< September 8	September 10 >

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 - jc37 01:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spore(2008 Video game) to Category:Spore

Nominator's rationale: Corrects naming conventions and covers all entries in the Spore game series. Misterkillboy (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as eponymous overcategorisation for a video game - the material is adequately interlinked via the main article. If there is no consensus to delete, then rename to Category:Spore (2008 video game) (to fix capitalisation and spacing in order to avoid confusion with the primary meaning of "spore". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because Development of Spore wouold become uncategorized if this is deleted. Rename per Black Falcon. If an appropriate parent category can be located for the aforementioned article, then recategorize it and delete. Otto4711 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had failed to notice that. Perhaps the article could be housed in Category:History of video games or Category:Video game development? (Then again, those categories do not seem to be intended for individual games.) If neither of those fit, and no other category can be located, then keeping and renaming would seem to be the best course of action. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of video games seems reasonable, containing as it does such articles as History of Microsoft Flight Simulator which by any other name is a "development" article. So I suggest parenting Development of Spore there and am changing my opinion to delete. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 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 - jc37 01:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sailboat racers to Category:Yacht racers

Category:American sailboat racers to Category:American yacht racers

Category:Argentine sailboat racers to Category:Argentine yacht racers

Category:Australian sailboat racers to Category:Australian yacht racers

Category:Austrian sailboat racers to Category:Austrian yacht racers

Category:Belgian sailboat racers to Category:Belgian yacht racers

Category:Brazilian sailboat racers to Category:Brazilian yacht racers

Category:British sailboat racers to Category:British yacht racers

Category:Canadian sailboat racers to Category:Canadian yacht racers

Category:Chinese sailboat racers to Category:Chinese yacht racers

Category:Danish sailboat racers to Category:Danish yacht racers

Category:Dutch Antillean sailboat racers to Category:Dutch Antillean yacht racers

Category:Dutch sailboat racers to Category:Dutch yacht racers

Category:English sailboat racers to Category:English yacht racers

Category:Estonian sailboat racers to Category:Estonian yacht racers

Category:Finnish sailboat racers to Category:Finnish yacht racers

Category:French sailboat racers to Category:French yacht racers

Category:German sailboat racers to Category:German yacht racers

Category:Greek sailboat racers to Category:Greek yacht racers

Category:Hong Kong sailboat racers to Category:Hong Kong yacht racers

Category:Indian sailboat racers to Category:Indian yacht racers

Category:Indonesian sailboat racers to Category:Indonesian yacht racers

Category:Irish sailboat racers to Category:Irish yacht racers

Category:Israeli sailboat racers to Category:Israeli yacht racers

Category:Italian sailboat racers to Category:Italian yacht racers

Category:Lithaunian sailboat racers to Category:Lithuanian yacht racers

Category:New Zealand sailboat racers to Category:New Zealand yacht racers

Category:Norwegian sailboat racers to Category:Norwegian yacht racers

Category:Polish sailboat racers to Category:Polish yacht racers

Category:Portuguese sailboat racers to Category:Portuguese yacht racers

Category:Puerto Rican sailboat racers to Category:Puerto Rican yacht racers

Category:Russian sailboat racers to Category:Russian yacht racers

Category:Scottish sailboat racers to Category:Scottish yacht racers

Category:Singaporean sailboat racers to Category:Singaporean yacht racers

Category:Slovenian sailboat racers to Category:Slovenian yacht racers

Category:Soviet sailboat racers to Category:Soviet yacht racers

Category:Spanish sailboat racers to Category:Spanish yacht racers

Category:Swedish sailboat racers to Category:Swedish yacht racers

Category:Swiss sailboat racers to Category:Swiss yacht racers

Category:Ukrainian sailboat racers to Category:Ukrainian yacht racers

Category:United States Virgin Islands sailboat racers to Category:United States Virgin Islands yacht racers

Category:Virgin Islander sailboat racers to Category:Virgin Islander yacht racers

