< April 22	April 24 >

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 (both on the merits of the categories and because they were empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Specifically designed for a band in AFD with no keeps. Listing both as they are a matched set. Dlohcierekim 23:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; 1 article cats soon to be 0 article cats don't help us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, assuming that the afd is delete (but the nom is redundant to the afd, as empty categories get deleted speedily). Occuli (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. Did not think of that. Dlohcierekim 14:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the speedy thing for empty categories, I still think it's worth attempting to establish a consensus as to whether we actually want "Musical groups in a specific genre subcategorized by individual state" subcategories to ever exist or not. For what it's worth, I'm putting my two cents on no-way no-how no-never. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (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:Day care sexual abuse allegations. I agree with many of the comments that this is essentially a "hold-your-nose-at-the-rename" situation, since we typically avoid words like "allegations" in category names. The agreed-to name is not perfect, but there's agreement that it's at least better than before. If anyone thinks of anything better, please feel free to nominate again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria to Category:Day care sexual abuse incidents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Neutral point of view. Gilliam (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but not as proposed I just finished expanding an article about David Shaw, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times who won a 1991 Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the McMartin preschool trial, in which allegations of sexual abuse and Satanic rituals were made, but a trial lasting several years achieved not a single conviction. While I personally believe that these cases involve hysteria, the word "hysteria" has POV issues, but then so does "incidents", which tends to imply that the sexual abuse did occur. I would suggest Category:Alleged day care sexual abuse incidents or some variant thereof, which might better balance concerns that the category implies that there is validity to the claims of sexual abuse in any or all of the artilces included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ~~Oppose~~ - "Hysteria" is probably the most accurate term, and has been used by others to describe that period. Most, if not all, the allegations were not proven (as for example the famous McMartin preschool trial for which all charges were dropped after six years), or in that the cases were later overturned. But the term does seem to have POV issues. The term "incidents" appears to be POV also in that it implies that the abuses actually did occur, and that's the reason for my oppose vote. I would not object to changing both "hysteria" and "incidents" to "allegations", as in Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations. EC: I started to compose this before Alansoln posted, and came to the same conclusion independently. — Becksguy (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote from "Oppose" to "Rename to" Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations to clarify my rename comment above. — Becksguy (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak rename - "hysteria" sounds vaguely POV, but "incidents" is more so, as it presumes guilt, which is not automatically the case. "Allegations" is perhaps better - as pointed out above, in many cases there were allegations which were later thrown out of court or overturned, or have raised considerable controversy as causes celebres (e.g., the Peter Ellis case). I take it a rename to Category:Day care sexual abuse witch hunts is out of the question? :) Grutness...wha? 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current name is not suitable. Of all the options for renaming (including others that I've thought of but won't waste time on here), I believe Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations best does the job. Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking Hysteria may describe it well, but it is none the less POV. Unfortunately, "incidents", is POV in the opposite direction. "Accusations"? "Claims?" DGG (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename to something like Category:Mass hysteria about day care sexual abuse. We need a category name that distinguishes between ordinary cases of sexual abuse that happen to occur at a day care centre and these instances of mass hysteria. "Allegations" doesn't do that. A weaker alternative would be Category:Day care sexual abuse controversies, although I think the idea that these cases were an episode of moral panic is increasingly uncontroversial. -- Avenue (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:False allegations of day care sexual abuse if the allegations are true suddenly its not hysteria but prudence, isn't it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something, probably Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations is best. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations. Normally I hate seeing the word 'allegations' in a template or category, but here it seems there really is no NPOV alternative (I considered Category:Day care sexual abuse, but that would be much worse). It could also be phrased as Category:Allegations of day care sexual abuse or Category:Alleged incidents of day care sexual abuse, but I think the one I mentioned first is best. Robofish (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2009 (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) 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category that lists award winners, which should be avoided per WP:OVERCAT. A list is already available at Baseball America High School Player of the Year Award. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 17:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the High School award is not defining and the list is sufficient. Occuli (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep - This is probably the highest award a high school baseball player can get, and I probably would consider it a defining characteristic. On the other hand, it is a high school award and I think such categories should be very rare. I believe this may be one of the few worth keeping, however. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining minor award. Otto4711 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (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:Mahoran culture. I'm renaming it to the "Foo culture" format because that seems to be the convention for culture categories. If someone would like to nominate this for renaming to Category:Culture of Mayotte, then that is OK for a new discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No context. The articles in the category don't mention the term "Mahoran" at all and a Google search of "Mahoran society" or "Mahora" doesn't turn up anything particularly enlightening. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Mahoran is not found in any category name. Category:Culture of Mayotte might be a suitable rename if any articles can be found. Occuli (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename as there are now contents. My feeling is that if Mahoran is used it should also be used more generally in Category:Mayotte. Occuli (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's one of only a handful current subcategories of Category:Mayotte that would normally take an adjectival form (personally, I don't see any reason why not to change the others to Category:Mahoran politicians, Category:Mahoran people by occupation, Category:Mahoran sportspeople and Category:Mahoran footballers, but that's by the by). There are, however, a number of articles starting with the word Mahoran or Mahoré and several others with it in their titles (e.g., List of Mahoran senators). Grutness...wha? 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Category:Mahoran culture (per Category:Breton culture, Category:Réunionnais culture, Category:Martinican culture +c). It's populated now, Mahoran explains well-enough what the word means, and it now has a parent category or three to give it more context. "I don't understand what this is for" is not in itself a justification for deletion. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but my initial justification wasn't just that I didn't understand it, but that it did not appear to be an accepted term, due to the fact that I couldn't find any info on it. Frankly, I don't know how I missed WP's own entry on the term :-) But yes, I agree that rename is now more appropriate, per Occuli. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 12:49, 24 April 2009 (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 (empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Roads in Iran already exists, and is the proper name per WP:NCCAT. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 12:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert Category:Roads of Iran into a category redirect. Occuli (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The correctly-titled category exists, and this category appears empty and does not fit into the standard use of "in" for articles in the parent Category:Roads by country. The only exception appears to be Category:Roads of Iceland, whcih should be dealt with separately. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Roads in Iran. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (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: Renamed speedily Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-francoism to Category:Anti-Francoism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Caps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename. Just a capitalization fix. So tagged. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:21, 23 April 2009 (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 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is more categorization of venues by event, said in the guildines to have "no encyclopedic value". I've recently nominated a number of other categories that group venues this way. All have been deleted: 1 2, 3. (There is a complete list of this information at World Bowl, so deletion will result in no information being lost.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete variation of performer by performance and that genre. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorisation by event/location. Robofish (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2009 (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 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Southland (TV series) or delete. At a minimum this name needs to be disambiguated, since Southland is quite ambiguous. It's also a relatively small, eponymous category for a TV series, and all the contents of the category may be linked through the main article, so deletion might be preferred here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. When I saw the heading, I was about to suggest merge with Category:Southland, New Zealand, which should be enough indication of the problems here. At the very least this needs renaming per GO, though I wouldn't rule out outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a category when they are only 2 entries. It's too early to tell if the show will even last 1 full season, yet along be notable enough to have multiple articles. TJ Spyke 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub between the two articles. Extensive precedent and consensus is that categories like this are premature. There are no currently independently notable characters so the sub-cat is immaterial. Textbook example of why WP:OC#EPONYMOUS should be understood to apply to all eponymous categories. Otto4711 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing is OCATed, there is no clutter or sprawl, there is no slope, slippery or otherwise, and 'eponymous' is irrelevant. This category has 2 articles and an empty subcat (emptied boldly by Otto today) and serves insufficient purpose. Occuli (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice to recreation That there's little content in the category now should not surprise anyone, given that the series debuted two weeks ago, combined with aggressive pruning to ensure that the subcategory was emptied. The series may go nowhere or it may be a success; That can't be predicted with even the best crystal ball. If it endures, it's not hard to imagine multiple additional articles being created that would most certainly benefit from the availability of navigation using the category system. For now, I say delete, but the usual stubborn bias against the re-creation of categories, even when the circumstances may well have changed, needs to be clearly addressed in this particular instance, even more so than usual. Otherwise, we'll see the usual speedy deletion demands, rather than a serious effort to re-evaluate the category on its merits. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we do eventually have enough articles to fill it, bring it back as Category:Southland (TV series). The NZ region has a better claim to the undisambiguated name. -- Avenue (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary for a few articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if we ever have enough articles to warrant it; the number we have now isn't enough. Just for the record, I've noticed a troubling assumption among certain editors that every TV series is automatically entitled to its own eponymous category, so in the longer term some user education might be necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2009 (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--Aervanath (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/merge to Category:American actors and Category:Swedish-Americans as needed. The general approach has been that categorizing American actors by background ethnicity is overcategorization. Previously, we've deleted identical categories for Americans of the following background ethnicities: Jamaican, Greek, Irish, Scots-Irish, English, Armenian, Argentine, Chinese, Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Jewish, Korean, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Spanish, Venezuelan, "Caucasian", Beninese, Bahamian, Jamaican (second time), Dominican (second time). There have been zero discussions about similar categories that have resulted in keeping the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and restore deleted ethnicity categories This category is part of a rather well-defined structure of Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin, which includes Category:African American actors, Category:Asian American actors, Category:German-American actors, Category:Hispanic American actors, Category:Iranian-American actors and Category:Native American actors. We even have Category:American pornographic film actors by ethnic or national origin, which in turn includes Category:African American pornographic film actors, Category:Asian American pornographic film actors, Category:Mexican American pornographic film actors and Category:Native American pornographic film actors. The tactic of picking off one category and then using that one anomalous deletion of any and all other similar categories is disruptive. Ethnicity in actors in film, television and theater is a strong defining characteristic, a clear aid to navigation and deserves to be retained. Alansohn (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly call a 25–0 record from different deletions over 4 years "anomalous", but hey, whatever. And as a general rule CfD nominations are not "disruptive" to WP; they are an integral part of how it works. But again, whatever. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think taking a strong defining characteristic and picking off one category at a time to solely lump them in under "Actors" as disruptive. Unfortunately, that is how Wikipedia works. If you can explain how navigation across similar articles is improved by tossing the dozens of articles here into the grab bag at Category:American actors, which has more than 2,200 article already, I'd love to hear. Taking a look at the precedents you've cited, Beninese was deleted because there was only one article for one actor. Bahamian was also deleted because it had one actor and little prospect of expansion. What relevance do these "precedents" have here? By the way, does anyone know what a "CfD brief"Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's because you have to also consider issues of overcategorization of individual articles, not just ease of navigation in the broader sense. All the considerations have worked together to create a consistent pattern of deleting these categories. It's defining to be an American actor. For the sake of argument, we'll assume it's defining to be a Swedish-American. But the intersection of the two is not defining. Category:Swedish-Americans is not so big so as to make a merge unmanageable. Overcategorization by trivial and non-defining intersection was included as a rationale for deletion in the Bahamian nomination. In neither of the examples you cite did the closer provide the a definitive reason for deletion. In any case, after 20-odd decisions of the same stripe, the rationale for deletion should become fairly obvious. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see the Los Angeles Times described Ann-Margret's 1967 stage debut, defining her here as "the young Swedish-American actress with the hyphenated name". There are plenty more where that came from. Some of the precedents are interesting and vaguely relevant, but I still stand behind my vote. As you've aptly pointed out Wikipedia has no consistency as a legal system and precedent has no binding value whatsoever, despite your position to the contrary. Again, you may want to work on cleaning out the irrelevant precedents from your brief -- such as prior cases of single-entry categories with no room for expansion -- which will lend a bit more credence to your argument. I stand by my sources, demonstrating the category as an aid to navigation, over your precedents. And you still haven't explained how navigation is improved by lumping the dozens of well-defined Swedish-American actors with the 2,200 articles in your proffered merge target. In my book, undercategorization can be far bigger problem than the dreaded bogeyman of overcategorization, which is certainly the case here. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please don't ascribe beliefs or statements to me that I have not stated. If you're going to paraphrase me, I'd appreciate it if you took more care about accuracy. And otherwise, make sure that you're not just making stuff up that I haven't actually said. (If you have any questions about this, you can direct it at my talk page.) I don't feel the need to respond to your argument about navigation, since I already did. Nor the one about single-member categories, since I also responded to that one earlier. Note also that one merge target has less than 200 articles in it. Oh wait, I suggested that that category was relatively small before too. Boy, do I ever repeat myself! I wonder why. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not too long ago, you stated that your arguments at CfD are not with me, but efforts to impress the closing administrator. You do realize that you are arguing entirely with me, and I don't even have any idea what you're arguing about. Who is ascribing beliefs? Or paraphrasing? Or making stuff up? If you don't feel the need to respond, then simply don't respond. Do you realize that your proffered merge target Category:American actors has over 2,200 articles; that some other upmerge target has fewer articles does nothing to deal with the undercategorization problem of a category that is near useless. Plain and simple, navigation is only disrupted by the proposed deletion. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Who's paraphrasing? You can't be serious: "As you've aptly pointed out Wikipedia has no consistency as a legal system and precedent has no binding value whatsoever, despite your position to the contrary.". You also did it again in the first sentence of your above statement. How ironic. Maybe you should just speak for yourself and not attempt to speak for me? Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Summarizing your positions, as you have done with mine, is a rather effective way to communicate. For that matter, you've even claimed that direct quotations of yours are not accurate. I've looked through all of your responses, and I still don't see a response to how navigation is improved by adding a few dozen article to the Category:American actors that already has 2,200. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed it can be, when done fairly and accurately. But if it's perceived by the quotee to not be, then it's only fair for his request to be allowed to be the sole speaker for himself to be respected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more sources on the subject come from a publication calling itself the Encyclopædia Britannica, apparently an upstart effort to compete with Wikipedia, which defines Greta Garbo (born Greta Gustafsson) as a "Swedish-American actress" (see here). I'd supply more but they take time to collect and hardly anyone seems to pay attention. Anyone reading should let me know how many more sources showing the characteristic as defining would be necessary to change a mind or two and I'll take out time to collect them. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization by irrelevant intersection of ethnicity and profession. That one newspaper article or a thousand newspaper articles mention Ann-Margret's ethnicity does not make the intersection of her ethnicity and her profession non-trivial for categorization purposes. Saying that the article "defines" her as such is a wikilawyerish attempt to conflate the real-world meaning of "defined" and the WP-specific meaning of defining. Every piece of factual information included in a WP article is supposed to be "defined," that is to say, verifiable in a reliable source. Accepting this conflation would mean that literally every piece of factual information within an article would become the potential subject of another category.
Regarding the currently existing categories offered as counter-examples, WP:WAX is rarely if ever a compelling argument. Even if it were, I would suggest that the behind-the-scenes treatment and the fetishization of people of particular ethnic or racial backgrounds in pornography is the subject of sufficient encyclopedic interest to allow for porn actors by ethnicity in at least some cases and would not by their existence support a general category structure of actors by ethnicity. Other counter-examples are as suspect as the nominated category and should either be added to the nomination or nominated separately. Otto4711 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that you realize that citing the results of previous deletions has the exact same problems with WP:WAX. In the absence of a compelling argument for deletion, I would hope that the demonstrated reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that the characteristic is defining would be given greater weight than claims that some "precedent" requires deletion. As those pushing for deletion believe that there is not a single ethnicity category that justifies retention, the choice of dealing with this one category at a time just ends up wasting community resources for no beneficial purpose. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, um, you see, um, citing previous actual discussions is, um, kind of really different from just pointing at something and going "look, that thing exists so this thing should too." Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, I'm going to make this request again. Please do not attempt to characterize my opinions in your own comments; let me speak for myself. (This is in reference to your phrase, "As those pushing for deletion believe that there is not a single ethnicity category that justifies retention". Whether or not you realise it, that statement is manifestly untrue as it applies to me.) Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you will be demanding that User:Otto4711 revise his patently offensive and blatantly false remark here in response to mine that he is "unlike some I could name who have a kneejerk desire to keep practically anything and everything". Otto's response to me at the time was "I mentioned no names. If you choose to believe that the descriptor applies to you, either in reality or in how you are perceived by others, that is a matter for you and your therapist." In this case, you are certainly not the only one that was covered in the statement as I was referring to all of the editors involved in the 25 previous cases cited as "precedent", but there is some merit to the issues you raise and I will reflect your concerns. I revise my remarks to read "As those pushing for deletion throughout the process have not indicated that there is a single ethnicity category within the Category:American actors that justifies retention and have offered no guidelines to distinguish between those that should be retained and those that should be deleted, the choice of dealing with this issue one category at a time just ends up wasting community resources for no beneficial purpose." Alansohn (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be pursuing anything re:Otto's comment since it doesn't appear to involve me. I think I tried to bring peace between you and Otto once. It didn't go so well. It made me realise I can't be the therapist referred to. Perhaps some other brave soul would like take a stab at it and put out their shingle. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a therapist, but you are an administrator. As an administrator, you have a responsibility to deal with the blatant incivility on Otto's part. This problem persists because you didn't deal with it now and you aren't dealing with it now in any public manner. A therapist can't help here; but an admin can, no shingle needed. Alansohn (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. There are lots of administrators. Oh, I'd say dozens, even! Every problem or issue is not every individual administrators' sole responsibility. We each volunteer what we take on. I took this on once (or was it twice—it may have even been 3 times...), and am not doing so again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore Removing these categories was a mistake. The characterization of people as actors can be very specific--Regardless of how we handle other professions, it's appropriate here. DGG (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore others - These categories were among those deleted during a period that was dominated by what is best described as "Ethnic Category Abuse Hysteria" which was rooted in the prescriptive misapplication of a guideline which did not reflect a true concensus on the issue, since there was no such concensus. Cgingold (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from my general distaste of categories based on religion/race/ethnicity which are OCAT. There is no consistency of how Swedish (or other Fooian) one must be to be in the category. My nomination to delete English people of German descent based upon the Angles and Saxons, and various other German waves of people becoming the English was roundly voted down - so, how remote is remote enough and what % blood must one be, and why the fuck does it matter that someone at threshold - 1% is different than threshold +1%, we're writing an encyclopedia not the Nuremberg Laws here. We should have no agenda and treat likes alike. Until we can definitively say how Swedish a person must be to be in here and have that threshold be notable and not abitrary or subjective, this category like its deleted brethren must fall. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF? Now we have the Nazi Germany Nuremberg Laws abused as part of a rather unseemly joke about trying to insist that religion, race and ethnicity are qualities that are arbitrary, subjective or indeterminable. What you are demanding is a standard of THE TRUTH that is not accepted by Wikipedia; The standard we use is verifiability. Someone is Swedish-American (or Fooian, Jewish, African-American or LGBT) based on descriptions and self-descriptions provided in reliable and verifiable sources. While different strains of Judaism and the State of Israel (which designed its Law of Return as effectively accepting as a Jew anyone who would have been classified by the Nazi Nuremberg Laws as a Jew) have differing standards as to Who is a Jew? -- patrilineal descent, matrilineal descent, either, differing conversion rules -- what it boils down to in Wikipedia is that someone is defined as Jewish because they define themselves as such or have been defined so in reliable and verifiable sources. In their respective articles, President Barack Obama is called "the first African American to hold the office" and Halle Berry is described as the "first African-American woman to receive a Best Leading Actress Academy Award", despite the fact that both could arguably be called either African American or White. Berry herself discussed the issue, stating that her mother told her that "even though you are half black and half white, you will be discriminated against in this country as a black person". They are both African American -- not Caucasian -- because they consider themselves as such and reliable and verifiable sources support the claim. LGBT status is entirely based on self-description and reliable sources. There is no one-drop rule or cutoff percentage to determine religion, race or ethnicity based on a chart of someone's ancestors, and any attempt to do so by any editor would violate policy on No Original Research, and any argument such as yours that depends on implying that this is the standard for making the determination should be ignored by any closing administrator; The actual standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, and as long as we can find and read these sources we need no threshold, arbitrary or subjective. Ann-Margaret and Greta Garbo are undeniably Swedish-American actresses, not based on an analysis of a chart tracing the heritage of their ancestors for several generations, but based on the reliable and verifiable sources already provided here that state they are, as are the other 30 actors in this category. That's how Wikipedia works. Alansohn (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a conflation of "defined" in the non-WP sense and "defined" in the WP sense. Adopting your "it's in a reliable source therefore it's a categorizable defining characteristic" approach means that Bill Clinton would properly be placed in Category:African American politicians because reliable sources call him "the first black president." Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "'defined' in the WP sense" is shown to mean virtually anything that anyone wants it to mean, without any explanation of how any editor can figure out whether a characteristic is (or is not) defining. Reliable and verifiable sources can be safely ignored, but IHATEIT is perfectly valid (especially if the word is spelled "OCAT"), depending on arbitrary personal preferences. The logic you present, which is an example of what I like to call the "argument to delete an entire category based on a single real or imaginary borderline case", is always questionable, as the far better solution is to keep the category and argue about inclusion or exclusion of the one questionable entry when it occurs. Offering Bill Clinton as belonging in Category:African American politicians only demonstrates that this approach can be taken far beyond the point of rational and reasonable discussion. As to the issue of this representing a "reliable source", there are a few major problems that need to be addressed in properly understanding what Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy actually means. While blogs from otherwise reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times are usually acceptable, this source is from an opinion piece, and as stated at WP:RS#Statements of opinion, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." Furthermore, what you offer as a statement of fact, is actually a fragment of a sentence taken out of context, which in its entirety reads "Once called the nation's first black president [bolded for emphasis] -- so dubbed by author Toni Morrison because of his obvious affection for and affinity with African-Americans -- Clinton lost the title last year." I guess one could accept this source to support including Clinton in a hypothetical Category:People called the first black president by Toni Morrison, but it offers little value in debunking the use of reliable and verifiable sources in determining religion, race and ethnicity. We would be better served by developing actual standards for determining what is a defining characteristic and how reliable and verifiable sources can be used in this process, rather than trying to turn this into a joke. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is defining about being Swedish-American when no one is bothering to say how Swedish American one need be to be so categorized. The racialists here seem to think that its sooooo important to lump Swedish Americans (and every other group) together but cannot say objectively what is a Swedish American. That someone claims to be "part" Swedish American is enough? Any reliable source seems to be fine. There are lots of reliable sources for the Out of Africa theory so we're all African-Fooians, get over it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, and the rest of Wikipedia, rely on self-descriptions and descriptions made by others in reliable and verifiable sources. I don't propose, as you seem to insist, that there be some sort of blood measurement to determine characteristics, and I have no idea what genetic component one would look for to determine nationality and ancestry in your proposed Nuremberg Laws-based methodology. I don't kno how Black one needs to be in order to be certifiably African-American, but we have consensus that both Barack Obama and Halle Berry are, while Bill Clinton is not. I don't know how Jewish one needs to be to be defined as a Jew, but I know that Sammy Davis, Jr. belongs in Category:American Jews. Nor do I have any idea just how gay somebody needs to be to fit into one of the many LGBT categories. The disruptive effort to deny that people have political beliefs as a basis for categorization has been unfortunately successful. Hopefully, we can draw a line in the sand here in ending the persistent denial that religion, race, ethnicity and ancestry can be determined based on reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Restore others per very compelling arguments by Alansohn, as well as persuasive arguments by Cgingold and DGG. Categories are navigation aids, nothing more, and they do not necessarily define the member. If one were looking at Greta Garbo or Marky Mark, one could easily navigate to other Swedish-American actors without worrying about how much Swedish blood is required to be Swedish. Racial purity laws be damned. In the case of Garbo, being Swedish-American is very defining and well documented, however we do not need to define that, as its been done by the RS. The Category:American actors with 2,274 members is a clear and very obvious case of under-categorization (or UCAT). People are lost in that mass of names. The Category:Swedish-American actors at 39 members is just about right. Not too big to get lost in, and not too small to be OCAT. A cat with two members is not useful, nor is one with 2,274 members, but one with 39 members is very useful, easily understood, and easily navigated. Information clumps have to be the right size to be useful. Personally, I believe that cats are a good thing, as they help readers find related things, and therefore make WP better. The WP:OCAT arguments, such as trivial intersections, just don't apply in this case. However, if this was a CfD for Category:Swedish-American actors from the 1930s, I would agree that it was OCAT, since there would be, I think, about two members. Clearly not helpful. On