< March 4	March 6 >

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) 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The members of this category share nothing in common beyond their names being used for objects in a particular segment of the solar system. This was put up for speedy rename based on capitalization so if retained should be renamed to Category:Eponyms of trans-Neptunian objects. Otto4711 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per a variation on WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Occuli (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 9 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 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category. Lead article serves as a proper navigational hub for this limited material. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 5 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...WP:DRV is that away...-> Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Had consensus to delete in this discussion but was not tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion based on previous discussion. Similarly-named categories have been deleted 5 times now, so I don't think there's much of an issue here to debate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 7 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 all to Fooian pornographic film actors. (Noting the "of" and "from" exceptions.)

Seems to have the most agreement, and seems to be most accurate based upon the current membership of the cats, and for that matter, the seeming intention of the categories.

Per the discussion, this closure causes no prejudice against creating: Fooian pornographic play actors.

Once the renaming is done, leaving a soft redirect at both Category:Porn stars and Category:Pornographic actors. - jc37 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Porn stars to Category:Pornographic actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename all - the lead article is at Pornographic actor, this is a sub-cat structure of Category:Actors and "star" is subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Category:Venezuelan porn stars
Category:Ukrainian porn stars
Category:Turkish porn stars
Category:Thai porn stars
Category:Swedish porn stars
Category:Spanish porn stars
Category:Slovak porn stars
Category:Russian porn stars
Category:Romanian porn stars
Category:Polish porn stars
Category:Panamanian porn stars
Category:Norwegian porn stars
Category:Mexican porn stars
Category:Japanese porn stars
Category:Italian porn stars
Category:Indian porn stars
Category:Hungarian porn stars
Category:German porn stars
Category:French porn stars
Category:Finnish porn stars
Category:Dutch porn stars
Category:Dominican Republic porn stars
Category:Danish porn stars
Category:Czech porn stars
Category:Cuban porn stars
Category:Colombian porn stars
Category:Canadian porn stars
Category:Welsh porn stars
Category:English porn stars
Category:British porn stars
Category:Brazilian porn stars
Category:Belgian porn stars
Category:Austrian porn stars
Category:Australian porn stars
Category:Jewish porn stars
Category:Porn stars of Italian ethnicity
Category:Hispanic porn stars
Category:American porn stars
Category:American porn stars by ethnic or national origin
Category:Native American porn stars
Category:Mexican American porn stars
Category:Asian American porn stars
Category:African American porn stars
Category:Porn stars who committed suicide
Category:Transsexual porn stars
Category:Male porn stars
Category:Lists of porn stars
Category:Fictional porn stars
Category:Female porn stars
Category:Bisexual porn stars
Category:Porn stars by nationality
Category:Porn stars by ethnicity

Exceptions

Category:Texas porn stars to Category:Pornographic actors from Texas
Category:Pennsylvania porn stars to Category:Pornographic actors from Pennsylvania
Category:Oregon porn stars to Category:Pornographic actors from Oregon
Category:New Jersey porn stars to Category:Pornographic actors from New Jersey
Category:California porn stars to Category:Pornographic actors from California
Category:Puerto Rican porn stars - might need to be Category:Pornographic actors from Puerto Rico, but a lot of people of Puerto Rican descent in the US have never set foot on the island but still identify themselves as PR by ethnicity.

Rename to Category:Actors in pornography, or 2nd choice Category:Pornography actors - I seem to recall this one at Cfd before, but cannot find the link. "Porn star" has connotations of subjectivity as noted by the nom, but at one time I think the argument was made that we all know what a porn star is. Anyway, back to the here and now: the actor is not pornographic, its his/her work that is, hence the formulation I propose. And I think the article deserves a rename too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you possibly thinking of the various discussions that left us with the ridiculously-named Category:People appearing in gay pornography out of the misguided concern that the "gay" in "gay porn star" modified "star" rather than "gay"? Regardless, I don't think that someone's possibly thinking that the actors are pornographic rather than the films is a serious concern. I doubt anyone thinks that the members of Category:Film actors are made out of film. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - actor more neutral than star and fits in better with most category schemes for actors. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Porn stars or rename as Category:Porn actors or Category:Pornographic film actors. Pornographic actors is artificial and simply bad English. Pornographic is an adjective, it can only be modifying "actor" in this phrase. That may not be what is meant or understood but that's what it denotes in standard English. This name also cannot be considered a colloquial term, that would be "Porn actor" - check "pornographic actors" versus "porn actors" on Google, most of the hits for "pornographic actor" come from the Wikipedia article of that name (which should also be changed).Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "porn actor", "porn" is also an adjective modifying "actor". Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a noun not modifying actor, as in Porn. Occuli (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "Porn actor" is a colloquial term and colloquialisms do not always follow grammatical rules. "Pornographic actor", however, is not a common colloquial term and so can be faulted for its poor grammar. If we mean "actors in pornographic films", then why not say so in standard grammatical English by using "Pornographic film actors"?

