Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 15

[edit]

Category:Gilmore Girls cast members

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. This category is already tagged with {{listify}} from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete when replacement lists exist. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum if you disagree with the CFD closing. It looks like List of Gilmore Girls characters fully covers the subject, so the category can be deleted without further debate. If a few actors are missing from the list, it is easier to fix the list than have a debate about it. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. Let's stick to the process. --Samuel Wantman 09:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gilmore Girls cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - per closing comments of CFD:Actors by series, cast member categories may be deleted when a suitable cast list exists. The cast lists at Gilmore Girls and List of Gilmore Girls characters are suitable for this purpose so the catageory can be deleted. Otto4711 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie. Otto4711 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The result of the Jan 21st debate was insufficient consensus for deletion, not keep. In the light of the Actors-by-series CFD it is eminently reasonable that it be raised again (WP:CCC).
Xdamrtalk 14:33, 17 February 2007 (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:Ugly Betty cast

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. This category is already tagged with {{listify}} from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete when replacement lists exist. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum if you disagree with the CFD closing. It looks like Ugly Betty has more actors listed than does the category, so the category can be deleted without further debate. If a few actors are missing from the article, it is easier to fix the article than have a debate about the category. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. Let's stick to the process. --Samuel Wantman 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ugly Betty cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - per closing comments at the CFD - Actors by series a cast category may be deleted if an appropriate cast list exists. Ugly Betty contains an extensive list of regular cast members, recurring roles and notable guest stars which should assuage any fears of losing the actors' appearance information. Otto4711 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie. Otto4711 15:31, 17 February 2007 (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:Alias (TV series) actors

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - per closing comments of the CFD for Actors by series, cast/actors categories may be deleted with a suitable cast list in place. The cast list in the article along with the article List of characters from Alias should be sufficient to answer any concerns regarding preserving the information. Otto4711 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn on a technicality. Category got renamed and the the CFD tag got removed. Enough time has elapsed so that the new CFD tag now leads to the 2/16 CFD page. Relisted there. Otto4711 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Will & Grace cast members

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. This category is already tagged with {{listify}} from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete when replacement lists exist. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum if you disagree with the CFD closing. It looks like Will & Grace has many more actors listed than does the category, so the category can be deleted without further debate. If anything it seems lik there is an overabundance of lists about this show. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. It certainly doesn't feel like a festival. Let's stick to the process. --Samuel Wantman 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Will & Grace cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin! Per the comments closing CFD:Actors by series, cast member categories may be deleted once an appropriate list exists within the TV show article. The cast list in Will & Grace coupled with Supporting characters on Will & Grace and List of guest stars on Will & Grace should be more than sufficient to answer any concerns about preserving the information on who appeared on the show. Otto4711 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie. Otto4711 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please keep up the good work. Wimstead 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the "Listify" tag on the cat, if the information already exists in list form, then Delete if not this need to be put on hold until the list is done. Since the list tooks like it is part of the "Characters" list in the main article, there may be an amount of cleanup and reformatting needed. — J Greb 18:29, 18 February 2007 (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:Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences to Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, US→United States. —Markles 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2006 J. League Division 1 (J1) Results

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 J. League Division 1 (J1) Results (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Used to contain month-by-month results pages. They have now been deleted, rendering this category empty. Punkmorten 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Infectious disease survivors

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infectious disease survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not useful category. Lots of famous people in history have recovered from dangerous infectious diseases but this only contains two non-entities who recovered from smallpox. What use is it to categorise them with say Josef Stalin? JBellis 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticisms of Richard Dawkins

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertGtalk 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Criticisms of Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both. POV categories. Pointless. Snalwibma 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cold War leaders

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cold War leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is being applied to any person who was a high-level politician during the Cold War. Given that the Cold War spanned several decades and included virtually every country, the category has ended up including virtually all heads of government from the half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the category contributes to category clutter, as seen on the pages of George H. W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher. Because the category is overly-broad, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A category which could include every East/West political leader (and maybe even military leader) over 50 years is far, far too broad.
Xdamrtalk 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rat-baiting dog breeds