a more general note, this seems to be the polarizing Inclusionist vs. Deletionist philosophical viewpoints, cast as Under-categorization vs. Over-categorization. Categories should not be limited to some arbitrary number of included subcategory levels, but should be dynamically adjusted to the practical sizes of the memberships so as to provide maximum utility to readers. — Becksguy (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Categories are navigation aids, nothing more, and they do not necessarily define the member." If that were indeed true, virtually nothing would be OCAT. It pretty much goes against years and thousands of discussions/precedents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire lede from WP:CAT says: "Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. Categories can be defined as subcategories of other categories, allowing easy navigation between connected subject areas via a tree-like structure. This helps readers find articles on particular topics even if they don't know which articles exist or what they are called." I believe that is pretty much what I said in my own words. It's all about navigation around and among articles. — Becksguy (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, we will have to agree to disagree that that's what categorization is "all" about. In my opinion, there are certainly other issues that are also considered, which is one reason why WP:CAT doesn't end with what you quoted and why WP:OCAT exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former New Zealand Labour Party MPs to Category:New Zealand Labour Party MPs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is a general convention in categories against dividing people into "current" and/or "former" statuses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; no need for an exception to the convention here. -- Avenue (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We do not split current and former MPs or anything else, so prevent the necessity of mass editing after a general election. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2009 (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 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The general guideline is to not have categories for awards; they should be in list format. This one is already very nicely presented in a list at Coretta Scott King Award Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is the rationale behind this rule? DGG (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably multiple, and I wasn't around when the guideline was first formed. One reason no doubt is that many notable people tend to get a lot of awards in their lifetime, and that could potentially result in persons having literally scores of categories just for awards. (I've seen Winston Churchill's awards mentioned as an extreme example.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one is notable for winning this award, you're notable first and it comes as further clutter to the bios of the various illustrious people who get this award. Too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is an excellent list at Coretta Scott King Award, which is much more informative and also more complete than the category. List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou is another example of why categorisation by award has to be selective. Occuli (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a good way of handling this and far better than a list. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What in this case are the advantages of the category? One reason I said that the list was better is that it is an award for a book; so there are 2 possible categories, one for the author, one for the book (neither of which can give both the author and the book, unlike the list). Another is that Maya Angelou won the CK Award for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings in 1971 but the award is not mentioned in her article, or in the book article, or in the List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou; so it is an award that can be overlooked, even in a list of awards (ie not defining for the author). (I would find it easier to argue the case for a CK category for the book. I doubt if books are overwhelmed with awards, honorary degrees etc.) Occuli (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Scrutinising the list more carefully I see that Maya Angelou did not win the CK Award for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings in 1971 but received an 'honor', so ignore much of the above. Occuli (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Angelou is a good example of someone who could be a candidate for "category clutter", where it doesn't seem that there would be a problem with a more balanced approach. List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou includes about 60 awards. Most don't have articles, such as the "Frank G. Wells Award" (a poor sign of award notability). Many are clearly local (City Proclamation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina and many other awards from colleges and universities). Distinguished Visiting Professor is not an award. Nominations should not be included except for the most notable awards. Speaking at the Special Olympics World Games is not an award. Once you strip out the awards that are not national and the ones without articles, you're left with a rather manageable number of awards, even for someone who has received as many as Angelou has. We do include categories for awards; the question is where to draw the line, and as I've drawn it, this one meets the criteria. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping Stifle might expand his rationale, as I am aware of the Alansohn rationale, re-stated here with its usual lucidity. I agree entirely that there is a line to be drawn and it is somewhere below Nobel prizes and somewhere above 'Ovation Award winners'; and I could be persuaded that this award is above the line. ((American Library Association)) lists quite a number of awards – should each have a category? There is Stonewall Book Award for instance. And there are both Category:Caldecott Medal winners and Category:Caldecott Medal winners (book); and Category:Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal winners. Occuli (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The motive behind limiting awards is that people can win many of them over the course of their lives, leading to the much feared disease of "category clutter" if every award is categorized and listed in each recipient's article. While we do have a standard, the bar is set so arbitrarily high that the only exclusions allowed at Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients are for Category:Nobel laureates and Category:Academy Award winners. Both based on the contents of Category:Award winners (listed there among the exceptions), which includes several hundred award winner categories in its structure, and based on the results of many prior CfDs on the issue, the community appears to have a far more open-minded view on the subject than might be indicated based on the wording at Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients, effectively indicating that the limit to Nobel Prize laureates and Academy Award winners has been nullified. As I indicated at the recently closed discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Ovation Award winners and nominees where I supported deletion, we should keep very few of the local awards and keep most major national awards. Given this award's rather unique role in recognizing "the most distinguished portrayal of African American experience in literature for children", and given the national nature of the award, it should be retained as a useful aid to navigation for those using the category structure for this purpose. Every list will almost always be more informative than a category, which is a design feature of Wikipedia, and we ought to follow the guidance of WP:CLN in retaining both lists AND categories, especially in this case. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete or since a list already exists, simply delete. This is the usual solution for award categories. A list is much more useful since it can be tabular placing the winners in date order, and perhaps giving information from the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No category for awards or honors can ever include a tabular listing as this is a current design feature of the category system. We keep Nobel Prize and Academy Award categories despite the existence of dozens of lists for these awards broken down in any manner conceivable in convenient tabular form. The question is that we keep some awards and delete others. Why should we delete this one and not all others? What is the standard that we can use to make that decision and what standard did you use in deciding to delete this category? Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor award, not defining of its recipients. Otto4711 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Current Irish players of Australian rules football to Category:Irish players of Australian rules football