While not definitive, pornographic actor gets 20 Google news hits, while pornographic film actor gets 32. So it's hardly the case that one has some great dominance over the other in terms of usage. Brevity without loss of clarity is generally preferred in category names, and it is doubtful that "pornographic actor" is going to confuse anyone as to what its contents are. That said, if the only way to fix the subjective "star" issue is to rename to "pornographic film actors" then I would grudgingly accept it, but find it thoroughly unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And porn actor gets 670 hits, which is pretty definitive. If we are looking for brevity, clarity and a term that is well-known (without the connotations of "star"), "Porn actor" can't be beat. It may not have the formal cachet of "Pornographic film actor" which I gave as a secondary choice, but both are, to me, preferable to "Pornographic actor", which (no slight intended) is still just bad English. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Porn actor" is slangy and too informal for use in category names. Otto4711 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then that leaves us with the nice formal "Pornographic film actors". Brevity is not an excuse for bad English. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an English major I see no issue with "Pornographic actor". YMMV. Otto4711 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as someone who used to teach at a university, I think I'd have to really mark you down on that one :) But we've probably had enough fun with this, our positions are pretty obvious so let's let others weigh in. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. or to 'Pornographic film actor' . 'star' is POV loaded term Mayumashu (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I could ultimately accept either "pornographic actors" or "pornographic film actors". It's essentially an issue of brevity over strict grammatical accuracy, since I don't think there is any actual risk of confusion by using "pornographic actor". I'm usually accused of being a pedant when it comes to category names, but in this case even though it's a bit of a "toss up" (please, people, CONTROL yourselves— there was no pun intended), I think I prefer the more succinct "pornographic actors". (Besides, adding "films" just adds another requirement—what about all those actors who haven't appeared in films yet but appear in "pornographic TV mini-series"? ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are pornographic TV mini-series?! Although there are pornographic plays so I guess you have a point. Otto4711 (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was being a bit facetious—basically begging someone to ask me what the mini-series was so I could make a crack about Roots; but then I realized that that joke would only be amusing for the limited number of English speakers for which the last entry here has significance. But the existence of plays is a good point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Actors in pornography, or failing that something else. 'Films' shouldn't be added, as it may not apply to everyone in this category; and 'actors in pornography' is better grammar than 'pornographic actors'. That name, however, would still be better than the current 'Category:Porn stars', which is slangy and non-neutral. Robofish (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Actors in pornography" is an awkward construction. "Pornographic actors" or "pornographic film actors" reflect wide-spread categorization structures like Category:Film actors, Category:Television actors, Category:Stage actors and other sub-categories of Category:Actors by medium. Otto4711 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Actors in pornography, 2nd choice being Category:Pornographic film actors. Anything that has been mentioned would be better than its current title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetNightmares (talk • contribs) 06:06, 17 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. Listify genera at will. If you need a list of what was in the category, I can provide it upon request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Little different than Category:Eponymous cities, Category:Eponymous foods, Category:Eponymous minerals, and Category:Eponomous theories which were deleted a while back. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree and so does the discussion at say the Eponymous cities cfd. Occuli (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly Listify - This is clearly the stuff of a list or lists, not a category. The discussion on the Category talk page suggests that the numbers are quite large. What I'm not entirely clear about is what percentage of plants are named for people. Given the general practice in botanical nomenclature, I would say that at the species level it's a very substantial proportion, but probably considerably less at the genus level. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - If kept, I think that in all fairness, we are also obligated to establish Category:People named after plants. Cgingold (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Plumbago and I wanted to set up that category years ago. :) Guettarda (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Maiden, an expert on Acacia, named his daughter Acacia—to be precise, Acacia Dorothy Maiden. Some years later, he named a plant Acacia dorothea Maiden. So there you go: a plant named after a person named after a plant. Hesperian 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fabulous! I sure hope it made DYK. Anybody up for Category:Plants named after people named after plants?? :) Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! --KP Botany (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on listification? Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to Plumbago and me, there's User:Salix alba, and...Oh, you mean listifying this category. A list of species would be utterly unworkable, but a list of genera named for people might be workable. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" people named after plants, not Wikipedia editors named after plants, and I think it would have to be after plant genera or some such. Start her up. --KP Botany (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify genera. Species would be unworkable. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (or the precedent on the other eponymous categories which is a closer analogy). I have no strong opinion pro or con on listification. Kingdon (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would there be a problem with Category:Plants named after botanists, Category:Plants named after politicians, Category:Plants named after royalty, Category:Plants named after explorers, etcetera? If not, then it seems to me that this category is an appropriate container category for them. Hesperian 03:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until reason for deletion provided. I'm not sure if it's useful or not. I like the category. And that reason is as good as "...I'm pretty sure we've deleted categories for cities named after U.S. Presidents before but I'm not finding the old discussion." Of course, CfDs are closed by deletionists, so I doubt anything here will even be read, so my "discussion" on the matter is pointless. --KP Botany (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These plants do not share anything in common other than happening to have been named after a person. We do not categorize on that basis. I like this category is not a rationale for keeping it. "Those mean ol' deletionists won't pay attention to me" is also not a rationale for keeping. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there's no reason for deletion to counter, so my not providing a valid reason for keeping is beside the point. --KP Botany (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a reason was given for deletion and several examples of analogous categories that have been deleted were offered in support of that reason. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 9 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) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eli Roth films to Category:Films directed by Eli Roth

Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention of the parent category/naming convention for "Films directed by <director>. Lugnuts (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom. No-brainer. Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 10 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - pretty much every high school in the United States, if not the world, is a venue for high school basketball. Otto4711 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as these are all in the US according to the parent categories. Occuli (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete location by type of event is not a good way of categorizing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 9 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tibetan festivals to Category:Festivals in Tibet

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the common form of the parent, Category:Festivals by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the unfortunate diaspora nature of Tibetan culture. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split since cultural festivals are Tibetan. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Split to what, and why? Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 10 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 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Egyptian festivals to Category:Festivals in Ancient Egypt

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the common form in Category:Festivals by country and in particular the form of Category:Festivals in Ancient Greece. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment "ancient Egypt" is not a country. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome/Greece/Egypt are in many by country/culture categories, where appropriate. There is no equivalent modern Egyptian cat it could be a sub of. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 10 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, but purge/cleanup. If no purging/cleaningup occurs within a reasonable amount of time, allow for re-nominating for deletion. Kbdank71 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - the category currently has no inclusion criteria. Per Dixiecrat the original meaning is "member of the States' Rights Democratic Party". It has expanded to include, apparently, any Southern Democrat who had either Republican or racist leanings. Category also currently includes people like Theodore G. Bilbo, who died before the party was even founded, and, before I removed him, Robert De Niro whose article in no way supports the notion of his being a Dixiecrat. So, we could delete the category (a list exists at Dixiecrat and because of the noted issues I would suggest not using the category as the basis of a list); we could rename the category to something that expressly includes members of the States' Rights Democratic Party and excludes those who were not members; or we could keep the category and try to formulate some sort of inclusion criteria. I'm at something of a loss as to what those criteria could possibly be so I'm leaning toward option one or two. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define, then keep but purge Dixiecrat provides an adequate definition, which should be applied here. Any one who does not fit the definition should be removed. The category appears to be a legitimate one, so that deletion ought not to be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and seems that any definition would or could be no more than a person by opinion or by trivial behavioral traits or subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the idea of restricting it to members of the party specifically and parenting it in Category:American people by political party? Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that, Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restrict to party members, which is the standard practice for this sort of category. Cgingold (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per PKI/Cgg/Otto.-choster (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict to party members, per Cgingold. This one does seem to have clear inclusion criteria, and to be a defining charcteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:02, 8 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - vague inclusion criteria. What does it mean to "support the Southern agenda"? What level of support is required to qualify for inclusion? If retained, spelling should be changed to "sympathizers" to reflect American English. Otto4711 (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify in Dixiecrat then Delete (alternatively merge with Category:Dixiecrats). As an Englishman, I have no knowledge of the subject, and thus lack the expertise to opt for one solution rather than the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the CFD above, except this is worse as more ambiguous and useless: what is the Sothern agenda anyway? voting in favor of rebuilding New Orleans perhaps? Well, throw Barack Obama in the cat, then. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - impossibly vague & subjective (even with proper spelling). What's next, Category:Communist sympathizers?? Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undefinable political opinion category.-choster (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Sympathiser" is far too vague a term to be useable in a category system which works as a binary choice. I see no way of defining a non-arbitrary threshold for how much someone needs to sympathise with the Dixiecrats to be included here. Where exactly on the spectrum between "I strongly support them" to "I think they are utterly adorable fools" can a clear line be drawn, and how on earth can inclusion disputes be settled? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 8 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_25#Category:Categories_named_after_criminals. - jc37 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Categories named after criminals to Category:Criminals

