< October 25	October 27 >

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:  Relisted at 2008 NOV 10. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kid Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow, consists only of singer, discography, albums and songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I don't mean this to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, in looking over Category:Categories named after musicians, you've just described nearly every category I randomly looked at. And there were some which don't even have that many. So is the intention to delete every example? Or just singling this one out? I ask also because according to WP:OC#SMALL, it doesn't apply to a "scheme", and this could conceivably fall under that description. - jc37 09:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per any number of precedents and prior discussions. No indication that the compromise/consensus that led to several hundred of these categories being deleted over the past couple of years has changed. When most of these eponymous musician categories come to CFD they end up deleted because there is simply not the material to warrant it. Anyone interested in Kid Rock is going to start at Kid Rock and from there can access any of dozens of links throughout the article to get to a complete discography article, links to singles, films, tours, etc. Category does not function as a navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If not for navigation, what do you see categories for? - jc37 12:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I make no general statement about the role or function of categories. My remarks are regarding this particular category and others substantially identical to it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 29 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. The broader issue raised by jc37 remains an open issue, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Cities in Mexico by topic to Category:Categories by city in Mexico
• Category:Categories by city of India to Category:Categories by city in India
• Category:Categories by city of Norway to Category:Categories by city in Norway
• Category:Poland categories by city to Category:Categories by city in Poland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Trying to standardize the subcategories in Category:Categories by country and city. --Eliyak T·C 14:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm wondering why these (plus Category:Categories by city in the United States and Category:Categories by city in Canada) are the only examples of city and country. When the rest of the subcats of Category:Categories by country and city break down into subtopics rather than directly "by country". (And for that matter, Category:Categories by city seems rather a mess navigation-wise.) I understand a want for standardisation, but perhaps we should be discussing the potential larger issues. - jc37 09:30, 29 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports by country to Category:Sport by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would follow the wording of the vast majority of the subcategories here. Mainly, though, my motivation is to split this large category, leaving the numerous "Fooball by country" categories (also currently found here) where they are. If renamed, this category would be also be aligned with Category:Sport by continent and Category:Sport by city, which serve a similar function. --Eliyak T·C 14:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, per nearly all subcats of Category:Sports by country. Occuli (talk) 13:25, 29 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. I've moved Woodward and Bernstein into Category:Watergate figures. Whether the others are also added to that category can be determined case-by-case via experimentation and/or on the article talk pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Watergate journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete and upmerge articles (as needed) to appropriate parent cats. - This category is at once both too narrow and too broad. Too narrow because it specifies a single event/subject of fairly limited scope. Too broad because there were undoubtedly hundreds of journalists who reported on the Watergate scandal on a fairly regular basis once it got rolling. From a larger perspective, it would be absurd to start categorizing journalists on the basis of the particular events/issues that they may have covered at various points in their careers. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed. It is absurd to categorize journalists on the basis of one single event that they may have covered at various points in their careers. AdjustShift (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Watergate figures); notice, categories for historical events are widespread: Category:Dreyfus affair, Category:Lewinsky scandal, but Category:Ancient Roman generals, Category:Continental Army generals what generals and not journalists? Pohick2 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Upmerge As a sub of both Category:Watergate figures and Category:Washington Post people it makes sense, although one would not want many of these sort of cats. Maybe rename to include paper's name. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Watergate figures. I hardly think it absurd to categorize Woodward, Bernstein and other Washington Post figures as being associated with the Watergate, but the nominator's emphasis on the WP:OC#Narrow is most convincing. While this category may not be justified, an upmerge would ensure that these individuals are associated with the incident and its reprecussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge Bernstein and Woodward, for whom Watergate was career-making. Graham, Simons, and Rosenfeld's notability is not dependent on their association with the scandal; their relation could apparently summarized as "was in a position of authority at the Washington Post during Watergate," which is hardly a precedent we want to set for newspaper editors or publishers during other major historical events.-choster (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify if wanted. This shouldn't be a category. And I agree with the "redistribution" as noted by User:Choster above. - jc37 09:30, 29 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 to Category:Transport in Thailand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation in Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to match article Transport in Thailand. Other Thailand-related titles tend to favor the U.K. usage e.g. they use "sport" as a plural (or collective noun or whatever). — CharlotteWebb 13:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to reflect common usage in Thailand. --Eliyak T·C 14:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match Transport in Thailand. AdjustShift (talk) 19:50, 27 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 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parents who killed their children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This intersection between parents and killers seems to be somewhat arbitrary - there doesn't seem to be a category for children killing their parents, or people killing their siblings, or the like. The category seems to promote the point of view that there's something particularly bad about parents in particular killing their children, which may be problematic from a BLP perspective. (I created the deleted category fictional parents who killed their children, but this is not intended as trying to prove a point) Andjam (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree with the suggestion that this category is arbitrary. To the contrary, killing one's child is widely (I dare say universally) regarded as a particularly egregious act. And I certainly don't see any BLP issues here. Beyond that, I will simply note that in its previous incarnations, there were two | CFDs for this category that adjusted the name slightly -- but not one editor called for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without wanting to engage in cultural relativism, "universally" would be a bit optimistic - check out Infanticide#Present_day (a subset of killing one's children) or Honor killing for examples of it being seen as less bad than other killings by certain societies. Andjam (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think people who killed their children would be considered notable for doing so. --Eliyak T·C 14:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The act of killing children in general is considered pretty horrific by most cultures. The murder of one's own children goes off the scale as an act of violence. I cannot think of a stronger defining characteristic that would be used to describe the individuals in this category other than as parents who killed their children, and for almost all of the articles I have reviewed in this category, the fact that the parent killed their child is the individual's primary (if not sole) claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think Alansohn is probably right that this is usually strongly defining for people included in the category. Murderers or those who kill are often subdivided by the identity of the victim. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The cat is not arbitrary. The act of killing children should be considered a notable act. AdjustShift (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that all the "I think" and "should be" comments above might as well have not bothered, since they will be ignored by a closer, since Wikipedia editor opinion, especially in the case of WP:BLP articles is irrelevant to the discussion. Editor opinion is only relevant for issues of style (presentation), not substance (content). Also, I'm not finding a related article. Which means no listed sources. Which means no category. - jc37 11:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Take a look at Infanticide, or even more relevantly, Child killing. You may want to reconsider your position. If your genuine concern is about WP:BLP issues, those should be addressed at the particular articles. Alansohn (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Good pages, thank you.