Suggest merging Category:Current New Zealand players of Australian rules football to Category:New Zealand players of Australian rules football

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is a general convention in categories against dividing people into "current" and/or "former" statuses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Again, no compelling need to split here. -- Avenue (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current categories should have something to do with fluid dynamics or electricity. These don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Completely unnecessary categorisation. I'd also request that we add Category:Current Indigenous Australian Players of Australian Rules Football to the nomination if possible (merge to Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football) Jevansen (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no evidence that navigation benefits from the split. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (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 - I know I suggested that this could be immediately re-nominated, but I note that nearly every commenter is also a commenter involved on the talk page of the canvasser of the previous discussion. So I think at this point it's probably not possible to discern a true consensus from a nomination at this time. While I came within a hair of closing this as: no consensus, default to delete, per prior community consensus noted at WP:USERCAT/WP:OC/U; I'm going to leave it for now, in the hopes that future consensus can be determined. Again, no prejudice against future nominations, but let's give this a couple weeks at least. - jc37 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Previous CFD for oppose category closed because of improper canvassing without prejudice to immediate renomination. Both categories should be deleted because: they fail WP:OC#OPINION as they merely identify Wikipedians on the basis of their opinion on a particular issue; they are divisive and polarizing categories; they do not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The claim of "canvassing" is completely and utterly invalid, though I understand the motives behind the charge. The effort to deny that people have opinions, even ones that relate directly to Wikipedia, is completely and utterly pointless. Why we would not want to allow individual editors to announce their opinions on issues of importance to the community and to allow them to interact with each other is difficult to understand, at best, and disruptive, at worst. While the issues might possibly be divisive or polarizing, there is nothing wrong with the userbox or the category. The determined effort to keep other users in the dark on this issue, especially when there was no effort whatsoever by the nominator to make any attempt at notification of the affected parties, only allows the same unrepresentative handful of editors who hang around at CfD to decide this issue. Without any outside input, we too often end up ensuring that the consensus reached here is not reflective of anything more than the biases of the usual participants. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting aside the "canvassing" issue for the moment, this category serves to help identify Wikipedians who stand on both sides of a very important issue that will have a serious impact on Wikipedia's future. The categories themselves are neither divisive nor polarizing (though you could argue that one of the userboxes on the page is, and I would have no defense against that charge). They do serve to facilitate coordination because they help to immediately identify where various users stand on an important Wikipedia issue that will shape how the encyclopedia develops in the future. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:OC#OPINION - it is merely the opinion of the nom that WP:OC#OPINION applies in this matter (IMO). I am off to create 'userbox:Wikipedians who have struggled unsuccessfully to grasp the essence of Flagged Revisions and have heard enough of them for the time being.' This apart, I am with Alansohn re the rather bizarre attempts to keep anyone who is actually interested in these userboxes/categories away from cfd. (A deletion at cfd would be followed by cries of 'drv is not cfd round 2' if anyone who notices the cfd post-hoc has the temerity to protest at not being informed.) Disclaimer: I have not been canvassed and have never used any userboxes. Occuli (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These two CfDs do not violate WP:OC#OPINION as the very titles indicate an activist position on a highly controversial and major Wiki issue. And they clearly are not over categorization. As to canvasing, CfDs are not high on the visibility chart, so anything that will increase the jury size, and therefore increase the chance of reaching a broader and therefore a more legitimate consensus and potentially a more correct outcome, is a good thing. Provided the canvasing is done neutrally and is not limited to only one potential side. Also, categories are navigational aids that help people find similar category members. — Becksguy (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these categories enable editors, and more importantly readers, to identify editors' position on a major issue facing the Wikipedia. While the issue of flagged revisions has undoubtedly created divisions, I see nothing divisive about the categories at all. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - these categories identify the opinions of those in a highly controversial issue. They make it much easier to determine who is on what side and can make starting discussions easier. Alexfusco⁵ 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' These nominations are more disruptive and divisive than the categories could possibly be. --Abd (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)I use neither of these userboxes and I was not canvassed at all.[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 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by radio series" category, which were all deleted as too narrow for collaboration. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of that, I have no opposition to the delete -- GoldMan60 ¤ Talk 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2009 (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--Aervanath (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by ancestry" category, which have a unanimous precedent to delete. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is no unanimous precedent to delete. Note the existence of the other 143 nationality categories. PRODUCER (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox this category is associated with clearly says "This user has Bosniak ancestry", making it an ancestry category which do have unanimous precedent to delete. VegaDark (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are two userboxes associated with this category, only one of which mentions ancestry. If the userbox is a problem, nominate that for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I shall add that the link provided by VegaDark which he claims shews unanimous precedent to delete (here) shews no such thing. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ancestry categories have a unanimous precedent to delete. The nationality categories don't. That link has a combination of both. Yes, I saw there are two userboxes, and only one specifically mentions ancestry, but "Bosniak" is used in the same contex so I think it's pretty safe to say that one refers to ancestry as well. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, why is a userbox that includes the word "ancestry" in it problematic? Many ethnicity userboxes include it in them. PRODUCER (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox isn't problematic, the category is because ancestry categories don't encourage collaboration. You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry. There is no benefit to wikipedia by categorizing users grouped into whatever ancestry they may be, and user categories are supposed to be used to seek out others for collaboration to benefit the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the precedents, I don't think there actually is consensus that these categories are unacceptable. The ones that have been deleted are mainly for intersections, like Category:Anglo-German Wikipedians; both Category:English Wikipedians and Category:German Wikipedians still exist. As long as we keep them (and others like Category:American Wikipedians, Category:Chinese Wikipedians, etc.), we should keep this as well. If you don't like any of them, then nominate the parent category (Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality) for deletion, but don't nominate the individual categories separately until there's a broader consensus. Robofish (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below. VegaDark (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason not to allow individuals to self-describe their nationality or ethnicity, in line with the more than 100 such entries included in the parent Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a nationality or ethnicity category as evidenced by the userboxes populating this category, but rather an ancestry category. I'm aware there isn't a consensus to delete the nationality and ethnicity categories. If the userboxes and category description were changed to make the category unambiguously a nationality/ethnicity category, I'd agree we can allow this to stay, but I think doing that with the existing category would introduce miscategorization due to the people already in the category due to ancestry. VegaDark (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (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--Aervanath (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:User en-in - "This user is a native speaker of Indian English" - This is a subcategory of a non-ISO dialect of English, which have been unanimously merged to their parent category previously. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and prior consensus. Robofish (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2009 (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: Closed due to inappropriate canvassing.