Category:Welsh sailboat racers to Category:Welsh yacht racers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Sailboat racing is a redirect to Yacht racing I feel that the categories should match the article. Also note the miss spelling of Lithuanian. Waacstats (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Category:Virgin Islander sailboat racers should become Category:Virgin Islands yacht racers since "Virgin Islander" is a noun but not an adjective; see Category:Virgin Islands people and other subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, but delete the Virgin Islander one mentioned by GO (all it is is a holder for the USVI category, so it just adds one extra unnecessary level). The term "sailboat" is almost never used in some parts of the world anyway. I tidied up a typo or two in the nom, BTW - I don't think we want Australian category:yacht racers! :) Grutness...wha? 00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With so many I knew I would get a couple wrong so thankyou. Waacstats (talk) 07:45, 10 September 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: listify. Kbdank71 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dark Jedi

Per this CFD discussion. Dark Jedi is a fairly broad term, and there should be explanations to describe the difference in usage of the dark side of the force. Especially since this can potentially include everyone from Darth Sidus, to Anakin Skywalker (before and after becoming Darth Vader), to Mara Jade, to Jacen Solo, to even Luke Skywalker. One problem is literary present tense, and the "when" of when these characters may have been "dark" Jedi. This simply should be a list. - jc37 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify - as nominator. - jc37 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify: even without you reasons, a list is justified, as there is potentially a good deal that can be written about why each particular character came to be a Dark Jedi. Deamon138 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 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 as empty for 4+ days. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty categories which were created as part of a proposal. The proposal passed, but this cats isn't needed in the final implementation, and should be deleted - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:Good topics doesn't look like it has passed. Deamon138 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has, see the talk page. It's just still being implemented - rst20xx (talk) 18:12, 10 September 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, as unnecessary, per consensus at WT:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The359 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AlexJ (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization. There are too many races in the world to create categories for each. Not a useful way to categorize drivers. Royal broil 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A step too far. Are we going to have a category for every GP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 11 September 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 with recreation permissible with a better name/criteria. Kbdank71 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional thieves

Well for one thing, this category would potentially include nearly every villain in comics, and much of fiction. A nearly all-inclusive cat is purpose-less for categorisation.

(This nom does not include its subcats.) - jc37 07:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose listification, especially for the reasons Hiding suggests. - jc37 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify, I could see a list as part of a Crime in fiction article topic, or something similar. Certainly would support research and aid readers, which is what we are here for. It's just that the category structure isn't the place for doing this, since we can't see why these characters are similar and why they are different within the topic for which the category classifies. How are the Artful Dodger and Cockney Wanker the same? Hiding T 09:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and avoid listifying, as the criterion is too broad. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per jc37's points, this one is non-defining. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal - I would suggest possibly keeping this as a container category, with all articles being assigned to sub-cats for specific types or genres of thieves. (I've got a handy-dandy template available with a clear note to readers for such categories.) We already have two sub-cats, and I'm pretty sure Category:Fictional cat burglars and Category:Fictional art thieves could be readily populated with existing articles. Category:Pickpockets is another possibility (the Artful Dodger and Fagin, for starters). Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on that: Would that mean the category page should be properly posted as "Article should not be added to this category, but to its subcategories. This category will be routinely removed from articles."? Also, will subcats that have small, as few as 1 or 2, members be shielded to a degree by being part of this umbrella?- J Greb (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is basically what I was suggesting that we might want to do, J Greb -- here's the template I mentioned:

No articles about individuals should appear directly in this category, which is solely a container category for sub-categories. All articles should be placed in the appropriate sub-categories.

