< November 23 November 25 >

November 24

Category:Dungeons & Dragons enthusiasts

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. --Xdamrtalk 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dungeons & Dragons enthusiasts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing people by hobby or pastime doesn't seem like a good idea, and I know many similar categories have been deleted in the past. Being a fan or enthusiast of Dungeons and Dragons is not defining for the people included in this category. Seems like if anything, this information should be included in a section within Dungeons & Dragons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is almost certainly how the cat was populated in the first place. I think it's an interesting category, and we do have sources, but I am totally ambivalent as to its continued existence. BOZ (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started the page due to Wil Wheaton being put into the "Dungeons & Dragons game designers" category, which was clearly erroneous, as on the talk page someone informed me that this had probably been done because he clearly had connections to the game as an author and was influenced by the game, yet there was no other way to express this. As he, and a number of other people listed in the category, generally DO find that their involvement with the game has shaped or influenced their lives positively in some fashion, and have been vocal about that (see Jon Favreau, Stephen Colbert, etc.) it is different from a category such as "chess enthusiasts" or "poker enthusiasts", where few people other than professionals mention such games have had a tangible impact on their lives. This is my reasoning to have the category. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whatever the outcome - I draw your attention to Category:Hobbyists, for example Category:Philatelists contains people who had philately as a hobby, not primary interest eg Richard Feynman.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as category contains a notable list, not trivia eg Vin Diesel is a good example since his involvement is verifyable, and extensive. (I would guess the category may need patrolling to prevent bloat?)14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-defining characteristic. None of these people are in any way notable due to their Dungeons enthusiasm, any more than they would be notable for liking potato chips, smoking the ganja, or being bald. A category like Category:Philatelists is, actually, a different kettle of fish: some people do owe whatever notability and fame they possess to their achievements in philately, but I'm not sure that kind of notability is necessarily Wikipedia notability. Clifford Washington Kissinger and W. Wilson Hulme II might be some example of people notable for their achievements as philatelists, although both biographies are unsourced currently. That one should probably be nominated separately for a discussion on its merits. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vin Diesel is not only notable for being bald, he wrote the preface to a D&D 30th yr. anniversary book. Stephen Colbert is noted for playing D&D as well as being an uber LotR fan. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we wouldn't want to categorize Vin Diesel in a Category:Bald people. This is trivial stuff. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Everyone knows the only one whose baldness shaped his life was Lex Luthor. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And possibly Sy Sperling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether someone is an "enthusiast," as opposed to just a player, is vague and would be hard to determine, and more importantly a person's opinion on an issue, like being a cat lover or Star Trek fan, is not suitable material for a category.

-Glenfarclas (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original point was that it differed from being just a fan, as the game somehow enhanced or shaped their lives positively (in Favreau's case, making him a better writer, or encouraging social skills they used later). Most cat lovers don't express their cat love helped them be a better writer. Star Trek fans... well... that is a panacea. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, WP:OR complications, and manyfold precedence. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where the WP:OR comes in? Each of these people have been properly referenced. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Vin Diesel writing, Lillard (playing for local kids group), Myers going to convention, etc. LovelyLillith (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know my D&D history, Lillith. Whereas Wheaton was a regular author for an official D&D publication, none of the others were. Hobbyists don't merit categories, no matter how much the hobby shaped their careers. However, I will propose a middle-ground solution: create a category called Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers, make designers and novelists subcategories (as opposed to novelists being a subcategory of designers, which makes no sense), and then Wheaton and even Diesel can be a part of that. Does that work for folks?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad Mike, I didn't recognize Arneson when he walked up to chat with me at a convention, either. I think your proposal would be helpful. If you want to change this one to writers, I'll remove the links from everyone but those two. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If the closing admin likes my solution (create Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers, include the subcategories of D&D game designers and D&D novelists, and add Wheaton and Diesel to that), then that's the way we'll go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:01, 1 December 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.

Category:Rail vehicles manufacturers

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. — ξxplicit 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rail vehicles manufacturers to Category:Rail vehicle manufacturers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As far as I can tell the current name is a minor spelling/grammar error Shortfatlad (talk) 21:39, 24 November 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.

Category:DR locomotives

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. — ξxplicit 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DR locomotives to Category:Deutsche Reichsbahn (East Germany) locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and match the main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 24 November 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.