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertGtalk 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rat-baiting dog breeds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as a minority use of the breeds and not a defining characteristic. See also the previous cfd on Category:Badger baiting dog breeds. the wub "?!" 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fascinating, are you aware that most dog breeds before establishing themselves as pets were developed as working animals, does this mean all dog fighting breeds or working terrier of guard dogs or any other breed activity that you personally feel you do not like should be deleted from Wikipedia?!... if so, you have no idea about what an encyclopedia is for...ie it reports the facts based on credible citations, not deleting information based on dislike of a topic or emotions Headphonos 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sub-categories of Category:Christian pastors

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Belgian pastors to Category:Belgian Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Canadian pastors to Category:Canadian Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Chilean pastors to Category:Chilean Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:English pastors to Category:English Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Filipino pastors to Category:Filipino Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Finnish pastors to Category:Finnish Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Polish pastors to Category:Polish Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Romanian pastors to Category:Romanian Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Swedish pastors to Category:Swedish Christian ministers
Propose renaming Category:Swiss pastors to Category:Swiss Christian ministers
Nominator's Rationale: In countless other CFDs in it has been agreed that "Pastor" is a job title used by certain denominations in certain contexts, and that "Christian minister" in a more useful generic term, which covers most protestant denominations (see Pastor).
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12#Category:German_pastors, which also proposes upmeging Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers; the categories nominated above have all been created today, while the CFR on Category:German pastors was underway.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pastor is a primary occupation, more so than "minister" or "leader," etc. Those are more generic. Pastor is definitive. Bishop is similarly definitive. Clergy is NOT an occupation, but a status, like Priest. A priest can do any of a number of occupations. Clergy can too. Clergy and Priest imply ordination, which is status or achievement, not occupation. Pastor does not necessitate ordination, though often these coincide. Therefore, Category:Christian clergy should NOT be a subcat of occupation. But Pastor cats SHOULD be under occupation. "Priest" cats and "clergy" cats are still good cats, just not as occupations. They make good subcats of Category:Christian ministers and Category:Christian religious leaders, which again are not exclusively occupations, either.
A Pastor IS one kind of minister (thus Pastors as a subcat of Ministers is entirely appropriate). But a minister is NOT always (or just) a Pastor. A Minister can be and do any number of occupations. "Pastoring" is only one of these occupations. The Shorter OED's lengthy definition of "Minister" includes "4b. A person officially charged with spiritual functions in the Christian Church."
The purpose of subcating "Pastors" from "Christian Ministers" is self evident. i.e., why do we split Bishops and Archbishops? Why do we split various types of teachers, academics, etc.? They are basically the same occupation. Ministers is inclusive of many, many occupations, Pastors being one of them (Bishops/Archbishops, in fact, could be another). If Presbyterians (e.g.) do NOT call their pastors pastors, then I suppose that could be a problem. Though my guess is, from an occupational standpoint (not just job title), pastor would still be correct -- if that is the occupation such a minister occupies. Afterall, wikpedia seeks to describe what is, not just report various nomenclature. Pastor IS a primary occupation of many Christian ministers. One of many such occupations. In my own case, though I dislike using any one unimportant person (such as I) to prove anything, I do not simply have the job title "Pastor." It IS my occupation. Indeed, my title is more properly "ordained elder," or "member in full connection" of the East Ohio Annual Conference of the U.M. Church, or you might even call me "reverend" -- believe it or not, some people do! There are ca. 600 of us. Most of us are "clergy," but THAT is NOT our "occupations," either. Most of us occupy the occupation of Pastor. Some occupy other occupations: teacher, professor, district superintendent, Bishop, Director of the Conference Council of Ministries, etc. But I don't want to bore you with all this. Hope this helps. Pastorwayne 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all cats. Pastorwayne 13:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all The length and complexity of the explanation above shows why the current names are not a good idea; one shouldn't need to be a theologian to work out who is likely to be included in a category and who is not. Annandale 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen to that! Category names should, where possible, be self-evident. PW's lengthy resonse doesn't even give us clear guidance about who within his region of his own denominaton should be categorised as a "pastor" and who shouldn't: how on earth is an ordinary editor gong to know whether "pastor" is the correct term to use? Much better to stick with the simple, generic term "christian minister". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian saints