As for the sub-cats, I'm no fan of overly small categories. In any event, I'm not really suggesting that every variety of thief should have their own sub-cat -- merely that there are certain specific types that do lend themselves to being used as categories. Cgingold (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the subcats have similar problems of subjectivity. (For example, Cat burglar redirects to Burglary.) And categorising by what is stolen sounds like a bad idea (Art, money, vehicles, etc.) Also, quite often a single character will qualify for some if not most of these subcats, so the subcats would likely be bloated, near-duplicates of the parent. Again, this all sounds like something that could be cleared up in a list. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Cat burglars precisely because there are characters who are specifically described as being "Cat burglars" -- so that's not a subjective call. A quick-and-dirty search turned up seven sure-things (with existing articles) -- the most famous being Big Pussy Bonpensiero, Black Cat (comics) and Catwoman -- as well as four others who are mentioned in articles and could have redirects under their names. I fully intend to create and populate that category in the next day or two, which will give us three sub-cats -- enough to justify keeping Category:Fictional thieves as a container category. I haven't had the time to look more closely into other possible sub-cats, but I think there are probably at least one or two other specific varieties of thief that would also work as categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no reason not to use this as a grouping level. use ((diffuse)) 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, per the discussion above. (Whether, in your judgement, you may agree or not, is a whole other matter.) - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please relist for further consideration, as the early "Delete" votes were posted prior to my Alternate proposal. Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional professional thieves or delete - As I see it, the problem with this category lies in the definition of "thief": a single act of theft qualifies someone as a thief, which is why this category currently includes characters who shoplifted once or twice (e.g. Dawn Summers). What this category should include is fictional characters who are professional thieves (e.g. Amanda (Highlander)). So, I would favour renaming the category to Category:Fictional professional thieves and removing any articles that do not belong.
I oppose splitting the category by types of thieves or by the object being stolen, for two reasons: (1) this will result in a lot of narrowly-scoped categories, (2) there will be a lot of overlap between categories, since criminals (in fiction and in reality) tend not to limit themselves to one particular style.
I also oppose listifying per Rob. C ("the criterion is too broad"). Although an article about Crime in fiction would be most desirable, it should not consist merely of a list of fictional characters. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 25 --Kbdank71 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Black Falcon's use of the term "professional" is mostly right on target. Not sure why it didn't occur to me, but it's clearly what the people/characters I was referring to have in common. On the whole it would accomplish what we we're aiming for -- but I would also like to be able to include fictional kleptomaniacs (I'm sure there must be some characters who are identified as such). Is there perhaps another term that could be used either in place of or in addition to "professional"? (maybe something like "inveterate", but that's probably not the right choice) Cgingold (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then it would appear that you're supporting the deletion of the current category. (In deference to the creation of something more specific.) - jc37 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like renaming -- and restricting, jc. That was always the real objective. Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reconfirm my position on the outcome. I have followed the debate and seen nothing to change my mind. This is not an attempt to vote again, but a response to the comment by Cgingold that it be relisted for further consideration, as the early "Delete" votes were posted prior to his Alternate proposal. I just don't think this is an area we should be getting into with categorisation. The tool being used is not fit for purpose. Hiding T 10:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional professional thieves as a limiter. Otto4711 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone define professional thief for me? I may be being dense, but thievery is illegal, therefore, you can't actually be a professional. All thieves are amateurs, no? Basically, I'm trying to understand what distinction is being made here. Hiding T 13:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A professional thief, put simply, is a person who makes his or her living by stealing. So Dawn Summers, although a shoplifter, did not make her living from it and so would not be categorized as a professional thief. Black Cat (comics) does or did make her living from stealing and so would correctly be categorized as a professional thief. For real-life examples, see Matt Johnston and Jon Douglas Rainey of It Takes a Thief (2005 TV series) who are IIRC described in the opening credits as "former professional thieves" or "former professional burglars." An illegal occupation is still an occupation. Drugs are illegal, as is in most US jurisdictions prostitution but "drug dealer" and "prostitute" are professions. Heck, prostitutes are even nicknamed "pros." Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In regards to renaming for something more precise. I don't oppose an attempt at coming up with a more precise name. But even if it's renamed, the original cat is deleted. So, to clarify: Delete, with no prejudice against a creation of a category with a more specific/precise name and inclusion criteria. (i.e. preventing speedy deletion for re-creation reasons, but still allowing for future CfDs if appropriate.) - jc37 17:14, 15 September 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 (all articles survived AFD, BTW). Kbdank71 19:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Three of the articles in this category are currently on AFD and stand, as I see it, a strong chance of deletion. This would leave just one article in the category, and it's of questionable notability in the first place because of the issues that led to the aforementioned AFD. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Lists of baseball players (whatever happens at afd). Occuli (talk) 08:03, 9 September 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT media to Category:LGBT-related media