Category:DB locomotives

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. — ξxplicit 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DB locomotives to Category:Deutsche Bundesbahn locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To expand abbreviation to match the name in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 24 November 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.

Category:Buccaneers RFC

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buccaneers RFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-article eponymous category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 24 November 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.

Category:Noble houses of the United Kingdom

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 rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Noble houses of the United Kingdom to Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Families and Category:British families. (Note I just added this to Category:British families). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 November 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.

British families

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:
--Xdamrtalk 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know the term "House of" is only used with reigning or former reigning families, which in these cases is not applicable. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and family businesses, House of Fraser, House of Chanel, House of Gucci. Bazj (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No quite. House of Fraser is an article, because that's the trading name of the business ... but House of Chanel & House of Gucci are both redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 24 November 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.

Rugby union clubs in Ireland

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 Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 01:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Irish rugby union teams. AFAICS, none of the teams concerned are in Category:Rugby league in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 24 November 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.

Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

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:Gandhism; I'll leave the pruning (if there is any left to do) to those who advocated for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Nominator's rationale: Delete: If we had a category listing every notable individuals' principles/philosophies, then articles would be clogged up with categories of individuals. Gandhi is/was not the only notable individual to follow simple living and vegetarianism. History/legacy that is specific to Gandhi should be listed under Category:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I weeded out some articles which weren't specifically a Ghandian philosophy. The category as a whole is much more coherant now. ThemFromSpace 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Per WP:CfD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think that line should be modified as editors should be encouraged to be bold and edit categories to improve them as they are facing deletion. I still feel that the category is better now so I'm a little hesitant to revert myself. Is it absolutely necessary to do so, or may IAR trump process here? I know if articles such as "simple living" or "vegitarianism" would belong in this category by common sense, I would switch my vote to delete per IINFO as well as overcategorization issues. We can't categorize general articles like these under everyone who has ever supported them. ThemFromSpace 02:58, 29 November 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.

Category:Cue sports novels

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cue sports novels to Category:Cue sports literature
Nominator's rationale: Rename: This was my bad; I didn't think long enough before creating this category back when. The problem with it being this specific is that it necessitates the creation of additional categories (for novellas, short stories, novelettes, trilogies, etc., etc., etc.) as relevant articles arise, and that would be silly. The more generic name will encompass everything from The Hustler (novel) to "Darwinian Pool Room" with no problems. The parent cat. sorts at bottom of cat. page will need to be adjusted after the rename. PS: I thought of Category:Cue sports fiction, but movies and TV shows (which already have Category:Cue sports films and television) are also fiction. Best to just be really, really clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There's no huge hurry, and this is already half-way through the CfR period anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:35, 26 November 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.

Category:The public enemy era

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. --Xdamrtalk 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The public enemy era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The "Public Enemy" era was a period during the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in particular and the social history of the United States more generally. While this may be a valid topic for a category, its current form is problematic because it has no clearly-defined scope. The current membership of the category includes articles about individual criminals (e.g., Ma Barker), criminal groups (e.g., Barrow Gang), law enforcement officials (e.g., J. Edgar Hoover), places (e.g., Biograph Theater, where John Dillinger was killed), and events (e.g., Young Brothers Massacre).
If kept, rename to Category:Public Enemy era. However, since I do not believe that it is useful to categorize biographical articles in broad "era" or "period" categories (the practice is equivalent to placing Talleyrand in Category:Napoleonic Wars instead of in a subcategory of Category:People of the Napoleonic Wars), I am currently leaning toward deletion of the category, since there won't be much left in the category if the biographies are removed. (Category creator notified using ((Cfd-notify)).) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:38, 24 November 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.

Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith to Category:LGBT clergy
Nominator's rationale: Simpler name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 24 November 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.

Category:Auto car racing controversies

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 Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 01:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Auto car racing controversies to Category:Auto racing controversies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with Category:Auto racing and its numerous existing sub-cats. DH85868993 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 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.

Category:Philosophical media

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Philosophical media to Category:Philosophy-related media
Nominator's rationale: The media itself is not philosophical (necessarily...) but it is related to philosophy. Cf. Category:Cult-related media —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 24 November 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.
More