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category was created today for the purpose of creating a list of saints "recognized by the majority of Christian churches which recognize saints." I guess it was stemming from the category "Saints by denomination" which lists saints which are unique to Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. However, "Christian Saints" itself is redundent because by definition a Saint is Christian. Furthermore, the categories "Saints" and "Saints by country" serves the same purpose as this category. I suggest, instead of creating this new category, be stricter about "saints by denomination" and move any saints that are only recognized by a specific denomination out of the parent category "saints" (if any are there).Andrew c 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the creator of the new category, and it is intended to eventually be used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints as a more specific category in which to place the majority of the articles relevant to that project. There already is a Category:Non-Christian saints which is a subcategory of Category:Saints, and this category is intended to be a complement to that Non-Christian Saints category. Right now, the Saints project works exclusively with Christian saints, although the Category:Saints includes non-Christian saints as well. This new category is intended to be the main category for the project. John Carter 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. The way the category was organized, I thought it was going to be a new category added to the majority of Saints' article, in addition to the existing category. But correct me if I am wrong, but what you are proposing is actually more like renaming Category:Saints to Category:Christian saints. Anyway, my point is that the Saint category should be the category for what you are proposing. If a saint is non-christian, move them out of the parent cat and into the non-christian saint category. I think the solution to this problem, isn't a matter of changing categories. What I think should be done is a) move all of the non-Christian saints out of the parent category and into the non-Christian saints category b) go through the non-Christian saints categories and make sure that these religious figures primarialy go by the title "saint" and if not, change the cat to say "Hindu Gurus" or whatever title is more appropriate c) open the focus of WikiProject Saints to cover the handful of non-christian saints (assuming that there are articles left on that list after step b). I think we both agree that there are some categorization issues: namely that the Christian saints are hanging out in a category with non-Christian saints. My solution is to just move the non-christians into their own category (that already exists), and your solution is to move the Christians into their own category (that was created today). Hmm, I feel I am repeating myself, so I'll stop here. Thanks for your comment and consideration.-Andrew c 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project has been open to the possibility of taking on non-Christian saints as well, but so far no one has taken it up on the idea so far as I can tell. Also, here I reveal my ignorance of some of the other faiths, I can't tell right off if those called saints by other faiths are recognized as saints in their own faiths, or whether in some cases someone might be expressing a POV which I can't disprove. This has to date seemingly been a bit of problem, particularly with the Category:Indian saints, which has more non-Christians than Christians in it. It's pretty much because of that that I decided to at least initially leave them alone and try to regroup under the more specific Christian saints category. As soon as I finish the Lutheran and Anglican categories, which I think are the only Protestant faiths who recognize saints very much (I could be wrong, of course), then I'll know what all is out there and have a better idea how to fix the categorization. Sorry for any heated language I may have used earlier, by the way. Unfortunately, it is kind of hard to defend your actions when you don't really have a plan in place yet, and until I'm done with the subcats I can't be really sure what all the final results will look like, and I have been known to take an arrogant tone when I don't actually have a good defense for my actions prepared yet. John Carter 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I took your words to be civil through this whole discourse so far. Looking briefly through the non-Christian Indian saints, I found out "Sant Used in India, it is derived from the Sanskrit sat, its root meaning being "one who knows the truth". It differs from the false cognate "Saint" as it is often translated." I'll spend some time digging through the non-Christian saints and see what I come up with, but I have a feeling that there is going to be little need for the Christian saint category.-Andrew c 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed something. Look down the page a bit where someone nominated "Indian non-Christian saints" for deletion. -Andrew c 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per John Carter. A great deal of thought has obviously gone into this and it is part of a larger, and extensive project. Latitude should be given to complete this project for those kind enough to donate their time and resources. Bbagot 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts to Orthodox Judaism

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts to Orthodox Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category referes to a subset of converts to Judaism. It's being proposed for deletion for the following reasons:

  • The distinction between "Orthodox" and "non-Orthodox" is meaningless until relatively recently
  • In any event, it's a small category, as most converts do not specify whether they converted under Orthodox or other auspices
  • It has little practical relevance
  • It draws a distinction that most of us are uncomfortable drawing.

