Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26

Eponymous musician categories - S

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 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 debate was delete non-struck cats per precedent. --Kbdank71 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - housecleaning nomination, kinda large. Unless otherwise noted, each of these categories has one or more of the following three subcats: albums; members; songs. Along with these they contain the article for the artist and in some instances a discography article. Per precedent, this constitutes eponymous overcategorization. The subcats are housed in appropriate "...by artist" category structures and the material within them is easily accessible through the artist's article and each other. The exceptions are: Category:Skid Row (contains a videos subcat); Category:Slayer (contains an article on a side project); Category:Slumber Party Girls (contains a TV show they were on); Category:Sly & the Family Stone (contains Sly Stone discography); Category:Status Quo (contains a producer's article); Category:The Stone Roses (contains a side project article); Category:Styx (contains Dennis DeYoung albums category); ~~Category:Slumber Party Girls~~ Category:Sugababes (contains a media subcat); Category:Super Furry Animals (contains a record label article); and Category:System of a Down (contains a poetry book article). In my opinion many of these articles are inappropriately categorized but regardless they do not constitute reason to keep the categories. Otto4711 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make this two columns but the coding doesn't seem to work. If someone wants to tell me how to fix it (or just wants to fix it) that would be cool. Otto4711 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, Weak keep on Category:Slayer and Category:The Stone Roses which contain articles about a related side-project. I tend to think that's a better-than-average reason for eponymous categories, especially since it suggests a strong potential for growth, IMO. Very weak keep on Category:Super Furry Animals, which contains an article about the band's own label, and Category:Slumber Party Girls, which contains an article about the TV show for which the band is a house band. Neutral on Category:Status Quo which contains an article about a producer whose association with the band may or may not be defining and Category:System of a Down which contains an article about a book written by a band-member, which may or may not be a defining association with the band. Delete Category:Skid Row, Category:Sly & the Family Stone, Category:Styx, and the category (it's not Slumber Party Girls, but I don't remember which one it is now) that contains a media subcategory, per nom. Delete all the rest per nom and per extensive precedent which has even stood up to DRV now. Xtifr _tälk 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Addendum: struck comments related to categories that have been withdrawn from this nomination. Xtifr _tälk 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, useful for navigation. Not that it matters, these pages will be deleted no matter what the votes are. Look at this CfD, the votes were 4 Keep, 3 Delete. Now you might think that this meat there was no consensus with a slight lean to keep, but all the pages were deleted because there was precedent stated. It makes you wonder why we bother having a vote in the first place. --Philip Stevens 06:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote counting is never used to determine the results of discussions. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority. Rather than vote counting admins weigh the logical side of all arguments to come to their decisions on deletions. Dugwiki 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly! The policy on these needs to be discussed first before they get nominated, if the result of the nomination is always going to be delete, regardless of the many good arguements for keep. I wonder how many other people would nominate these categories if Otto didn't... Lugnuts 13:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate them, to answer your question. Most of these eponymous band categories deserve deletion. I'm just glad Otto takes the time to do it so I don't have to. Dugwiki 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate them too, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would do the same. As for the "policy", well, first, it's more of a guideline. But it has been discussed at great length in previous debates. Precedent at XfD is one of the primary sources for Wikipedia guidelines. And the reason they're all still brought for debate is twofold: one, we need to check to see if they really meet the guideline, and two, we need to discuss the possibility that they count as an exception to the guideline. Note that all the performers-by-performance categories are brought for discussion too, even though that's an even more clear guideline. Also, since it may not be clear to those who are new to the discussion, I should point out that none of the subcategories are included in these nominations. So navigation is basically unaffected. Xtifr _tälk 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Philip Stevens and send any improper deletions for review. Dominictimms 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A set of these has already been through DRV and the deletion was endorsed. Otto4711 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to split this into separate nominations Since there are some specific subcategories that people are objecting too, I'd recommend spliting this into separate nominations. Each category should be reviewed on its own merits. While I agree that most will end up being deleted, the discussion otherwise can become pretty convuluted if we combine all the specific category debates into one thread. Dugwiki 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Otto even went so far as to point out several that were potentially exceptions to the guidelines established by precedent. Frankly, I'd like to see only the ones that clearly match precedent bundled, and the possible exceptions discussed individually. (Or in groups with similar properties.) Xtifr _tälk 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions are those categories with a single item that falls outside the guideline established by precedent. As I did the same sort of exception listing in other similar CFDs I thought it was reasonable here. If it's too distracting to consider those ten as part of this nomination then I will withdraw them so we can concentrate on the ones that do meet the precedent. Otto4711 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no biggie, really, but the previous nominations were generally smaller and it was a lot easier to find and note the exceptions. This is the first one where it's actually been a bit of a problem, IMO. I guess "S" is just too popular of a letter. :) Xtifr _tälk 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Ramroading a mixed bag like this through is inappropriate. The nom knows that this is controversial and should stop it. Abberley2 17:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the "mixed bag" instances have been struck, and only the clear cases that exactly match precedent have been left in this nomination. Xtifr _tälk 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I use cats like these for navigation all the time. As for the citing of a precedent, I used a precedent in this CfD and it was ignored. So let's not have double standards. Hera1187 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the "precedent" you cited in that CFD (which BTW I agree with) consisted of basically a single category. The precedent against categories named after people is so well established that it's part of the overcategorization guideline. None of the categories here meet the limited exception outlined there and "I use it" is not a persuasive argument. Otto4711 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Clearly this is supporting the previous CfDs. When specific objections have been raised, the categories have been withdrawn and can be nominated and discussed on an individual basis. No reason to deviate from past consensus at this time. Vegaswikian 02:17, 31 July 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 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:Tamil scientists, Malayali scientists and Tamil Nobel laureates

