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 merge Category:Former Teachtaí Dála into Category:Teachtaí Dála. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Teachtaí Dála to Category:Teachtaí Dála

• Merge - People are generally not categorized according to status. People in this category also appear in other subcategories of Category:Teachtaí Dála as well, so the "former" label is not needed. I therefore recommend this merger. (Also note that a separate discussion is needed on categorization of Teachtaí Dála by Dáil, as some people have belonged to multiple Dáils, so the articles on these people have long, difficult-to-read lists of categories. See Éamon de Valera, for example.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful category if one does not know the particular DáilAatomic1 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I am the category creator, and I now know that the convention is not to split categories into current and former (though I didn't know when I created it last year) ... but the sub-cats of Category:Members of Dáil Éireann by session have been very useful in populating the lists of TDs, and the Category:Former Teachtaí Dála is, per Aatomic1, very useful in finding TDs where one does not know which Dail they served in. At CFD Jan 10 we discussed a similar set of issues to the similarly-structured categories which I created for British Members of Parliament, and there was no consensus for change there, though the closing admin did suggest that the by-session categs could be moved to the talk pages as maintenance cats. The issues for TDs are slightly different:
  1. there have been fewer of them (about 150 per Dail over 90 years, against 600+ for MPs over 207 years)
  2. Depending on ones political perspective, there may be an important distinction between the first three Dala (which were revolutionary assemblies) and the 4th and subsequent Dala, which are more widely agreed to be constitutional.
  3. The PR voting system in Ireland means that there are fewer safe seats, so TDs who serve for decades are less common than long-serving MPs. There are some long-servers such as de Valera, but they are rarer.
• On the specific question of Category:Former Teachtaí Dála, I think that we should look at this from the perspective of the reader, and ask whether it is easier to find TDs if they are split between current and former. I think that it is easier to find the current ones if they are not mixed a long list of historical TDs, and shouldn't our aim be to help the reader? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I generally disagree that splitting between current and former is useful. In many cases, readers do not want to be hindered by looking up people based on status, although this is more important for people who have held specific offices rather than offices in large legislative bodies. "Former" and "current" categories just add layers to the navigation process that can be very irritating. Also, note that categorization by session, as is done for the Dáil, causes severe category clutter problems. The list of categories in Éamon de Valera is so long that it will be difficult to read, so it will inhibit people from using the category system. (Also note the discussion on baseball All-Star teams from 19 Nov 2006, where people generally got tired of the lengthy category lists in many baseball players' articles that were created by this style of categorization. UK and Irish parliamentarian articles now suffer the same overcategorzation problems.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - isn't this matter solved by the "members of the 14th Dail" categories? Seems to me that the last one thereof would be the "current" and all the others are "former". >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above and also per discussion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 11#Category:Former NASCAR drivers. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:32, 18 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former drug addicts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This seems like it would be incredibly difficult to verify. Drug addicts may have relapses and may successfully hide these relapses from the public. On this basis, I recommend that that category be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; additionally I believe that current thought is there is no such thing as a "former" addict. Otto4711 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although it could be argued as a defining characteristic perhaps. The above points, imo supercede any such argument, especially the verifiability point.--Keefer | Talk 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:BIO. Also, category is excessively broad. Technically you'd have to include every diagnosed nicotine addict. POV gets invoked, however, when you go labeling every smoker because you don't know whether or not their addiction has been medically confirmed. Likewise, other heavy drug users might not be addicted. And we already have Category:People treated for drug addiction. Doczilla 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's probably a defining characteristic, but as noted above there are problems with categories that refer to "former" vs "current" status. I'd probably be ok with a category that lists people notable for having a drug addiction during their lives, regardless of whether or not they ulimately recovered from it, but the ambiguity of relapse makes this a difficult category to maintain. Dugwiki 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:07, 12 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. WP:USEFUL is not generally a good argument against the general standard. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Maryland Delegates to Category:Members of the Maryland House of Delegates

Category:Former Maryland State Senators to Category:Maryland State Senators

• Merge - People are generally not categorized according to status. These categories should be upmerged accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For parliamentary purposes, I think that it is very useful to distinguish between current and former parliamentarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)
• Keep. As the previous post states, it was my intention to provide a vehicle to distinguish between current and past members of the Maryland House of Delegates. I am working on this project and have many more to go. That is the reason for the page's sparse population. --User:wallstreethotrod April 19, 2002 17:00 (EST)

(contribs) 10:10, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge as above. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China to Category:Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China

• Merge - People are generally not categorized by status. In this particular case, it seems like users would want to see all the deputies in this position with a really really long name, rather than separating the former and current people. I therefore suggest the merge. Dr. Submillimeter 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Former members of the congress are no longer member of the congress. Dromo 13:20, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient vanished precursors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete or rename something more meaningful as currently contains a mixture of characters and works of fiction. Tim! 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This appears to be attempting to gather science fiction articles that discuss a "precursor" alien race. This is such a common plot gimmick, especially in computer games, that it is no longer a defining characteristic for these works of fiction. I therefore suggest deleting the category. Dr. Submillimeter 21:53, 10 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, as above. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former French deputies to Category:French politicians

• Merge - People are generally not categorized by status. In this particular case, it seems like most users would want to navigate among all of the French politicians, not just the former deputies. I therefore suggest the merge. (Note that Category:French politicians looks like it could use clean-up.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For parliamentary purposes, I think that it is very useful to distinguish between current and former parliamentarians. The proposed merger would not just lose that distinction, but would also lose the important distinction between those who were elected to the national assembly and other politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. In reply to the above, there are only 2 individual articles in this category. Most of the articles are in subcategories, both of which have names that are easier to understand than the name of this category. Abberley2 20:27, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Elektra Records artists to Category:Elektra Records artists

• Merge - People are generally not categorized by status. Tracking people's status with individual recording labels seems like it could be messy. I suggest merging this category into Category:Elektra Records artists. (Someone else can discuss the merits of categorizing artists by label; this is a discussion about categorization of "former" versus "current" status.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.. No living/dead categories for recording contracts.--Mike Selinker 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Postlebury 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. For recording artists, the main interest is whether they have recorded for a particular label, not whether they still do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CARICOM national leaders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Former CARICOM national leaders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - CARICOM is a multinational organization in the Caribbean. These categories basically gathers together all people who were heads of state in any of the member countries. This seems highly inappropriate; national leaders are not categorized like this for other international organizations (for example, Category:NATO national leaders and Category:EU national leaders do not exist). The people in these categories should be categorized as the heads of state of their individual countries. These categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postlebury 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom, but listify Category:CARICOM national leaders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why listify? Is it useful? Are the national leaders of other international organizations, like NATO or the EU, given in lists in Wikipedia? Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without listifying. There are already lists for each country, and if anyone wants to look them all up consecutively, they may easily do so. Abberley2 20:30, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former British Ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:British ambassadors to the United Nations

Propose renaming Category:Former Canadian Ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Canadian ambassadors to the United Nations

Propose renaming Category:Former Israeli Ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Israeli ambassadors to the United Nations

