceivably contain zombie characters and zombie comics, as long as we are clear in the description. So if that makes sense rename. (Emperor (talk) 23:42, 18 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename per emerging precedent. Kbdank71 13:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US Shows remade for the French market to Category:French television series based on American television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per several recent CFDs this naming format seems to be emerging as the consensus choice for this sort of category. Renaming also expands the "US" abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 09:15, 18 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional centenarians

While this may or may not be a valid cat for "real live" persons, in fiction, not so much.

Consider every character whose native species lives for more than 100 years. And characters with the feature/ability/feature of some sort of immortality or regenerative quality.

This is just too broad for a category.

At best, this should be a list, which would allow for explanations/clarifications of the circumstances of the logevity of the character, and the context of it's environment, species, etc.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Rename to Category:Fictional human centenarians, and then remove any non-human characters (if any), since the age has no particular significance for other species, etc. Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Astoundingly, Lazarus Long wasn't included in the category! (I just added him.) However, it looks like there won't be a whole lot of people to keep him company after all of the non-human characters have been removed. Cgingold (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  When you suggest to remove the humans, are you including the hobbits, aliens, and various other creatures who naturally, typically achieve ages over 100?

  Of course. Cgingold (talk)

  And further when pruning, would you agree that characters who have extended their lifespans artificially (such as through tissue/limb/organ replacement, memory encoding or brain transplant into another (perhaps artificial) body, cryo-stasis, a lazarus pit (or other forms of artificial regeneration, etc.) should also be pruned?

  If so, then I'd agree, the category is likely to be rather empty. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  With the exception of "tissue/limb/organ replacement" (which already happens to real people), all of the above. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's not all that notable in dead/living humans, and as legendary, mythical or fictional ones, there are many immortals, there are personnages from The Bible, etc. They're not notably over one-hundred old. In many science-fiction stories, there's extended lifetimes of 200 years or more. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I wonder if we should setup a sub project to discuss the entire fictional category structure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 17:13, October 22, 2008
• Delete. Many series involve creatures that live more than 100 years. All elves from Lord of the Rings for example. Many other cases. To be centenarian in fiction is not that special. You can also add Rip Van Winkle and I recall a story with Goofy in the role of Rip Van Winkle. Should we add him too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 23 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prisoner characters to Category:Prisoner (TV series) characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the main article and to reduce ambiguity by specifying that these are lists pertaining to a particular TV show. I would also not be averse to upmerging it to Category:Lists of television characters or an appropriate subcat as a small category with no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support otherwise could be confsued with fictional prisoners 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 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 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: G7, author requested deletion. non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete: This is a duplicate category of Category:Rheinmetall, mispelled name of company, my own mistake. Should be speedy, I think. Josh (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just tag it ((db-author)). Otto4711 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional vigilantes

Per vigilante:

• "A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts their own form of justice in response to a perception of insufficient response by the authorities. Several groups and individuals have been labeled as vigilantes by various historians and media. Vigilantes have been central to several creative fictional works and are often depicted as being heroes and retaliatory against wrongdoers."

Way too broad. And likely to be rampant with original research.

A big prolem is that "outside the law" varies by place, just as "law" varies by place.

At best, this should be a list so that the circumstances of the social/cultural environment of the fictional work can provide the context of/for the vigilanteism.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 08:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify/Delete as nominator. - jc37 08:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see a real problem here, jc: regardless of the particular legal framework that's in place, anybody who takes the law into their own hands is, by definition, a "vigilante" -- it's merely a shorthand term that sums things up concisely. Obviously, we would avoid using that term for real people due to NPOV & BLP concerns, but that's not an issue for fictional characters. As long as their actions -- as characterized by the author -- can be summarized as taking the law into their own hands, this is the appropriate term to use. Please note that summarizing is NOT original research. It is done literally all of the time -- in fact, virtually all of Wikipedia would vanish in a twinkle without it. Cgingold (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that you're interpreting the text. "Summarising" what you feel that the definition of a term is, and then applying that definition to a character. The problem is not whether the concepts of vigilantes may be "notable" (indeed, we have an article on the topic), it's whether we as Wikipedia editors are allowed to decide for ourselves whether a certain character should be considered a vigilante. And further whether a source is "reliable" in its determination (or is the source merely expressing an "opinion" as well).

  (This is more explained (in regards to policy and guidelines) in the essay linked in the nom.) - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A strong definition of a strong defining characteristic. Authors create characters and endow them with all sorts of characteristics and features. While a character's name or hair color may not be defining, I can't think of a single vigilante who did not have that trait assigned to them as an intentionally defining characteristic. Ample reliable sources exists to support the description of characters as vigilantes, and the identification of individual characters as vigilantes. Why Do We Cheer Vigilante Cops? in The New York Times describes "Harry Callahan, portrayed by Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry (1971), Charles Bronson's Torrey in Stone Killer (1973) and Buford Pusser, the baseball-wielding sheriff played by Joe Don Baker in Walking Tall (1973)." as fitting the vigilante bill. This definition must be supported with reliable sources for all entries, but it is clear that the trait is a defining characteristic and should be categorized in this manner. While a list is always a fantastic add-on, the suggestion that this should only be a list violates the strong suggestion of WP:CLN that lists AND categories are designed to co-exist. Alansohn (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my response to Cgingold above. - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have a misunderstanding of what reliable sources mean. Quoting a source that says a character is a vigilante is not "interpreting" the source, it's quoting it. That's how sources work. WP:RS states that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article" and that's what's accomplished here. See this discussion here with Kbdank71 where it is made rather clear that sources about fictional works are indeed reliable. Alansohn (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "I think you have a misunderstanding of what reliable sources mean."

  No, and your quote concerns an article. What's the difference?

  • "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact"

  That's also from WP:RS. The thing that you're apparently missing is that opinion, whether yours mine, or some source's, is still that: opinion.

  And while a source's opinion on something may be fine in the context of an article or a list to indicate inclusion, opinion is not acceptable for categories.

  That is what you (and others) are misunderstanding.

  These interpretations of the text, by which opinions about a particular label to ascribe to a character is all WP:OR.

  So listify (or even better, write an article about the topic), but a category of fictional characters grouped by some label, per an opinion, is clearly inappropriate and just simply violates several policies and guidelines. - jc37 14:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not the only admin who has been insisting that reliable and verifiable sources about works of fiction are "opinion" that can be ignored and discarded. The close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10 and of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_4#Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives revolved around the issue of reliable sources. If the sources provided (and the thousands more available just like them) are reliable, it would seem that there can be no doubt that in this case that the reliable sources would trump the claim of original research. These sources were excluded there and again here as reliable sources based on an interpretation of Wikipedia policy that 1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff, and even more clearly at the following diff, as well as your statement here); and 2) The only reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff). While it seems abundantly clear to me that this interpretation is incorrect, I put the issue for discussion at WT:RS and WP:RSN, the folks who are the experts in reliable sources, and received the following responses, quoted verbatim:

• Neither of those two claims is correct. "reviews" of films and books are not the same thing as opinion pieces, regardless of the fact that subjective claims are made in them. And the claim that "only the creators of a show" can be "reliable sources" is both a misunderstanding of what RS means and a common confusion about fiction. Take Deny All Knowledge, a collection of peer reviewed essays about the X Files. It would be beyond absurd to claim that book is not a reliable source, yet if I assume that only the creators of fiction can speak reliably about the work of fiction, I would have to. editors aren't allowed to infer that Monk is OCD. Secondary sources can obviously do so. This doesn't mean that the categorization is not subjective, however. Protonk at WP:RSN
• Actually, with Monk, OCD is the entire premise of the show, and it would be pretty ridiculous to say we'll never find a source that Monk is OCD when its probably in several issues of TV Guide. I looked at the CFD and some of the other characters were more of a judgement call, such as Niles Crane from Fraser. And probably the CFD had more to do with doubts of the importance of such a category. BTW, I agree that neither of the two assertions is true; opinion pieces can meet RS, and secondary sources can opine that Monk is OCD. Squidfryerchef at WP:RSN
• This probably would be better at RS/N, but I agree with you about sourcing. The numbered items above essentially reverse the priority usually assigned to sources. Published reviews of fiction are independent sources, and hardly ever considered as mere opinion pieces, but rather as reliable sources. (It is usually easy enough to separate out reviewers' opinions -e.g. "this is the greatest TV series ever."). If they were not considered reliable sources, it would be impossible for any fictional topics to be treated in wikipedia, as they would all fail notability for not having independent reliable sources. Of course the creator of a work of fiction is decisive about many aspects of a fictional character, but not about such things - where disagreements are hard to think of in any case. In the given example, Adrian Monk, the character is very, very clearly written to be obsessive-compulsive. It would be surprising that the words don't appear somewhere in scripts, and it would be hard to believe that any substantial review of the character would not descibe him as such. Note that ' "adrian monk" obsessive compulsive ' gets 11 gscholar hits and 21 gbooks hits, some from academic psychological sources. Literature has often been used as a source of insight into psychology by psychiatrists, psychologists and philosophers and it is not very hard to think of psychiatric conditions named after fictional characters, or to find statements like: "The traditional example of obsessive compulsive disorders is Lady Macbeth"[2].John Z at WT:RS
• What you've been told is in conflict with how notability is considered, and John Z is correct. Reviews from established critics or from reliable sources (such as the example SFGate one) are appropriate RS for information. Input from the original creators is useful, but it is a primary source. --MASEM at WT:RS

• While there is certainly room for shades of meaning and the occasional difference of opinion, the strong divergence between the interpretation of WP:RS offered by those most familiar with the policy and the interpretation you have put forth, would thus seem to place your interpretation in conflict with Wikipedia policy. The people who know reliable sources policy the best seem to be rather strong in describing these sources as reliable. I am already working on further documenting this issue and this could be a wonderful test case to put to bed the claim that independent reliable and verifiable sources about works of fiction are not reliable. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  First, for whatever it's worth, I'd like to commend you for looking for additional perspective on this.

  However, there is something left out of all of the comments posted. The fact that we're dealing woth categories, not with information inluded in article space.

  As I noted already, such opinion-based material may indeed be added to an article, or even to a list. The issue here (as noted at WP:RS) is that the context must be explained for each member of the category, as noted both at WP:CAT, and WP:CLN.

  And without the context, the explanation of the interpretation, such material would not be appropriate for inclusion. And since that cannot be done with categories, such material is not appropriate for categorisation.

  That said, please continue your opinion-finding crusade. My hope is that good may come of it. - jc37 15:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that the category world operates under different principles than those used in the real world, to its unfortunate detriment. The problem is that that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources applies to articles and to everywhere on Wikipedia. Your claim that these reliable sources are "opinion-based material" has been shown to be false. It is extremely disturbing to hear an admin, someone who is tasked with enforcing Wikipedia policy, representing Wikipedia policy to claim that reliable sources can be ignored in the category world because such rules simply do not apply here. The context that you keep on demanding is right in the sources, the ones you join in dismissing with a wave of the hand. You are entitled to believe that you can ignore Wikipedia policy on sourcing, but the evidence provided directly contradicts your position. You have still offered no Wikipedia policy justification for deleting this or other categories for fictional characters, nor have you addressed how you will rebut the multiple clarifications that contradict your claims regarding sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just 2¢ or so...

  1. If I read this right, part of the issue is that the material on the category page can read as an unsourced and unsupported list. And in some instances that is very much the case since cats become an exorcise for editors to group articles on what they perceive as relevant themes. In some cases, this is self evident and needs little support. In others, such as ascribing a function or affiliation, that cited source needs to be somewhere. Something I pointed out in one of the discussions down list is also salient here: If "vigilante" only appears in the article in the category section, the category should be removed from the article. The term is a statement of the character's function in the work of fiction, as such it should not be applied by a Wikipedia editor, in any way, unless there is a cite supporting it. If the term is present in the body of the article text, then the question becomes is there a cite supporting it or is it present as "given common knowledge". (Short example: Batman can be described in article as a vigilante without a cite since his status as such is directly state multiple time in the almost 70 years worth of stories featuring the character.) In such cases, leaving the cat in place is justified. Other wise the cat should be removes, and a "Fact" tag added.
  2. There is also a question of bloat. Since the vigilante, as protagonist or antagonist, is a very common trope in fiction, a lot of characters will still fit into the category making it less than easy to navigate. However since the bloat isn't necessarily on the articles, this is a minor concern. - J Greb (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The only thing I would add to J Greb's assessment (which I think was rather comprehensive) is that even if the information is noted in the related article, it would still require authoritative verifiable reliable sources adjoining the assertion/interpretation. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Frequent trope of fiction and a precise definition. I fail to see the problem here. Dimadick (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, for one, that it's been applied broadly and vaguely, to include both heroes and villains, cowboys and indians, etc. After all, how many times throughout Bonanza did the Cartwrights become vigilantes by necessity? And by the definition above, isn't Sherlock Holmes a vigilante? Would he hesitate to break into a home or place of business in order to solve a mystery? Wouldn't most detectives, including fictional police detectives? (If in doubt, there is a plethora of '70s television series for you to enjoy : )

  And who wants to try to draw the line between vigilante and freedom fighter? Or between freedom fighter and a rebel? Or between a rebel and a terrorist? The semantics, the connotations involved can be quite different in presentation and interpretation. It's an inherent problem with applying labels to anything, much less to the interpretive art of fiction. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Two words: "reliable sources". Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's exactly my point. Do you see any? But let's go beyond whether these are indicated in reliable sources. What's the value for navigation if the definition is so blurred as for the "distinction" to be unusable for navigation purposes? (Heroes and villains?) This is something that needs to be explained on a case-by-case basis. And just as you note, requires reliable sources. Hence, this should be a list. - jc37 04:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While we may be clear on what it means to be a vigilante generally, it may just be a matter of perspective as to whether that term may apply to specific characters. I also don't think it's necessarily stable for particular characters: Captain America has bounced between being government sanctioned and a lone wolf; Spider-Man in certain stories reveals his secret identity and joins the Avengers; Batman often has the active cooperation of the police commissioner. That the term has been used by secondary sources to describe even police officers just further indicates how problematic it is—is a cop by definition a vigilante because they sometimes break or disregard the law to catch/punish suspects, i.e., is a vigilante just "one who has committed vigilante acts" even if on the balance they observe legal limits? Postdlf (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're absolutely right that there are borderline cases, especially in the comic book world. These cases should be addressed individually, separate and apart from consideration of the category, for which there appears to be a well-defined definition. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 22 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional prisoners

Category:Fictional escapees

I don't think a quote is needed to show how nearly all-encompassing of fictional characters that these cats would potentially be.