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 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 debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being overcategorized and per Non-notable intersections. For the same reason, we don't have categories like Bavarian scientists when German scientists will cover it. See also German-American sportspeople--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as valid and typical sub-cat of Category:People by ethnic or national origin There are more Tamils in the world than Italians (not quite more than Germans) and more Malayali people than Swedes. Johnbod 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all For the Nobel laureates, there appears to be a little used scheme to categorize by nationality, not by ethnic group. Similarly, scientists are also categorized by nationality, not categorized by ethnicity as far as I can find, which is not surprising because we don't have articles such as Tamil science, Malayali science, Apache science, Basque science or the myriad ethnic groups one could choose. Carlossuarez46 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid as saying a Basque something or other or another example is countries/groups from the former russian/soviet union, i.e. kazakh, georgian, lithuanian. Bavarian in no way compares to the uniquenss of what tamil and malayali are, bavarian could be a cultural group, but is not a separate language or ethnic group, its a dialect.
Delete, the ethnicity of scientists is irrelevant to the work they do, we shouldn't categorize Scientists by ethnicity . -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, Merge first and third cats into Category:Indian scientists. --musicpvm 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge carefully, because these categories are meant to contain people of this ethnicity regardless of whether they are Indian, Sri Lankan, British, Canadian, Trinidadian, or whatever; do not assume that they are Indian. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, all should also be merged into Category:Tamil people or Malayali. This nomination does not seem to recognise the ethnicity tree to which these categories also belong. No ethnic cleansing please! Johnbod 23:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! My sentiments exactly. Bloodless it may be, but ethnic cleansing, all the same. Cgingold 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tamil Nobel Laureates is along the lines of Category:Bengali Nobel laureates, for an ethnic group in South Asia. Malayali and Tamil scientists are valid categories meant to reduce the load on Category:Indian scientists, which would become unnavigable after upmerging these and Category:Bengali scientists.Baka man 03:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once again, ethnicity categories up for deletion because they're not considered equally valid, they're not granted full standing as categories, whereas occupation categories are automatically accorded primacy. Ethnicity is no less valid than either occupation or nationality. Please take a moment, step back, and look at this from a different, but equally valid perspective: suppose you would like to learn what fields of endeavor people of Malayali or Tamil ethnicity have made a name in. Categories of this sort are a valuable aid for that kind of inquiry. And the whole point of having categories and subcategories is to help readers find what they're looking for. As long as there are enough articles to populate these cats, there is no good reason to delete them. Cgingold 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category suggests ethinicity and language affiliation. Seems like valid categories. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When a scientific community is classified, it is generally classified on a nationality or institutional basis. eg. German scientific community or Harvard scientific faculty. It is never referred by language or ethnicity as a rule. eg. Bengali physicists or physics community.
--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:31, 31 July 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 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:Sign language-films