Propose renaming Category:Former Russian and Soviet Ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Russian and Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - People are generally not categorized by status. Most people using the category system will want to find all the ambassadors, not just the former ambassadors, so the categories should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Per nom. The article, one would hope, should make it quite clear that they are former.--Keefer | Talk 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Sandstein 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Since each country has only one ambassador at a time, there is np benefit to splitting current from former. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turn-based tactics games to Category:Turn-based tactics video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The article is for video games, only. Also, I'm trying to make it look similar to Category:Turn-based strategy video games. SharkD 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency with Category:Turn-based strategy video games. JavaTenor 20:36, 10 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tau Epsilon Phi brothers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining category clutter like all the others. No-one has an article because they belong to Tau Epsilon Phi. Haddiscoe 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete per above. Non-notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and many precedents. Doczilla 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 20:15, 12 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "poetry by of", and suggest not subcategorizing "poems" as this would be rather narrow. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Poetry of Lord Byron to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:William Blake's poems to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Poems by Robert Burns to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to something standardized - a sampling of subcats in Category:Poems by author. There are other varieties as well, including "of" and "by" variations and even a stray "Works" subcat. We should establish a standard format and, once established, speedy rename the remaining subcats to match. I have no preference as to the form chosen. Otto4711 19:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Poety of Lord Byron, etc. - poetic works could include larger epic or dramatic works as well as poems per se, and best to use the broadest description. A Musing 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Poetry of..." is different from "Poems of", though; "poetry of" would include articles about, say, themes, anthologies, critical reviews, etc. While "poems of" would just be a container category for articles on individual poems, much like "albums by X band" etc. --lquilter 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the breadth of the category; there are only a few poets who will have a large number of articles on their individual poems, and we might as well keep all the material together.A Musing 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be totally consistent with Category:Books by author and Category:Novels by author it should properly be Poems by Foo. However I'd also be fine with Poetry of Foo. Another possibility might be to make Poems by Foo a subcat of Poetry of Foo. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but a glance at the current speedy renaming candidates shows that plays work the other way - Foo plays. The important thing is thus consistency across all poetry not across literature in general (either that, or this isn't the only group of categories which need renaming!) Grutness...wha? 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ProveIt: Poetry of Foo for collections, topical articles etc; with subcat Poems by Foo for individual poems. Sandstein 07:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment and question - does anyone else worry about subcategorizing what are likely to be fairly sparsely populated categories? I'm happy to go with the cat/subcat scheme if others agree, but have the sense that we'd soon see a bunch of CfDs for overcategorization. A Musing 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. My preference would be "poetry of," as that would include "poems of" and there would surely, as A Musing says, not be too many articles about individual poems. But I don't feel that strongly about the issue of categories/subcategories in this case. I do, however, agree with the aim: to standardize the language. — scribblingwoman 02:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I happen to like Poetry of Foo per Scribblingwoman, but the most important thing is that the names be standardized in some fashion, so other renames are ok too. Lesnail 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "poetry of" per Scribblingwoman, but I'd be happy with any of the optoions for standardisation. The main thing is to use some standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename - clearly this standard "Should" be Poems by authorname the developing pattern for these categories is for the "Work" to be a reflection of the wording used in the parent category - thus "Poems" and the joining term should be "by". If it is decided to to go for "poetry" it would be out of gramatic keeping with the other similar categories and would require a change to the parent category. Whatever, please apply careful logic to these decisions, thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:41, 16 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge both to standard, per Honbicot. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in the Netherlands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Redundant category, superceded by Category:Settlements in the Netherlands. -- P199 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate. "Settlement" is not a synonym for village. Haddiscoe 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all places in the Netherlands are already categorized by Category:Cities, towns and village in <Province>, which clearly makes Category:Villages in the Netherlands redundant. Furthermore, the Netherlands does not make an official distinction between city, town, or village status, so which settlements should be added here? -- P199 13:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename both to Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Netherlands, which unlike Category:Settlements in the Netherlands, will fit neatly into Category:towns by country, Category:Cities by country and Category:Villages by country. Honbicot 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate one way or another, adding the provincial cities, towns and villages categories if necessary. Globally, settlements categories are one classification level above the villages categories, not on the same level. Abberley2 20:32, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep per consensus. AW 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maimonides ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the small volume of material in the category, making the category unnecessary for navigation. Otto4711 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto4711 rationale; no need for this eponymous category. --lquilter 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maimonides is a major figure and no doubt the amount of info on him will increase.--Newport 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep - Wikipedia's offerings on Maimonides at this point seem rather anemic - I'd suggest notifying the key authors or relevant wikiprojects to participate in this discussion, and perhaps spur some work filling out that category. It ought to be much larger. A Musing 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The question isn't whether or not he is a major figure. It's whether or not the included article links are sufficiently navigatable from Maimonides. In this case they are, so the eponymous category isn't necessary. See WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people for more details. Dugwiki 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any category could be converted to a list in an article, but this would not necessarily help users. I prefer to be helpful.--Brownlee 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are incorrect that any category can be easily converted into a list in a main article. In fact, the categories that are most useful to readers are the ones that are not easily translated into links within the associated main article. And when a category duplicates the list of links within a main article it provides a disservice to readers and editors by placing unneeded category tags on multiple associated articles that serve primarily to dilute the usefulness of other category tags within those articles and to basically double the amount of editorial maintainence required for category/list upkeep. Dugwiki 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Musing is right; it should be much larger.--R613vlu 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A Musing. This category should be well-populated, and its current sparseness suggests a gap in wikipedia that ought to be filled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary middle layer. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a fine judgement but, contrary to some views above, I think that this category has adequate content to be viable. --Xdamr^talk 00:48, 17 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oscar Romero ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous category with insufficient material to warrant it and whose lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 rationale and Wikipedia:Overcategorization; no need for this eponymous category. --lquilter 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Insufficient scope for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 14 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. POV is a strong argument. "People declared heretics by..." should really be a list article to indicate why and when they were so declared. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heretics. This category is a POV Trap. There is no way to fix it. --Blue Tie 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure it qualifies for speedy delete as recreation. Doczilla 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous nomination was no consensus. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Heretics per <criteria>" Notable category, if not nade into NPOV or soapbox. 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More trouble than it is worth. Haddiscoe 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category suffers from severe POV problems. Some entire Christian splinter groups (Apostolic Brethren) are placed in here. I would not be surprised to see someone attempt to list the Anabaptists as well. Dr. Submillimeter 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is POV, and it can't be NPOV. Jacob Haller 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after splitting into Category:People declared heretics by .... Whether someone is a heretic, of course, depends on what the categoriser believes to be orthodoxy, and hence is POV. However, whether someone has been formally declared a heretic by some religious authority is an objective criterion and can be of interest. This requires subcategories for all notable such authorities, of course. Sandstein 07:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Delete after splitting into Category:People declared heretics by .... Jaraalbe 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one person's heretic is another's saviour. The proposals above cannot work, because we would undoubtledly be forced with an overcat problem and POV problem, like would we keep Category:People declared heretics by Carlos Suarez? Thought not. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we would keep Category:People declared heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. Whether someone is a notable enough religious authority such that it's interesting to know whether someone has been declared a heretic by them can be discussed here in individual cases. Sandstein 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Category:People declared heretics by the Jehovah's Witnesses, Category:People declared heretics by the Unification Church, Category:People declared heretics by Anglican Church, Category:People declared heretics by an Islamic court, Category:People declared heretics by Ayatollah Khomeini, Category:People declared heretics by David Koresh, etc., etc.??? Where does the line get drawn and what NPOV reason does one have for drawing it there? there's no end to people whose view of religion admits none but their own and hence all non-members are heretics. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues affect Category:Heresy and Christian heresy. Jacob Haller 07:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a container category, but split into Category:People declared heretics by .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 14 April 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.

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: already deleted. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meher Baba texts to Category:Works of Meher Baba

*Merge - "Works of..." is the preferred convention. Otto4711 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Close - the "texts" category was emptied and speedy deleted. Otto4711 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why not simply delete 'Meher Baba texts' since nothing is trascluded to it. Cott12 Talk 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't empty when the nomination was made. Otto4711 14:10, 11 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series named after fictional characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is overcategorization by trivial intersection. The categorized shows have nothing whatsoever in common with each other beyond happening to be named after one of the characters on the show. Otto4711 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial intersection. Doczilla 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another category based on attributes of names. --lquilter 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought it was a great idea at the time, but since it makes no sense and its a waste of time, it should go away. And while were at it, maybe we should look at other television categories that should be deleted. Robert Moore 20:21, 10 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Water supply and sanitation country notes to Category:Water supply and sanitation by country