Let's just consider the main characters in the Star Wars series of films. The majority of the characters were both prisoners and escapees.

The capture or imprisonment of one or more characters is so common in a storyline (especially in serialised fiction), as to make this category useless.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 07:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - per nom, too broad for the basis of categorization. As an aside, I wish you would write in actual paragraphs instead of one-sentence fragments. Otto4711 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  My experience has unfortunately been that lengthy paragraph nominations do not get read. Which can lead to people commenting without even reading the nom. My apologies if it upsets your grammatical sensibilities. (And let me tell you, in trying to convey meaning on Wikipedia, I've at times been forced to write sentences which have caused my personal grammar sensibilities to want to scream : ) - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly restrict to those whose imprisonment or escape is the principal part of their role in the fiction, or the principal motivation for the action. That isn't so many. (Yes,it probably does include at least a few people from SW). From a quick check, it might include perhaps 1/4 of the present entries for prisoners, but about 2/3 for escapees. It might be further restricted, by being limited to major characters in the fictions concerned. It is not quite exact to say that it deals with most of the characters, except in a very few fictions--looking at some soap operas, at least have the characters never went to prison. DGG (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "...possibly restrict to those whose imprisonment or escape is the principal part of their role in the fiction, or the principal motivation for the action." - The problem with that is that you and I aren't allowed to make that determination per WP:OR. The question of "where to draw the line", requires a judgement, and that's expressly forbidden in WP:OR. - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep prisoners, many stories about fictional prisoners are notable because of the story revolving around their imprisonment, or where the imprisonment is a key part of the story. Escapees is a not necessary subcategory. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a good article, but not a reason to assign a label to characters. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the annals of fiction, the roles of the prisoner and escapee are most often a strong defining characteristic assigned by the author to place the character in a position where dramatic effects can be increased. I agree with DGG that there is a decent amount of cleanup and trimming necessary here, but that the vast majority belong here. The bright line that needs to be drawn is based on the availability of reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims that each individual character meets the definition of their category as a prisoner or escapee. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the roles of fiction", nearly every character has been a prisoner, and quite a few of them have been escapees. A nearly all-inclusive category isn't much help for navigation (being the purpose for categories). - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—note that parallel categories exist for real people: Category:Prisoners and Category:Escapees. This category differs from those, however, in that prison (and escape therefrom) may be a one-off plot device in a single episode for many characters, and so may not have as lasting or defining an effect on a fictional character as it would on a real person who served time in prison (or escaped therefrom). Perhaps more importantly, however, is that this category at present fails to distinguish fictional depictions of real-life imprisonment (as in The Shawshank Redemption) with fictional depictions of purely fictional imprisonment (as in Star Wars). Unless such limits or distinctions are made in the category name itself, the category will in practice ignore such limits. So can these be salvaged? Postdlf (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, since there are no "real life" repercussions for a character to be a prisoner, any author can have this event happen at their whim. Often in service to building towards a climax (with escape (sometimes) the denoument). Events in a story tend to aid the plot. So I would think it would be better to categorise prison-related fiction, than to try to apply a certain label to an individual character. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I want to nominator's example that this duality (prisoners and escapees) happens to all Prison Break characters. Moreover, many shows send character to jail as part of an episode plot but this is not something that could be described as the main characteristic of the character. For example Sawyer of Lost (TV series) or Earl of My Name is Earl. Even almost all the characters of Battlestar Galactica were prisoners of the Cylons! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:We had this discussion last year and came to a consensus about wether the article should stay or not. Most of the characters have summaries involving their imprisonment (whether it be remand or longer-term). This category while not helping, isn't really hurting anybody. Conquistador2k6 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HARMLESS... - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If every fictional character who was in a prison was included, the category looses all meaning. But yet that is the purpose of the category. Even if the introduction is rewritten it could well be a maintenance nightmare. If, as pointed out above, containing this information is needed, then anyone can create a list which is clearly the better solution in this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 23 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep . Kbdank71 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional hermits

The introduction to the cat immediately shows how this category may be misinterpreted:

Fictional characters who deliberately seclude themselves away from the outside world.

Note: Characters isolated from society by means outside their control (i.e. homelessness) do not belong in this category. Also, hermits are not necessarily poor.

Which shows that there has already been a concern with original research as the determining factor of whether a character should be included in this category.

Per hermit:

"A hermit (from the Greek ἔρημος erēmos, signifying "desert", "uninhabited", hence "desert-dweller"; adjective: "eremitic") is a person who lives to some greater or lesser degree in seclusion and/or isolation from society."

"Often – both in religious and secular literature – the term "hermit" is used loosely for anyone living a solitary life-style – including the misanthrope – and in religious contexts is sometimes assumed to be interchangeable with anchorite / anchoress (from the Greek ἀναχωρέω anachōreō, signifying "to withdraw", "to depart into the country outside the circumvallated city"), recluse and solitary. However, it is important to retain a clear distinction between the vocation of hermits and that of anchorites."

Apparently, even trying to isolate this term for "real life" circumstances seems to be difficult.

And in looking over the category membership - Jane Lane (Daria), Keyser Söze, and Architect (The Matrix), for just a few examples - it's clear that this is simply too unclear, too broad, and too undefinable for inclusion in a category. At best this should be a list, so that such sources which interpret the fiction, which may thus indicate whether the "label" of "hermit" may apply to the character.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 07:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep there are relatively few where it is the major or motivational feature of the character or series. I agree it would make a good list & would be even better that way, since it can specify the fiction. No reason not to have both. The category, as always, has the advantage of being semi-automatic. DGG (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "there are relatively few where it is the major or motivational feature of the character or series." - according to who?

  And being "semi-automatic" should have no bearing on whether something should be categorised. Categories are tools for navigation, and are not to stand in the place of content. (And I'm not necessarily opposed to listification.) - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In real-life, people may decide to live on their own, in isolation from the rest of humanity, hoping to avoid the corrupting influences of our society, especially Wikipedia. In fiction, characters are assigned their place in the world by their creator, and a common role in fiction is of the hermit, a strong defining characteristic of the fictional characters so identified. While the definition provided by Jc37 is indeed helpful, the most important definition is how the characters are described in reliable and verifiable sources discussing those characters. In providing a synopsis of the Star Wars movies, CNN (see "The Star Wars saga at a glance") was able to describe the original film, in which "The robots fall in to the hands of a young farm boy, Luke Skywalker, who takes them to Obi-Wan Kenobi, now an elderly hermit." Reviewer Christopher Null (see "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" describes how "Yoda and Obi-Wan have to become hermits" in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Instead of relying on the original research of editors determining which characters are hermits, the test of reliable sources is what Wikipedia policy has to offer. As this is a defining characteristic, as this is supported by reliable and verifiable sources, and as the nominator offers no policy argument for deletion, the category should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hermetic fiction would be worth writing an article about. Assigning a label to a character based on personal opinion of subjective inclusion, not so much. Especially when (as in this case) the label may be freely a temporary one. If a character spends an in-universe year (however long that is) as a "hermit", should that "count"? How about a month? a week? a day?