  First, these don't change my comments directly above. Everything I said is still accurate. If there are no sources, then no category should exist.

  In looking over the two articles, I note two things. Child killing seems to indicate sources for family members as a "group", but not parents specifically. So if kept, this cat should probably be repurposed based upon that article.

  Second, Infanticide indicates how incredibly complex this is, particularly since it's not necessarily considered a "crime" everywhere, and there are a lot of extenuating circumstances, especially based on culture, and noting that this is something that has changed depending on the time period. As such, this seems to violate an "international view", and WP:BLP. I think it may be entirely inappropriate to group such individuals of diverse circumstances in a single category. - jc37 11:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked through many of these articles and am only more convinced of the need for this category. While I do agree that there are varying levels of revulsion, and that there are some parts of the world where it may be more common, the unique character of the murder of one's own children is still rather unique. Murder rates differ sharply across the world, and even in the U.S. rates have been higher in certain cities like Washington or Detroit, but that does not negate the existence of Category:Americans convicted of murder, nor would the fact that honor killing occurs far too frequently and is rarely prosecuted negate categorization of murderers in their entirety. Sure there is Category:American murderers of children, but it seems hard to justify mixing Susan Smith with the person who killed Jennifer Hudson's seven-year-old nephew in the same category. While both killed children, the quality of a parent killing a child is uniquely defining. Murder is murder, regardless of the fact that it's no big deal in some parts of the world. Murder of a child is even more strongly defining a characteristic and -- other than historical figures who lived at a time when killing prospective heirs seems have become something of a hobby for some people -- the individuals so defined in this category are almost always defined solely by this fact. I would consider renaming the category to "Category:Parents who murdered their children" to address some of the issues related to intentionality of the act. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  First, I just want to clarify that the current name of this category reflects the outcome of two previous CFDs (linked to in my first comment). In its original incarnation the word "murdered" was used, but that was dropped in favor of "killed" because there were a number of articles about cases that weren't legally considered to be murders. As for the supposed WP:BLP concerns, I think jc is way off base. The category is for articles about people who have indisputably killed their own children -- acts of homicide, to use the generic term -- so I don't see even the remotest hint of defamation as long as the facts supporting use of this category are spelled out in the article. Cgingold (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry that I missed it earlier, but the article Filicide provides a more in-depth view of the act of killing one's children. Other than Manasseh of Judah, Ivan IV of Russia and a few mass murderers, the overwhelming majority of the 68 other articles in the category are for people whose sole claim to notability is the murder of their children, such as Robert Latimer, Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 29 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 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brights to Category:Brights movement members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and obscure. Another option would be deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify with care. I came across this category recently, and immediately wondered if it really serves well as a category, so I made note of it so I could come back and give it further thought. Having now done so, I've concluded that it's probably not a "bright idea" for a category. To begin with, we generally avoid the use of neologisms in category names. While the term is currently fashionable in certain circles, it may fall out of favor -- and it's not uncontroversial. In fact, use of the term has been criticized (and rejected) by a number of people who share the very attributes that it's meant to allude to -- one of whom (Michael Shermer) has been wrongly included in this category. So all in all, I would rather see this subject dealt with in list form -- perhaps by expanding the short list that's already part of the main article. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• REname eper nom -- if it is retained. I have no strong view as to retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Brights movement members. The cat shouldn't be deleted because there are growing numbers of brights. Renaming the cat will clarify that people in the cat are associated with the Brights movement. AdjustShift (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note that there may also be WP:BLP issues here and that for the few articles I looked at, this category should be removed since the article text clearly does not support them being members. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sure, we need to have reliable sources for those so described. However, the proposed renamed titles only obscure the term that has been chosen. We have Category:Roman Catholics and Category:Jews, not Category:Roman Catholic movement members and Category:Jewish movement members. Daniel Dennett has described himself as a Bright, and The Weekly Standard stated that "By coming out of the closet as a bright, Dennett aims to inspire atheists across the country to follow suit..." (see here). The Sacramento Bee (in here) had no trouble stating in 2003 that "Last month, Nobel Prize winner Richard Dawkins began referring to himself as a bright. So has Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller." This is not a neologism; this is an accepted term that individuals are using to describe themselves, and the media has had no difficulty establishing that this is not only a strong defining characteristic. If anything "Brights movement members" implies a degree of organization and some sort of membership process that simply doesn't exist. Furthermore, the only people who are brights are people who have publicly self-identified as such. There are huge numbers of Roman Catholics or Jews whose faith derives solely from their parents; there is no one who is a bright by birth. The numerous reliable and verifiable sources for the term supports its retention as a category and the use of the term as the title for the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Pure Wikipedia:OCAT#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. There is no such formal organisation. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why should this category be deleted in light of Category:Atheists or Category:Agnostics? Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In contrast to the very recently contrived new usage/meaning of "bright", both of those are long-established terms. Fundamental distinction. However, if Wikipedia is still going strong in 25 years and "Bright" has proven that it isn't merely a passing fancy, we can revisit this discussion -- and I will be happy to support this category. :) In the mean time, I think it's better off being dealt with in a List. Cgingold (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The justification offered here of Wikipedia:OCAT#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue would apply to all people by religion and non-religion categories, without any explanation of why deletion is only appropriate for Brights. Is there any policy support for this distinction? Is there a 25-year test that exists anywhere as a matter of policy? If the sources can establish a list, why can't they establish a category? Alansohn (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belonging to a religion is hardly an "opinion", and by long-established concensus Atheists and agnostics are treated, in effect, as religions for this purpose. But we don't want to start "atheist denominations" thank you. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 30 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.} 08:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cire perdue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: In article space, Cire perdue is another name for (and redirects to) lost-wax casting. However, the category has not been populated with any articles related to the process, only with a single artist. It appears to have been created solely for advertising. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sez the nominator. Stepheng3 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation for a category of objects made by the process, say. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SMALL, I don't think the cat will have more articles. AdjustShift (talk) 20:12, 27 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; most everyone seems open to some sort of repurposing or restructuring of the category. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a clear consensus for using this only as a parent category, but it seems to be trending that way, and I suggest it be tried out and we see how that goes. If doing so is unsuccessful or it somehow doesn't work out, feel free to re-nominate to try to gain a clear consensus for this approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional businesspeople

This cat technically can include most every member of the subcats of Category:Fictional characters by occupation.