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Standardize with "by country" categories; redlinked articles on templates indicate more are coming. Rigadoun (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom --Mschiffler 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sandstein 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Aatomic1 16:03, 11 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge as above. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in the Netherlands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category reorg made this one redundant. Superceded by Category:Settlements in the Netherlands. -- P199 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate. "Settlement" is not a synonym of town. Haddiscoe 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all places in the Netherlands are already categorized by Category:Cities, towns and village in <Province>, which clearly makes Category:Towns in the Netherlands redundant. Furthermore, the Netherlands does not make an official distinction between city, town, or village status, so which settlements should be added here? -- P199 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename both to Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Netherlands, which unlike Category:Settlements in the Netherlands, will fit neatly into Category:towns by country, Category:Cities by country and Category:Villages by country. Honbicot 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate. For other countries, the settlement categories are parents of the town categories. The Netherlands should have entries in both Category:Settlements by country and the village, town and city menus. Abberley2 20:35, 14 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 00:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can teleport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I, the nominator, think it should be renamed to fictional teleporters because two words is better than five words. And sometimes it's best to have fictional characters in two words, there is a word for fictional characters who can teleport, it's called teleporters. Last nomination were seven words, that was a lot, now it's five words. But let's make it 2 words. If something can be described by one word, use it. TheBlazikenMaster 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - current name makes it clear the category is for characters and not devices such as those disambiguated at Transporter. Otto4711 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. Although I'm not sure about the need for this category in any form for other reasons, Otto is right about the clarity of the name. Doczilla 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename Also the new category would open it up to people who don't have the power to teleport, but are teleported by others or use teleportation devices. --lquilter 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename Three extra words wont kill anybody.--Piemanmoo 10:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename to maintain clarity, per discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 14 April 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of South Carolina ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:South Carolina politicians, convention of Category:American politicians by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:27, 10 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with eating disorders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining. Only in rare cases is an eating disorder a prominent enough part of someone's bio that they should be categorized according to it. For one thing, you'd have to include way too many celebrities, models, and athletes. The cases in which eating disorder leads to death (e.g., Karen Carpenter) can fall into a "death by" category. Doczilla 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restrict As I've said in similar categories, the question is whether the article presents significant referenced information talking about the disorder. If it does, then it is proper to categorize that article under that disorder as part of the "People with medical disorders" parent category. Of course people who are rumored to have an eating disorder but for whom their article does not mention the problem should not be included. Dugwiki 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not defining and restriction is not practical. Haddiscoe 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per non-defining; potential WP:BIO issues without citations; and also because too many varied things can be considered "eating disorders". --lquilter 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. AshbyJnr 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Also, eating disorders is too vague and can be temporary, making it impossible to maintain this category. -- P199 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Replies First, the fact that a disorder can be temporary isn't relevant, since the category isn't differentiating between "current" and "former" status. If the article specifically and significantly talks about the disorder in the history of the subject, then they could be included. Second, I'm not sure why this restriction "isn't practical". It is, in fact, the same general restriction that applies to all categories - namely that an article should only be categorized based on referenced information provided within the article itself. So pretty much a black and white litmus test for inclusion, namely does the article have the referenced information or not? An objective inclusion test that's normally quite straightforward to perform. Dugwiki 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be temporary, it's even less defining. Who hasn't overeaten at least once? Carlossuarez46 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question, though, isn't whether you or I have overeaten. The question is do you or I have an article on Wikipedia that specifically mentions our eating disorder. If something isn't important enough to be mentioned by referenced material in the person's article, then it isn't worthy of being included in a related category. But if a fact is worthy of special note in an article then it is worth including in related categories. So we're not talking about including everybody who's overeaten, only those who have been specifically written about in reliable publications as having an eating disorder (a fairly high bar of category entry). Dugwiki 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:12, 12 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organ transplant donors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as a non-defining characteristic. Category is excessively broad as well. Far too many people have been organ donors. Doczilla 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nowhere close to being notable. Haddiscoe 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify but only live-donors. 132.205.44.134 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as non-defining. People do not become notable for donating an organ. Otto4711 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 AshbyJnr 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. No objection to including a list in article organ donation or organ transplants Carlossuarez46 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining. Should not be listified, what it would be good for? Pavel Vozenilek 00:58, 13 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:J. D. Salinger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - nominated once previously, closed no consensus. In reviewing the discussion and in light of the large number of deletions of eponymous cataegories in the interim it's reasonable to re-examine it. As with many other eponymous categories, this category serves no purpose as a navigational hub. The various articles in it are easily interlinked through the main Salinger article and the volume of material is not such that requires the category. The only subcat is properly housed in the Books by author category tree and the works themselves are also extensively linked through the various relevant articles. Otto4711 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the article links in this category already are easily accessible from the main article. Appears to be an unnecessary eponymous category. Dugwiki 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Generally, I am pro eponymous categories for Top and High priority Biographies. I suspect he is a high priority Bio. The categories are adequately populated. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused as to why the priority assigned to the biography article should have any bearing on whether there is an eponymous category. Otto4711 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - one of those authors almost every school kid has heard of, so is a high-priority bio. Rgds, - Trident13

We're not talking about deleting a bio. Doczilla 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fully recognised that when writing the comment, which still stands. Rgds, - Trident13 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of the subject has nothing to do with whether or not an eponymous category is needed for them. The relevant question isn't whether or not this is an important author, but instead whether or not the category is actually necessary for navigating links related to the person. In this case the main article serves as a sufficient navigational hub, and thus the eponymous category can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The category contains only one subcategory (Category:Books by J. D. Salinger) and a number of articles that are only marginally related to each other, including articles on fictional characters (Holden Caulfield), articles on real people (Margaret Salinger), a book that featured Salinger as a fictional character (Shoeless Joe (novel)), and some other odds and ends (Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye). The articles in the category are only vaguely related, which is why it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. AshbyJnr 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because something is important doesn't mean that it needs to have a category named after it. Lesnail 01:03, 13 April 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with agoraphobia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining, as per several previously deleted phobia-based categories. Doczilla 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if restricted and appropriate articles exist As I've said in similar afds for mental disease categories, this is ok if it's specifically used for articles which provide referenced information significantly talking about the person's disorder. So there has to be good information talking about their agoraphobia in a notable way. Remove inappropriate articles and keep if any articles remain (delete if the category ends up empty after pruning). Dugwiki 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My concern about most of the "people with disease X" categories is that editors will tend to be over-inclusive, adding biographical entries to the category whether or not the category is actually a defining or notable aspect of that person's life. --lquilter 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically editors can incorrectly add any article to any category. That's not a reason to delete categories, though. It's really a fairly simple litmus test - does the article have referenced significant information relevant to the category? Dugwiki 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Extremely trivial non-notable category. Category clutter. Restriction is not a practical option. Haddiscoe 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - See my comments in the previous discussion. This should have been deleted in January instead of renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Dr. Submillimeter and previous discussion. -- P199 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic, contributes to category clutter. A list might be acceptable (not that I'm asking for one), but a category is not appropriate. Xtifr _tälk 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Xtifr. Carlossuarez46 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nondefining. Pavel Vozenilek 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 20:35, 14 April 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.

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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Portland, OR ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:People from Portland, Oregon, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per convention. Doczilla 16:58, 10 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vidhu Vinod Chopra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - as with so many eponymous categories, after recategorizing material on the films he directed or produced, there is insufficient material to warrant it. The various articles on collaborators are extensively interlinked so there is no need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another unnecessary eponymous category; Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people --lquilter 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 12 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User box ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A category for all user boxes, which I think this one's trying to be, would be redundant to the lists of user boxes linked from Wikipedia:Userboxes. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 16:11Z