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I intend for this nomination to serve as a test nomination for the various categories and subcategories of Category:Categories named after people. This was discussed once previously in the context of IIRC a rename proposal to bring some categories into line with the naming format. Editors at that time questioned whether this layer of categorization was necessary between the subcategories and the "grandparent" category. I don't believe it is, any more than Category:Categories named after chemical elements is needed between Category:Chemical elements and Category:Oxygen. There is no research value in the question "are there other categories named after criminals?" and even if there were, simply clicking on Category:Criminals will answer it. In this particular instance, this is also a small category and ~~two~~ one of its sub-cats ~~are~~ is up for deletion, but given the size of some of the sibling categories that may not be completely germane. If consensus is to delete then I'd want us to look at other similar categories within the Category:Eponymous categories structure. Otto4711 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we've had this before - someone wanted to merge Category:Categories named after universities and colleges into Category:Universities and colleges. The 2 things are completely different (have a look) and don't merge. Also Category:Categories named after criminals is not a subcat of Category:Criminals. It could be upmerged perfectly sensibly to Category:Categories named after people.Occuli (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what is the difference between a category for a criminal and a category named for a criminal? Otto4711 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories named after universities and colleges has 1230 subcats and 0 articles. Category:Universities and colleges has 41 subcats and 31 articles. They are completely different animals. Do have a look. (Subst XXX for 'Universities and colleges' - the argument is the same.) Occuli (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not necessarily the same. It may be that some "named after" category schemes are warranted while others are not. Many/Most of the categories named after people seem unnecessary and redundant to their various grandparent categories. Why should someone looking for articles related to a specific person be made to go through a "categories named for" subcategory? Otto4711 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article Al Capone should be (somewhere) in Category:Criminals but the category Category:Al Capone should not be (as this would list Eliot Ness via subcats as a criminal). So the 'named after' categories should not be part of any tree except the eponymous one (eg your favourite Category:Categories named after musicians is in my view correctly parented). Occuli (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us suppose I am wrong on this (I await the verdict of Cgingold the immaculate). Consider Category:Categories named after musicians (510 subcats) to be a subcat of Category:Musicians (33 sensible subcats) (thus introducing rafts of albums, songs, videos etc into a 'people' category). An upmerge would leave the 33 sensible subcats swamped by 510 eponymous and controversial siblings. Occuli (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that every included article in a subcat automatically takes on every attribute of every parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc. category is bizarre. Each of Judy Garland's husbands is currently in Category:Judy Garland but none of them save David Rose was a musician or actor. It is ludicrous to think that the other four husbands' inclusion in Judy's category (parented by Category:Categories named after actors and Category:Categories named after musicians) means that all five of her husbands were musicians or actors. Otto4711 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such implication. A category named after an actor can contain anything without contradiction. (This is why these 'named after' categories have to be kept apart from normal ones.) Occuli (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. The inclusion of the Capone category in the criminals category implies that Ness is a criminal but inclusion in other "named after" categories doesn't imply that included articles are part of the parent cat? Does...not...compute... Otto4711 (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. The category is named after an actor; the article and subcats can be anything at all. That's all. Over and out. These are more imaginary windmills. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over your head and out of your mind, maybe. First you say that including Category:Al Capone in Category:Criminals "would list Eliot Ness via subcats as a criminal". Then you say that there "is no such implication" regarding another type of named after category. You're directly contradicting yourself. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or there something wrong with your logic. Hmmm. Occuli (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one engaged in doublethink. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CAT - "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." Ergo, Category:Al Capone is not a subcat of Category:Criminals (a people category), because Category:Al Capone includes a church, several films, a memoir, a play and a whole subcat of law enforcement people, none of which are criminals. Ergo, your nom is seriously flawed. Occuli (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, much of the sub-categorization system should be dismantled, including removing all albums by, songs by, books by, etc. sub-cats from the creator category (a song is not a singer, after all), removing all Foos by city subcats from the city categories (a church or a train station in Chicago is not a city) removing all chemical compound sub-cats from element categories (a compound is not an element). The idea that the criminal Al Capone can't be categorized directly as a criminal because his category includes a church or what-not is just stupid. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the church from Capone's category, as the connection (his sister was married there) is far too tenuous for categorizing. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB The previous brief discussion is at cfd of 2008 June 24 and ended with the nom slapping himself with a trout. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB, that is not a discussion of categories named after people. I have already said that some branches of these named after may be warranted while others are not. Instead of trying to sidetrack the issue, try staying on the topic of categories named after people rather than categories named after universities, m'kay? Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, again. It doesn't matter what the XXX might be, you can't merge Category:Categories named after XXX into Category:XXX. By all means upmerge to Category:Categories named after people. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB2 - there was also Eponymous categories and similar subcategories which was a resounding keep. Occuli (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to Category:Categories named after people, then delete we generally should not have categories entitled "Categories...." except perhaps for maintenance; and then, they should be hidden. What distinguishes criminals from the overall Category:Categories named after people? Indeed, if this is for maintenance, all the subcats of Category:Categories named after people should be upmerged and it made a hidden cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please relist for further discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We should not have "categories named after..." categories. We certainly don't have categories named "articles named after criminals", we have "criminals". Exact same concept. --Kbdank71 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories named after criminals - the members are categories.

