< March 26	March 28 >

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 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Six Feet Under (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category which, since the series is canceled, is unlikely to expand. Only likely expansion might be in episode articles, which would go in an episodes cat and not in the main cat. A navtemplate would be the better way to go here, although creating that template should not be required to delete the category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – WP:OCAT has strictures against eponymous categories for people, but does not mention other eponymous categories (of which there are many thousands, as the typical main article for Category:XXYZ is XXYZ). On what grounds are there objections to this one? Occuli (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO the general principle against eponymous categories for people holds for eponymous categories for anything else, in that there should be a certain complexity to the material so categorized that necessitates the category for navigational purposes. Compare this category to, for instance, Category:Saturday Night Live or Category:Star Trek. We have deleted many similar categories previously under this reasoning, not just for TV series but for companies and other non-human entities (which are unfortunately not indexed in either of the extant indices of deleted categories; I'll try to search some out). However, even if one were not to accept said general principle, the nomination also references WP:OC#SMALL. It is very unlikely that additional articles about this series will be produced to the point where either the main article or a navtemplate would not adequately serve to link them all. Otto4711 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some examples of deleted TV series categories include Spooks, Schoolhouse Rock!, Sapphire & Steel and Sanford & Son. Unfortunately those CFDs were all pretty much "per precedent" (although that does argue that there is acceptance of the principle) so I'll try to dig back further to find where this originated. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional examples here, which include a little more in-depth discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How then should an article such as Crew of Six Feet Under be categorised? (It will be observed that 'category clutter' is not a problem for this article.) Occuli (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Under Category:Lists of directors by television series and Category:Lists of writers by television series which I am adding to the article in a moment. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ample precedent & per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems small enough, and unlikely to grow- all of the categorized articles should be reachable from the main article about the series, and those articles should in turn link back to the main. Thus needed for navigation. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:32, 2 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 (I upmerged Lassie (1954 TV series) though). Kbdank71 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Lassie (1954 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category for a canceled TV series, no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Lassie television series, which is not otherwise subcatted by year. Occuli (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 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 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Melrose Place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category for a canceled TV series with little or no likelihood of expansion. There is talk of a remake, but even if that talk comes to fruition articles related to the remake would not be categorized with the original series so the possible remake is not reason to keep this. Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Independent of any future remake, the category provides an overall structure for categories of characters and episodes, both of which have a genuine possibility of expansion. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Character categories are housed in Category:Television characters by genre and episode categories are housed in Category:Television episodes by genre. It is extremely doubtful that many individual episodes of Melrose Place meet notability guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 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 as yes, there is massive precedent to delete categories as this, and the subcats are properly categorized in their own characters and episodes categories. Now that said: I am going to ditto Clay's confusion here. Within the Third Watch category and two subcats, there are a grand total of four articles (and one of the subcats is empty). I don't know if these were emptied mid-CFD or Occuli was referring to a different epo category, but at this point it's impossible for me to find out which it was. I'm going to delete the episodes category as being empty; recreation of that permissible if articles are found/written. Kbdank71 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Third Watch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category for a canceled TV series that has little or no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is not a small category as it contains 64 articles, 62 of which are properly categorised in 2 subcats. (This is an example of a transitive category: see Category:Non-transitive categories for info.) The nom appeals implicitly to WP:OCAT, which relates to the perils of category clutter on articles and overcategorisation of articles. As Category:Third Watch only appears on 2 articles, one being Third Watch, where is the clutter and what is being over-categorised? Does this category (which fulfils the role of neatly uniting 2 related subcats without recourse to Catrel or other templates) pose some threat to the established order? Occuli (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that whole "transitive category" thing sounds made up. As for what "threat" this category poses, first, an isolated CFD is not the place to debate the guideline. Second, it's not hurting anything is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a mathematical concept (Transitive relation) going back 100 years or so. The argument is that it is fulfilling a positive purpose (appreciated by various non-Ottos) and doing no harm otherwise, ie on balance a Good Thing. Occuli (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am aware of the transitive property of mathematics. That makes it sound no less pulled out of someone's ass when applied to categorization. And again, WP:NOHARM is not a compelling justification for anything on WP. Otto4711 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see why precedent is to break navigation by category tree, why is that the precedent anyways? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review WP:OCAT. That guideline reflects consensus as it has been determined over the course of the CFD process. Otto4711 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have shown above that WP:OCAT is irrelevant here, as the category appears on only 2 articles. Occuli (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is of course more to WP:OCAT than category clutter. Since WP:OC#SMALL is part of OCAT, OCAT takes into account that category clutter is not the only instance in which OCAT applies. I do, however, enjoy how you can argue in favor of the category both based on its supposed large size and its supposed small size at the very same time. The Party would be very pleased. Otto4711 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Occuli said above that there were 64 article in this category and subcats; I see 4. Third Watch, Keep Hope Alive, Recurring Police Officers in Third Watch, and Recurring Firefighters in Third Watch. If there are really only four articles in the cat, it seems too small to be useful. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:40, 2 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 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Miracles (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category for a TV series that, since it is canceled, is unlikely to expand. Contains nothing but the show article and episodes articles, which are already housed in an episodes category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 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 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Eli Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category for a TV series which, having been canceled, is unlikely to expand. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – completely pointless. Occuli (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 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) 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens to Category:IARC Group 1 agents

Nominator's rationale: It is my opinion that the current names of categories

• Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens
• Category:IARC Group 2A carcinogens
• Category:IARC Group 2B carcinogens
• Category:IARC Group 3 carcinogens
• Category:IARC Group 4 carcinogens

are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens". The IARC itself mentions[1]:

In the following lists, the agents are classified as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans in accordance with the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.