Leifern 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why we give this a week. How can you be sure that none of those who have responded aren't Orthodox? --Leifern 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I'm not going to assume it without some indication in that area. No reason has discussed Orthodoxy itself. Bbagot 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is of interest of because 1)they are accepted as Jews by all jewish groups 2) Orthodox Jews do not consider people who've not converted with Orthodox Judaism to have really converted so this category is really important for them 3) there is a Category:Converts_to_Shi%27a_Islam which has even less articles 4) Orthodox Judaism is a more involved religion more than 95% of them go to synagogue every week 5) it is Judaism true to the torah

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Methodism in Ohio

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodism in Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Methodism in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - These categories are being used to collect any articles on anything or anyone in these states that are remotely related to Methodism, including any Methodist minister who may have been in the states at one time or another and any institution that is vaguely associated with the Methodist church. To some degree, this looks like an attempt to recreate some of the "Methodist Bishops by state" categories that were deleted previously (see this discussion, for example). As discussed multiple times in the past, categorizing ministers by state is inappropriate, as it leads to an overly-complex category tree and severe category clutter. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Dr S, categorising ministers by state has been agreed to cause category clutter ... but I think that there could be a useful purpose to categories such as this if they were used to group institutions (such as congregations and seminaries). Unfortunately, the category creator is unlikely to stick to any such limitation, so I have to say delete. I probably wouldn't oppose a category along the lines of "Category:Methodist churches, schools, seminaries, colleges and other such non-people stuff in Ohio/Iowa" ... provided that a more snappy name could be found which excludes people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree that "Methodist institutions in state X" would be appropriate. roundhouse 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Prove It (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These cats are sister cats to similar Roman Catholic state cats (and potentially to one for Lutheranism and Congregationalism, etc., etc., etc. in those states, too). Or is there an anti-Protestant bias being shown??? (edit: not occusing, just wondering) Indeed, why do we allow all sorts of Roman Catholic cats, but similar/sister ones for Methodism or other Protestant denominations get deleted? Why have "Christianity in X State" at all if we are not to fill it with articles and subcats about CHRISTIANITY in that STATE?
And though Methodist Bishops, etc. by states and by Episcopal Areas have been deleted previously, we continue to allow similar cats for Roman Catholic Bishops, dioceses, etc. Dioceses are the primary way or categorizing R.C. Bishops. In the exact same way, Episcopal Area is the primary way a United Methodist Bishop is categorized. But the dioceses get to stay, and the Area cats have to go? It makes NO sense!!
And all these arguments that get made regularly about "how small cats are" seem never to be made about these (though many Roman Catholic cats have very, very few -- sometimes only ONE -- articles in them). Understand, I think the Roman Catholic cats are good ones, and am glad to see them continue. But to be consistent, they should be deleted even as the ones for Methodism have been! No "gaming" here. Just honest questions and observations!! Pastorwayne 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment PW, first thing: please read WP:AGF. Accusations in bold type of anti-protestant bias are offensive and unfounded, and I hope that you will promptly withdraw that assertion.
      As to bishops-by-area, I suggest you refer back to the lengthy discussions at CFD: the reasons they were deleted were that the episcopal areas had changed significantly over time, and that the average size of the categories was tiny, so that they impeded navigation. If you want to nominate other category series which suffer from that problem, feel free to do so.
      Now, to the substance: have you actually looked at Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Cincinnati? It's the only other denominational sub-cat of Category:Christianity in Ohio, and it is not being used as a back-door way of categorising Roman Catholic people by area: it is being used solely for institutions.
      Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Dubuque is the only other denominational sub-category of Category:Christianity in Iowa; it has some people in it (5 of 38 articles), but is primarily being used for churches and dioceses etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AnswerCategory:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Cincinnati also has people in it, as seems entirely appropriate! Just as appropriate for Methodism and/or any and all other denominations, in Ohio or (in the future) other states. Moreover, Episcopal Areas IS an official designation of The Methodist/United Methodist Churches, and have NOT changed hardly at all over time (only slight changes in the names of the Areas), and these cats were only small because only those articles had yet been written. Over time these cats would/will fill up. I have no interest in nominating similar R.C. diocese cats (even if small) because I find them useful and appropriate cats, as useful and appropriate as Episcopal Area cats. But the fact that you'all have deleted ONLY U.M. cats of this type must at least be wondered about. And, in fact, the U.M. Church now DOES now basically organize by U.S. state (and more and more so), so it IS entirely appropriate and ACCURATE to organize the U.M. Church, and Methodism generally, by state (both as to institutions as well as people). Yes, U.M.C. organizes by Jurisdisctions, too. But that is not the primary organization. State and Annual Conferences are (which increasingly coincide). Pastorwayne 13:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - First, I have faced accusations of anti-Catholic bias for nominating categories such as "Roman Catholic scientists" and "Roman Catholic musicians" for deletion. I reject any accusations of being biased towards a specific denomination of Christianity. (Heck, I don't even want to sort birds by state or country, but I do not receive accusations that I am discriminatory against sparrows.) Second, Pastorwayne does appear to be using these categories as a surrogate for the "Methoidst minister by state" categories that were previously deleted (because the divisions by state did not reflect the church's organization system realistically and because the system was too complex for so few articles). The recreation of deleted content is a disruptive activity that may lead to disciplinary action. Third, a realistic compromise proposal (division by jurisdictions that are officially designated by the church) has been made for sorting articles on Methodist ministers. This should be sufficient for sorting people by geography. Dr. Submillimeter 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If there are similar Catholic ones, propose them for deletion, too. Coemgenus 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wimstead 13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pottery in England