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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sign language-films to Category:Sign language films

Nominator's rationale: The hyphen makes no sense at all. Compare with all the other subcats of Category:Films by language, which are of the form of Category:German-language films, not Category:German language-films. Possibly this could be speedied, but not sure. 70.22.191.241 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am the nominator for this category--I just managed to sign myself out somehow. LeSnail 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I'm not even sure what the current name would mean if it were interpreted as written. :) Xtifr _tälk 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? Rename seems almost a capitalization, typo speedy sort of thing. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 12:31, 27 July 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 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:Lee Jung-hyun

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 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 debate was delete per precedent --Kbdank71 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, pointless eponymous category. PC78 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything is already linked from the main article. LeSnail 20:45, 26 July 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

various portmanteaus categories

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 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 debate was delete. --Kbdank71 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete we deleted Category:Portmanteaus earlier this month after this discussion, the subcats suffer the same infirmities that the parent had: categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names, WP:OCAT, etc. A suggestion was made at the time to kill the subcats, but they were never nominated formally, now as a bit of housecleaning, they are. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nom complete. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep the Political portmanteau category -- many of those words are derogatory terms which were intentionally devised to sound ugly, and it's a legitimate categorization... AnonMoos 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's so, and it's certainly true with anything in the US that ends in "-gate", most of which haven't seem to have made it into the cat, or such things as Helengrad, but a much better category can be devised to capture these, because portmanteau political or otherwise is just a way the word is formed. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, "-gate" is now pretty much an ordinary derivational suffix in English, and words compounded with "-gate" would not generally be described as portmanteaus... AnonMoos 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the political one per AnonMoos. Johnbod 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom says, categories are for similar articles. The names of these articles are related by portmanteauism, but the subjects are not related. Also, delete because we can't seem to keep them populated accurately. What does and does not constitute a portmanteau is generally a judgement call made by editors, not a verifiable categorization scheme. If there truly is a notable political portmanteau concept, we should write an article about it, and then maybe bring the category back. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- categorizing things by the origin of their names would lead to a horrid mess. LeSnail 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: we categorize topics, not names. No objection to listification, but I certainly won't insist on it. Xtifr _tälk 23:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr Abberley2 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Dr.S pointed out in the related discussion, Wictionary is a more appropriate place for this sort of lexicological categorization. Cgingold 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Questions - 1) I noticed that the Geographic subcat wasn't tagged with the CFD template. Will that one need to be renominated so as to be in compliance with procedural rules?

2) Both Geographic & Scientific were left as orphaned categories when their sole parent Category:Portmanteaus was deleted followng the previous CFD. That being the case, shouldn't they have been automatically deleted as well, then and there?

3) I did enjoy perusing the contents of these cats, and even took a minute to read several of the articles. It seems to me that most of them should be converted to list-articles, which could then be given their own Category:Lists of portmanteaus. Cgingold 21:20, 29 July 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 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:Cultural -isms

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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete a small but loose collection of articles starting with "Cultural" and ending with a noun (usually but not always) ending in "-ism". The selection of what fits, other than by coincidence of names must inevitably be POV, aren't most "ism"s in someway cultural in that none of them arose in a cultural vacuum and most arose from a particular cultural time and place? Carlossuarez46 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categorization by coincidence. Oliver Han 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Categorization by name. LeSnail 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a subset of Category:Isms, which was deleted at Cfd on May 9. --21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disability related films

