< February 6	February 8 >

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Punjab alumni to Category:University of the Punjab alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match head article University of the Punjab. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and as are Category:University of the Punjab and Category:University of the Punjab faculty. Dsp13 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Debresser (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (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. The category can be recreated when it has a significant increase in membership. As noted in the discussion, this may well be 6 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Moldova nationality law to Category:Moldovan law

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category only contains a stub main article and Moldovan passport. I suggest merging to parent Category:Moldovan law. It could be re-created if there becomes more to add to it. (If kept, needs to be renamed Category:Moldovan nationality law to match main article and standard of Category:Nationality law.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While it is a meaningful, I don't forsee the growth of this category anytime soon. On the other hand, I don't see it brings any particular hindrance: this is a very distinctive subcategory, and anybody browsing its parent category most probably will know whether he has to look into it or not. - Altenmann >t 05:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Other subcategories of Category:Nationality law have at least 6 pages. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2010 (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. Clearly the consensus, with the list having been created, many of the arguments for keeping are addressed. In the discussions there was some support for other category names, renames and splits, but no consensus. This delete should not be used as an outcome for the future creation of the new categories with a different focus as discussed below. They would need a discussion here if created and there is an objection. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Strong delete as trivia per WP:OC#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. The category name is thoroughly obscure, but no matter how the category is named, it is not a defining characteristic of a song that a copy of it was rubber-stamped by one of the musicians who played it. This is too trivial for a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Categorizing songs by which session musicians have played them would end up with every halfway significant song being in a hundred categories. Not defining for any of these songs, at any rate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Hal Blaine was in the first group of session musicians elected to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. His career is legendary, as is the stamp that he used. He has collected something like 123 gold records. That there are almost 100 songs already in the category points to it and his significance. I am interested to know what songs you have in mind that would end up with a hundred session musicians categorized. I’d better get started on it. Blaine was a defining aspect of many of these songs, was chosen for sessions because his playing produced hits. He also was often responsible for getting other musicians lined up for the dates. He was great and it's time that Wikipedia started recognizing the men and women behind the curtains. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The number of songs in the category does not justify its existence, and this stamp is not even mentioned in the article on him. I am not aware of any precedent on wikipedia for categorising songs by the artists who performed in their recording, and if we started down that road we'd have horrendous category clutter on articles. (e.g. I don't know how many songs and instrumental pieces the great Jerry Douglas has performed on, but it's many hundred). This is not even a category of songs he performed on, it's a category of the trivial fact that he made a mark on some piece of paper. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back and check, but my intention was that it be a category of the songs that Blaine played on. Perhaps I did not make that clear.. Carptrash (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This category is not defining for songs in question. You may want to make an article Hal Blaine Strikes Again with this list, if you provide adequate references per WP:CITE. - Altenmann >t 05:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought that wikipedia should try something new. I certainly won't try that again. Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for drama. Something new happens in wikipedia every day. And something even succeeds, but not necessarily in the form you want. Why don't you try the article suggested above? If you ignore it, people will doubt that your primary goal in wikipedia was to uphold the memories of the great Hal Blaine. Timurite (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I apologize for my petulant previous posting here. In will indeed take your suggestions and use the red link provided to create a new article and see where that leads us all. However my primary goal here is not really about Hal Blaine but to create an encyclopedia that is useful in as many different ways as is possible. This category is done towards that end. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are many notable session musicians and they played on many thousands of songs. Categorizing each of the songs by each of the musicians would lead to a category mess that simply wouldn't be worth whatever benefit it would provide, if any. With regards to a list article, I'm OK with that, but naming it "Hal Blaine Strikes Again" is just plain wrong. The stamp story is interesting, but it belongs in the article about Blaine. A list of songs he performed on should have the usual WP-style "List of ..." name. We don't need overly-creative article names; they won't help readers find things. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" just plain wrong". Pretty hard to argue with that. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to refute the point about overly-creative names that don't help readers, but you chose to ignore that, eh? — John Cardinal (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine an argument that I might make on that point ("overly-creative") that would get you to change your vote? I can get overly-creative in my arguments too, but for what? If you can imagine such a persuasive approach, well then you don't need me to make it. I am not a proselytizer in any (that I can think of) aspect of my life and am not likely to begin here. If this category, and its spin-off article, that BHG is already all over, goes the way of all flesh, so be it. It must be, as they frequently say in Bollywood, my destiny. I believe that this category will be useful to some wikipedia users. That I have run into a group that can't imagine who those folks might be, well, it could be a failure of imagination, a concept closely related to overly-creative, don't you think? eek aka Carptrash (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not a failure with our imaginations. The problem is the category is a bad idea, and the "list of" article ought to fit with the established conventions of the encyclopedia because those conventions help readers find articles more than cute names. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad idea" is that better or worse than "just plain wrong"? And yes, well it was awfully rude of me to even hint that the failure might be yours. Obviously it, along with this whole dumb thing is mine. But I have learned to live with my failures and am even proud of a number of them. But it seems to me that what you are saying (please correct me if i am mistaken) is that there is not argument that I could make that would get you to change your vote on this category title. So . ... how about if I change the name of the category to Songs Hal Blaine played on? Would that help? eek aka Carptrash (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKEEPRENAME (see additional discussion below). If we go down this road, to be consistent we could easily add a dozen categories to many songs, because we'd create Songs (Joe Osborn, Tommy Tedesco, Larry Knechtel, etc.) Played On. I'd concede that as their leader, Blaine was the most notable of The Wrecking Crew, but quite a few others were notable as well. I think an article with the list of songs Blaine performed on is a great alternative. However, it might be worth considering a category of Songs the Wrecking Crew Played On, because IMHO (I'm sure I could find cites if I took the time) they are one of the most well known, widely recorded, and successful group of session musicians of all time, making songs they played on a notable category. --hulmem (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Articl/listify - yes if we had the sort of database that some of us would like you could generate "Cat:Tracks Hal Blaine performed on" on the fly, but I agree that it is overegging the categorization as things stand. Rich Farmbrough, 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well that could happen, (written just before Rich posted) though the Wrecking Crew is a lot harder (at least for me) to define than Hal B. Are there Wrecking Crew songs that Blaine did not play on? Were the Phil Spector produced songs with other drummers still the Wrecking Crew? But I am quite comfortable having categories for Earl Palmer and Gary Chester and the others that you mention. On an average there were perhaps six or seven session musicians playing on most rock dates. I feel that adding that many categories to a song is not too much. Not too many. I feel that by doing this we would be creating a wonderful and amazing resource for our users. Which is why I am here. No one is asking you to figure out what songs Tommy Tedesco played on. I've got his autobiography, so I'll do that. All I am requesting is that you allow me to create the wikipedia I want and you go off and create the one that you want. I really will not get in your way and I am struggling a bit to understand why you are in mine. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it gets down to the same discussion as many categories: does the particular category have enough value to outweigh the clutter? The guidelines at WP:Categorization#What categories should be created and WP:Overcategorization (which I assume you have read) help us to answer that question. In my view, here is the only value of such a category: if I happen upon a song, for example, (They Long to Be) Close to You, I might stumble on the Cat:Tracks Hal Blaine performed on at the bottom, and "discover" Hal Blaine; or, if I already knew of Blaine, I might just say "ah-ha". If I want to know who played the drums on the song, the category won't help me—unless it's named "Songs Hal Blaine played the drums on". If the fact that Blaine played the drums on the song is notable, it should just be included in the article. If the song article lists the personnel, then I can see that Blaine performed on the song and that he played the drums even without the category. If there is an article List of songs Hal Blaine played on, linked from the Hal Blaine article, then it is easy for me to find out all the known songs Blaine performed on—again without the need for a category. If such an article exists, I can search for "(They Long to Be) Close to You" and the List of songs Hal Blaine played on article will appear in the results. As stated in WP:Categorization#What categories should be created, categories "should be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects...Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." Can the fact that Blaine played the drums on songs be described as an essential, defining feature of the songs? Or is the fact that Blaine played the drums on songs as a session musician better described as incidental? The answer is somewhat subjective, so that is why we are having this consensus discussion. How do you think most people would answer that question? --hulmem (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a record sells a million copies the artist involved is often awarded a Gold record. Wikipedia explains it like this. "The original Gold Record awards were presented to artists by their own record companies" It turns out that not only were the artists involved given a gold record but so was Hal Blaine. I'm not going to bother looking up a citation for that statement because it doesn't matter since I'm not putting this in any article. But the record industry recognized that Blaine's playing was a defining feature of the hits that they were producing - but wikipedia does not. Oh well, all I can do is give it my best try. Which I now have done. eek aka Carptrash (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Now KEEPRENAME) I see your point and I've slept on it and changed my mind. I looked at various other analogous categories that exist, such as "Songs arranged by..." and would rather give you the benefit of the doubt. There are many people who don't consider the drummer a defining characteristic of the song because drumming is simply not important to them. For many other people, the drumming (even if they don't know who the drummer is) may be just a defining characteristic of the song as the singer, composer, lyricist, or arranger. For me personally, if Joe Osborn played bass on a song, that is a defining characteristic for me because of his distinctive tone and playing style, and I will probably like that song (well maybe not if it was sung by Helen Reddy). And I would probably say the same for Blaine (although it is likely that if Osborn was on bass, Blaine was on drums). And you have made the point that Blaine is a very notable drummer who contributed to many, diverse hit songs. I think what may have drawn negative attention to your category was the overly "cute" name and that the category was seemingly tied to his use of the rubber stamp and not that fact that he performed on the song. I recommend KEEPRENAME but rename it.

Are you using Ms. Reddy as an example because Joe played on her classic I am Woman and Hal did not? See, they can be separated. Carptrash (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. --hulmem (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And are you in favor of the other categories for members of The Wrecking Crew? The Funk Brothers? How about famous artists who weren't primarily session musicians by played on all their own songs as well as songs by other artists? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me both the Funk Brothers and the Wrecking Crew are problematic because they are not very well defined, perhaps even not that definable. There are few, if any record or CD liner notes that give these loose knit groups credit where as individual musicians frequently are given credit either on the record or on the subsequent literature that has been spawned since. I believe (as opposed to I can footnote right now) that Marvin Gaye's What's Going On album was the first Motown record to list the musicians who played on it and it's pretty late in the Motown story. However I could see myself digging out my copy of Dr. Licks Standing in the Shadows of Motown (the 1989 book and not the later movie) and doing category for James Jamerson's songs. But not if it is just going to generate this much work for all of us again. I started a chart a while back at the Earl Palmer article and now feel that a catagory is a much more cincide way to dael with all this information, easier on the editors and the reading public. Carptrash (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of not prohibiting other categories for members of The Wrecking Crew and other notable studio musicians or well-recognized groups of studio musicians. Regarding "famous artists who weren't primarily session musicians but played on all their own songs as well as songs by other artists", that is more of a judgment related to the notability and extensiveness of their performances on songs by other artists. For their own songs, such categories already exist as either the individual or the group (where the individual is known to play certain instrument(s) as a member of the group). So CATEGORY:Songs Ringo Starr played the drums on would probably not be very interesting or useful due to the significant overlap with CATEGORY:The Beatles songs and CATEGORY:Ringo Starr songs. But maybe CATEGORY:Songs Jimmy Page played the guitar on might be interesting and useful since he did extensive studio work besides his performances with Led Zeppelin. --hulmem (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these categories are warranted, but if Blaine gets a category then many other musicians will qualify for a category, including some of the other members of The Wrecking Crew and the Funk Brothers but also many other musicians. It's interesting that you mentioned Jimmy Page; that's who I was thinking of when I wrote "famous artists ..." I can see it now: Cat:Songs Jimmy Page played on but not Led Zeppelin songs. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Cat:Songs Jimmy Page played on but not (Led Zeppelin songs or 1966-68 Yardbirds songs or The Firm songs or Page and Plant songs)? HA HA. I think we could live with the category overlap.