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Pottery in England to Category:English pottery, Category:Pottery in Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish pottery, and Category:Pottery in Staffordshire to Category:Staffordshire pottery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pottery in England to Category:English pottery
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match Category:British pottery and the convention used in category:Pottery. This category relates to pottery of English pottery rather than pottery that has been imported to England. Nathanian 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also rename Category:Pottery in Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish pottery and Category:Pottery in Staffordshire to Category:Staffordshire pottery. Nathanian 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Senate candidates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was duplicate discussion as below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose keeping this categoryAnonymous4 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the mega-nomination from the 25th. "Disney" is not a series, it's a studio. I have no particular opinion on whether we should cat voice actors by studio, so I'm listing it here. >Radiant< 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no particular reason why one would prefer to jump from an article about an actor who had done one small voice job for Disney to another article about an actor who had done one small voice job for Disney, as opposed to say another actor who had done one small voice job for Dreamworks. Choalbaton 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actors work for a wide variety of studios in the course of their careers. Categorizing them on this basis is pretty worthless and generates category clutter. Otto4711 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Voice actors are very prolific. Articles on them could easily be overwhelmed with "actor by studio" and "actor by performance" categories. The resulting category list would be unreadable. Dr. Submillimeter 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, actors by studio are generally discouraged due to their size and the fact that most actors work for multiple studios in their career. Very difficult to maintain and it doesn't seem to offer any practical benefit to the reader. Dugwiki 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be clear, we are debating whether to delete this before a list is created to replace it. I agree with everyone above, but certainly someone could make a list out of the category before it is deleted if they want to keep it around. If you don't have AWB, and you want to make a list out of this, leave a message on my talk page, and I'll put it in your user space to work on. -- Samuel Wantman 09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Show participants