According to this text, the categories should be named:

Category:IARC Group xx agents

A discussion is under way in Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer.

FocalPoint (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move: the current names are clear and correct, the proposed names require that the reader understands the initialism IARC. The idea that "all agents could and should be classified by the IARC" is simply ludicrous, and shows the nominator's misunderstanding of the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:IARC Group 4 carcinogens: There is only one agent in IARC Group 4, and there is no need for it to have its own category just to itself. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just had to add the necessary templates to the categories, as the nominator failed to do so. Just as the nominator failed to take into account the comments made on the linked discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the assistance. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, current naming accurately reflects current "real world" naming practice.shoy (reactions) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Call me ignorant (you're ignorant!), but why are we categorizing these substances by the basis of how they are classified in the IARC "carcinogen scale"? Pardon the crude comparison, but this seems kind of like categorizing films based on their MPAA rating—yes, it's notable, and important, and worth mentioning in WP—but it seems a bit of a narrow thing to make the basis of categories. Is the degree of likelihood that a substance will cause cancer in human defining for the substance? I'm not really convinced we need categories as opposed to the already-comprehensive lists for these groups. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original idea behind the categories was to make it easier to police what editors were calling "carcinogens". Carcinogenicity is a hazard which catches the attention of certain editors – just as some editors get their attention caught by chemical weapons, or explosives, or guns etc etc – and we get a certain amount of SOAPBOXing (not to say scaremongering). You just have to look at the sorry state of the carcinogen article to see that. If something is on the IARC list, it's easy to find a review of the data which led to its classification: if something isn't on the list, we have to be much more careful about who is calling it a carcinogen to avoid WP:UNDUE. The categorization isn't "perfect" – for example, limonene is in Group 3, but that doesn't mean that orange juice is carcinogenic (unless you happen to be a male rat, in which case it's very carcinogenic). On the other hand, the current scheme exists for a valid reason, to help tackle a real problem on WP. Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see ... thanks for responding, by the way. Perhaps the purpose of the categories you give is a reason to make them purely administrative or hidden ones; but because I'm quite ignorant about everything in this area I'm not going to push this issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, current naming seems reasonable. Categories seem useful by allowing readers to quickly see what other substances are classified as having a similar carcinogenic potential- particularly for a little-known substance, being able to easily see what more familiar substances are classed the same way could be useful. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I certainly think the rename is better than the current categories but that's only a start. Labelling all four as "carcinogens" is very misleading as it only applies to group 1. I also strongly support the deletion of all the categories and less-strongly the deletion of group 1 cat (but not list). We don't have categories of "possible anticonvulsants" or "probable cures for cancer". We wouldn't even if someone notable compiled such a list. And we certainly don't have categories of "not toxic" or "unlikely to win an election". But really, this is one example where the category system is really poor. You *have* to provide a source for such a contestable attribute as an agent's likelyhood of causing cancer but I see evidence that categories are being applied to substances without supplying the relevant ref. Lastly, I think this categorisation is pretty useless and makework. It doesn't give me any ideas of the dangers so dioxin and asbestos is grouped alongside alcohol. So really I would only support the "List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens" and suggest all the other lists and categories are deleted. Colin°^Talk 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment Having read the evaluation for Phenobarbital here I am deeply disturbed and think that such classification should not ever be reported on WP without adequate explanation of its significance (i.e., that it has almost none). Phenobarbital gets classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" despite the evidence for humans being "inadequate". The evaluation document is merely concerned with black and white "Is the increase in cancer, associated with exposure to this produce, significant". It gives no figures on the risk of each form of cancer to begin with, and the risk upon exposure. It spends time discussing increases (and decreases) which are not statistically significant when they should be ignored because they are quite likely to be aberrations in the data. It does not cite the studies it mentions nor does it give important details such as the date or size of the study. There is no evidence that the evaluation used any form of statistical method to judge the studies nor formal evaluation of study quality. If this was an article in a CAM journal I might expect this sort of rubbish science reporting.