• Delete not necessary--Sefringle 22:24, 13 April 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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Mexico photographers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:American photographers, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, overcategorization. Otto4711 14:20, 12 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atheistic films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category suffers from incredible POV problems. The designation of films as having "atheist" themes is suspect. Among other things, Contact (film), Planet of the Apes (1968 film), and Touching the Void are listed in this category. I would not classify any of these movies as "atheist". The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a category that may very well solicit original research. Who designated those films as "atheist"? —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 16:08Z
• Delete subjective, arbitrary, potentially inflammatory category. Doczilla 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overly subjective inclusion criteria. Dugwiki 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way too vague. "Atheistic" in terms of the message? The subject matter? The authorial intent? --lquilter 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep if criteria available to not make inclusion NPOV. Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Non-notable category. No useable criteria avaiable. Haddiscoe 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the standard POV and objectivity issues, its also silly. Films are not capable of belief. --Blue Tie 05:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Vague, subjective, illogical, POV, and generally useless. --Tex 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have films for religions. It makes sense to also have them for atheism.--Sefringle 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not if it is harder to define. Abberley2 20:36, 14 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:David Attenborough ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - after cleaning out the inappropriately categorized articles, we're left with three, all of which are interlinked with each other, meaning that the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Most of what was categorized there were projects on which Attenborough worked or was interviewed for, and his various television series are all linked through a navtemplate. No need for the category. Otto4711 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suspect this is a mid priority bio. If it is high, then I would switch to keep. We need to get Wikiprojects classifying priorities more actively. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Again, this is a discussion about deleting a category, not an article. David Attenborough is in many works, but all can be linked from his article; no need for an eponymous category. --lquilter 19:53, 10 April 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 no consensus, even when WP:ILIKEITs and WP:IDONTLIKEITs are discounted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish scientists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Jewish American scientists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - In general, the cross section of religion and occupation is inappropriate, as religion often has very little to do with most people's careers (unless those careers are religion-oriented). In these categories in particular, it is not obvious that Judaism has any relevance to these people's research. The intersection of religion and science here is therefore inappropriate, and the categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference and many precedents. Doczilla 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, religion is, or should be irrelevant to scientific research. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would disagree with that blanket statement, ProveIt, as it is possible that the direction of someone's scientific research endeavors are motivated by their religious beliefs. The chance of this occuring would likely be increased when you're talking about fields like religious archaeology and anthropologists and social scientists studying the effects of religion on society. True, a good scientist will not let their religious beliefs bias their actual findings, but their beliefs can influence the general areas they want to study and theories they want to more actively pursue. So in that respect it's possible that there might be scientists who are Jewish and whose religious beliefs significantly impact the direction of their work. Dugwiki 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take your point. Religion could affect what they choose to do research on. However, their results should be objective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both -- to say Judaism is just a religion is one view. See Who is a Jew?.--Urthogie 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This forum has deleted most ethnicity scientist and religion scientist categories put forward, so Judaism is likely to fail regardless of consideration. My own view is that well-studied biographical identity/occupational categories (such as Category:African American scientists or Category:Women writers) ought to be included, since articles can be written about them. However, I'm not sure "Category:Jewish scientists" would pass even my more generous test. --lquilter 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Haddiscoe 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both Many scientists had to flee from the Nazis because of their religion or ethnicity so it is highly relevant.--Runcorn 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, etc., can have significant impacts on scientists' lives, and so in that sense any category with social relevance could reasonably be intersected with any occupation. But, as it's been interpreted to date, that sort of relevance isn't enough. ... A category intersection feature would fix the desire to find all AxB categories, but Runcorn brings up another point which has long troubled me about identity intersection categories. They are relevant at particular times and places. "18th century female scientists" is much more defining than simply "female scientists"; female scientists in the 18th century were relatively rare, and it's much more likely to be a defining attribute. Similarly, a much earlier discussion: African American basketball players. Very defining pre-1960, very non-defining post-1960. Here, "Jewish American scientists" is not necessarily defining for 21st century JAS (lots of Jewish Americans don't really have that as an identity); it would likely be much more defining as "19th century Jewish American scientists". --lquilter 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Runcorn, since we have all the other X-American categories out there, and "Jewish American scientists" is just a sub-category of "Jewish Americans" Mad Jack 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per lquilter. Feydakin 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both: Judaism is not merely a Religion and according to the view that supporting the deleting of this categories , even the origin of Jewish scientists shouldn't be mentioned-this is the next step as I see it. You wouldn't dare to do such a thing for Muslim scientist nor do you will try to do it for Afro-American scientist (and if you do-I will oppose it) , I'm afraid that some users just have dark motives which have nothing to do with their unconvincing excuses.(like mentioning ethnic origin is some how equal for sexual preference....yea,right;and regarding the claims of lquilter-there are many studies that been done about Jewish scientists and it is a very good subject for study-how such a little ethnic group (which was a hunted minority group for a very long time) make out so many notable scientist ) --Gilisa 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American scientists was deleted. I put it up for deletion as a protest against the deletion of Category:Christians in science, but unfortunately the deletion process took it seriously. I very much regret that that happened and I'm tempted to ask that it be restored. Still if the concensus truly is that scientists must not be categorized by race, ethnicity, or religion than for consistency sake I guess these have to go. (Although the case is different for Mathematicians and Astronomers)--T. Anthony 07:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For some reason, several people have consistently supported keeping Category:Mathematicians by religion for reasons that I do not understand. The hierarchy was recenty nominated for deletion with no consensus on deletion. As for Category:Muslim astronomers (and the hierarchy under Category:Astronomers by religion), that should be upmerged into Category:Astronomers. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... "you wouldn't dare to do such a thing for Muslim scientist" (we already did) and "nor do you will try to do it for Afro-American scientist" (we already did). — coelacan — 01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable categories --teb728 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Everyone keeps arguing "But Jewish is an ethnicity too" but this too is not clear cut. In fact, I know of many prominent reseachers who would argue that Jewish isn't an ethnicity equal to such like German or English and so having these categories on that basis would not stand. I myself, as a Jew, would not like to be categorized into such a group where I hardly have any relation to the others included in it, especially if I don't identify (which I don't). The range of Jewish scientist would include everyone and anyone from a Sephardic physician from 15th century Spain to a Polish shtetl born chemist turned Nobel Prize Winner. I do not agree with such broad categorization on the basis of the questionable "global Jewish ethnicity" and many of the famous people put into these categories do not agree with that either. Notably Richard Feynman said himself in "Don't You Have Time To Think?" that he would never wish to be categorized in such a way and finds the whole notion of it as absurd. Who are we to ignore his wants and the wants of others in this category? Delete please. Bulldog123 07:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If you are suggesting that Jewish people are not an ethnic group so you are really don't know what are you talking about .In fact , there are many prominent scholars which consider the Jewish people for an ideal example for an ethnic group (other refer to the Japanese -for other reasons-as the ideal ethnic groups-and etc) .Sure, Jews do have sometimes problems with their own identity , as it expected from an ethnic minority which was hunted and etc (many, relatively, are self hated and etc)-but for many other important aspects, Jews are totally an ethnic group which kept itself in spite of the exile.there are some Jewish communities which are not of Jewish origin , genetically speaking (i.e. Ethiopians , Georgians ,Yamane, Jews of Iraq and Libya(at prat) ,Indians and Chinese) but in general the Jewish communities do share a long of common history ,culture ,languages and etc-and even genetic markers.And Fynman is not a reason for deleting an entire category , and most of the Ashkenazi Jews are Actually have Sephardic Jewish heritage and any way they are considerd to be the most realted ethnic groups (today and due the history of Sephardic and Ashkenazi, at the Netherlands for example , they shared common living)--Gilisa 11:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would his wants countermand what others wanted or deemed relevant?--T. Anthony 08:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify all intersections of religion and profession unless notably connected. We need to curtail the proliferation of intersected categories. If it the intersection is not directly connected (i.e. Catholic priests), it shouldn't be a category. Instead of categories, we can create lists. If the lists get deleted at AFD, then they certainly aren't worthy of being kept as categories at CFD! There are several reasons why these intersections are problematic. My main objection is that they ghetto-ize people. The larger categories get broken into smaller ones and no longer function as a complete index. If the larger collection (Jurists) is more significant than the smaller one (Jewish jurists) then the smaller one should be a list. Once we reach the 'optimum' grouping in a hierarchy we should stop dividing it into smaller pieces. The other problem I have with these intersections is that there are just too many combinations possible, and I don't want to see articles getting cluttered up with all the possible ways we can combine the primary categories. Ultimately, we will have the ability to create any category intersection dynamically, it is just a matter of time. -- Samuel Wantman 09:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I have is that "ghettoizing" as you term it seems basically acceptable elsewhere, but is somehow considered extremely unacceptable for scientists. For example take Category:Sportspeople. In that umbrella there is Category:Catalan field hockey players, Category:Jewish ice hockey players, Category:Bisexual sportspeople, andCategory:Canadian disabled sportspeople. Also I don't think saying you are something is ghettoizing.--T. Anthony 10:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the examples you mention, "Catalan field hockey players" would make sense if the athletes are known for playing field hockey in Catalonia. All the others should be listified. Categories like these may currently be acceptable, but it is the wrong approach and will lead to a weakening of the functionality of the categorization scheme. It needs to be checked so that it doesn't get worse. As we draw a line and say that a certain category is optimum and should not be broken up further, it will become the norm to make a list out of any further intersections that people find interesting or useful. Unchecked, categories will continue to fracture into smaller and smaller esoteric units. Useful categories will be depopulated into trivial ones. We have only two real options: remove intersection categories like these, or require that they be duplicate categorizations with their parents. The problem with that approach is that some articles will get extremely cluttered with scores of intersections. I'm open to hearing any other solutions that can deal with this problem.-- Samuel Wantman 20:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is quite substantial; it has 280 entries, plus several subcategories.--Newport 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both substantial and notable; notice should be provided to the category creators or relevant wikiprojects, as is civil. A Musing 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mad Jack and A Musing. As for Samuel Wantman's argument, we have not gone too far if the category is as big as it is.--Brownlee 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion, so it should stay. Taking Jewish religiously, this intersection is valid if the article Jewish science exists, which it does (and is a disambig to multiple different ideas of what it is). Carlossuarez46 00:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguated articles mention a few different meanings of "Jewish science", one is using a scientific method to understand Judaism, another about some secular jews in the middle ages, an anti-Semitic Nazi term, and a religious belief similar to Christian Science. This category is not about any of these things. This category is about main-stream scientists that happen to be Jewish, and there is no Wikipedia article about this. -- Samuel Wantman 08:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about "main-stream scientists that happen to be Jewish", such as List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society.--R613vlu 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is why I propose that this category become yet another one of them after being listified as List of Jewish scientists. And, as it turns out, we already have List of Jewish scientists and philosophers so we can just delete this category. -- Samuel Wantman 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not delete Category:British chemists or dozens of other similar categories?--R613vlu 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Britain is a recognized nation with its own nation-specific scientific associations. Category:Arab chemists is analogous though.--T. Anthony 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We don't categorise scientists by ethnicity. Honbicot 20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no "ethnic Jewish way to do science", and we can all agree upon that. There is also no "religious Jewish way to do science", because all scientists, in the laboratory, are adherents of methodological naturalism (if they aren't then they aren't doing science in that laboratory, but mysticism instead). Whatever their religion is when they get home and take off the lab coat is completely impertinent to their science, and the intersection of these categories suggests some correlation that does not exist. WP:OCAT all the way; delete. — coelacan — 00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as they seem to concentrate on recent era and thus are non-defining. Category medieval Jewish scholars would be different, frex. Pavel Vozenilek 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does "non-defining" mean? Is it suggestyed that being Jewish has made no difference to scientists in the last 200 years?
    • As I recall it was decided that scientists are not effected by petty human concerns like race, ethnicity, background, religion, politics, mental illness, and so forth. Scientists lives as human beings can be mentioned, but shouldn't be linked to their careers in any way. The only accepted effects are nationality and what scientific organization they belong to.--T. Anthony 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep of Jewish Scientists. Delete Jewish American scientists. WP:CATGRS says the "basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". A lot has been written and published about the so-called "Jewish Genius", a controversial idea that Jews have a greater tendency towards learning and/or the sciences. See e.g. [1], [2], Ashkenazi intelligence, etc. I don't like this idea very much but it is often discussed among Jews, so we should keep the category. Jewish American Scientists however, is much too specific and should be deleted. nadav 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are arguing for a category of "Jewish smart people", not "Jewish scientists". The same rationale would apply to categories of "Jewish lawyers", "Jewish economists", "Jewish architects", "Jewish engineers", etc., etc. Yet "these ethnicities may be smart" are not legitimate reasons to have categories for every profession! We do not need an endless pile of "Cateogory:Jewish people doing white collar jobs". What you have failed to recognize or answer is that there is no Jewish way to do science. — coelacan — 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If "Jewish smart people" could be precisely defined, then yes, that would be better. Since it can't, I am arguing for keeping categories comprising Jews in research, law, and theory (eg Category:Jewish mathematicians) - categories that would include Freud and Einstein, say. You are missing the point when you deride a "Jewish way to do science": that is irrelevant. The point is to allow for categories that have received extensive treatment in secondary sources, and many people claim that Judaism has a tradition of learning that drives people towards the sciences, or even a Jewish genetic predisposition (which is obviously ridiculous but we are not here to censor). I can offer you more references if you like. nadav 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- you all overwhelmingly vote to keep this category yet think nothing of voting for the deletion of Category:Jewish businesspeople? What's going on here? --Wassermann 09:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Mostly) irrelevant intersection. Abberley2 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No evidence that it is irrelevant. Many Jewish scientists have been influenced by their religion, even non-orthodox ones such as Einstein; many Jewish scientists' lives have been greatly affected by their Judaism, such as those who fled (or were killed by) the Nazis.--Holdenhurst 18:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. German mathematics, for example, suffered a huge blow when once-prominent researchers were barred from German universities. This is is the kind of material that could be included in a head article for the category, which is further reason to keep. nadav 03:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The keep arguments seem much stronger than the delete ones. Were overcategorisation relevant, how come "18th century female scientists" is better than "female scientists"?--Osidge 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I strongly oppose deleting either of these.

1. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish scientists" is clearly contemplated by Wiki policy. It says: Heritage

People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

2. Nationality. Also, if the Jews are (as appears to be the case) a nation (and not just a religion), it would clearly not be appropriate to delete.

The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)."

The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)."

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for Black Jews and Jewish athletes and Jewish fencers and the like see Category:Jewish sportspeople.

And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jewish scientists. It is mentions such as these that demonstrate the importance of this classification ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on. --Epeefleche 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with points 1 and 2. In point 3, however, you refer to a notability standard for articles, not categories. The relevant standard is WP:CATGRS. nadav 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. IZAK 07:29, 17 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Hippopotamuses. Merriam-Webster ranks -uses ahead of -i, so that breaks the plural tie.--Mike Selinker 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hippos to Category:Hippopotamuses

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is not a major issue, but the main article is under Hippopotamus not Hippo (which is a disambiguation page), and hippo is not a very encyclopedic name. Lesnail 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Isn't the preferred plural hippopotami? Doczilla 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says both are acceptable. Rename per nom (or to hippopotami, no preference). Recury 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I assume this is also a proposal to rename the sub-categories: Category:Extinct hippos, Category:Fictional hippos, and Category:Famous hippos? My only reservation is the confusion about the correct plural form of hippopotamus. Many believe either hippopotami or hippopotamuses to be preferred, others believe one or the other to be flat-out incorrect. There's no such confusion with "Hippos;" the other uses of "Hippo" mentioned in the disambig cannot be used in the plural. A Hippocampus, a Hippodrome, or even a Hippogriff cannot be called a hippo ;) And I also see we have Category:Rhinos. --JayHenry 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment - I don't see why the subtopics/articles can't be incorporated into the main article, thus rendering the category superfluous. In fact, such is the case with an indeterminate amount of other animal categories too.--Keefer | Talk 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take the time to look at the categories? It would only take you a couple moments to realize that there are around 40 articles across these categories, incorporating several different species of animals. It would be absolutely idiotic to merge them all into one article. --JayHenry 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to clarify, they should be linked from the main article.--Keefer | Talk 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Okay, I'm unfamiliar with CFD but can the result of a proposed rename be deletion? And I just don't see how it's preferable to delete the categories, and have a list of 35 related articles and see alsos at the bottom of the hippopotamus article. That sort of thing is explicitly discouraged by WP:MOS. I think it would be more confusing--not less--to have all these articles in Category:Prehistoric artiodactyls and Category:Fictional ungulates" which is where they would end up (and look at fictional ungulates, and think how useless that category would be without these divisions). Further, if this is changing to a deletion discussion, I think it's important to notify the editors who actually maintain these pages and categories. The current notice only says that the discussion is about a pretty trivial name change, and I think it's really sneaky to turn it into a deletion without any notification. --JayHenry 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Proposing a well written out and sectionized article with links to other articles on the same topic therein (and not just "at the bottom") is what I'm discussing. It's been done with musical groups &etc with many members, songs and albums. I'm really not trying to be sneaky or aggressive here, it's just an alternate viewpoint, which should be welcome in a discussion thread, as yours certainly is to me. Perhaps a better example of what might be interpreted as sneakiness is below where several categories are being nominated for deletion under a mis-leading heading ('things') chosen by the nom, and potentially used as a precedent for future deletions by the those who come to here to do little besides nominate deletions. I'm certainly not going to withdraw my opinion here because it isn't a popular suggestion or because I'm being accused of sneakiness, as far as I can see it there are precedents of well written and sectioned articles with links to other relevant material everywhere. That's not to say I can't be convinced to change my mind if demonstrated that such an article couldn't be achieved or there is another reason why the category should be saved. I just don't appreciate any insinuation that I have an underlying agenda or motivation beyond mere discussion, which is what we're here for, right? I've changed my delete to a comment instead though, because of your good point on notification.--Keefer | Talk 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Hippopotamuses - The category should use a more formal name. The Merriam-Webster entry for hippopotamus indicates that "hippopotamuses" is an acceptable plural form of the word. Dr. Submillimeter 16:13, 13 April 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.