I'm not opposed to a rename if someone can come up with a way to make it clear that this is only for "big business" ("the suits"), though I'll admit that even that would seem vague, as that would vary by industry.

And I'm not opposed to listification for similar reasons, though it may turn into a rather sprawling list. - jc37 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While it's true that this category encompasses a fairly wide range of characters, that's also true of its real-world counterpart, Category:Businesspeople. But it's nowhere near as all-encompassing as your opening comment suggests, jc -- certainly no more so than Category:Businesspeople is construed to include "most every member of the subcats" of Category:People by occupation.

  Having said that, I would agree that, wherever possible, it would be very useful to move articles into better defined sub-categories. With that in mind, I went through Category:Fictional characters by occupation and added half a dozen of those sub-cats to Category:Fictional businesspeople (and there's probably a few others that could be added, as well.) In addition, how about creating Category:Fictional business owners and Category:Fictional business/corporate executives (pick one).

  Why you would suggest that it should be restricted to "big business" is a complete mystery. In any event, I don't see how "big business" could work in a category name, given the inherent difficulty in defining that term. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  When you added all those subcats, why did you ignore the others? Category:Fictional junk dealers would seem to be appropriate. As would Category:Fictional alchemists. As a matter of fact, nearly every subcat of Category:Fictional characters by occupation would seem to qualify for subcatting. The exceptions being (perhaps) those in the arts or the sciences. (Though those too have become business in some cases.) Lifeguards aren't in business? Maids aren't in business? Those in the service industry are just as much in a business as those providing products. Perhaps you and the others commenting here should yourselves actually take a look at Category:Businesspeople. It actually supports the nomination. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

  [ahem] "why did you ignore the others?" 'Scuse me, jc, but I can't help thinking that perhaps you should yourself actually take a look at what I said: "I went through Category:Fictional characters by occupation and added half a dozen of those sub-cats to Category:Fictional businesspeople (and there's probably a few others that could be added, as well.)" Category:Fictional junk dealers sounds pretty good to me -- but "alchemists"?? Nah, I don't think so. Cgingold (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that nearly every cat could be a subcat. More than just a "few", which you suggest. And why is the business of the local alchemist any less of a business than the local chemist or the local pharmacist? Fiction isn't limited to the modern era/current time period. - jc37 10:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're missing, jc, is that it's quite possible to be an alchemist (or a chemist, or a pharmacist) without necessarily being in business as such -- in fact, in most cases and in most lines of work, the business end of things is handled by other people (owners, executives, etc.). So it would be completely erroneous to make the assumption that all of the individuals in sub-cats by occupation are, in fact, "businesspeople". Cgingold (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, so you're suggesting that the membership may pursue the "occupation" in different ways? As I already mentioned, those in the arts and sciences may or may not pursue their "occupations" as "business". However, that's in no way clear in the categories. How would one know if a particular category member pursued their ossupation as a business? And aren't we hindering navigation by not having those who do under businesspeople? Sounds like a need for explanations, clarifications/curcumstances, and in particular sources, describing such. Which means (as you might expect), that this should be a list and not a category. - jc37 12:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry jc, but your analysis is backwards, or upside down... or perhaps I mean inside out. In any event, what really matters is that a pharmacist can fill prescriptions regardless of whether s/he owns the pharmacy -- or just works there as an employee. If s/he also owns the pharmacy, then s/he is also a "businessperson" -- in addition to being a pharmacist. Cgingold (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  While someone can indeed be in the arts and sciences whithout being in "business", they can also be so. And I presume that if someone receives anything (remuneration, barter, etc.) then they're in "business". Providing a service and being paid for it means you're in business, regardless of whether you own an establishment where the business takes place, and regardless of what agreements may be between those doing business (such as employer/employee). "Businesspeople" simply has the potential to directly duplicate "by occupations". It's a rather broad overlap, with minimal exceptions. - jc37 06:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In what sense does Category:Businesspeople support the nomination? It doesn't contain all the subcategories of Category:People by occupation. —Paul A (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say it does. I was merely showing how it has the same potential to do so. See, for example, Category:Fashion designers, Category:Arms traders, Category:Auctioneers, just for a few examples. And the businesspeople-named subcats are even worse. They merely group people by an industry. So, as a term, "businesspeople" itself is poor in that it's simply vague in application and potentially too broad in scope.