  And to make that determination, is, of course WP:OR, because it requires an interpretation of the primary source. And just because someone out there calls Yoda a hermit, doesn't make them an authoritative source on the topic - either of Star Wars characters, or of the hermetic life, or even of literary or film or television analysis. That's a key word in WP:RS that you may be overlooking: "authoritative". Another may be: "scholarly". - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia operates under the principle that you and I don't make determinations. We use reliable sources to provide us with information and then assemble the information from these sources into articles and categories. Reading a reliable source is not "interpretation". If it were, you would have just destroyed the entire structure of Wikipedia and not just the fictional character structure you have been working at dismantling. If you have a challenge to specific entries, I encourage you to pursue the claim that a particular source is not "authoritative", which will be rather interesting when these pieces are often written by a newspaper or magazine's resident expert on works of popular fiction. "Scholarly" is a wonderful plus, but not a challengeable requirement for a source to be reliable. Wikipedia editors are perfectly willing and able to follow WP:RS and allow the sources to speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was agreeing with you until: "Reading a reliable source is not "interpretation"." One can indeed "interpret" the information presented in a source; reliable or otherwise. And to do so is disallowed on Wikipedia. And further, your comments make me think of the person who goes to their physician with questions of interpretation of theology. Just because the source may be considered reliable and scoraly for one set of information, doesn't mean that that particular source is relaible for all' types of information.

  Also, in regards to your comments about the news media, check out the section: WP:RS#News organizations. And further the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) are useful even outside the realm of medicine. As noted in WP:MEDRS#Popular press, in such presentations, there is typically a lack of context. And that applies regardless of whether the scholarly work concerns medicine and trials and experimental results, or whether it involved the critical analysis of a character and the subjective or interpretive application of a label to a character. - jc37 03:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The characterizations are taken straight from the reliable sources, which are primarily from the leading experts these publications have on the particular range of fiction being covered. What you call "interpretation" is what is traditionally called "reading". If we were to follow your interpretation of "interpretation", there would be no reliable sources in Wikipedia. What you are proposing as your interpretation of WP:RS appears to require dismantling Wikipedia in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, actually, it's called "interpretive reading". There's an excellent book on the subject by Mortimer Adler.

  But that aside, as Wikipedians we're to be encyclopedists not "readers". So while it's may be acceptable for someone reading a work to make interpolations of the text during their reading of the work in question, it's not appropriate for us as Wikipedians to do so. - jc37 03:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Characters living in seclusion for a significant part of their appearances should be quite defining. Sources should not be too hard to find. Dimadick (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please define "significant part". And when you do, realise that that would instantly be considered WP:OR. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Using descriptions of the character from reliable sources addresses the entire WP:OR "issue". Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 25 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional explorers

Per Explorers:

• "An explorer is a person involved in exploration"

Seems rather broad and vague, so then let's look at exploration:

• "Exploration is the act of searching or traveling for the purpose of discovery, e.g. of unknown people, including space (space exploration), for oil, gas, coal, ores, caves, water (Mineral exploration or prospecting), or information."

So it's the act of looking for something. Rather indeed too broad. (Scrooge McDuck?)

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 07:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems reasonably defining of its membership and as the article notes that Scrooge McDuck routinely undertakes expeditions in search of treasure and historical artifacts, categorizing him as an explorer seems within the bounds of the category. Reducing explorers to "characters who look for something" is, perhaps deliberately, entirely over-simplistic. Otto4711 (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem in this case is the broadness of application. For example, every person aboard the Starship Enterprise should be a member.

  And what's being explored? outer space? inner space? a cave? an asteroid? a new continent? the land just over the next mountain? Second star to the right and straight on til morning? a mindscape? a cyberscape? a planescape? Other dimensions of existence? existence itself? This is just too broad to be useful, and honestly in one way or other really seems nearly all-inclusive. - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be useful, then, to split the category up by type of explorer. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And make this merely a parent cat?

  I might go with that, except I think that the child cats would have similar problems. Wouldn't a space exporer cat be filled with every sci-fi character who's ever journeyed through space? Regardless of whether the source text includes the plaent Earth.

  And wouldn't the terrestrially-bound explorers already be under other categories of occupation, such as archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, etc.? Or even: aviators, sailors, soldiers, spelunkers/cavers etc.? - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep exploration fiction is a notable genre of fiction from the 1800's through early 1900's, and as such have notable explorers as characters. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're talking about is the Age of exploration (Which redirects to Age of Discovery). Obviously worth writing an article about. But applying the broad label of "explorer" to a fictional character, when that could apply to most anyone on "walkabout"? And since we're dealing with fiction, that age could be applied to any era within the fictional universe. Consider Bilbo Baggins, for example. He was an explorer (among other things), yet he was travelling lands which were "known" at the time. This is just too broad to be useful for navigation. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep per Otto4711. Postdlf (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The definition provided by the nominator provides a wonderful explanation of the common defining characteristic shared. That there are differences and variations would be a wonderful argument for cresting subcategories within this one. The Hartford Courant in characterizing the discover of the Titanic, states that "As a boy, Robert D. Ballard wanted to be like Captain Nemo, a great underwater explorer." CNN describes that "As "Tomb Raider" series fans know, Lara is an agile explorer who can jump, climb, crawl, roll, swim, shoot weapons and shimmy across ledges." (See "Play along with 'better-looking' Lara Croft"). There are lots more like this, showing that the media knows how to define an explorer. As required by WP:RS, it is their interpretation that determines how we view these characters. Based on the defining nature of the characteristic, the fact that it is supported by reliable and verifiable sources and that there is no policy argument even offered to justify deletion, the category should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's great that members of the media know how to interpret information. However, unless that member of the media is a "scholarly, authoritative, verifiable reliable" source, then it doesn't mean anything in terms of categorisation, though it makes a nice note in an article, I suppose, if relevance can be demonstrated. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A pretty reasonable definition and plenty of scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yes, definitely plenty of scope for expansion : ) - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Another case that thousands of character can fit. All the character of Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica explore the Universe. Are Superman and Scrooge explorers? Maybe, in an episode the travel to a fictional unknown planet. Then, they become explorers. But I think I can find and present you here that every Disney character has "discovered" a new planet/area/country or something and I can expand this to many other characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 25 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cult leaders

Per Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture:

• "The term "cult," as applied to non-mainstream religious or secular organizations, has multiple overlapping or contradictory meanings in both scholarly and popular usage."

That alone should be enough to indicate the inappropriateness of this category.

In addition, without the reference to the "cult" in question, this category is a loose grouping of individuals who "lead" an organisation which has been called a cult.

At best, this should be a list, in order to provide the opportunity for explanations, clarifications, context, and verifiable reliable sources.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 07:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 07:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restrict to characters who have, in fact, been characterized as such by the author (or by reliable sources). A cursory look at the contents suggests that some cleanup is probably needed, however. Thankfully, the usual reasons for avoidance of the word "cult" do not apply here, since they're all fictional. Cgingold (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So if we do as you suggest, what do you suggest should be done if different authors define "cult" in different ways, or even "contradictory" ways? The word "cult" is a main problem with the cat. - jc37

• keep there are relatively few where it is the major or motivational feature of the character or series and the characterization is exact. Ggingold has it right. I agree it would make a good list & would be even better that way, since it can specify the fiction. No reason not to have both. The category, as always, has the advantage of being semi-automatic. DGG (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not opposed to listification.