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 Merge to Category:Protestant writers. No consensus to keep, significant support for merging. --Xdamr^talk 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Salvation Army writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This just seems like strange categorization. It appears to be impersonating the categorization of people by denomination and occupation (it is a subcategory of Category:Protestant writers), but the Salvation Army is more of a Protestant religious organization than a denomination. Also, writers are generally not categorized according to the organizations that they belong to (unless they work for a specific newspaper), and even that type of categorization is suspect (as people who write for one newspaper may also work for others as well; note that comic book writers are not categorized by company because of this). Therefore, I recommend deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization per many precedents. This one is weird. Doczilla 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable category. SA has some unique views and some people in support of them or about the group overall. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly upmerge the names to Category:Christian writers, but don't delete. The Salvation Army is a denomination and religious writers are considered valid as a category. I have a poetry anthology that specifies one poem is by "A Salvation Army poet and hymnwriter."--T. Anthony 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is inconceivable that an encyclopedia article Salvation Army writing or something akin to it could be written, so intersection is not valid. Some people have say that SA has unique views, but doesn't every religious organization; if they weren't unique they'd be part of some other organization (as Sister Frida used to tell us 4th graders, in the POV of her order: if you take away all the errors of the Protestants, they'd all be Catholics.) Carlossuarez46 21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With just a smidge of work I could write an article on "Salvation Army Literature." I'm not going to, but it wouldn't take much effort.--T. Anthony 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Christian Writers, as suggested. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 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 Merge all. --Xdamr^talk 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music arrangers by style to Category:Music arrangers

Category:Classical music arrangers to Category:Music arrangers

Category:Jazz music arrangers to Category:Music arrangers

• Merge all - categorizing music arrangers by the style of music they arrange strikes me as overcategorization. There are no restrictions on music arrangers as to style so arrangers could end up in many different categories for having arranged one or a few pieces of music in a particular style, leading to category clutter. Otto4711 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. AshbyJnr 11:12, 11 April 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 all. --Xdamr^talk 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GIS&T Body of Knowledge ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Representing terrain (GISTBoK) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Basic thematic mapping methods (GISTBoK) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cartography and Visualization (GISTBoK) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Graphic representation techniques (GISTBoK) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Principles of map design (GISTBoK) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Map design fundamentals (GISTBoK) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A group of categories that duplicates part of the ToC layout of a copyrighted work, the Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 14:37Z

• Delete - This organizational system is confusing and makes little sense to someone who is not familiar with the GIS&T Body of Knowledge. Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 10 April 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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fictional doctors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Physicians, or appropriate sub category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - This is a silly name for a category. Did someone get tired of reading about fictional doctors on Wikipedia? Dr. Submillimeter 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this ridiculous and redundant category. Doczilla 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I can't see Will Smith, or Tom Cruise being listed as Non-fictional actors. TheBlazikenMaster 11:22, 13 April 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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golf clubs and courses in Nova Scotia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Golf clubs and courses in Canada, which is too small to split. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Could resplit later if necessary. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:01, 10 April 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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hungary ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge / Redirect into Category:Hungarian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per nom.--Keefer | Talk 20:58, 10 April 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 Rename all. --Xdamr^talk 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:IDEN phones to Category:IDEN mobile phones
• Category:LG phones to Category:LG Electronics mobile phones
• Category:Motorola phones to Category:Motorola mobile phones

Rename --Pabgk 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since no reason has been given for the renames after three days, and the categories don't have many entries making disambiguation unnecessary, oppose rename. (Though I do wonder whether having the iDEN phones category is over-categorisation.) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-14 09:10Z
  • Change to rename, per convention in Category:Mobile phones. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-14 09:13Z

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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Iran ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge / Redirect into Category:Iranian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per naming conventions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per naming conventions. Doczilla 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'support per WP:OC--Sefringle 22:26, 13 April 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 Rename all. --Xdamr^talk 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Leeds United AFC to Category:Leeds United A.F.C.

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match convention of Leeds United AFC to Leeds United A.F.C. and Leeds City FC to Leeds City F.C.. Kingjamie 13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These below are also nominated for the same reason:

• Category:Chairmen of Leeds United AFC to Category:Chairmen of Leeds United A.F.C.
• Category:Leeds United AFC managers to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. managers
• Category:Leeds City FC managers to Category:Leeds City F.C. managers
• Category:Leeds United AFC matches to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. matches
• Category:Leeds United AFC players to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. players
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Kingjamie 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it always catches me out when adding one of these categories. No idea why they should be different - or on another matter why the players category has a different inclusion rule than other categories for footballers by club. WikiGull 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, all the above should be changed. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all proposed renames. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, being a complete grammar freak! к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree for consistency's sake, although ultimately FC/AFC is better than F.C./A.F.C. ArtVandelay13 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, all the english clubs are like that A.F.C. and not AFC User:KRBN 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, actually virtually every English club uses FC or F.C. And even then the norm is to use FC rather than F.C. Only a handful of clubs use AFC/A.F.C. in their club name, and even then they tend to use AFC. For instance see the AFC Bournemouth official site, AFCB official site As for Leeds United, their official site uses FC only, and not A.F.C. or AFC, here - LUFC official site. Also on google the only reference to Leeds United AFC (or A.F.C.) appears to come from wikipedia articles. Fans of the club use the initials LUFC, they do not use LUAFC. I honestly can't see why Leeds United should not simply be known on wikipedia as Leeds United FC, just as it is everywhere else, which would also then bring it in line with the official club name.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leeds' official name is A.F.C. as far as I am aware... I don't know why some things say A.F.C. and others say F.C. The old Leeds badge and the stadium say A.F.C. but new badge says otherwise. I don't know why this is, or if they have undergone an official name change. If so then the pages need to be F.C. otherwise change to A.F.C. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Leeds Uniteds official name as on their club crest and on their official website is Leeds United FC and not Leeds United AFC. The vast majority of English clubs use FC and not AFC. These clubs use AFC - Sunderland, AFC Wimbledon and AFC Bournemouth. There probably are others, but they are only a few.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is all true, but it applies to every club, and requires a universal cange, which wold require the assistance of bot edits. Until such a time, consistency is the important thing. ArtVandelay13 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The club are officially known as Leeds United AFC. The badge only has FC on as the text is a copy of the 1971-1973 badge. See here specifically the paragraph :

The newly formed Leeds United Association Football Club were invited to join the Midland League by the secretary, Mr J Nicholson, taking on the vacancy left by the removal of Leeds City Reserves on 31 October. The Former Leeds City player Dick Ray was one of the men elected onto the Leeds United management committee and he became the club's first managernew club moved into Elland Road, assuming the usage of the ground from Yorkshire Amateurs, who had been playing there following the demise of City.