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertGtalk 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the mega-nomination from the 25th, basically the oddballs in the group. If I understand correctly, these are categories of people who participated in some kind of show. As I recall, we don't usually have such cats, just like we don't cat for guest stars. But I'm unfamiliar with these series so it needs some discussion here. >Radiant< 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as non-defining characteristics and as a reflection of the overall need to cut down the number of categories on articles. Choalbaton 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: MGM musical actors, singers and dancers as categorizing performer by studio where they happened to work. Even under the studio system actors worked for a variety of studios; Whose Line Is It Anyway contestants as performer by performance which is a fine topic for a list; TDS correspondents also as performer by performance and there is already a list.
    *Keep Crisis Command participants as this appears to be a reality show and we do categorize notable reality show participants. I would not be averse to visiting the entire reality show participant structure but for this single nom I go with convention. Otto4711 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going through them individually... 1) Crisis Command only has five articles. All of these can easily be linked in a "cast/participant" list in the main article. 2) The MGM category is similar to other actor-by-studio categories, almost all of which have been/are being deleted due to problems with maintaining such categories and the fact that actors normally work for multiple studios so it's not clear that categorizing by studio is useful. 3) The regular cast of Whose Line can be linked within its main article. The remainder of this category are guest stars, and we normally do not categorize guest stars. So even if the category were kept (which it shouldn't be), the guest stars should be removed. 4) The Daily Show already has a cast list sub article set up, which provides all of these correspondent links in a more usable form. So the category isn't needed. Dugwiki 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. (And after only seven days, Dr!) --RobertGtalk 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is made with good intention - to conveniently show admins and non-admins alike which articles are ready for deletion under WP:PROD after five full days. However it fails to achieve this purpose and thus is misleading; per RockMFR's comment here, the category links table is not refreshed automatically after five days, thus some old PRODs are always excluded from this category. The only way to update this category completely is to make null edits to each and every PROD'ed article older than five days which generates more work than checking the individual dated categories in the first place. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am going to guess that this proposal will sit for fourteen days before it is closed. If consensus is reached to delete, then it will take longer than fourteen days to delete this category. :) Dr. Submillimeter 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It usually updates by itself without mass null-edits, albeit sometimes not right away. The category is useful even if it doesn't update immediately. I'd say the category updating slowness is a bug/misfeature in MediaWiki - that the index from category to members is not updated at the same time the category appears on the target page (this also affects, for example, adding a category to a template that's already transcluded in many places). Quarl (talk) 2007-02-15 19:05Z
  • Keep Its purpose is to be useful to admins, and it is. Does anyone know how to create a category for "Proposed for deletion for over four days"? Given the current lag times, it would be good to have a link from this category to the four-day one. Kla'quot 08:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it makes life easier. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian Non-Christian saints

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (category had been emptied anyway). --RobertGtalk 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian Non-Christian saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is biased towards Christianity. There is no reason to classify saints by whether or not they are christian. Sfacets 10:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename non-christian is a poor choice of words (and "Non" shouldn't be capitalized). Perhaps "Hindu saints" could work instead? Are there enough Hindu saints from places outside of India to specify geography? I'm also currently researching whether the word "saint" is the most used term to refer to these individuals, because to me saint has a Christian connotation, and surely "Saint" isn't the Tamil or Hindi or Bengali word for these individuals. This category was created because wikiproject saints currently only deals with Christian saints, and its confusing to have the one Catholic saint from India in the same category as a number of individuals with a number of different Hindu titles. Saint may not even be the best word for the category. I am currently conducting research on this.-Andrew c 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I've also heard of Muslim saints, maybe even Sufi saints. Names should be positive in form (rather than contain a negative) wherever possible. Specifying the religion sounds like an excellent idea. Noroton 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename having categories for Hindi saints is fine, but it doesn't need to be named what it is currently. Darthgriz98 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by city or town in Italy

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename all. prominents cities share names with provinces they are the capitals of. Mayumashu 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think natives creates less clutter because people move around but they can only be born in one place, or we could have both natives and people from categories, that way we can include both types. Ulysses Zagreb 09:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only does "Natives of" create "less clutter", but it is WP:CITEable! "People from" is highly subjective, and prone to WP:POV. You are either born in a place, per WP:RS, or you are not. Very, very straightforward. "People from" is way too open to individual interpretation. How long do I have to have lived and worked in a place before I am "from" there exactly? Can you provide a reliable external source to support your answer? I have not lived in Edinburgh for well over half my life now, and probably never will be again, but it is the only place on earth where I am "from". --Mais oui! 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by Italian provinces