  And a category is no more "semi-automatic" than editing an article. If I edit an article to add a category, it's added to the category. If I edit a list to add a link to an article, it's added to the list. Either way, it requires an edit. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The inclusion of definitions here and in the category itself is always important, and most helpful here. As creators of fiction assign roles to their characters, one who leads a cult has been assigned that role as a strong defining characteristic, unlike the assignment of their name or hair color. We don't make the decision that a character is a "cult leader" we allow the media to make it for us and we support these claims using reliable sources. If a fictional character is described in reliable and verifiable sources as a cult leader then that character is a fictional cult leader and belongs in this category. The San Diego Union Tribune ("Unsafe house: Outside pressures darken a plural marriage") had no trouble discerning that "Last season, cult leader Roman Grant (Harry Dean Stanton) was the snake in the Henricksons' own private Eden." or stating that "Bill's sister-in-law Wanda had poisoned Alby, evil son of Roman, the über-evil cult leader." The San Francisco Chronicle ("SUMMER MOVIES: SITCOMS MOVE TO THE BIG SCREEN, REMAKES RULE AND HORROR IS HOT") looked at the film Batman Begins and described how "Haunted by the murder of his parents, Bruce Wayne travels to Asia and contends with ninja cult leader Ra's Al Ghul..." This is not how I describe teh characters, this is how they are defined by the media in reliable and verifiable sources. Based on the fact that this is a strong defining characteristic, that there are reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim and the fact that there is no policy argument for deletion, the category should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's great that members of the media know how to interpret information. However, unless that member of the media is a "scholarly, authoritative, verifiable reliable" source, then it doesn't mean anything in terms of categorisation, though it makes a nice note in an article, I suppose, if relevance can be demonstrated. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify per the problems described by the nominator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you consider using reliable and verifiable sources, as described above? Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • List content must be verifiable and reliably sourced. Postdlf (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories must also be supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Would the availability of these sources justify a category? Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not in and of itself. It won't be an appropriate category if it's a subject about which such sources may disagree (what are the greatest films ever made?), or inherently represents a subjective evaluation even if there is general consensus among sources as to that evaluation (e.g., Citizen Kane is one of the greatest films ever made). Such subjects may be appropriate for article text, whether prose or list, where you can explain a statement or show what source supports it. But it would not be an appropriate subject for a category, where you can't explain in connection with that category tag or category contents list why that categorization applies. So simply citing to reliable sources doesn't always justify a category. Incidentally, I have no strong opinion as to this particular category, though I know the corresponding real-life categories have always been a source of controversy. Postdlf (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tend to avoid using this term for historical figures. But in fiction they have effectively become stock character. Not really controversial definition and plenty of scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per Magioladitis. Cults are not easy to label these days. So fictional cults may be nothing more then calling something a cult. With a list, you can at least provide citable sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed to listification. - jc37 03:56, 25 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep; addition of a definition encouraged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional consiglieri

Per consiglieri:

• "''Consigliere is the Italian term for an adviser or counsellor. It is derived from the Latin consiliarius, from consilium, "advice." "

So the term merely means advisor. To whom? what about?

But to give the category the benfit of the doubt, let's presume the following is the inclusion criteria (continued from consiglieri):

• "Consigliere entered the popular English lexicon through Mario Puzo's Godfather novel and the subsequent films made from them. In these portrayals, the consigliere is an adviser or counselor to a mafia boss, with the additional responsibility of representing the Don in important meetings within the Don's crime family or with other crime families. The consigliere is a close, trusted friend and confidant."

Without the context of who the character is the "Consigliere" is such to, this grouping is meaningless.

Note that in the TV series The West Wing, the term "war-time consigliere" is used for two people, including Leo McGarry. This should help indicate the broadness of the term.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 07:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The resurgence of the Mafia-based film and the success of The Sopranos ensures that this strong defining characteristic for individuals in the Mafia hierarchy will remain a media staple. It use as a defining characteristic is perhaps best exemplified by this search for the phrase "consigliere silvio dante", which finds 58 sources in Google News Archive, with more available in other variations of the search. The Rocky Mountain News ("'GODFATHER RETURNS,' BUT NOT THE EXCITEMENT") states that "The Corleones are back. They're all here: steely-eyed, soul-destroyed Michael, his hapless brother Fredo, their adopted "brother" and consigliere Tom Hagen, their sister Connie and, in respectful memory, Santino and, of course, Don Vito i Corleone." "Michelle Widlitz, Al Sapienza", a wedding announcement in The New York Times, concisely describes Sapienza as being "best known for his role in “The Sopranos” as Mikey Palmice, Uncle Junior’s consigliere and hit man." There are thousands of other reliable and verifiable sources supporting the use of the term. Obfuscations about other possible meanings should not detract from the clear use of the term as defining and as supported by ample reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's great that members of the media know how to interpret information. However, unless that member of the media is a "scholarly, authoritative, verifiable reliable" source, then it doesn't mean anything in terms of categorisation, though it makes a nice note in an article, I suppose, if relevance can be demonstrated. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep there are relatively few where it is the major or motivational feature of the character or series. To say it just means advisor is to ignore the use of the role, in favor or a broad ad artificial definition.. I've read the essay mentioned, and I disagree --it's looking for difficulties. I don't see the purpose of this crusade against the major basic fictional types of characters. DGG (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, for one thing, the essay is based upon policy and guidelines (as opposed to most editors' comments and/or opinions). Perhaps if you were to try to "read for understanding", than to simply "read to dismiss"...

  And this isn't any more a "crusade", than any other effort to cleanup Wikipedia. (And since you bring editor motivations into this, rather than just commenting on the content, and the applicable policies and guidelines thereof, I'll take a moment and mention that I would think that it should be at least somewhat interesting that I'm a strong supporter of content on Wikipedia (an inclusionist), but yet I'm looking to prune these inapparopriate branches. And incidentally, attacking me (ad hominem) doesn't give your argument any more weight. Indeed, it gives it less weight.) - jc37 14:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. It clearly refers to a particular role within a mob/organized crime organization; that it has been used figuratively elsewhere (to a fictional White House Chief of Staff) does not undercut that. Postdlf (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but add the definition to the category page. Not all readers can be assumed familiar with the term. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 21 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional beggars

Per begging (which beggar redirects to):

• "Begging means to request something in a supplicating manner, with the implication that the person who is begging will suffer emotional and/or physical harm if the request is not granted. As such, the term is applicable not only to individual persons, but also to groups."

This is just simply too broad.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 07:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep begging is often a profession, not just an action. When it's a profession, it isn't broad. There's also the real-life category Category:Beggars Andjam (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the very broad definition used is not the way it's used in fiction. Beggar is a social class/occupation, not the action of asking something. A reasonable category and will make agood list also. DGG (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quite recognizable social class. I don't see potential for confusion here. Dimadick (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In regards to the suggestion of this being a "social class": How long must one beg in order to be a "beggar"? Is once enough? How about for 24 hours? a week? a month? a year? How much training is required before the individual may be called a beggar? Are there any pre-requisites for inclusion? Merely that the character begged for something? I'm looking at the four characters currently in the cat, and I'm wondering if even those who like to look at character-related cats in terms of being defining would consider it such for any of the four. (Soapy, being a "bum", may perhaps have the best chance.) - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Small category with murky inclusion criteria. If it is a social class and a profession and a criminal act, are we simply grouping by like names? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 23 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional socialites

Per socialite:

• "A socialite is a person who is known to be a part of fashionable society because of his or her regular participation in social activities and fondness for spending a significant amount of time entertaining and being entertained."