Category:Criminals is Category:Articles about criminals - the members are articles.

A category is not an article so Category:Categories named after criminals cannot be a subcat of Category:Criminals; so a merge does not make any sense. ('We should not have "categories named after..." categories' is a separate argument.) From WP:CAT - "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." It follows that Category:Al Capone, which includes films, a play, and a variety of people who are not criminals, cannot be a subcat of Category:Criminals, just as Category:John Lennon, although named after someone from Liverpool, is not a subcat of Category:People from Liverpool. Occuli (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Criminals is Category:Criminals. If Category:Criminals was Category:Articles about criminals, a)it would be named Category:Articles about criminals, and b) we'd have to remove the 50 subcategories. If you really don't want to merge, at least rename it to something better, like Category:Criminals by name, to match other "FOO by state/nationality/status/hair color/hair colour/BAR/etc/etc/etc". "Categories named after..." is a horrible way to name categories. --Kbdank71 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't understood this at all - a standard category comprises articles. A subcategory of it comprises a subselection of its articles. Category:Categories named after criminals is a category of categories. Its subcategories will be a subselection of its member categories. There is a very good case for getting rid of all these Category:Categories named after criminals, namely that non-mathematicians don't understand them and misplace them in standard categories. The intersection between Category:Categories named after criminals and Category:Criminals is empty. (Category:Criminals by name is something else again; these would be articles, not categories.) Occuli (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm understanding it just fine. Problem is, you are artificially creating limitations to categories and I am not. A "standard category" comprises whatever is put into it, be it just articles, just subcategories, just media, or a combination of any or all of the above. There is nothing that states certain categories can only contain articles. Nothing that states a category that contains other categories must be named "Categories named after..." These are self-imposed limitations that cause unnecessary duplication and create poorly named categories. I can't tell you how many categories there are that contain both a subcategory and an article of the same name. Why should criminals be any different? It's really not that difficult or confusing. --Kbdank71 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, the category system is whatever we the editors make it into. And IMHO categories with titles like Categories named after... should only contain categories, but Category:Criminals should contain whatever we deem fit to put in there. The question is - what use are these named after... cats ? Well they have interest value. If you are browsing the encyclopedia rather than searching for something, then you can go "Oh, look this person has their own category, let's have a look at the articles about this person". They also make it easier to find such categories rather than being scattered amongst a more general category such as criminals. What should happen in my opinion is that Category:Categories named after criminals should be made a subcategory of Category:Criminals and likewise a similar thing should happen to all these named after ... cats - they should be made subcats of cats that people might be browsing. Occuli argued against this above on the grounds that categories are not articles. So what ?. The category Category:Criminals will be browsed by people interested in the subject and they would certainly be interested in criminals who have their own category. Charvest (talk) 01:09, 14 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 14:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - a bit larger than the typical small category but a small category nonetheless. The schools are all listed in the main article and there is also a navigational template. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a defining characteristic of a school. Or rename/upmerge to something like Category:Lehigh Valley high schools and add the non-athletic schools. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all Lehigh Valley high schools are a part of this conference, so the category distinguishes those that are. The conference itself is notable as a top national high school athletic conference, giving birth to numerous athletes who have gone on MLB, NFL, NBA, Olympic accomplishment. PAWiki (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the standard for categorization. The existing list and template distinguish the members of the conference. Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The athlete's participation in this Conference is noted through the use of this category, which is why the category is worthy of inclusion and a useful addition. PAWiki (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not the standard for categorization, and no athletes are (nor should be) included in this category, which is for the schools within the conference. Otto4711 (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable but not defining—the article and template are sufficient here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 11 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 14:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing on the basis of participating in high school sports seems like overcategorization. Do we want a similar category on every article for anyone on a high school sports team, whether they were a star or a bench-warmer? There do not appear to be categories for any other high school athletic conference. If retained, should be renamed to "sportspeople" to conform with naming conventions. Otto4711 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – am I alone in thinking that Category:Lehigh Valley Conference athletes should be a subcat of Category:Lehigh Valley Conference rather than vice versa? This said, delete as (very) non-defining but do not use as a precedent for deleting Olympic athletes categories. Occuli (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is one of the premiere high school athletic divisions in the nation and known for the number of professional and Olympic athletes it has produced. I agree with Occuli, however, that it seems more appropriately placed as a subcategory to Lehigh Valley Conference, than vice versa. But the category is worth keeping. PAWiki (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sportspeople defined by having played sports for one of these schools? No. Olympic athletes are defined by having competed in the Olympics, not by having played high school sports. Otto4711 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is the point. The broader and more relevant point is that the Conference itself is partly defined by having given birth to these athletes, which (among other factors) makes the Conference (and the category) relevant and encyclopedic. PAWiki (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good reason for having an article on the conference with a representative list included, along with a navtemplate to link the schools together, not for having a category for the athletes. Otto4711 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not defining and not a "keep" precedent we want to set. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 11 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: upmerge and delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary vanity category; only covers three people and created by a representative of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Unless this category becomes too big, no subcategory will be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 5 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:Photography festivals. Kbdank71 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Single entry category and the sole article has issues. Not sure of the potential for growth or if there is a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to category:Photography festivals - I've added 2 more I found very easily, & google suggests there are many others. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REname as Johnbod or merge into a new ~~Category:Graphic arts festivals~~ Category:Visual arts festivals (see also next nom below) or make it a subcategory of that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod to Category:Photography festivals. I'm sure more articles can be written. Cgingold (talk) 21:42, 8 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: relisted on the 11th. Kbdank71 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts festivals in Brazil