Remember that the "general reader" will include, for example, parents of an infant who has been prescribed phenobarbital for life-threatening seizures. To read, at the bottom of the WP article, that this is a "Group 2B carcinogen" could very well lead a reader to deny their child medicine that might otherwise save their life. I'm not arguing for censorship here but for responsible reporting. This simplistic categorisation into "causes cancer / doesn't cause cancer" is the sort of naive and irresponsible reporting of science I'd expect from the Daily Mail. </rant> Colin°^Talk 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments in reply to comments! I wouldn't go as far as Colin does, but the point s/he raises is valid. I'm currently battling my way through a safety section on a phenobarbital-type "carcinogen" – musk xylene – and there is obviously a need for balance. However the response to the need for balance is more information, not less. Phenobarbital is a known rodent carcinogen, with a mechanism which might also be active in humans: on the other hand, humans would probably die of overdosing before any carcinogenic effects became apparent, and the available human data (along with the proposed mechanism of carcinogenicity) suggest that there is a lower threshold below which the liver can cope with phenobarbital (and other substances of this type) without any carcinogenic risk at all. The reply is not to say that there is no evidence for carcinogenicity – that would simply be untrue – but to put the evidence in perspective with the help of reliable secondary sources.

Many common medications are group 1 known human carcinogens, including some forms of contraceptive pill and postmenopausal estogen therapy, not to mention many antineoplastics (the irony of it!). When the last "pill" scare came out in the UK, it was estimated that the increased mortality from the pregnancies arising from women stopping taking oral contraceptives was greater than the mortality which would have been caused by carcinogenic effects. It is exactly this sort of "cancer scare" which needs to be combatted with information, not succoured to by censorship. Physchim62 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the link that Colin quotes is only a summary of the IARC assessment of phenobarbital: the full, 128-page Monograph can be found here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for a measured reply to my little rant. I'll have a read of the full monograph tomorrow. I must say that summary version had all the science removed from it. No wonder the newspapers report medical science so badly if they are supplied this sort of data to work with. Wrt the categories, have a read of Wikipedia:Categorization, specifically, "What categories should be created". I would argue the IARC group is not a "defining characteristic" and is an "incidental" feature. In addition that guidelines says "It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" so categories should come after verifiable content. And while the fact of whether a substance is in a particular IARG grouping isn't controversial, the relevance and current opinion over whether a substance causes, possibly causes, or probably doesn't cause cancer is controversial. I really don't think we can plonk such a serious comment ("This substance may cause cancer") without fully informing the reader of the state of the science underlying that statement and the significance of the increased risk. The presence in an IARG group says more about how far the committee has achieved their goal than about whether a substance has a carcinogenic risk. For example, they list a few ancient anticonvulsants because we have lots of experience with them (devil you know) but not the recent ones. Is the reader to assume the recent ones aren't carcinogenic because the IARG haven't listed them? As far as categorising goes, I don't know where you would draw the line with this one. Would you put The Macallan under "IARC Group 1 carcinogens" because alcohol is in that group? I do find the IARG exercise a little odd. It is well known that polluted city air is bad for you. Would they put Birmingham in the "IARC Group 2A carcinogens" group :-) Colin°^Talk 21:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you search the IARC Monographs for "Birmingham", you get 22 hits! (all of them to addresses). Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia should not mislead people. Tea, coffee and talc have been categorized by IARC as category 3. Should we call them carcinogens? Is this helping or is it confusing the reader who will not have the time to read the monograph?--FocalPoint (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather have them labelled as "IARC Group 3 carcinogens" than just have them labelled as "carcinogens", which is the practical alternative. Coffee is Group 2B, by the way, for bladder cancer only (limited evidence in humans). Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 4 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 as I'm convinced by Otto's statement "Plenty of parents have murdered children and they don't become notable as a result." It's not exactly the same, but I know a woman who murdered her husband and her article was deleted as not notable per WP:BLP1E. I don't see this as being different. Kbdank71 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Parents of murdered children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sorting by non-defining category.TM 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Having looked through the articles included in this category, it is clearly defining for these individuals -- often the source of their notability. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Cgingold is right that being a parent of a murdered child is defining characteristic of those currently in this category, but how can a category like this be defined in such a way that it doesn't fill up with thousands of people who lost their children to war crimes? It's interesting, though, how a category such as this starkly exposes the systemic biases in wikipedia, with a list which appears to consist solely of American and Australian parents. If we reflected the real world, Americans would be in a tiny minority in a category like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also neutral, but I can respond to BrownHairedGirl: membership in the category would not establish notability. Only those who are notable would be in Wikipedia in the first place. Tb (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many parts of the world, this sort of category would include people who ar notable for something else, because in some places having a murdered child is not particularly unusual. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cgingold. Lugnuts (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the source of Charles Lindbergh's notability was his murdered son? really? I suppose someone may have missed something about his aviation career; John Walsh also is correctly categorized in the places where his tv career has taken him. While having a murdered child (or one who has died of cancer, in war, by accident, or any other reason) is defining for the person, it is not defining in the Wikipedia sense - if you become a John Walsh, we already have a cat for you: Category:Crime victim advocates; if you were just otherwise famous, we don't need to have this category. Note: that we don't even bother to categorize people on whether or not have have children at all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm frankly amazed that you would seize on Charles Lindbergh as a debating point -- as if I had even remotely suggested that "the source of [his] notability was his murdered son". He is quite obviously a very exceptional case. If the case for keeping this category rested heavily on him, we wouldn't even be here discussing this because there wouldn't be much of a case. John Walsh, on the other hand, was already notable (in Wiki terms) precisely because he was the parent of a murdered child, even before he started hosting America's Most Wanted. Cgingold (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Walsh became notable because of his activism that followed the murder of his child. Had he not become an activist it is unlikely that he would have a Wikipedia article per WP:BLP1E. Plenty of parents have murdered children and they don't become notable as a result. Otto4711 (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Carlos. Even those in the category whose notability (which is the standard for an article, not a category) began with a murdered child have achieved notability beyond it and the rest are independently notable for other factors (including the Ramseys, he as a businessman, she as a Miss America delegate). Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On the rare occasions that this information is encyclopedic, it belongs in the article itself. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 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. I'm not going to create redirects at this point, as I'd wait for them to be recreated in error, rather than create redirects that may never be used. However, if someone else thinks it's a foregone conclusion that they would be used, by all means recreate as redirects. Kbdank71 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Inedible mushrooms to Category:Inedible fungi