So they like parties? : )

This is way too broad, especially for a category.

(Check out this diff] for another person's opinion on the cat, from 2005.)

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 06:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator isn't supposed to vote. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but the nom is supposed to propose an out come, Rename, Merge, or Delete. The standardized templates automatically include those terms as appropriate. Jc isn't using those templates, so a statement of the desired outcome is needed. - J Greb (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll merely note that the nominator didn't "vote", as this is a discussion, not a "vote". (And that there are more possible outcomes than those three.) - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not only do we know the definition of the word "socialite", but it appears the media has no trouble using the term to define fictional characters. The Los Angeles Times at "Miss Schafer Is Eversharp" was able to describe "wealthy socialite Mrs. Thurston Howell III" played by Natalie Schafer. Ample reliable sources are available to support the claim for the other fictional characters listed in this category. It is clear that the authors and creators of fictional works assign the role of "socialite" with great care and intend it to be a defining characteristic. Instead of relying on our own definitions of the term or our impressions that the definition is "way too broad", we should stick with the standard set by WP:RS and allow the reliable sources to speak for themselves.

  Yes we should. So you're suggesting that the source above is reliable in describing the character as a socialite? Is this merely the opinion of the source? Yes, it would seem to be. And since it is, this setence from WP:RS would seem to apply: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not merely suggesting that the sources are reliable, I'm complying with the opinions of multiple editors who responded to the issue at WT:RS and WP:RSN (see this essay for complete details debunking the persistent claim that reliable sources about works of fiction are not reliable). I do admire your determination in putting forth a claim so completely at odds with Wikipedia policy, but there is no basis to support its use. Other than the fact that you have arbitrarily decided that reliable sources about works of fiction are "opinion pieces", there is not one iota of support for your claim under Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you're welcome to your "opinion", and "interpretation", I suppose. However, as I noted above, the misunderstanding would seem to be not understanding that a "reliable source" in these cases must be a scholarly authoritative opinion/interpretation.

  So while I think it's great that members of the media know how to interpret information, unless that member of the media is a "scholarly, authoritative, verifiable reliable" source, then it doesn't mean anything in terms of categorisation, though it makes a nice note in an article, I suppose, if relevance can be demonstrated. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep there are relatively few where it is the major or motivational feature of the character or series. I agree it would make a good list & would be even better that way, since it can specify the fiction. No reason not to have both. The category, as always, has the advantage of being semi-automatic. The only problem with these is the films etc. where essentially all the characters are socialites, but if its limited to thoseith separate articles that isn't a problem either. DGG (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Lists and related articles would be great. They would allow for clarification, context of the usage of the term, the circumstances of the application of the term (especially in a fictional context), and of course allow for scholarly sources. - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep These are also stock characters and the term is quite common. I don't see a potential for confusion. Could be quite defining for the most stereotyped among them. Dimadick (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "most stereotyped"? How would we define that without it being interpretive WP:OR? - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  We use reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wonderful, except that we can't use sources in categories. And in looking over the category members, I'm not seeing any sources for "most stereotyped". If you wouldn't mind, would you help and point out in each article where such is currently present? - jc37 03:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No category can use sources. The issue is a generic one that would argue for the complete dismantling of the entire Wikipedia category system. The reliable sources support the description as socialites. Alansohn (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  (I have no opinion on this category, BTW) It's true that all categories lack sources, annotations, etc. But it is not true that this limitation is equally problematic for all categories, such that no possible category is less workable than any other because of that limitation. Why do you think that is so? Postdlf (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What I was responding to was Jc37's argument "Wonderful, except that we can't use sources in categories." No category can. If this is a serious argument to delete this category, one would have to explain why this Wikipedia design feature is a valid argument for deleting this particular category and not for deleting categories in their entirety. No explanation has been offered. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're not saying you don't understand generally why certain categories, but not others, may be unworkable because of that limitation of the category system, you're just saying that you haven't seen an explanation as to why those issues apply to this particular category? Postdlf (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  While I am more than happy to debate the relative merits of categories and lists, and why in almost all cases both categories AND lists should be used in compliance with WP:CLN, this is not the place for such discussions. What we are discussing here is a particular category about fictional socialites. Any and all arguments made about this category should address this particular category. If Jc37 can offer a reason for why the category system is irredeemably "unworkable" for this category, I will be more than happy to address it. The argument actually presented by Jc37, "that we can't use sources in categories" has no particular relevance to this specific category. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it might be helpful if you went back up and re-read the whole comment.

  The point is that because categories have this as a limitation, the policy on categories states that individual sources for each category member should exist in each article. See WP:CAT#Some general guidelines #7, for one example.

  So far my reasoning has been solely based upon policies/guidelines. I'm not seeing much more than "IWANTIT" and/or "opinion" about inclusion from those opposing. A big problem here seems to be concerning a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as a reliable source , and applicability of a source as "reliable" in any specific situation. - jc37 07:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RS is a bedrock foundational principle of Wikipedia and its standard that this category be supported by reliable and verifiable sources has clearly been satisfied, showing that this category organizes a strong defining characteristic for the individuals involved. You could not be any more correct about your misunderstanding about the definition of reliable sources, especially as your specific misinterpretations of this policy have been reviewed and rather strongly rebutted at WT:RS and WP:RSN. Alansohn (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Satisfied according to who? Someone calling a character a "socialite" doesn't indicate that the application of that appelation is "defining"; doesn't indicate that it's application to a certain character is "defining" to that individual character; and doesn't indicate that the term itself is defining. It only notes that "someone" applied that label to a character. And while thay may be fine to add to an article, it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CAT to base categorisation upon.

  And I believe we've discussed your "interesting" presentation to others, and subsequent "creative" interpretation of others' comments, already. - jc37 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply ignoring reliable sources showing that the term is defining doesn't make them go away. I do appreciate that you actually believe your curious interpretation that you're pushing that would allow the deliberate ignorance of reliable sources from independent and verifiable publications. I have pursued a policy clarification at both WT:RS and WP:RSN -- the folks who know reliable sources best -- that resoundingly rejects your conclusions. Do you have any support for your claims or is this just your original research? Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 28 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Delete Category:Fictional United States Democrats to List of fictional United States Democrats

Listify/Delete Category:Fictional United States Republicans to List of fictional United States Republicans

Listify/Delete Category:Fictional United States independent politicians

Per several recent similar discussions. (Including this, this and this.)

In addition, unlike the other two, the independents cat is too broad. Instead of claiming to belong to a party, the inclusion criteria is that they don't belong to one or more particular parties.

Please also take this essay into account for the closure. - jc37 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the independents cat, and Listify/Delete the other two. - jc37 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All - I see no evidence that these categories are being misused or misapplied. They're intended for characters who are characterized as such by the authors. There's no guesswork required, nothing subjective about it. PS - Being an "independent" is considering defining in US politics. Cgingold (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  According to who? And is this "US politics" that you speak of, part of the fictionalised world in which you speak? Are there any other divergences in this work of fiction or should presume that everything is "true" in relation to the "real world"?