  So perhaps it and its subcats should be merged/renamed. Either renamed/repurposed to people by industry, or into people by occupation.

  And incidentally, this shows (again) why the fictional one (the one currently under discussion) should be deleted or at least renamed/repurposed/merged. - jc37 07:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a perfectly appropriate parent category for the various fictional profession categories that we have already agreed are notable. The issue of moving the articles contained herein to subcategories can be addressed after this CfD closes. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The subcategories are only there because Cgingold just moved them there. See my comments above. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for the nominator: Do you also intend to nominate Category:Businesspeople for deletion, and if not, why not? —Paul A (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That category would appear to be intended as a Parent category. And as I recall (I'll have to find the discussions), it's name (or rough synonyms) have been nominated for various discussions in the past. As it stands now, it should probably be depopulated, and possibly renamed for clarity. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – if Category:Businesspeople is OK, so is Category:Fictional businesspeople. (This is not 'otherStuffExists', but 'almostIdenticalStuffExists'.) Occuli (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We have Category:Businesspeople, so what's wrong with having Category:Fictional businesspeople? AdjustShift (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, as parent only - when you have Darkseid categorized as a "fictional businessperson" the category is out of control in its vagueness. Keep this as a parent category only for its subcats and clear out and/or recategorize the articles more specifically. If this compromise doesn't attain consensus then consider this an opinion for deletion. As an aside, the fact that we have a category for real businesspeople in no way obligates us to have this category, much less bears any relevance to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my suggestions (above) for new sub-cats? And assuming you support those, are there any others you might suggest along the same lines? Cgingold (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Usefull parent category. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 30 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. While the strongest argument comes from otto in his not every character trait deserves a category redlink, some of the people who want to keep, namely johnbod, bring up some valid points. Kbdank71 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional market stallholders

This is potentially a category for "anyone". Note also that there is no article for "market stall".

That said, I could see how this could possibly be useful information for an article if sourced and shown to be "notable" or "defining" concerning the characters in question. - jc37 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – hardly anyone in fiction (outside East Enders) or in real life can be aptly described as a 'market stallholder', so the nom is, as often, baffling. Occuli (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I can think of quite a few characters who have been involved in flea markets, bazaars, or other types of marketplaces. But renting a booth or table to sell wares wouldn't seem to be any more "notable" than a character having a garage sale. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not? - market stall has been there since Jan 2007. Don't understand nom at all - "anyone"?? Why? There must in fact be plenty such fictional characters. I don't understand Occuli's comment either - market stalls have been around globally for thousands of years. At least one of the regular characters in the The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency novels is one, though he doesn't have an article yet. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  When I did the search for "market stall" I accidentally typoed, and so didn't find the article. (Which I'll note has been tagged for merging for some time, until you removed the tag.)

  As for the rest, see my response to Occuli above. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fail to see how this is defining for a real person. Clearly this is the type of category that would require constant maintenance and the criteria for inclusion would be subjective and POV. How long would someone need to to be a stall holder to be included? If the owning character did this for a single episode, should they be listed in this category? If a comic character did this in one panel would they be included? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly the same arguments apply to nearly all occupational categories, real or fictional. Why would this be hard to maintain? That a person's occupation is not defining is a new argument to me, and an unconvincing one. Is this an American regional thing? In most parts of the world (& I think the larger US cities) this is, or can be, a full time job that can easily be a lifetime occupation. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The key word for me in your statement is 'can'. As I pointed out above the degree of involvement becomes important. Are you suggesting that a comic strip character in a single panel should be included here? Does the character who owns a hot dog cart get to be listed or the character that operates the cart? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No job must be a lifelong occupation. Why would we have an article on such a comics character? Would they be notable? I would say you have to put in some time selling yourself, but I'm not aware this is a real issue. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Simple request: Do you have sources showing that this particular occupation is defining for a fictional character in general, and further do you have sources which indicate that this occupation is "defining" for each individual member of the category?