Propose renaming Category:Edible mushrooms to Category:Edible fungi

Propose renaming Category:Poisonous mushrooms to Category:Poisonous fungi

Propose renaming Category:Psychoactive mushrooms to Category:Psychoactive fungi

Nominator's rationale: The parent category is "fungi by edibility", and one of the members is "deadly fungi". As such, I propose renaming for consistency. The term "mushroom" is rather vague- at what point does a fungi become a mushroom, and stop being a puffball, or any of the other various shapes/forms of fungi? J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to "X fungi", per parent category. Good eye. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to broaden inclusion criteria. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Logical. Sasata (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per both preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm neutral on renaming. However, if there's concensus to rename, these should all be kept as category redirects (like Category:Mushrooms) -- otherwise they will in all likelihood be created anew by editors who are unaware of the new cats. Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 27 March 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:American autobiographies. If someone wants to take a whack at fixing the white elephants in the room, this rename does not preclude another nomination to do so. Kbdank71 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Autobographies of the American experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't see the need for this refining. At least not until the existence has been established of a genre having this name, and that authoritative literary sources can be cited to have placed the various books into this genre not leaving it up to the discretion of Wikipedia editors to decide which books belong and which do not. meco (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if it's not upmerged, we need to do something about the spelling of "autobographies". The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom; far too vague a name. There are 3 national cats already, but no US one, and since the number of US autobiographies in the main cat & the specialized sub-cats dwarfs those here it is probably best to merge rather than rename to "American autobiographies". Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and rename to Category:American autobiographies. I changed the parent categories to reflect where this category should be placed, based on the contents. No reason to delete. Autobiographies by Americans is a perfectly reasonable area of human knowledge and this category helps readers find them. Hmains (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better US parent substituted. It won't help readers find them so long as less than 10% of the American autobiographies in the tree are in this cat. Also Category:African American autobiographies should logically become a sub-cat of this one, which doesn't really help finding it. By the same token I would happily delete the British cat, with 3 members. By nationality schemes are just a nuisance unless they achieve a certain momentum, & here the by topic ones seem more useful. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to have both sorts of categories (national & topical). Cgingold (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In theory. In practice there are far too many by nationality schemes that have never been properly filled, & look as if they never will be. If they are the main way to reduce an overcrowded main category, that may be one thing. But when there are alternative schemes that are already well-populated, the by nationality cats are likely to be white elephants, potentially misleading to anyone who tries to use them. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Hmains to Category:American autobiographies. Cgingold (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but... - rename may need to be done manually to make sure that all of the included articles are American autobiographies. Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen should not be included for example. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 27 March 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/merge all. Kbdank71 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Italian navigational boxes to Category:Italy templates

Propose renaming Category:English navigational boxes to Category:England templates

Propose renaming Category:Welsh navigational boxes to Category:Wales templates

Propose merging Category:Northern Ireland navbox templates to Category:Northern Ireland templates