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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete to quote it, this category is for "films about people with some type of learning or physical disability", which is hopelessly vague: how important must that character be to the film? how important must that person's disability be to the film? how impacting must that character's disability be? This is one of the vaguer "films about" categories in disguise. Note that we deleted a similar list on similar grounds earlier this month, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about disability. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent. LeSnail 20:41, 26 July 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 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:Articles with too many sections

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 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 debate was delete. --Kbdank71 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete several reasons (1) it's not used anywhere; (2) the general view is that sections, subsections are a good thing to break up long articles; (3) what constitutes too many sections is purely a POV call; (4) why encourage flagging of these articles by people with that POV rather than encouraging them merge sections they think are too many? Carlossuarez46 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oliver Han 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; too many is subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Star Trek authors

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per strong precedent against categorizing creators by subject matter, a variation on performer by performance. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_15#Category:James_Bond_authors and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_10#Category:Doctor_Who_novelists. Otto4711 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. CaveatLector^Talk 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:52, 1 August 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

V

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 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 debate was merge both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - three categories have been created to house a single character article. These are two of them. Otto4711 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:V (TV series) characters -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all of the per nom, Tewfik^Talk 19:53, 1 August 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 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:Jerry Seinfeld

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category is improperly capturing performer by performance material in violation of strong precedent as well as capturing articles of such tenuous connection as the author of a book that Seinfeld wrote a foreword for. The material is appropriately interlinked and the category is not needed. Otto4711 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't look like there's enough here to justify the eponymous category. The articles all should be easily accessible from his main article. Dugwiki 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:55, 1 August 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 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:Violin makers and restorers

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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Violin makers and restorers to Category:Bowed string instrument makers

Nominator's rationale: Rename -- the present category is the result of this discussion, which merged categories for violin makers and violin restorers but failed to deal with the other problem with this category's name. The introduction to this category claims that it is for anyone who makes bowed string instruments, irregardless of whether those instruments are violins. There may be some technical uses of the word violin that allow someone who makes only cellos to be called a violin maker, but I as a cellist have never heard such a usage, nor can we reasonably expect the average editor to think of categorizing such a maker of only cellos in Category:Violin makers and restorers. There is no need to rename to Category:Bowed string instrument makers and restorers because there are no notable restorers who are not also makers, nor are there ever likely to be any. LeSnail 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and if appropriate, make a redirect Category:Violin family instrument makers to this one. Furthermore, Category:Luthiers has quite a bit of confusing overlap with this one, with some names arbitrarily showing up one place and not the other. On my talk page, nominator has suggested "it would be better to have a Category:Bowed string instrument makers, and allow Category:Luthiers to contain that and Category:Guitar makers " __Just plain Bill 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that suggestion, with the caveat that it may not always be clear-cut. If memory serves, the quintessential violin-maker, Antonio S. of Cremona, also made a few guitars and other non-bowed instruments... __Just plain Bill

Rename per nom with Bill's caveat, Tewfik^Talk 19:57, 1 August 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 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:Cannibalism among tribal societies

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 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 debate was rename Category:Cannibalism among tribal societies to Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cannibalism among tribal societies to Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism

Nominator's rationale: Rename, rationale as per the recently closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 19#Category:Headhunting among tribal societies, which was moved to the analogous title. I mentioned this there but it didn't get discussed and hasn't been changed. Rigadoun (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, & the other discussion. Johnbod 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: this probably should have been bundled with the other discussion, as all the same arguments apply. Closing of the other debate went with my seconnd choice, not my first, but I think the arguments for that were good, and they also apply here. Xtifr _tälk 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the other discussion. LeSnail 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RenameI created this and the headhunting category and I think we should rename this cat to fit the other. Jmm6f488 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, though my reservations at the previous discussion still exist. Tewfik^Talk 19:58, 1 August 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 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:MTV presenters