  If not, the onus isn't on Vegaswikian to "sell this", since no sources = no categorisation, per WP:CAT. Merely noting that a character had such a market stall simply doesn't indicate notability. And since you seem interested in "defining characteristics" and "notability", let's see some sources which exemplify your belief. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll refer you to the articles on this. I see you have removed the blatently erroneous part of your nom, but you have still not explained the rest of it, despite requests from me and others, who can't understand it at all. What exactly remains of your nom now? Since there seem to be no reasons for it, it should be withdrawn. "Merely noting that a character had such a market stall simply doesn't indicate notability" - shows great confusion. The members are notable, the job is defining. Many sources to the articles use terms like "market-trader Foo", which is quite enough to source defining-ness - see below for some examples. I think this is all a case of cross-cultural ignorance, frankly. If you think that there is a case that being a market stallholder is somehow different from other occupations we categorize on, then you need to start making it, which so far you have not attempted to do at all. All these silly arguments could far more easily be applied to the hairdressers and barbers below, since many more people have cut someones hair at some point in their lives than had a market stall. There is no objection to adding a note saying it should have been a regular occupation etc to the category. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  John, based on past experience of discussions with you, I will honestly say that there have been times in which it's been rather hard to tell whether you sincerely don't understand what someone is saying, or if you're merely using a debate technique of feigned misunderstanding in an attempt at obfuscation.

  I say this merely because I honestly am weary of re-explaining what seems rather clearly obvious to me regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to those who seem to be ignoring the explanation based on personal preference, due to it possibly seeming "easier" for them to claim to not understand, than to accept that something they may want is contrary to policy/guidelines.

  That said, there are those who have exemplified far worse "bad faith" than you (indeed, you can be quite civil in discussion), and I have re-attempted to explain to them despite crystal clear evidence of bad faith. So there's little reason to not to try again with you.

  And besides, it could simply be my fault in not explaining clearly enough.

  Let me try to think of a way to re-convey, and I'll respond shortly. - jc37 06:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As it stands your nomination reads "This is potentially a category for "anyone". That said, I could see how this could possibly be useful information for an article if sourced and shown to be "notable" or "defining" concerning the characters in question." Do you really think that presents an adequate rationale for deletion?? Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've started writing what is essentially a presentation on sources and the applicable uses thereof, of type, content, coverage, scope, etc. But it's become so lengthy that I'm holding off posting it for a bit.

  In direct response to your most recent question:

  1.) Potentially all-inclusive categories should be deleted, as they in no way are a help to navigation.

  2.) Contextual information concerning each member can be presented in articlespace, but not in category space (per WP:CAT and WP:CLN). And when the sources involved are merely statements which happen to apply a certain label, or to suggest membership in a certain group (etc.), then that's not enough for category inclusion (per WP:RS and WP:CAT), but it's enough for a note in an article, with clarifying contextual information (also per WP:RS. This is just as true of WP:BLP articles as fictional characters.

  3.) In this case, we also have the issue of whether being a market stall merchant is "defining" or "notable" for the characters. And whether being such a merchant is "notable" or "defining" at all. As Otto has noted, if at all, it would appear to only be in the case of characters from one particular series, and so it would be duplicative of that series' category of characters. The point of categories being navigation, not: let's see how many categories we can place at the bottom of a page.

  So the short answer is: yes. I believe that that is enough of a rationale for deletion, noting that by such a concise nom, I'm presuming that those commenting here are knowledgeable enough about policy/guidelines to understand what I'm saying. Though there is nothing wrong with a good faith request to clarify. Which is what I'm presuming now, and this is the clarafication.