Nominator's rationale: Per this earlier discussion; categories that were omitted from the previous nomination. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom and per precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 27 March 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: speedy delete as requested by creating editor. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radical theologians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inherently POV category. We have no article Radical theologian or Radical theology, so whether a given theologian falls into this category is uselessly subjective. The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: Consistently in danger of WP:BLP problems, and as likely to be used to attack people someone disagrees with, as to be an honest self-description by the theologian in question. Tb (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the category's creator just left some relevant comments at Category talk:Radical theologians. I've invited him/her to join this conversation.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical theologians are theologians who believe in a non-supernatural God. Most of them are influenced by Paul Tillich. Examples include John T. Robinson, John Shelby Spong, Don Cupitt, Alteizer. It is a proper category. (it has been on wikipedia for years). Type radical theologians into google or googlebooks. 613kpiggy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC). (copied from the abovementioned post to Category talk:Radical theologians.)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As an example, you added Katherine Jefferts Schori to this category. Can you find us some kind of source which demonstrates that she believes in a non-supernatural God? The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you yourself created the category 14:27, 15 October 2008 (less than six months ago) in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Tb.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I came across this debate because I noticed that David Edward Jenkins had been placed in the category. I knew David many years ago and I know that his views are too nuanced to be categorised in this simple minded way, although of course he is vaguely on the radical side. That however is my POV. The category is a clear example of being POV and should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a no sign of a stable, neutral, objectively-assessable definition of a "radical theologian". It might make a good list, though, where the nuances could be explained, so no objection to listification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should rename it to religious naturalists since "radical" could be taken as pejorative. I'm not expressing whether I agree or disagree with these thinkers. 613kpiggy (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really sounds as if you want a category for theologians you disagree with about a particular issue. That's not the best way to begin. At the very least, whatever label you choose, should only go on those thinkers who have used the label for themselves rather than having had someone else apply it to them. Robinson would never have agreed to your insistence that he is "non-theistic", nor does Spong. And, for a living person (such as Spong, for example) WP:BLP prohibits you putting him in such a category. Tb (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a lot of the thinkers out of this category having discovered that a lot of the thinkers aren't "radical theologians" according to the above definition. Don Cupitt, John Shelby Spong and John A.T Robinson all view themselves or what they are doing as "radical". They all view God in non-theistic terms.

Alteizer refers to himself as a radical theologian. He belongs to the "death of God" school of theology. I might create a religious naturalist category. --613kpiggy (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

613kpiggy, have you read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates? It might help your work in this area.

Categories only allow for a binary choice (in or out), and have terse labels. Because of this are far too unsubtle a tool to be of much use in categorising people by opinion, which is why categories such as this one tend to be deleted -- even if the terms used in the labels are widely used in the scholarship. OTOH, lists allow for much more nuances, because there is room to explain any categories used. For example:

Homer Simpson has been categorised as a radical theologian by Grommit, Marx and Clausewitz. However, Fred Flintstone disputes that Simpson's work qualifies him as a theologian, and Dave Spart wrote that "there is nothing remotely radical about Simpson's approach to god. His resentful submission to capitalism is mirrored in his acquiescence to the will of a God whom he deplores, but whose existence and omnipotence he does not contest. "

You can't do that when attaching a category label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical theologians should be Deleted as someone's radical is another's main stream. Too subjective and undefinable. Adding someone's name may be libelous. I did the Wieman article and when I saw his name, questioned calling him a radical, same with Spong. Liberal, progressive, modern yes - radical ??? Viewing God in non-theistic terms to me is not radical. A listing of Religious Naturalists is an idea I have considered doing myself. Piggy contact me on my talk page for discussion on this User talk:JlrobertsonJlrobertson (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am ready to delete the category. --613kpiggy (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No standard meaning for the term - it used to mean those from Liberation theology, or just generally er radical. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 30 March 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--Aervanath (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:National electric power policy to Category:Electric power policy

Nominator's rationale: This category is confusing and does not fit well into the current classification system. It says containing articles describe national energy policy, energy economics, and summary economic overviews of electrical power generation, distribution and consumption, as well as the related social and political issues. This issues are covered by other categories, mainly by Category:Energy policy by country and national series categories. Therefore, I propose to refine this category and after cleanup rename it Category:Electric power policy as a subcategory of Category:Energy policy. As an alternative, after cleanup it could be merged into Category:Energy policy. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion per Vegaswikian. Beagel (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate name merge. The Category:Energy policy by country was created later but substantially overlaps Category:National electric power policy. (There were no energy policy articles at the time). I suggest that both categories should be merged to create a category called, say Category:National energy policy. The goal here is to emphasize that the articles discuss policy at the national level, not state or local level. The category Category:National electric power policy contains many articles that are not about electricity, but about energy in general. It should have been called "National energy policy" from day one. Alas and alack. Now is a good time to fix that.

Renaming it to "Electric power policy" would be the wrong thing to do, because 1) more than half the articles there are not about electric policy, but are about energy policy, and 2) all of the articles are about policy at the national level. Thus, "Electric power policy" makes no sense, unless one removed most of the articles currently in there, and then added articles about state/local policy. That would not be a category rename, but a major restructuring.