Category:LGBT media by country to Category:LGBT-related media by country
Category:LGBT media in Australia to Category:LGBT-related media in Australia
Category:LGBT media in Canada to Category:LGBT-related media in Canada
Category:LGBT media in Denmark to Category:LGBT-related media in Denmark
Category:LGBT media in France to Category:LGBT-related media in France
Category:LGBT media in Germany to Category:LGBT-related media in Germany
Category:LGBT media in Hungary to Category:LGBT-related media in Hungary
Category:LGBT media in Italy to Category:LGBT-related media in Italy
Category:LGBT media in Japan to Category:LGBT-related media in Japan
Category:LGBT media in the Netherlands to Category:LGBT-related media in the Netherlands
Category:LGBT media in Romania to Category:LGBT-related media in Romania
Category:LGBT media in Sweden to Category:LGBT-related media in Sweden
Category:LGBT media in the United Kingdom to Category:LGBT-related media in the United Kingdom
Category:LGBT media in the United States to Category:LGBT-related media in the United States
Category:LGBT comics to Category:LGBT-related comics
Category:LGBT comic strips to Category:LGBT-related comic strips
Category:LGBT webcomics to Category:LGBT-related webcomics
Category:LGBT television channels to Category:LGBT-related television channels
Category:LGBT magazines to Category:LGBT-related magazines
Category:American LGBT magazines to Category:American LGBT-related magazines
Category:British LGBT magazines to Category:British LGBT-related magazines
Category:Canadian LGBT magazines to Category:Canadian LGBT-related magazines
Category:French LGBT magazines to Category:French LGBT-related magazines
Category:LGBT newspapers to Category:LGBT-related newspapers
Category:LGBT newspapers in Canada to Category:LGBT-related newspapers in Canada
Category:LGBT newspapers in the United Kingdom to Category:LGBT-related newspapers in the United Kingdom
Category:LGBT newspapers in the United States to Category:LGBT-related newspapers in the United States
Category:LGBT radio programs to Category:LGBT-related radio programs
Category:LGBT radio stations to Category:LGBT-related radio stations
Category:LGBT record labels to Category:LGBT-related record labels
Category:LGBT websites to Category:LGBT-related websites
Category:LGBT forums to Category:LGBT-related forums
Category:LGBT pornographic magazines to Category:LGBT-related pornographic magazines

Nominator's rationale: All of these categories should include "-related" in their titles, since "inanimate objects do not have a sexual orientation". See related categories that match the "LGBT-related Foo" convention and recent discussions. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all - as correctly noted (where did the nominator hear that before, I wonder ;-) ) inanimate objects do not have a sexual orientation. Rename in line with a number of recent similar renames. Otto4711 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have read it in a LGBT discussion. 0:) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. What about some of the other cats at Category:LGBT culture? And this does raise the question, what about all the other similarly named categories on Wikipedia? As one example, what about Category:Communist books? Deamon138 (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. There's been some discussion about the LGBT cats (specifically relating to people, but others, too) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories. This situation had not been addressed yet :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 September 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, with regret that magazines can't be "lesbian". Because, you know, that would be "hot". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bisexual magazines to Category:Bisexuality-related magazines

Propose renaming Category:Lesbian magazines to Category:Lesbian-related magazines

Nominator's rationale: See above; see related categories: "bisexuality-related" and "lesbian-related". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Deamon138 (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 September 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT music to Category:LGBT-related music

Category:LGBT music in Canada to Category:LGBT-related music in Canada
Category:LGBT music events to Category:LGBT-related music events