  I'm serious. These are sincere questions we should be asking. - jc37 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can see all 3 being converted into lists since it is an easy way to require some form a cite for inclusion, the same can be done by mildly policing the cats - if "Democrat" or "Republican" can only be found in the cat section of the article, remove the cat from the article. Some things to keep in mind though:
  • The affiliation needs to be linked to the character either through the primary source or secondary critical commentary.
  • A chunk of stories where this is important revolve around a character questioning or changing their political affiliation. Given the "ever present now" of fiction, such characters would be catted as both, or all three.
  • There needs to be a crystal clear statement about whether the cats are for affiliations to political parties or for characters having "liberal" or "conservative" mindsets.

- J Greb (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to listification. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All Political party affiliation is probably the strongest defining characteristic of real politicians. Real politicians can -- and do -- change party affiliations. So to, when authors and others who create works of fiction assign a political partty affiliation, the same care and attention is lavished in assigning a party to a fictional character. The Hartford Courant "WILD `WEST WING ' LOWE, SHEEN HEAD DRAMA ABOUT LIFE INSIDE OVAL OFFICE") had no trouble labeling President Josiah Bartlet of The West Wing as "a New Hampshire Democrat". Reliable and verifiable sources are needed for all articles, but that party affiliation is a defining characteristic is clear. I strongly agree that corresponding lists should be created for all of these categories to adhere to the guidance provided by WP:CLN that lists AND categories are designed to coexist so as to allow readers to navigate using the method they prefer. There is no Wikipedia policy justification for deleting these categories and none has been offered. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's great that members of the media know how to interpret information. However, unless that member of the media is a "scholarly, authoritative, verifiable reliable" source, then it doesn't mean anything in terms of categorisation, though it makes a nice note in an article, I suppose, if relevance can be demonstrated. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and also make a list there are relatively few where it is the major or motivational feature of the character or series, but in those where it is, it's important, distinctive, and memorable. At least D & R don't have definitional ambiguities! I agree it would make a good list & would be even better that way, since it can specify the fiction. No reason not to have both. The category, as always, has the advantage of being semi-automatic. DGG (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all or Delete, in fiction, these political definitions are fluid. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – as often Jc37 seems to be struggling with esoteric difficulties that I cannot grasp. Occuli (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I suppose I could see how it's easier to grasp editorial opinion (ILikeIt, or IThinkIt'sFine, or IWANTIT) than Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how they apply to any given situation, and perhaps even how such could be seen as "esoteric". - jc37 14:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RS is a rather strong policy to hang an opinion on. What Wikipedia policy are you suggesting requires deletion of this category other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In this context, WP:IDONTLIKEIT would only apply to a contributor not liking the subject matter of a category, i.e., "fictional U.S. independent politicians"; it would not apply to a contributor not liking the format of a category for organizing a particular subject. You can argue that someone hasn't explained why they don't like a certain category, but short of categories that are about unencyclopedic subjects, CFD is about explaining why we do or don't like particular categories based on how we view their usefulness. Postdlf (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I so want to ask if you (alansohn) honestly believe that I (an inclusionist) would be wanting to delete information of any kind if it wasn't for rather clear policy? I'm a major proponent for (appropriate) usage of primary sources. (Another place where the IWANTIT crowd here seems to have failed at research.) In other words, please don't make unfounded (bad faith) accusations of other editors. This has nothing to do with what I like. - jc37 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on past experience, I could not possibly explain any of your motivations or actions, and it is clear from Occuli's comments that I am not the only one baffled by your approach to categories. I agree that this has nothing to do with what you like; The problem is that it has everything to do with what you don't like. I will assume that your claim that those advocating for retention of this category are only doing so based on "ILikeIt, or IThinkIt'sFine, or IWANTIT" as being in good faith, and hope that you will recognize that my depiction of your opposition as based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is equally in good faith. I would hope that you would recognize that the recognition from reliable and verifiable sources that this is a defining characteristic would carry some weight in your consideration of this category, and in discussions of other categories similarly supported by reliable sources, and hope that you are not treating these references as "primary sources". Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Fictional United States independent politicians as this targets what a character is or does rather than just what they might be said to believe. I'm skeptical of the other two that just go by party affiliation, however, rather than targeting politicians, as this is something that could be very trivial for most non-politician characters. Why keep those? Maybe those should be renamed to "Fictional United States [party name] politicians" and pruned accordingly. Postdlf (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like a pretty reasonable proposal to me, although I wouldn't want to exclude party activists, if there are any among the characters in these categories. I would suggest that characters like that be considered politicians even if they're not literally running for office. Cgingold (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we categorize real party activists? Postdlf (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An interesting question. Curiously, as far as I'm aware, nobody has ever thought to set up distinct categories for such individuals. I presume they're mostly to be found among the many sub-cats for people by party affiliation, with perhaps a few in the sub-cats for politicians by party affiliation -- and/or listed simply as "activists" (by nationality). Cgingold (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Fictional United States independent politicians and Rename the rest. This should be characters by career, not mentioning voting for the "Democrats" once in a decade of appearances. Dimadick (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all three lists. So long as the characters have been explicitly associated with a particular partisan affiliation, such as Alex P. Keaton or Maj. Frank Burns, I see no real basis for objection. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If it matters for purposes of consensus, I'm not opposed to listifying any of these. Postdlf (talk) 14:07, 28 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge all, rename jazz per nom and rename classical to Category:Classical music trios. Kbdank71 13:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Country music quartets to Category:Country music groups

Suggest merging Category:Country music trios to Category:Country music groups

Suggest merging Category:Country music quintets to Category:Country music groups

Suggest merging Category:Punk rock trios to Category:Punk rock groups

Suggest merging Category:Rock trios to Category:Rock music groups

Suggest merging Category:Punk rock quartets to Category:Punk rock groups

Suggest merging Category:Rock quartets to Category:Rock music groups

Suggest merging Category:Blues trios to Category:Blues musical groups

Suggest merging Category:Classical trios to Category:Classical music groups

Suggest merging Category:Country music quartets to Category:Country music groups

Suggest merging Category:Punk rock quintets to Category:Punk rock groups

Suggest renaming Category:Jazz trios to Category:Jazz music groups

Nominator's rationale: Merge all - the idea of a merger was raised once previously for a couple of these categories, Country music quartets and Country music trios. Although there was some support for merger, admin closed as no consensus to merge. With a couple of exceptions, such as String quartet and Barbershop quartet, musical groups are not defined by the number of members they happened to have at some point in their careers. There is no indication that a lead article on the topic of, for instance, Country music quartet or Punk rock trio could be written. There does not appear to be any reliable sourcing that the included groups have anything in common past the number of people who make up the group. The number of people in a musical group is not fixed. R.E.M. started off with four members and now have three. The B-52's started with five, went to four, dropped to three for a while and I believe are now back to four. Another editor mention Crosby, Stills, and Nash ( and Young) as another example. Otto4711 (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per persuasive and admirably paragraphed nom. Occuli (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't bother merging. Most of these are already in subcategories of the suggested merge targets anyway (for instance, The Oak Ridge Boys are already in Category:American country music groups, which is a subcat of Category:Country music groups). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, what do you think about the other musical groups by number, such as Category:Sextets? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say to delete those as well. For whatever reason it struck me as better to deal with the genre-specific subcats first. If the members of the nominated categories are already in another subcat within the appropriate category structure, then by all means delete them.