Since "national energy policy" and "energy policy by country" are essentially the same category, these two should be merged. That seems like far-n-away the easiest, best, nicest solution. The new cat should be called "national energy policy", as this is a prettier name that the rather linguistically awkward ".. by country". linas (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After looking at this category and some of the articles, they don't seem to be about national policy. In fact, they seem to be more about protests in a country. All of the articles I looked at have ample other categories so removing this one should not create any problems. If anyone needs to create a similar category in the future with a well defined introduction or lead articles that would be fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 28 March 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 per nom. If a further rename to electric power is desired, this can be renominated. Kbdank71 14:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suggest merging Category:Electric power by country to Category:Electricity sector by country

Nominator's rationale: Both categories serve the same purpose of categorization electricity sector related articles by country. The name Electricity sector by country is more precise. Beagel (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:Electric power by country is not what it says and is serving no purpose. It has just 2 children, both illegitimate - Category:Power companies by country is a subcat scheme for Category:Electric power companies and the other one is not by country at all (2 articles, no subcats). Delete Category:Electric power by country. (The second one is OK at first glance.) Occuli (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. There could be parallel categorization schemes. Category:Power companies by country belongs to both: Category:Electric power companies and Category:Electric power by country/Category:Electricity sector by country. Beagel (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I must say my head begins to spin with all these 'XXX by YYY' schemes, which are usually wrongly named, wrongly applied and wrongly subcatted. Category:Power companies by country should be renamed to Category:Electric power companies by country as there is no Category:Power companies. There is no Category:Electricity sector either. Phrases such as 'cans of worms', 'dog's breakfasts', 'Pandora's box' take over my thoughts. Occuli (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do not have a lot of experience on how to best use categories in Wikipedia, but since I have been asked to comment here are my two cents that largely echo what others have written here: "Electric power by country" seems to be limited to power companies and power plants. "Electricity sector by country" is broader. I would suggest to delete "Electric power by country", create subcategories "Electricity sector in xxx" for all countries listed in either category (power/electricity sector) and then use "Power stations in xxx" and "Power companies in xxx" as subcategories of the newly created categories "Electricity sector in xxx". "Power companies by country" and "Power stations by country" would obviously stay. It would also be nice to then have a link from every article "Electricity sector in xxx" to the Category "Power stations in xxx" and "Power companies in xxx".--Mschiffler (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:Electricity sector by country to Category:Electric power by country. I don't see what relevant material is included from "electricity sector" but excluded from "Electric power", and electric power is much more accessible terminology than using the trendy jargon word of "sector". We have a chance here to use plain English, and so let's do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge "Electric power" is the clearer title. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: relisted because Category:Electricity sector by country wasn't tagged for reverse merge. --Kbdank71 13:13, 27 March 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 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:PlayStation 3 Trophy Compatible games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a totally trivial category detailing nothing more but a marketing exercise. That a game supports PlayStation 3 trophies is not a defining factor for which it should be categorised, in terms of importance, it is nowhere near categories such as Category:PlayStation 3 games or Category:2009 video games. That by 2009, Sony mandated that all games must support trophies negates the whole point of the template anyway, it's just a default. This template would be similar to the rightful red links of Category:Xbox 360 achievement compatible games or Category:Steam achievement compatible games. - hahnchen 12:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Xbox 360 category wouldn't be useful because every 360 game had achievements from launch. I can see some use in this category. Rename to PlayStation 3 trophy-compatible games. –xeno (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's only of use in a PlayStation 3 games buyer's guide. It'd be much more effective to have a List of PlayStation 3 trophy-incompatible games. - hahnchen 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes but then we'd be describing what the article isn't rather than what it is... –xeno (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing wrong with that in a list though, is there? I find it hard to see how whether a game supports PS3 achievements is an important enough distinction for a category, given it's very narrow scope of usefulness. Category:PlayStation 3 Home supported games would be similar. Compare this, and the other categories in Resident Evil 5, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. - hahnchen 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I dunno. As a 360 owner, I know I love my cheevs... Are there similarly trophy-addicted PS3 users? Then this category could have some use. –xeno (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  On second thought, delete per SkyWalker. A list is fine. –xeno (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : A category is not needed. The trophies are included in this list List of PlayStation 3 games.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SkyWalker (information is elsewhere) and that no future articles will be added to this category in addition to the main PS3 category. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is trivia and interesting only because it is recent. Over the long run, it's the trophy-incompatible games that would be more interesting, but still trivial. It is a non-defining feature of a game, of no greater significance than any other feature. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:04, 2 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) 04:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Way too broad and undefined to be a category. Time would be better served to populate the tree starting at Category:Ice hockey goaltenders ccwaters (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we already have Category:Ice hockey goaltenders. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – it would be much easier to make it a parent category for Category:Ice hockey goaltenders, Category:Football (soccer) goalkeepers, etc. - about 5 minutes work and it's done. Occuli (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It wouldn't be any easier, as this category would still be deleted as part of a rename. If anyone finds a category tying a position played in different sports together to be useful, they are more than free to create a properly titled category. This one, however, is redundant. Resolute 13:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As it stands now, this category simply overlaps with Category:Ice hockey goaltenders. It seems that the intention was to include all athletes who play a position that involves defending a goal, which would also include the members of Category:Football (soccer) goalkeepers. If there was a real benefit to navigating through both, the answer would be to have a parent category, but that doesn't appear to be what was planned here or to benefit navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 27 March 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Rename to Category:Taxonomists. The current name is not widely used at all (I'm not sure it's even a legitimate equivalent). "Taxonomist" gets vastly more Google-hits in both regular & Scholar; it's also the term used in the only sub-cat. (Anybody know why there are so many South African taxonomists?) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per nom. The practitioners of taxonomy are taxonomists. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom. How embarrassed am I that I've been reading this as "Category:Taxidermists" since it was posted? Otto4711 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 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. Kbdank71 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Tuning to Category:Musical tuning