Cat:Songs on which Jimmy Page appeared as a guest musician :-D -Freekee (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Most of you who voted Keep really mean Rename, don't you? Please amend your positions if necessary. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I will propose Category:Records Hal Blaine played on as a suggested new title, followed by Category:Records Hal Blaine played drums on as another. Perhaps if we do that we can continue the discussion over there? I'm not sure how to effect this change and still keep this discussion linked. Or can we just leave this referenced and begin again? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not bother renaming. Regardless of what the category is called, this is overcategorization of the songs involved. Categories are not little tags for articles that go at the bottom and try to incorporate little factoids or interesting aspects of the article text. They are meant to capture defining features of the articles being categorized. I don't think the identity of session musicians that contributed to the recording of the song is a defining feature of the songs. If such a scheme were widely developed it would be a recipe for category clutter. If this information is deemed to be of "encyclopedic" worth, then a list is the way to go. Personally, I would find the already-existing list at Hal Blaine to be the simplest and most logical solution. Someone looking for these songs would surely be looking there first anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at all the 100 articles in the category, only about 20 mention Blaine by name, and usually in a list of performers. His contributions, while important to the song's legacy, are not defining aspects of the songs nor a reason for these songs ultimate notability. I wholly endorse a list of these songs that will justly credit Blaine in an encylopedic nature with reliable sources over purely navigational means. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too trivial for a category, but I do hope the songs are listed in Hal Blaine's article, fully cited, where it would no longer be trivial information. Much as already done (however badly) at Big Jim Sullivan. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article or list List of recordings of songs Hal Blaine has played on has been created. What would be the correct way to "fully cite" it? A reference by each song? Some other way? einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't feel that individual musicians are a characteristic worth categorizing. Song articles already have a tendency to be over categorized - artist, producer, composer, awards, etc., with multiples of those cats, because of the multiple recordings. Sorry, Carptrash. I'm impressed by Blaine's contributions, but I don't think categorization is the way to collect them. Keep up that list article! -Freekee (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (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: procedural close. The nominator is intending to nominate an article, Sikhism and vegetarianism. This page is to discuss categories; and the nominated category is a redlink. This appears to be a Twinkle error, since the nominator has re-nominated over at articles for deletion. I'm closing this as outside the remit of CFD, and direct interested parties to the relevant AFD. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikhism and vegetarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is already and article on Sikhism and Vegetarianism. This is a copy edit of an article on www.sikhhiwiki.org. Sikh-History 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already have and article and clearly a copy of another wiki.--Sikh-History 18:30, 7 February 2010 (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 deleted by Altenmann under CSD C1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. This is non-necessary intersection of Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members and Category:Executed people. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. I introduced it out of pedantry. I would agree this is not particularly defining characteristic of a person, unlike the following one. - Altenmann >t 05:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A trivial intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization. There are no other combination categories of political party and execution status. Merge to Category:Executed Soviet people if wanted/needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Looking deeper into this, this vote is a nonsense. What wikipedia lacks is database capability. Then once could have had any intersection of categories. Especially stupid (but unfortunately obviously necessary) cludge I've just stumbled upon is the pair Category:People by nationality and political orientation + Category:People by political orientation and nationality. Does anyone know about any mediawiki plans to deal with this? - Altenmann >t 23:43, 9 February 2010 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union executed by the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. This is non-necessary intersection of Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members and Category:People executed by the Soviet Union. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose keep (by creator). It looks unnecessary if you are not closely familiar with the subject. The thing is that CPSU was not, like, Republican Party in the USA. If a person today was a member of the CPSU and tomorrow not, this was a very significant event. I'd say it was a defining characteristics of a person: that it was (a) CPSU member and (b) executed. Of course, it might be that he was just a regular criminal, but I doubt that such a person would land into wikipedia. Therefore I introduced several subcats for cat "CPSU members": expelled, resigned, and executed. All cases are of considerable note in the context of CPSU, hence I don't think it is overcategorization. For comparison, e.g., category:Executed members of the Republican Party is of ridiculosity indeed. - Altenmann >t 05:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support (opposer) - there is nothing more death-like than a non CPSU member - during the Soviet Union stage of things - thousands of dead people are a good indicator that something was significantly happening in relation to status with the party SatuSuro 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Satusuro, I don't know whether you mean to keep or delete the category. Please you clarify your intention by the conventional method of prefixing your comment with either "keep" or "delete", bolded? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conventional? ahah - DonaldDuck wants to delete, Altenmann wants a keep, and I am supporting Altenmann - irony clearly doesnt work here - there is more to the soviet era than executing lots of people - and I support altenmann's reasoning SatuSuro 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a trivial intersection per WP:OC#Trivial_intersection. In the Stalinist era, the Soviet Union executed lots of people. No rationale has been offered for separating out CPSU members from non-members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have articles about most of "executed lots of people". It is notable people who count in wikipedia. And exectued CPSU members are notorious exactly for this. This was my rationale. I not separating cpsu from non-cpsu. They are already separated, into the category and non-category. I am further subdividing the category of cpsu members according to a historically significant criterion. I am sorry you don't accept this. I am not going to teach you history of CPSU. However let me ask you the question: does or does not it seem strange for you that we don't have Category:Members of the Republican Party (United States), yet we have Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members? - Altenmann >t 04:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have Category:Members of the Republican Party (United States). It's at Category:Republicans (United States). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, my lack of diligence. - Altenmann >t 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to Category:People executed by the Soviet Union. I think this is overcategorization. This is essentially a triple intersection of membership in a political party, execution status, and executing state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid argument. Vast majority of subcategories are "essentially intersection," such as Category:Nationality law && Category:Latvian law -> Category:Latvian nationality law. It is not overcategorization. There were millions of CPSU members and the subcategories I introduced are based on significant difference in their status. - Altenmann >t 05:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see—what did I say? "I think this is overcategorization." That suggests the expression of an opinion (note the word think). You obviously disagree with my opinion. Your disagreement does not make my opinion "invalid". Nor does your invocation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have a valid opinion that I believe this is an unnecessary triple intersection and should be upmerged. (The example you provide looks like a double intersection, not a triple.) There are currently only 4 articles in the nominated category—certainly nothing that Category:People executed by the Soviet Union can't handle. There's also no overall scheme—certainly no categories that combine execution status, execution state, and political membership or belief. If you want further arguments to declare "invalid", I can probably come up with some. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see, what did I say. I say "invalid argument". I respect your opinion, but I didn't think that your agument was valid in the form it was stated. Thank you for additional arguments. "Double-triple" is quibble. You know I can easily show existing quintuple intersection. "currently only 4" - I assure you I will add dozens more, both from current "CPSU members" and from various Soviet show trials, where nobody bothered to add an obvious category "CPSU members". I've just added 4 more by looking up a singe article. "There is no overall scheme" - WP:OTHERSTUFF. By this logic, since there is no Category:Members of the Republican Party (United States) (or, rather, no category:Members of political parties), there should no CPSU members and "Nazi party memebrs" categories. But the latter two do exist, and you may guess the reason. Wikipedia:categorization specifically says: "Not all subcategories serve this systematic "breaking down" function; ...etc." "Members of a ruling party executed by the will of the party" is verifiably important subset in the history of CPSU. In summary, while your recent arguments support your opinion, please allow me to express an opinion that they are invalid arguments for deletion. Please also allow me to remind you that deletion discussions are not pure voting of opinions for at least 4 years now. Therefore I fail to understand your derisive tone towards my argumentation, which I perceive as demonstration of disrespect towards a fellow wikipedian. - Altenmann >t 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's not derisive to call someone's argument "invalid", I think we use a different form of English rhetoric. Arguments have strengths and weaknesses, but to call an argument "invalid" is very close to calling someone an imbecile, especially when expressed in the short, crisp, and robotic form, "Invalid argument." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. "Invalid argument" is not the same as "imbecile", and I am tremendously afraid that WP:NPA will slip kinto this interpretation. "Short, crisp" is "no waste of time". Besides, if I start writing long synonyms for this, given my command of English, I will be misinterpreted even worse. Just like I take your approach: "let's see what did I say,... notice "the word think"... " as a patient, superior, talk to an imbecile who cannot read, not to say write. 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