• WHOA! HOLD YOUR HORSES and DO NOT MERGE Category:Classical trios. I'm fine with merging the rest of them, per nom (unless someone can point out another exception like this one). However, I'm guessing that this category's inclusion was a simple oversight. In any event, the Classical music trio is a very specific type of performing group, with a very specific repertoire. (Like Category:String quartets, it's a sub-cat of Category:Chamber music groups.) I guarantee you that any of the other members of WikiProject Classical music would endorse what I've just said. So please remove Category:Classical trios from the list, Otto. Thanks in advance! Cgingold (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note asking for input (on the other cats) from WikiProject Music. Cgingold (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete all except for Category:Classical trios and Category:Jazz trios, as the size of these seems to be meaningful and stable. Postdlf (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is there a repertoire written specifically for Jazz trios, comparable to the repertoire for Classical trios? Cgingold (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno; consider me agnostic as to that category. Postdlf (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep classical (since they are only able to play a limited repetoire, suitable for the group). Neutral on jazz (not my scene). Merge the rest, as the number of performers does not govern what they can play. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if retained, the classical category should be renamed to Category:Classical music trios. Otto4711 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support this. Cgingold (talk) 12:36, 24 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Places by United States insular area to Category:National Register of Historic Places by United States insular area

Nominator's rationale: The "Registered Historic Places" locution has been determined to be a Wikipedia invention, and after lengthy discussion on naming, articles are being renamed to reflect the correct term "National Register of Historic Places". Categories also need to be renamed. This particular rename was proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of names for geographic categories and supported by all who commented on it. Orlady (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator.--Appraiser (talk) 14:37, 20 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Places in Alabama to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama (also rename all similar categories with names in the form "Registered Historic Places in...")

Nominator's rationale: Same template also applies to numerous similarly named categories for the other U.S. states, individual insular areas such as Puerto Rico, many individual counties, and some U.S. cities. As noted above, the "Registered Historic Places" locution has been determined to be a Wikipedia invention, and after lengthy discussion on naming, articles are being renamed to reflect the correct term "National Register of Historic Places". Categories also need to be renamed. This particular rename was proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of names for geographic categories and supported by all who commented on it. Orlady (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the proposed form grammatically correct? NPS uses the term "properties" on its website; perhaps Category:National Register of Historic Places properties in Alabama or Category:Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Alabama or Category:Places in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places ought to be considered. -choster (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The short answer is that since the category is for any and all Alabama-specific articles about any aspect of the National Register of Historic Places, it is correct to call it simply "National Register of Historic Places in Alabama". For the long answer, I refer you to the many weeks of discussion that occurred regarding the issue of what to name articles that consist of lists of properties on the NRHP, mostly in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Naming discussion for "List of Registered Historic Places in ..." and the earlier discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I did not see the link to that discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Discussion of names for geographic categories. I get it now— (The) National Register of Historic Places in Alabama as a singular register, not as a collective of places. Still, I wish there were a better way. -choster (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original proposal — it makes sense, for example, to have Category:Registered Historic Places in Ohio by county as a subcategory of the entire Ohio category, which Choster's proposal might not fit as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Appraiser (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a name change, as I've long wondered about why this category is using what I call Capitals of Great Metaphorical Significance--in other words, I think it should simply be Category:Registered historic places in Oregon, etc. but I think having the full name of the org. in the cat makes sense. I'll defer to the long discussion at the NRHP wikiproject, however, as I have no desire to read it. Katr67 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior."[3] To uncapitalize it would be disassociating it from the U.S. Government program. In contrast, our intent is to create encyclopedia entries documenting the properties on the official list. Hence, capitalizing each word is appropriate.--Appraiser (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Katr67's point is that "registered historic place" is not official terminology and should not have been treated as if it were a proper name. Additionally, I've concluded that it's not even valid as a generic term, since the properties on the National Register are not "registered" there but rather are "listed," and some listed properties are not exactly "places." Regardless, as Appraiser points out, the term in the new name is a proper name and an official term. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. "Registered Historic Place" capitalized or not, should never have been used, but "National Register of Historic Places" should always be written using capitals for each word.--Appraiser (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I see a problem. Articles/sub cats within these cats listed here for change are not all about 'National Register of Historic Places'; where are those articles going to go? Someone needs to set up a parallel category structure for them? Hmains (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? Can you be specific? (It appears to me that the contents of these categories are articles about the National Register of Historic Places and/or properties and historic districts on the National Register, but you may be looking at something I missed.) --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 23 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Converts from Judaism to Former adherents of Judaism

Nominator's rationale: It should be moved to this title in order to include the Jewish atheists category. At first this category was named "People who renounced Judaism" but there were arguments saying that a person cannot "renounce" Judaism according to Jewish texts. This title should be OK because "adherent" usually refers to someone practicing something; people can always stop adhering to Judaism even if they remain, by Jewish Law, Jewish.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - It should be noted that this category had a previous "no consensus" CFD for the very same proposed name. Prior to that Category:People who renounced Judaism was deleted pursuant to this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - On the suggestion that the proposed name would allow inclusion of Category:Jewish atheists, I have to disagree, because it's not the case that all such individuals were formerly "adherents of Judaism". In many cases, they were never religious to begin with. Cgingold (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep the current name is a perfectly good description of what the category contains; no reason to change it and certainly no reason to delete it. Hmains (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As noted somewhat by Cgingold, this proposal gets too close to the Who is a Jew? question — with most religions, this would be easier, but as the traditional idea of being Jewish doesn't require that one be religiously active, the current title is more NPOV and potentially less confusing. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK, I agree that the current title is less than perfect, with the point made that one's status as a Jew under Jewish law need not change because one converted to another religion. What we're really looking for is Category:People who were identifiably Jewish at one time who have since adopted other religions and no longer consider themselves Jewish, but that's probably a bit on the long-winded side. The proposed title Category:Former adherents of Judaism doesn't capture the nuance of the adoption of an alternative religion that the current title uses, and also would include individuals who no longer adhere to Judaism even without accepting another religion. The new proposed title would also exclude people who were identifiably ethnically Jewish but had no adherence to their "former" faith before adopting another. While the current title is admittedly imperfect, it does most concisely summarize the "was a Jew, now is something else" essence that the category seems to be trying to capture. Alansohn (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Jews converting to Christianity often describe themselves as Messianic Jews (see eg Jews for Jesus). They can properly be described as converts from Judaism, but they are not "former Jews", which is what the nom would seek to imply. This is a case where we will probably never find a perfect solution; so leave it alone. The proposal would apply an unwelcome POV to articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 22 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War albums to Category:War (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: These categories are worded so that users could very easily think that this category represents albums about the concept of war, not the band named War. I also nominate the following category because of the same rationale:

• Category:War songs to Category:War (band) songs

Xnux the Echidna 01:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was just reading about how The World Is a Ghetto and was thinking exactly the same thing when I noticed the category. — CharlotteWebb 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both per nom and to match War (band). Occuli (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I generally dislike qualifiers in category names, except in cases where the act's name might cause confusion (for instance, I doubt anyone would think that Cream the Rabbit or User:Cream had performed any of the albums in Category:Cream albums, so that one can stay). But this is a case where a qualifier is needed, in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• By all means, rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. The present title suggests albums about war not albums by "War" (band). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes the category more specific. Martarius (talk) 14:51, 23 October 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.