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is ambiguous (see Tuning); rename to match lead article. Otto4711 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh?? You mean to say this has nothing to do with broadcasting or receivers? Well, by all means rename it then. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this category meant to cover something that category:pitch does not? Redheylin (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a trained musician but it appears from a cursory glance through the categories that the nominated category is meant to capture various methods and styles of tuning. The mechanics of it rather than the physics, which appears to be the general focus of the pitch category. Otto4711 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Hyacinth (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. per nom. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:54, 2 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. Anyone coming across this concept for the first time by way of the category is going to have to go to the article to find out what the concept is, and from there they can go to any of the articles directly. In fact, if they come across the category and don't understand what reentrant tuning is, going to, for example, banjo, is not going to help because that article doesn't even mention the term. So as mentioned below, having the instrument articles in the category when they are listed in the Reentrant tuning article and considering most people would need to go to the Reentrant tuning article first anyway defeats the purpose of the category. Kbdank71 14:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Reentrant tunings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: First off, the cat isn't for tunings, it's for instruments using reentrant tuning. Second, using reentrant tuning is a pretty arbitrary standard to lump instruments by, akin to Category:Dishes using cinnamon or Category:Paintings that are predominantly blue. I could see a list or instruments using this tuning under Category:Tuning, but definitely not its own category. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per (presumed) nom. If the instruments are thought of as performers, this strikes me as a classic instance of "performer by performance", which is well understood to be an inappropriate basis for categorization. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The subject is interesting, but I think it can be handled by cross-linking the instruments themselves. It's important to be able to find out what the term means, though - I had to find out myself recently while editing cittern and bandora. The term is useful but obscure - I had never heard it, though I can play several instruments that employ it. I doubt that collecting such instruments into a category serves much purpose, though a better article might. Redheylin (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, /expanding/improving the article makes much more sense than a category. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The category shouldn't just be for instruments, it should (and does) include the article on reentrant tuning itself for example. The other articles in it are all instruments just at the moment, and I can't offhand think of another that might be included, but I don't think there's any logical reason that there can't be such articles. I created the category just because I found it useful; If it's doing some damage (I can't imagine what) then by all means delete it, it can as you say be handled by a list. ISTM that a list is harder to maintain and offers no advantages in this case over a category. Andrewa (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for joining the discussion, Andrew. As I explained above, it's simply not appropriate for the instruments themselves to be included in this category. Since that leaves only the main article, there is no need at present for the category. If the need arises in the future thanks to the creation of additional articles that deal with the topic, then there could well be reason to re-create the category. But until such time, it would serve no valid purpose. Hope that helps. Cgingold (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't it appropriate for the instruments to be included? Not everything in Category:Fender Musical Instrument Corporation is a corporation, any more than everything in Category:guitars is a guitar. I guess we could set up a subcategory for instruments with at least one common reentrant tuning, similarly to Category:Texas but on a smaller scale, but that seems like overkill. This category gives anyone running upon the concept for the first time a quick and easy way to find other relevant articles, as well as being useful in many other scenarios. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 1 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: relist for more input. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_5#Category:Max_Theon.--Aervanath (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Max Theon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Cosmic Philosophy (or possibly delete & upmerge articles). In all honesty, I'm not entirely certain what should be done here, as I had never heard of this rather obscure corner of the Occult until I tripped over it purely by accident the other day. However, it does not seem appropriate to have a category named for Max Theon (although he is, to be sure, central to the discussion). After a quick read thru of all of the articles (mostly rather short), I've reached the tentative conclusion that what I have suggested is probably the best option -- that is, if the category should be retained at all. (Note: If renamed as suggested, I believe Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor would need to be removed from the category.) And with that, I throw the discussion open to more knowledgeable (hopefully) editors. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) (Also notified WikiProject Occult) Cgingold (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Templatize and delete - appears to be a small category for what based on the meagre text of the articles is a defunct occultist movement, with little or no likelihood of expansion. The articles I looked at were already pretty well interlinked so the lead article could probably serve as an appropriate navigational hub, but people seem to like templates for this sort of thing (although failure to create a template should not IMHO serve as justification for retaining the category). Otto4711 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – it seems to me after a swift browse round that there are plenty more articles that could be legitimately placed in Category:Cosmic Philosophy or Category:Cosmic Movement (or perhaps something more general, to include the various brotherhoods of Luxor, hermetic and otherwise, but less general than the parents of Category:Max Theon). Occuli (talk) 10:41, 27 March 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. Kbdank71 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Battlefield games to Category:Category:Battlefield (series) games