And a note to the canvasser: If the user inappropriately canvasses like this again, the user involved will be blocked on sight. (I'll be leaving a note on the user's talk page.)

This is no different, and no less inappropriate than the editor in the past who canvassed people who had the inclusionist userbox on their userpage in order to get something they wanted "kept".

This category may be immediately renominated at editorial discretion, but due to the canvassing problem, the comments of any of those who were canvassed should be discounted entirely. I believe that there is vast precedence for this. And I welcome other admin comment on this closure. - jc37 06:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Support/oppose category, which have historically been deleted as being potentially divisive and not supporting collaboration. See here for near-unanimous related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as for all intents and purposes a recreation of a previously deleted category. Otherwise delete per nom and WP:OC by opinion/issue. Otto4711 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category provides a way to show a stance on an issue of importance to many Wikipedians. The prior category offered as a justification for speedy deletion was created to say that individuals in the category will not fight vandalism without the implementation of flagged revisions and has no validity as the basis for a speedy delete. We have a process to discuss these categories and ought to respect it. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn. -down load | sign! 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking above speedy delete comment as I did mis-remember the details of the earlier category. Noting that the speedy tag was removed with the notation that it is the opposite of the deleted category, that a category designed to express an opinion that is the opposite of a previously deleted opinion category is still an opinion category and that the category should still be deleted not only because of its divisive nature and because it runs afoul of categorizing on the basis of an opinion or issue but more fundamentally it does not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this is a support/oppose category, unlike most such categories, this one is directly related to a controversial issue at the Wikipedia project. Thus it is relevant, because it expresses opinion on how best to proceed with improving the encyclopedia, similar to inclusionist/deletionist userboxes, etc. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Wikipedia users who support Flagged Revisions should probably be discussed at the same time. I would also like to note, for transparency, that Alansohn has left messages for users in the oppose category. –xeno ^talk 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm probably shutting down soon, but I will be happy to run through the category and notify those who would be affected by the deletion of Category:Wikipedia users who support Flagged Revisions if no one else takes care of it. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above Schumin and Alansohn. This category is just another medium for users to express their opinions. As far as consensus is concerned, I don't believe that such categories are enough to hinder open discussion. It can actually stimulate it, as more users are approached about their opinions and are given the chance to express their ideas and motives. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assist collaboration between users. How else am I going to find other like-minded users? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have half a mind to close this now after the exceedingly innapropriate notification of all users in the category. Of course you're never going to get an impartial consensus if this occurs. As a result, we get a double standard of deleting some wikipedia issue support/oppose categories, but keeping these (I support deletion of the other category as well, which arguably does qualify for speedy deletion. There is of course no logical reason to keep this and delete the other, though). Also, "finding other like minded users" does not benefit Wikipedia unless finding such users would result in improving Wikipedia, which it wouldn't in this case. VegaDark (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't write a bold !vote because I was canvassed to come here, but as I am in this category it should be assumed that I want to keep it. There are categories for things such as approving or disproving of certain policies, such as notability, and also certain wikiphilosophies. I don't see these categories as doing any harm as the users in them are self-identified and voluntarily choose to join that category. This category isn't negative as it doesn't attack editors with opposing views, so I don't see how this can be too divisive when we allow much more polarising userboxen to be displayed. Categories are navigational aids, and this particular category forms a group which is useful for statistical purposes regarding the proposed overhauls to the system. I see no reason to delete. Them From Space 05:55, 23 April 2009 (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 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Seems like an innapropriate user category. Do we really want to categorize Wikipedia's criminals? Likely a joke category, and even if not, I can see no collaborative use for this category. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inappropriate for collaborative categorization. Probably ought to be speediable as a potential attack category and/or for WP:BLP concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If only we could speedy this, but it appears that the only member of the category is the person who created the category, and so unless they tag it as a G7 themselves, I can't bring myself to G10 it. What on earth this person was thinking in creating this, I don't know, but in five or so days this category will be gone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain this is a joke, especially since it's categorized in Category:Wikipedians by profession. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presumably this would only include self-acknowledged criminals. Though I'm not sure why would we want to encourage people who claim to be criminals to have a better way to find each other. Isn't that what prison is for? Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I doubt many people will add themself, but it could presumably lead to encyclopedic collaboration... (WP:WikiProject Jails?) –xeno ^talk 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although xeno's point had some merit, I cannot see how safe crackers would collaborate with drunk drivers with check bouncers to yield much by way of encyclopedic content rather than a "how-to" type guides on doing what they do and how to get away with it (presumably not placing yourself in the category would be one such way...but I digress). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As the original creator of the category, I'll go ahead and say that I suppose this category may be deleted if people here are really up in arms about it, but what's wrong with another category for people who wish to identify as criminals if they are cooperating with one another on a collaborative and intellectual project? The fact that one leads a life of crime is a separate and distinct issue from the value and utility of his or her contribution to Wikipedia. Constructive projects for incarcerated people, such as chess matches for prisoners (formally organized in American prisons by the United States Chess Federation) have long been a staple of efforts at reforming many of those spending their time behind prison bars, and I see this category as another idea of a similar sort. The open act of self-acknowledgment of one as a criminal furthers honesty and enables one to conduct himself or herself in an authentic way in a safe online environment. The stigmatization which some appear to associate with this category is simply in the mind of the beholder. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you're going with this, but I still advocate its deletion because it's ambiguous enough of a title that it could be taken to mean anything. Perhaps "Wikipedians who are currently incarcerated" is a better description of your intentions? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible. 'Wikipedian prisoners' or 'Currently incarcerated Wikipedians' might be appropriate if there were actually enough of them to justify a category, which I doubt. This one just seems like a joke category, but even if it isn't, we shouldn't be promoting illegal activity via user categories. Robofish (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does identifying oneself as a criminal promote illegal activity? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, being a criminal means one, by definition, has done something illegal. By putting yourself in such a category, it looks to me like you're boasting about it (even if that was not the intention). Similar categories and userboxes have been deleted in the past for that reason - I'm sure a Category:Wikipedian paedophiles or something like it was created and deleted once, though I can't seem to find record of that now. Robofish (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not boasting about it – I don't know why you think so. Being a criminal is one thing. Being a paedophile is different, so I think your analogy is quite off. Socrates was a criminal. (No, that's not a boast.) He wasn't a paedophile. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2009 (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 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic "who like" category. The "who like" naming convention has been abandoned for all user categories except for "Wikipedians by TV show" categories, and even that is only because someone hasn't made a group nom for those yet. This is because categorizing "who likes" particular things does not benefit Wikipedia to categorize, as user categories are supposed to benefit Wikipedia by supporting collaboration. At minimum this needs a more encyclopedic name. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Any deletion process where the affected Wikipedia users can be readily identified, notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate, and this is not done, is completely and utterly worthless, regardless of the merits of the category. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD do we insist that only people who spend most of their time at CfD and the stray individual who happens to see the CfD be given the opportunity to discuss deletion, while all else are effectively kept in the dark. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, notification of the creator is not required, although I'll admit it is courteous. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, generally based on how much time I have and how much hassle notification would be (in cases where I mass nominate a group of categories). In any case, I've notified the creator now. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't benefit the project and there are plenty of avenues for those interested in actually collaborating on superhero or comics-related articles to find each other. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not collaboration engendering. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively broad as to give no hint of expertise of these users. Do they mean Ultraman or American Maid ? 76.66.196.218 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2009 (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 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Support/oppose category, which have unanimous precedent to delete as being potentially divisive and for not supporting collaboration. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not engendering collaboration - and those who buy various products related to Fox or its advertisers in some sense support (financially) Fox News. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social club, nor MySpace. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot to note that this category also uses improper capitalization of "Who Support", so this at extreme minimum needs a rename. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - It should be renamed to Wikipedians who listen to Fox News. In that case, it would help create collaboration. But in its current state, it should be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorization by opinion, not useful for collaboration. Also quite vague as it is not at all clear what "support" means in this context. I loathe FOX News and would never watch it, but I support its right to exist, so am I a supporter? Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (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 per existence of task force. Kbdank71 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (first preference) or Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Bionicle (second preference) - First of all, there's no indication that this is a user category, plus "fans" is improperly capitalized. Additionally, "fans" of a comic is an unencyclopedic naming convention and goes against the standard "who read" naming convention. Prefer deletion as I'm not sure the scope of this category would be broad enough for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename but if this category doesn't get very far after a reasonable period of time, I'm open to deleting. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorisation by opinion, not useful for collaboration purposes. Robofish (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorization by opinion, not necessarily useful for collaboration (I'm a fan of lots of things but have no interest in writing about them). Interested parties may join the Bionicle task force. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom's suggestion. I'm not seeing a reason why this cat is less acceptable than other user cats about topics once it gets renamed. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (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.

April 23

Category:Oregon punk rock music groups

Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria

Category:People who have won the Baseball America High School Player of the Year Award

Category:Mahoran society

Category:Roads of Iran

Category:Anti-francoism

Category:World Bowl venues

Category:Southland

Category:Swedish-American actors

Category:Former New Zealand Labour Party MPs

Category:Coretta Scott King Award winners

Current players of Australian rules football

USER CATEGORIES

Support/Oppose flagged revisions

Category:Wikipedians who listen to TBTL

Category:Bosniak Wikipedians

Category:User en-in-N

Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions

Category:Wikipedian criminals

Category:Wikipedians who like Superheroes

Category:Wikipedians Who Support Fox News

Category:Bionicle Fans