Although I've only had a brief look the official website only says Leeds United, not FC or AFC. They wouldn't have A.F.C. on the side of the stadium unless it was correct. Also See here for an older picture of the stadium which also states "Leeds United A.F.C." aswell. Chappy84 11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC) , oh and -[reply]

• Support, A.F.C. is gramatically correct and the categories should tie in with the main article. Chappy84 11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to point out I wasn't actually voting against the re-naming, just commenting. And even then, more so on the assertion that all English clubs are known as AFC, when they are not. Regardless of what is on the side of Elland Road stadium, and on an unofficial site about the clubs traditional, historical name from when they were originally founded, they are known as Leeds United FC and the official club site says, "Leeds United Football Club". Hence the initials used LUFC, and not LUAFC, as opposed to the small number of English clubs who use AFC, such as Bournemouth who use the initials AFCB. However, as I said, I am not against the move, which is why I put comment. I forgot to add that the use of the word Association was originally used to differentiate between two types of football at the time when many football clubs were formed - Rugby football and Association football. However, modern day use is Rugby (League or Union) and Football, which is why clubs use FC. Some clubs are only known as "AFC" such as AFC Wimbledon & AFC Bournemouth. The historical name of Leeds United is AFC, but modern day usage is LUFC, regardless of their historical name, evidenced by their modern club logo. In general it is mostly just on wikipedia that the use of A.F.C. is used in English club names. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:56, 17 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:July 1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was created "for July 1 events e.g. births" according to the creator's edit summary. That makes it redundant to the July 1 page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 13:30Z

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:49, 10 April 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.

A tricky one to close, but one or two points stand out. Firstly there seems to be reasonable consensus that the religion/profession intersection is largely irrelevant. In these circumstances the use of Category:Hindus/Category:Roman Catholics and Category:Jurists is the way forward, instead of one single intersecting category. The second point I note is that these categories present an ambiguity between (eg) Jurists who are Hindu, and Jurists in Hindu law. Per point one, the former use is invalid, but use for the latter is eminently appropriate.

As a result my reading of the discussion leads me to conclude that these categories ought to be renamed to Category:Canon law jurists and Category:Hindu law jurists, and that those inappropriate categorisations (ie on the basis of religion) ought to be removed. Category:Muslim jurists could benefit from the same treatment, but given that it has not been nominated I'll leave it until that category is brought up here.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic jurists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hindu jurists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Judging by trends Catholic categories are to be limited to when the job is clearly linked to the faith, but why limit to Catholics? As there is a possibility for debate on these two I brought them to categories for discussion. (This is not called "categories for deletion") Whether they deserve to live or not can be decided based on concensus. Now I didn't nominate Category:Muslim jurists because of the existence of Islamic law.--T. Anthony 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Religious beliefs may affect some individual judges' rulings, but not necessarily all judges incorporate religion into their judicial work. Since the intersection of religion with occupation is not always meaningful for every Roman Catholic judge, listing all Roman Catholic judges in a category like this is not meaningful. However, I suspect that someone may then want to create a category for Roman Catholics who are strongly influenced by their beliefs. This runs into subjective inclusion problems. Many articles on people will be included or excluded based on whether individual editors think the judges are "Catholic" enough to be in the category. This could become really ugly if opinions on specific issues (such as abortion, birth control, or evolution) are used to determine whether someone functions as a "Roman Catholic" judge. I therefore conclude that a restricted form of this category would not work, either, and I recommend deletion. (I hope this is enough discussion.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator changed his statements (to include Hindu jurists for deletion and to include a comment about Muslim jurists) after I wrote my comments. (See the edit here.) Note that my comments also apply to Hindu jurists and the jurists of any other religion (unless they are part of a religious, rather than govenrmental, system). Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think Occupation by religion categories are nearly always a bad idea, except where it can be shown that religion is relevant. It almost never is, however in the case of religious workers, artists, writers, judges, and politicians ... religion is often relevant. And yes, I realize that almost any categorization by religion has a lot of potential problems, but still in some cases I think we should. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to elaborate? I think WP:OCAT is not applicable, especially seen in the context of Gandhi and Jinnah.Bakaman 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and properly restrict First, I want to point out that "jurists" includes anyone working in law, not just judges. Lawyers and other advocates also would be considered jurists under Category:Jurists. With that in mind, it is fairly clear that while most (not all) judges don't rule using religious tenants, there are plenty of lawyers and others in law who argue and choose their cases and causes based on their religious beliefs. So provided this category is specifically for people who work in law and whose religious beliefs directly influence their legal career, then keep the category. Dugwiki 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This category is inherently ambiguous, if restricted the way some editors are suggesting. If we're really talking about jurists who practice Catholic liturgical law or Islamic law, then we should use specific language; such as, "Islamic law jurists" or "Catholic liturgical law jurists" or "Judiac law jurists" or "Hindu law jurists". --lquilter 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if NPOV. Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as irrelevant intersection (in most cases, which is all that is required to make deletion the way to go). Haddiscoe 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and convert Category:Muslim jurists to Category:Islamic law scholars where appropriate. I've worked extensively on jurist biographies (see list), and I've never found a jurist's personal religion to be a determinative criterion of anything; this is an irrelevant intersection of criteria as noted above. However, as also noted above, the area of religious law a jurist has worked in is a useful classification; hence e.g. Category:Canon lawyers. Sandstein 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/rename per Sandstein. AshbyJnr 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete >90% irrelevant. Honbicot 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete largely irrelevant those Roman Catholic jurists who are canon law jurists can be lumped into a Category:Canon law jurists which is the analogy to the Islamic one above. I also agree with Lquilter's and Sandstein's comments. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant far more often than not. Abberley2 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - See Rachel Paulose for an example of a "Christian jurist" and Mahatma Gandhi, Rana Bhagawandas for a "Hindu jurist" and Muhammad Ali Jinnah for a "Muslim jurist".Bakaman 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bakarman--Epeefleche 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per lquilter. To expand: while the category Hindu Jurists would be appropriate for people practicing or promulgating "Hindu Law", except for the case of Manu (Hinduism), it is being used to classify lawyers/judges who happen to be Hindu, which IMO is a trivial intersection of characteristics and is equally well served by using Category:Hindus and Category:Jurists. As for Mahatma Gandhi and Rana Bhagawandas, while they were/are Hindus they practice(d) the respective country's civil law and their legal practice was not affected by their religion except for the pablum that a person's religious beliefs affects all their actions. Ditto for Jinnah. If there are more people like Manu (who truly is a Hindu jurist), I can support the cat. being retained, but I cannot think of any. Abecedare 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few. See Kashinath Trimbak Telang for another example. There is scholarly work (which I do not have access to) on Hindu law and judgement see A Critique of Modern Hindu Law, Principles of Hindu Law, and the Hindu jurists tag is applicable to Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi per [3]. Also N.G. Chandavarkar can be included, looking at his work on Hindu law during the 19th century.Bakaman 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Muslim to Islamic law jurists or Sharia jurists, Catholic jurists to Canon law jurists and Hindu to jurists under Hindu law or something. I know the choice of my renaming is awkward but you get the picture. I support the same for all religions. And remove the average jurist who is only influenced by secular law in all of these cats. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:05, 18 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meroka Firearms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category associated with neologism, author invented in school one day (Meroka Machine Gun). Megapixie 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neologism. Doczilla 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Meroka Machine Gun and Meroka gun as neologisms with no evidence that they are commonly used. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:41, 16 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IBM U2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is surely overcategorization - one category for a single IBM line of products. There are only two articles in this category, both of which are also in the more appropriate category:IBM software, so it does not make sense for this category to remain. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 12:57Z