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 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 debate was listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't do People by television network, see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete and add Category:MTV VJs and its subcats along with Category:MTV News correspondents to the nomination. Otto4711 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all three cats (the nominated one, and the 2 suggested by Otto, which I hope will shortly be added to the nomination) per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all three per precedent, Tewfik^Talk 19:59, 1 August 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 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:Fictional babies

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 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 debate was deleted and salted --Kbdank71 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Block, as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per nom. LeSnail 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Otto4711 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block recreation per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per all Johnbod 19:39, 26 July 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 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:United Kingdom Students' Unions

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 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 debate was rename simply to fix capitalization. No consensus if it should be UK or GB. --Kbdank71 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom Students' Unions to Category:United Kingdom students' unions

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Students' Unions to Category:Scottish students' unions

Nominator's rationale: "Students' Union" when capitalised is a formal name. In lower caser it is the concept - the relevant article is at Students' union and Students' Union is just a redirect there. Many of the SUs in these categories and their sub-categories use either just "Union" or a different name - e.g. Edinburgh University Students' Association, University of Liverpool Guild of Students or Hull University Union. Indeed most of the Scottish organisations are at "Students' Association". The lower case is also consistent with Category:English students' unions and Category:Welsh students' unions. Both these categories have been up for CFR before - see here and here but the previous objection that "students' union" can mean any informal get together of students is completely contrary to how the term is used in the UK. Timrollpickering 12:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom, but expect long and irrelevant expressions of opposite points of view I suppose. Later added: No objection to British (lame attempt at joke did not anticipate a UK/Brit issue & was not intended to cast aspersions at either side in that!) Or to British.Johnbod 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to British students' unions rather than United Kingdom, but otherwise as per nom. Tim! 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose "British" - although there aren't yet articles on them, Queen's and Ulster (and a general Northern Irish category) would qualify for the UK category. "British" does not mean the same thing as "United Kingdom". Timrollpickering 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:British student societies, Category:British student political organisations, Category:British student media groups, Category:British student theatre all use the adjectival form. Tim! 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using "British" per Tim! for consistency. We have thousands (at least) of categories using "British", so there's no valid reason for being inconsistent here. "British" is, like it or not, the standard adjectival form on Wikipedia, and if we're going to change that, we should do so after a broader discussion, rather than in a awkward. piecemeal fashion. Xtifr _tälk 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using United Kingdom, as the category structure is not standardised as "British" (Category:Clubs and societies in the United Kingdom), and "British" is not quite factual (i.e. Northern Ireland). Tewfik^Talk 20:08, 1 August 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 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:Jewish wikiprojects

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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jewish wikiprojects to Category:WikiProject Judaism

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categeory that is ambiguously named. The newer "Category:Jewish wikiprojects" makes it sound that there are wikiprojects that are "Jewish" -- which they are not. Whereas the older Category:WikiProject Judaism is correctly named for grammatical, logical, and technical reasons and it can and does perform the function of serving as an umbrella for Wikiprojects relating to Jews and/or Judaism on Wikipedia. IZAK 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:WikiProject Judaism for above reasons. IZAK 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "ambiguity" of the name is maybe not the real issue here. The "culture" (=secular, apparently) and Othodox projects seem struggling to maintain life, but the history one seems reasonably vigorous, if not so much so as Pr Judaism. But how do the other projects feel about this?. Johnbod 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are they all indeed "sub-Wikiprojects" of WikiProject Judaism? Tewfik^Talk 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :-) --Eliyak T·C 05:02, 2 August 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 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:Famous Catholics

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Famous Catholics to Category:Catholics