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is ambiguous; changing it will match lead article Battlefield (series). Otto4711 (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support preferably speedily. Current name could refer to baseball, since that was played on battlefields. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match title of parent article and to clarify what is included. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 27 March 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 and if article is changed, we can if desired, rename this again. Kbdank71 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Battlefield to Category:Battlefield (series)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to change the current ambiguous name to match Battlefield (series). Otto4711 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support definitely not the likely usage for such a name. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate I would prefer Category: Battlefield (video game), as this might be informative. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally, categories should match the name of their lead articles. If there is support on the article's talk page for a rename then the category can be renamed again to match. Otto4711 (talk) 04:17, 2 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 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball tournament venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of venues by event, said in the guidelines to hold "no encyclopedic value". There are huge swaths of similar categories out there (e.g., see subcategories of Category:Basketball venues in the United States; I'm testing the waters here to see if there's agreement for deletion before I nominate more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 27 March 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 per nom. Any subcatting desired can be done as needed. Kbdank71 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suggest merging Category:Celebrity autobiography to Category:Autobiographies

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is similar to the recently-deleted Category:Celebrity Writers. Defining who is and who is not a "celebrity" is subjective and POV. The present expansive definition for the category would seem to me to potentially include every autobiography for which WP has an article about, since we don't typically have articles about autobiographies for individuals who are not "well known or notorious ... in society". The result is that the category is essentially redundant to its parent category Category:Autobiographies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - the vast majority of people whose autobiographies would be notable enough for WP articles could be classified as "celebrities" of some stripe or another. Otto4711 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to appropriate cats, if possible per both. A really stupid category "This category is for autobiographies by a well known or notorious person in society, the social or physical sciences, the theater, sports, musician, film, politics and other areas. This includes autbiographies by notorious criminals, or those accuses of a notorious crime." - we already have sub-cats for music, political, sports etc autobios to which many of these should ideally be moved. What we could do with is Category:Show-business autobiographies. There are 221 articles in the main cat; this could be drastically reduced I'm sure. Sorting is especially useful here as so many titles give no hint of the subject or area of interest. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good point. To which I would add that the bigger problem in this area is the existence of both this cat and Category:Memoirs, since the distinction between them is not always clear. And what's even worse (shudder) is the closely related situation with respect to Category:Memoirists and Category:Autobiographers. What a mess. Cgingold (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hadn't seen them! Memoirs in fact seems mostly a consistent group of autobios by otherwise unknown modern Americans (Mommy kept me under the stairs etc) - in fact (& contrary to the nom) Category:Non-celebrity autobiography; however in the UK the word still mostly suggests books by retired generals or politicians, in other words books concentrating on the working life of the subject, perhaps with little on their emotional life - the exact opposite of the new American sense. So a rename & resort for these would be good - but to what? "Real-life memoirs" is the publishing code I think, but that won't do. Category:Military autobiographies and maybe "war memoirs" could also be set up. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom & recat if possible per Johnbod. Cgingold (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now I see Mattisse has just set up Category:Autobographies of the American experience (nb typo) yesterday! Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I have nominated the other one now also. I agree that a refining scheme a la Johnbod seems much sounder. __meco (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After a look I think Cgingold is right, and the distinction between "memoirs" & "autobiographies" doesn't exist - they should just be merged. I also found Category:Autobiographical military books in another part of the forest, now linked in, though a rename might be ideal. I would set up Category:Show-business autobiographies with the slightest encouragement - it seems the best name for all actors/producers/directors/scriptwriters etc. What do people think? Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say that there is no distinction whatsoever between them, but the distinction is pretty fuzzy and therefore, as a practical matter, it's impossible for a large, diverse array of editors to sort them out in a consistent manner. It's very reminiscent of the former categories for civil rights and civil liberties, where the solution we adopted was a complete merger under the heading, Category:Civil rights and liberties. That seems the right model for these cats, too. It's a bit wordy (or should I say, "syllableous"?), but I think a combined name is the answer: Category:Autobiographies and memoirs. Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although doing it in the note might be enough. Category:World War II autobiographies and memoirs is a bit long, though better than the renaming currently going through in another debate. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now set up Category:Show business memoirs. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 29 March 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:First-person shooter multiplayer online games. If anyone objects to the capitalization, I can fix it. Kbdank71 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's rationale: Peculiar category with subjective inclusion criteria. I've never heard the term "MOG" so at the very least it should probably be expanded. It's tied to this article Multiplayer online game which needs sourcing. –xeno (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Rename to spell-out "MOG". The category itself seems reasonable, in that those games are apparently subsets of two different genres. I don't see anything objectionable, subjective, or OR about that designation. Only issue is whether MOG is a clear-enough term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with significant following in the game community was the subjetive bit I was talking about. –xeno (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - per nom to spell out the abbreviation. I'm removing the fairly pointless significant following verbiage, since regardless of how "significant" their followings are, no game should have an article anyway unless the game itself is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (open to renaming though). The introduction of multiplayer game formats as MOGs for first-person shooters marked a new leap for the FPS genre. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, Rename to Category:First-person shooter Multiplayer online games or is that Category:First-person shooter, Multiplayer online games? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 1 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.