Category:Arts festivals in Bulgaria

Category:Arts festivals in the United Kingdom

Category:Arts festivals by country

Nominator's rationale: Delete Ambiguous name. The introduction is also more like a catch all stating 'This is for all sorts of arts festivals: literary, performance, visual, community.' Even with that, one could argue that the single article does not even fit that description. If there is agreement on this one, then something will need to be done with the parent and other sub categories. I'd lean to splitting the others into Category:Art festivals and Category:Performing arts festivals. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I elected to add the rest of these single entry categories. The articles in the categories nominated for deleting have other correct categories and deleting this one should not be a problem. As a side note to all of this, I;ll point out that Arts festival is an article that uses Category:Art exhibitions as a parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Bulgaria & Brazil to a new Category:Arts festivals (not to be used as a parent for music/art/literature festivals though). There are loads of these that must have articles, and the cat will be gradually populated. It's too soon to go "by country", except for the UK & US. No other single category really fits the Edinburgh Festival & many much smaller events. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that Category:Arts festivals is the way to go given that the lead article, Arts festival, is in Category:Art exhibitions and states 'Arts festivals in the visual arts are exhibitions'. Another option suggested by the lead article is Category:Art fairs. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about that lead article, which should be completely rewritten. Art fairs are not the same at all, and seem to need an article. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Just dropping in to say that I depopulated a lot of the "Arts festivals in country X" categories a few months ago, choosing more appropriate categories for the articles. There were scores if not hundreds of such articles, and there seemed to be some (understandable) confusion between art and arts festivals, as many do seem to include some of everything. "Cultural festivals"? Good luck with whatever solution you find. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that may be the point here. There are better categories in other trees that cover these. So why do we need to keep this structure? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific categories aplenty, but no general one for general festivals. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest split into ~~Category:Graphic arts festivals~~ Category:Visual arts festivals (which will include art exhibitions, but also photography scultpure, etc.) and Category:Performing arts festivals. Category:Arts festivals would be appropriate as a parent to both. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, no please!! Graphic arts does not mean what I suspect you think. We already have music, literature & theatre festival cats. Why interpose a Category:Performing arts festivals? Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is also Category:Night-time arts festivals. Very odd that there is Category:Arts festivals by country but no Category:Arts festivals. Subcats in search of a parent. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I created Category:Arts festivals by country some time ago; I would have brought the idea here for discussion had I realised, and certainly it can be improved, but there needs to be some national way of linking such festivals. It seems to me that many if not most festivals are (and bill themselves as being) broader than "just" music, drama, etc. -- "arts festival" is one catch-all name for that. I also created Category:Night-time arts festivals and think it exemplifies what cats should be about, bringing together articles that might otherwise not know of each others' existence -- so what should its parent be? I agree that Category:Graphic arts festivals is misleading, because of the meaning of graphic arts; one alternative would be Category:Visual arts festivals, but do such festivals, devoid of performances, really exist? That sounds so static, and isn't it in the nature of a festival to have activities, i.e. performances of some type, from speakers at literary festivals to street mimes everywhere else? BrainyBabe (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment suggestion changed above, in the light of recent comments. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Festivals in (X)", maybe. I'd probably just make them all "festivals," rather than go for granularity. A festival like Bumbershoot is such a mix of visual arts and performing arts that it would have to be in two categories, and I'll bet there's a whole lot of festivals just like that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly many of these are not restricted to one class of display. Is there any art show or festival category that would not apply to burning man? So maybe by country would be the best solution for the by country breakouts and leave the categories by type of exhibition without breaking out by country. I guess this should be relisted to give your proposal a chance to be discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Festivals by country. This is about arts festivals, not beer festivals, religious festivals, traditional holidays etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the point. They can be added to Category:Festivals by country categories we would not categorize by country for each type of festival. So we would really be upmerging these;

Category:Arts festivals in the United States to Category:Festivals in the United States

Category:Arts festivals in Brazil to Category:Festivals in Brazil

Category:Arts festivals in Bulgaria to Category:Festivals in Bulgaria

Category:Arts festivals in the United Kingdom to Category:Festivals in the United Kingdom

And to Category:Arts festivals. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are a total of five articles in these four categories, it just doesn't make any sense to keep them, in my opinion. I'm more sure of the upmerging after looking at the contents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are called "arts festivals". Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 10 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.

March 5

Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects

Category:Max and Ruby

Category:Sportspeople turned actors

Category:Porn stars

Category:Plants named after people

Category:Eli Roth films

Category:High school basketball venues

Category:Tibetan festivals

Category:Ancient Egyptian festivals

Category:Dixiecrats

Category:Dixiecrat sympathisers

Category:Categories named after criminals

Category:Lehigh Valley Conference

Category:Lehigh Valley Conference athletes

Category:Alabama Cooperative Extension Pioneers

Category:Photo festivals

Category:Arts festivals in the United States