  If you still do not understand the nomination, please feel free to ask. - jc37 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article on market stalls does exist after all. The official BBC EastEnders site describes Mark Fowler as a "Fruit and veg stall holder" by occupation, describes Pete Beale (see here) as "a good man, happy running the family fruit and veg stall", among other characters on the show described as stall owners / operators. As the BBC is the creator of the program, that would make the source undeniably accurate. The argument that someone who owns a market stall as their place of business is equivalent to anyone who has run a garage sale on a one-time basis is specious. Does anyone who played Doctor at some point in their life belong in Category:Physicians? If there is a genuine concern about the accuracy of specific entries, than that should be addressed at the individual article, and would be an unacceptable rationalization for deletion of the entire category. My main hesitation is that for all of the entries in this category it does not seem to go far beyond characters in EastEnders, and the more genuine issue would appear to be WP:OC#Narrow. While I do agree that the characteristic is defining, I would want to see more of an indication that the category is broader than this one program. I will modify my vote either way based on any additional information. Alansohn (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if for no other reason to stem the ever-rising tide of EastEnders cruft. While I'm as enthusiastic as the next fellow to have lengthy plot-bloated articles on every storyline and character from every British soap opera, at some point enough is enough. Given the, shall we say, rabidness of EastEnders fans I have no doubt that these characters are all in one or more EastEnders characters categories already so I doubt there's a need to merge. Otto4711 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Sounds rather like WP:IMNOTENTIRELYSUREICAREFORTHIS to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more like WP:EVERYLITTLETHINGABOUTEVERYLITTLECHARACTERDOESNTNEEDSITSOWNCATEGORYEVENIFWEAREREALLYBIGFANSOFTHESHOW. Oh damn, no one's written a pithy essay about that one yet. Otto4711 (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Category seems to reflect fictional treatments of common realities and has a scope for expansion. I am not certain how defining the occupation would be in this case. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 30 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 Category:Fictional barbers and hairdressers to Category:Fictional hairdressers; no consensus on what to do with Category:Fictional beauticians. Since the suggestion to listify didn't get much response and was not the initial proposal, a new nomination suggesting listification of either or both is not precluded by this close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename Category:Fictional barbers and hairdressers and Category:Fictional beauticians to Category Fictional barbers and beauticians

The two cats have too much overlap. I'll note that Beautician redirects to Cosmotology, so I won't necessarily oppose a rename to include/substitute the word "cosmotologists", except that I'm not sure that every beautician might call themself that, or be called that in the work of fiction.

So looking for a target name to be whatever name that is accurate, while minimising WP:OR in ascribing an inaccurate label to a fictional character. - jc37 05:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Rename to "something", as nominator. - jc37 05:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – we appear to be in Category:Personal care and service occupations where there is Category:Hairdressers but no Category:Barbers, Category:Beauticians or Category:Cosmotologists. I would suggest renaming Category:Fictional barbers and hairdressers to Category:Fictional hairdressers. I would have thought beautician and hairdresser were distinct occupations so would be inclined to leave the 2nd one. Occuli (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Further comment. 'Beautician' is perhaps a UK term (most of the occupants of the category are UK soap characters); a beautician would leave one's hair well alone. Cosmotology (not a UK term AFAIK) includes hair and the body; the 'beauty therapist' section might be the best match for 'beautician'. Occuli (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  AFAIK, "beautician" is used in more than just the UK. Often in reference to someone in a Beauty salon.

  And we have articles such as Geo. F Trumper, so it's possible that we just don't have a category for such (yet).

  So if we're going to have the cat, we should probably be more inclusive, while attempting to be precise.

  All of that aside, while the "local barber" could be considered almost a "stock character", the "beautician" would seem to be used somewhat differently in fiction. So perhaps the two concepts themselves should be discussed separately?

  That said, My even saying that is (of course) my opinion, and so would be WP:OR. So it looks like we need sources indicating how these occupations are defining in fiction, and then sources for each member showing how the occupation in question is "defining" for each individual character. - jc37 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In further thinking about this, with as confusing as the terms can be, perhaps these should simply be lists. It would allow for sources, and an explanation of why each term should be applied to each character. - jc37 01:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/Merge to Category:Fictional hairdressers to correspond to the real-world Category:Hairdressers (or the combined Category:Fictional hairdressers and beauticians). The term Hairdresser redirects to Barber, which I think is too narrow a title for a category. Arguments could be made to use the term Hairdresser, Hairstylist or Barber (or Beautician or Cosmetologist), all of which have flaws, but I think "Hairdresser" probably has the fewest issues and corresponds to the existing real-life category. I am a bit more agnostic on the Beautician or Cosmetologist issue and would appreciate any input, but I would consider leaving that category as is. Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 29 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.