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Famous isn't very exact. And if they're on wikipedia, they're already notable, so having a category for famous or notable people is redundant. Kolindigo 04:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy ~~merge~~ Delete (amended per Provit below)only contains Tara Lipinski! Johnbod 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nathanian 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only current member might belong in Category:American Roman Catholics, but her religion isn't mentioned in the article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if someone sources her religion, put her in the narrower (and hence more proper) cat at least until the day comes when we get rid of all ethnic/religion/race categories here. Yeah, keep dreaming Carlos. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Judging the category on its merits, not its members, it should be merged. That is to say, anyone who would properly be in this category should end up in the nom's suggested merge target, and more members might get added before the debate closes. "Famous" is absolutely an inappropriate word to use in category names. As for the current member, that seems more like a content dispute than anything to do with this category per se, and anyone who thinks the person doesn't belong in either of these categories is welcome to edit the article (although it should probably wait till after the debate closes for appearance's sake.) Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the article doesn't mention her being Catholic at all, so it's someone who can source her being so who needs to edit it - no doubt she is. Maybe she crosses herself before performing - is that a WP:RS if filmed ;) ? Thats not just Catholic either, of course. Johnbod 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If a Catholic is notable enough to have a bio on Wikipedia, is s/he not already "famous"? - Crockspot 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you have an article, you are notable hence famous. Vegaswikian 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is "famous"? Tewfik^Talk 20:11, 1 August 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 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:Footballers with 100 or more caps

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 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 debate was rename to Category:FIFA Century Club to match [1] --Kbdank71 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was previously deleted at CfD on 11 July 2007. DRV overturned because it was unclear whether all commenters were aware that FIFA recognizes the honor of achieving 100 caps, as cited in the DRV. Still, weak delete, as some concerns over arbitrariness continue to exist. Xoloz 03:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand your actions here at all. You have overturned a previous deletion, acknowledged the strength of the case for keeping the category, acknowledged that the grounds for deletion has uncertain consensus, and yet you are still proposing the page for deletion. If your purpose is to promote further discussion on the scope and intent of the Arbitrary Inclusion criterion, then surely that debate should be taking place on the talk pages at WP:OCAT. 100 caps is a matter of great celebration, it is an achievement deemed worthy of recording by the sport's governing body: thus even if 100 is deemed to be no less random a number than 97 (which IMHO flies in the face of logic and experience), it is not arbitrary because this is an issue of crossing a thresh-hold rather than simply reaching a gross total. Kevin McE 09:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ^^^ What he said. This nomination sounds like a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what nom is saying is that people were unaware of a possibly valid argument to keep, but he doesn't think it's necessarily sufficient. Since it was deleted before, running the debate again is not at all unreasonable. People might not want to change their vote (obviously, since he doesn't). Nevertheless, I think the recognition by FIFA is sufficient to take this out of the strictly-arbitrary category, so ~~Keep~~. Xtifr _tälk 13:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Changed my position, see below. Xtifr _tälk 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments last time & on DRV, but can someone provide a link to the FIFA recognition of this career landmark, which was not done last time? Johnbod 12:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As reported here and here, the FIFA list can be found here. Kevin McE 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (correction - only done on the penultimate day of the last debate) Johnbod 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - 100 is regarded as the honour in football. Timrollpickering 12:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed position see below. Timrollpickering 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Defining honour for a footballer. One hundred is not a arbitrary number. Nathanian 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a reason why this cat is empty? Has someone done something precipitous or is it just not being used. If the former, tsk tsk, if the latter, based upon the arguments above about how significant a thing this seems to be, I'm a bit surprised that no one has been included? Carlossuarez46 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had loads of articles before it was deleted; presumably will be auto-repopulated before or after this debate concludes (if a keep). Johnbod 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it, thanks. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate for the many reasons given in the various discussions. Oliver Han 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is tiresome and begins to look rather pointy. Arguments for retention presented across three debates: many and compelling. Arguments for deletion presented across three debates: a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "Arbitrary". Dominictimms 12:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename to Category:FIFA Century Club, because that's what it's actually called. Having X amount of games sounds arbitrary for any X, being a member of a club defined by the FIFA is not arbitrary. >Radiant< 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to actual name per Radiant, Tewfik^Talk 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Radiant (replacing my earlier opinion above). Xtifr _tälk 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Radiant (changing my opinion above). Timrollpickering 13:24, 2 August 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.