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. another option would be for example "People from Viterbo (province)" but I choose this naming pattern as it reflects the offical names in Italian eg. Provincia di Viterbo. Mayumashu 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each province's name is also the name of a substantial city Mayumashu 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and stop, stop, stop!!! Please, please, please can we all just stop this higgeldy-piggeldy ad-hoc renaming nominations of various "natives of" to "people from" categories. WE NEED A PROPER BLOCK NOMINATION. Until then I will be opposing every single one of these types of nomination. Please stop wasting everybody's time with tens (actually probably in the hundreds now) of these random renaming noms.
And please note: simply citing some sort of perceived precedent is not a substantive case: you need to properly motivate CFD nominations. --Mais oui! 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if this were indeed the case I won t be making what is a proper block nominations. first, this is as much about whether it should be "the Province of Verona", "Verona (province)", or just "Verona". an approximate 80% of some 20 voters voted to change "Natives of" to "People from" for English counties and that is why I ve taken this initiative. Mayumashu 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
addressing your comments you ve made below concerning this debate, first it is just as easy to cite where one has lived as it is to cite where one was born - admittedly there is one imperfection in doing so - how long does one to live in a place to be from there? and deciding this is POV. users are perhaps not stating it, but there is an acceptance that a certain amount of POV should exist as nothing of substance is ever totally devoid of it. (on this point someone more pedantic than me perhaps should go about changing WP:POV page description of policy or whatever.) a greater question than the absence or presence of POV is whether the majority of people are in agreement or not. in the case here more users agree that it is more significant to note that a person has lived a substantial amount of time somewhere than where the hospital they were born is located. finally, as for Alexander Graham Bell - you re saying one isn t even also from the place he or she em/immigrates to? Mayumashu 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
  • I guess this situation hinges on whether there's a wide consensus as to what "People from X" is usually taken to mean. Personally, when I hear something like "Oh, s/he's from X", I think I take it to mean that's where the person was raised (i.e. had their formative years, assuming the speaker is correct to identify a single and/or significant place). Might differences in what's taken as the meaning of "People from X" relate to which version of English is being used...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it does to some extent and think there is something in having on wikip categorizing and language style editing on wikip pages on subject matter related directly to particular English-speaking countries being restricted to users "registered" of that particularly country. For the time being though, the matter here it is more about where one grow ups as you suggest than where one is born, and one is native to which?? "people from" allows the flexibility to include both while removing those simply born somewhere (with the POV debate that this includes in a few cases). I don t see the advantage of maintaining both kept separately though as suggested below Mayumashu 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly!!! Well said that man! Which is precisely what we have done in Scotland, with "People associated with" categories, with the actual "Natives of" cat being merely one subcategory among many!!! I fail to see why this must develop into an either/or polarised debate, when "natives of" somewhere and "people associated with" somewhere are two different things!! --Mais oui! 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for the simple reason that being born in a place is not always notable and may not contribute to the notability of the person. Vegaswikian 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always? Perhaps not, but it is frequently included in the lead: "Stefanie Maria Graf (born 14 June 1969, in Mannheim, West Germany)"; "Zinedine Yazid Zidane (IPA: [ˌzineˈdin jaziːd ziˈdan]; born 23 June 1972 in Marseille, France)". If place of birth is important enough to be mentioned along with the date of birth, it seems worth categorising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so how would you name them then?Mayumashu 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand caddies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand caddies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With only one entry, and literally only half a dozen others in all of Category:Caddies, I think it is safe to call this overcategorization. choster 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek caddies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek caddies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was created to hold the article about Angelo Argea but so far as I can establish he was really a Greek-American caddy (see his talk page). Craig.Scott 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

City

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Category:Cities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Badlands

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertGtalk 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To distinguish from Badlands (U.K. band), which has some coincidentally close connections, such as the members of Blue Murder coming from both bands.--Mike Selinker 01:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.