            • OK, I didn't know you were working in English as a foreign language. That helps to explain things and perhaps there is some linguistic nuance in your comments that I see that you don't intend. I would be more worried if you were a native English speaker. I think you generally do well for it not being a mother tongue, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, I pointed this out above, but the error has been repeated—there is a Category:Members of the Republican Party (United States). It's at Category:Republicans (United States). I imagine this would affect your argument. But probably not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, it affected my argument (no, I am not an imbecile) I agree it was mistaken comparison, but it was a rhetorical, insignificant sidestep. My mistake was done because this part of category tree is chaotic, and I was not diligent enough: I was looking for the word "members". Still, I fail see why category:Executed philosophers or category:Executed Nazis or category:Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel are OK, but executed CPSU members is not. I still don't see any solid argument why it is redundant. - Altenmann >t 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just to be clear, I was never calling you an imbecile. I was commenting that what you said came close to saying that, but I don't think you were suggesting that and I understand now why we had a communication barrier. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Exit from the CPSU was always a drama, with execution being the ultimate one. The kinds of drama are correctly classified in the current categorization. Timurite (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - I'm interested to see how large this category is. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment 15 pages/people. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is only because I've just started to comb these categories. I estimate it will take me a month to finish the first, obvious walk-thru. But I will wait for the outcome here. I could have agreed for a list instead of the category, but I am afraid that the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT logic might kill it as well. - Altenmann >t 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, awkwardly worded - please suggest a proper categorization. What makes me uneasy about this apparently legitimate category is (a) by. Nations don't execute. Regimes do. Ideally, in would fit better but people in the USSR where also killed by the Germans, Whites, Greens etc., Soviet regime killed beyond its own borders. (b) time scope - Soviet Union was formed in December 1922. The title CPSU was adopted in 1952. What is, exactly, the cutoff point for this category? What makes victims on 1923 different from those killed in 1922? NVO (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Item (b): party title is a non-issue: this was the same organization, renamed multiple times. This issue may be explained in the "category statute" [done]. Item (a) is valid: the proper correction is "Category:Members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union executed by the Soviet state". - Altenmann >t 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An apperent further improvement would be Category:Soviet Communists executed by the Soviet state, if allow for a minor twist: to consider foreign members of the CPSU as "Soviet Communists". - Altenmann >t 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If kept, I think changing "by the Soviet Union" to "by the Soviet state" would be unnecessary. See Category:Executions by country; why would we change this one, and all we would change is "Soviet Union" to "Soviet state"? It will only cause confusion to deviate from the parent Category:People executed by the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:32, 13 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ken Wilber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains five articles, including the main article. The subcategory contains 11, including the main article from this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

objectkeep. The number of articles is not a defining criterion for deletion. Not to say that over a dozen articles is sufficient. The category provides a meaningful grouping. - Altenmann >t 05:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann, please can you clarify your intentions for the benefit of the closing admin by prefixing your comment with either "keep" or "delete"? That's the conventional format for CFD discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am a bit rusty on voting. - Altenmann >t 04:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add the subcategory Category:Books written by Ken Wilber to include Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (part of Category:Books by author). Occuli (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only argument offered for deletion is numbers, and there are more than enough articles to justify keeping the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there's a better argument for deletion than this. There's plenty enough articles for the category to exist. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject has potential from his publications, and his areas of work to expand way beyond this number SatuSuro 23:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's rather odd to my mind to find the Francisco Varela page categorised in Category:Integral theory, & thereby a subcategory of Category:Ken Wilber. Would it be better for the KW category to be a subcategory of Integral theory? The distinction promised on the Integral theory category page between a broader notion of Integral thought and Integral theory more narrowly conceived collapses into a redirect - I don't find it easy to judge whether there is a clearly identifiable body of thought here, a delimitable set of people & ideas associated with a particular institute, or a self-publicist. I don't know the area, though. Dsp13 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ctageory is sufficiently large to justify use of navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jain Theory of Karma to Category:Karma in Jainism

Nominator's rationale: Per main and caps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Anish (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per main article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jain Acharyas to Category:Jain acharyas

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't appear to be a proper noun. If not, this is speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for renaming --Anish (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Graphic Lab to Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab

Nominator's rationale: To identify it as a project rather than article category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What about its subcategories? - Altenmann >t 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously they should follow the naming of the parent. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming this. The children appear to contain images in the image space as well as project space, so perhaps that should be left alone? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (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.