Nominator's rationale: See above. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all - music and music events do not have a sexual orientation. Otto4711 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Deamon138 (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 September 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 to delete. No prejudice against a renomiation to attempt to determine consensus. Rename Category:Hurricane Katrina newsmakers to Category:People associated with Hurricane Katrina. May need cleanup to remove journalists and politicians, and possibly others. - jc37 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People associated with Hurricane Katrina - a more standard name under Category:People by association; "newsmakers" is not used in any other category name that I'm aware of. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague category that could potentially encompass hundreds of people and generate category clutter. Otto4711 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People associated with Hurricane Katrina - I am the one who created the category, while trying to cleanup and organize the then over-populated category of "Hurricane Katrina." I mostly moved the relative articles out of the general "Hurricane Katrina" cat into the more specific newsmakers cat. My caution of deleting it is that these articles will end up back into "Hurricane Katrina" cat. A subcat "People associated with..." makes more sense. Aaron charles (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. A category for people "associated" with Hurricane Katrina would include most national-level US politicians, virtually all politicians in Louisiana, anyone who was in New Orleans during or after the hurricane hit, any entertainer who pledged support, anyone working for a company who was involved in rebuilding or providing supplies to those who were displaced, and so on. If article are dumped into the main "Hurricane Katrina" category, the best solution is to regularly remove them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Following your rationale for deletion, then all "People associated with..." categories should be deleted, e.g., "People associated with the September 11 attacks." Katrina is now three years old and there are only 29 entries. At the end of the day, it is a helpful reference. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that it's something that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but you are correct that my deletion rationale would apply to many "people associated with" categories. As a matter of fact, I bookmarked Category:People by association immediately after posting my comment with the intention of checking it later to see whether these "People associated with" categories could be made more specific somehow, or whether some or all should be deleted or listified (unlike a category, a list can specify the nature of a person's association to a concept, entity, or event).
    While there may be only 29 entries at this time, the scope of Category:People associated with Hurricane Katrina would certainly be greater than just 29 articles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. Postdlf (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can understand Black Falcon's concern, but as Aaron charles points out, with just 29 entries this really isn't a bloated category. There are probably one or two that should be removed, but that's hardly unusual. In any event, I was already planning on rewriting the head note to specify that the category is intended for individuals who have a notable connection with Katrina -- either in terms of the amount of media attention they received, or for some other reason, such as getting a Pulitzer Prize or writing a book about it. Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kanye West? Delete. — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. This is a better name. There is no good reason to delete the category or delete people from every event category. Why so much people hatred? Why are you afraid of people? You think events happen without people being involved? The world is about people: what they do and don't do for good or for ill. What reader interest is served by this POV pushing? Hmains (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The association between a natural disaster and individuals (other than perhaps "God") is too weak to be a basis for the category on Wikipedia. For incidents and accidents caused by people, I could argue the other way. — CharlotteWebb 13:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - People are part of the preparation and the recovery. Of course people did not create the storm/disaster, but they certainly are a part of the experience. If there were no humans on earth, then none of this would matter on reporting, but then again, Wikipedia would not exist either. Aaron charles (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
association between natural disasters/events and people is 'too weak' for WP?. This is laughable, but unfortunately asserted with a straight face in WP. Is there no common sense here? No one would particularly care about these natural events if there were not individual people involved in them. Or maybe you just want numbers: number of dead, number who fled, number homeless. Natural disasters have a human face, with individuals involved. Hmains (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on the type of association. For instance, in this case, anyone associated with (living in, working in, conducting business in, etc.) New Orleans and the other affected areas automatically has an association to Hurricane Katrina. However, any category that lumps together all of those people would have limited usefulness. When there is this much variation in the degree and significance of association, it would be more appropriate to create a list that could (unlike a category) provide necessary context by identifying how each person was associated with the hurricane. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 13 September 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - a category for anyone who happens to narrate a TV show. Not defining of 99.9% of the people who narrate. For those whose careers happen to be focused on TV narration, there are a multitude of categories for voice actors into which they may be located. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 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.

September 9

Category:Spore(2008 Video game)

Category:Sailboat racers

Category:Dark Jedi

Good topics

Category:Buenos Aires Grand Prix drivers

Category:Fictional thieves

Category:Lists of minor league baseball players

Category:LGBT media

Bisexual and lesbian magazines

Category:LGBT music

Category:Hurricane Katrina newsmakers

Category:Television narrators