• Delete, agree with nom. -- P199 13:41, 11 April 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 all. --Xdamr^talk 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marsalis family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Neville family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Osmond family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Shakur family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - as with many other family categories, these are unnecessary as navigational hubs. The articles within the various categories are all interlinked to the other category members through each other and navtemplates and the volume of material in them is insufficient to warrant them. In some instances there are already articles on the families, which can be located in Category:Musical families which is not up for deletion. Otto4711 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ReeseM 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague category. Doczilla 16:01, 10 April 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, subjective inclusion criterion. >Radiant< 11:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; better to mention in the articles' text instead. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 13:01Z
• Delete - Political leaders are condemned posthumously so often that it is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this non-defining category. Every political leader gets condemned by somebody during both life and death. Doczilla 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename to Category:Roman emperors subject to damnatio memoriae and convert List of Roman emperors to be condemned into it. The formal practice of damnatio memoriae is a well-defined and objective criterion for inclusion, and this category fits it better than the list. Sandstein 07:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This looks like it is such a common occurrence in Roman history that it is not really a defining characteristic. I would vote to delete anyway and just refer to the list. Dr. Submillimeter 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree. List of Roman emperors to be condemned is quite short and unlikely to grow, in contrast to saints, as noted below. It seems that it was mainly emperors and maybe other statesmen who got damned in this way; not a great many people. Sandstein 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - My point is that this category mostly overlaps Category:Roman emperors. I am not concerned about how small or large the category may be; I just think that this category and Category:Roman emperors will mostly overlap. Therefore, I do not think it is useful. Dr. Submillimeter 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, you are incorrect in this belief, as has been explained. Your comment is hardly logical; you use "mostly" twice, but say you are not concerned about quantity. Johnbod 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, can we keep this on topic, please? Yes, of course it overlaps Roman emperors. It's a subcat of Category:Roman emperors by type, and it's one of the useful ones, compared to such gems as Category:Roman emperors killed by own troops and - I kid you not - Category:Mad Roman emperors. Sandstein 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as an important historical category about a specific formal process; if Wikipedia is to be useful for serious study, the ability to access and navigate these sorts of occurances are critical; there are similar processes in other historical eras and cultures. As to "common occurance", saints are probably more common in Catholicism, why is that an argument for deletion? It strikes me as a better argument for keeping. A Musing 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename per A Mmusing, & Sandstein. I think the current name has mislead some commenting above over what the category covers - is very specific Johnbod 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep it's mildly useful; a list at damnatio memoriae would as easily assist the serious student and remove some category clutter. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 12 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is the categorization of unassociated things that can be described as "operations", a form of overcategorization. Articles on military and government operations are not associated with articles on transportation operations. This category sould be deleted. (Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9#Category:Projects.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unrelated topic cluster threat!--Keefer | Talk 10:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extremely vague category that brings together unrelated items with a common word. Doczilla 16:01, 10 April 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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Highlander universe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not a Highlander person. (Highlander 2 was about the worst film I've ever seen.) My like or dislike of Highlander has nothing to do with this nomination. I just don't understand this category. If it is serving a purpose, I don't get it. So if it is fulfilling some real need, perhaps someone can explain it to me. Otherwise, let's delete it. Samuel Wantman 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Highlander - The category's purpose is unclear and confusing, especially since many of the articles (articles about characters and chronologies) are already found in other subcategories of Category:Highlander that are easier to understand. I suggest merging the articles into Category:Highlander, since one or two of the articles are currently not listed in any other Category:Highlander subcategory. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 15:44, 10 April 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. --Xdamr^talk 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional torture victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete excessively broad category with too much room for subjective interpretation of what counts as torture. Too many fictional characters have been tortured at some point for this to be a useful or maintainable category. For instance, you'd have to list almost every single character in any DC or Marvel comic. Furthermore, this will generally not be a defining characteristic. Doczilla 07:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Truly prone to excess.--Keefer | Talk 07:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is being applied to any character who at one time experienced torture, including James Bond and Princess Leia Organa. Torture is clearly featured so often in multiple genres of fiction that being a torture victim is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a place for some "Cat:Fictional Such n such" here, but this is (no pun intended) just stretching it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:37, 10 April 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 Keep. --Xdamr^talk 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh to Category:Archbishops of Armagh (Roman Catholic)

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Munich and Freising to Category:Archbishops of Munich and Freising (Roman Catholic)

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of San Francisco to Category:Archbishops of San Francisco (Roman Catholic)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To follow the form used by the other entries in the parent Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese. Vegaswikian 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment only one category, Category:Archbishops of Dublin (Roman Catholic), in Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese uses parenthetical disambiguation. For articles in that category, only one uses parenthetical disambiguation, while 5 use the same form as these categories (most categories and articles there don't require or have disambiguation). Mairi 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current form flows better and should be the standard. Haddiscoe 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the parenthetical form is how we normally dab articles. There are archbishops of Armagh who are not Roman Catholic, so disambiguation is needed. Since all of the articles that do not need disambiguation, they do not include it. Are you suggesting that for uniformity that all of these should be renamed to include Roman Catholic as the beginning of the name? I believe that following the guidelines concerning dab is best here. All of the other articles start with 'Archbishops of' so that is the form we should be following. Vegaswikian 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for introducing ugly awkwardness, and because the justification given does not tie in with the actual facts. AshbyJnr 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nominator's argument doesn't tie in with the facts on the ground. Honbicot 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as cumbersome rename, and because nominator is mistaken about the facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which facts? If you look at the category, 25 of the subcats start with Archbishops and not Roman Catholic Archbishops that seems to be the fact. So the discussion should be to use standard disambiguation or a different form which would suggest changing all of the categories to start with Roman Catholic. Vegaswikian 19:47, 15 April 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring airships ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films featuring nurses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Pornographic films featuring nurses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - "featuring" is far too vague of an inclusion criterion. Any film with a scene set on or near an airship or nurse would qualify for one or another of these categories. Nurses are such a stock character that the category is for all intents and purposes limitless. Otto4711 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this vague, subjective, arbitrary, and pointless trivia per nom. Doczilla 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Listify Simply because I disagree with the nom's assertion that one scene would qualify.. per definition of feature, which people adding to the cat should be given good faith credit for understanding. Just because something appears in a film does not equate to it being a feature, and I hope arguments for deletion are not premised on this. While nurses are not a feature but do appear in movies such as The Fugitive, for example-- nurses may certainly be considered a feature of a film like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. And as an aside to the nom, (it was probably a lapse), but: I wouldn't classify nurses as "things", either. Also, keep per the parent Category:Films by topic. At some point, these actually do serve a useful purpose for study and cross-analysis, which is what this non-paper encyclopedia, with all of its means of categorization, is for. My two cents of dissent this time.--Keefer | Talk 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Films featuring airships and Category:Films featuring nurses, keep Category:Pornographic films featuring nurses - Categorization of ordinary films by whether they feature specific types of objects or vehicles is not useful, as the films that contain these types of objects may not be related. For example, Kiki's Delivery Service has nothing in common with A View to a Kill aside from the blimp that is featured in both movies. Categorization of general films by whether they contain a character with a specific ordinary occupation (nurses in this case) is also going to bring together many films that are unrelated. Moreover, nurses are so common both in real life and in film that this category is not meaningful; potentially hundreds of films could be added to this category. However, Category:Pornographic films featuring nurses should probably be kept simply because pornography is classified outside of Wikipedia by whether it contains nurses (or other types of people) and because nurses are the central theme of some pornographic material. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as category clutter. Haddiscoe 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. What next, Category:Films featuring pilots? —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 13:07Z
• Delete Even if you accept that people would use this category reasonably to only highlight movies in which the object in question significantly appears, this is still a bad category scheme. Movies "significantly feature" many different types of objects, and attempting to thoroughly catalog all such categories sounds like a recipe for explosive overcategorization. At best I'd say convert to a list, but either way it shouldn't be a category. Dugwiki 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Perhaps someone may want to answer this-- how could/should someone who may come upon Wikipedia researching film portrayals of nurses or pilot, find a grouping of them? People do research these things from time to time. A list works, but if these categories are deleted, how are we to know that it is not used as a precedent to delete all swaths of categories within Category:Films by topic, the parent itself and future lists? This is a classic case of a category not absolutely requiring an article to be a legitimate and useful category. Am I overlooking categories already in existence? I am incorporating conjecture, but I feel it worthwhile considering the precedent that will no doubt be cited for future category deletion nominations.--Keefer | Talk 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia cannot keep track of every single cross section possible. While someone may want to look up an unusual film-related cross-section (films with green people, or films with firemen, or films with left-handed orthodontists), that information simply is not valuable to the vast majority of people using Wikipedia. If you really think its valuable, you can always create a list on your own website.
    • Comment I agree with you wholeheartedly and I'm not suggesting that it does, particularly with respect to your left-handed orthodontists example ;). As for comparing nurses and aardvarks (below), well...--Keefer | Talk 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's just an invitation for Category:Films featuring aardvarks, Category:Films featuring aardwolves, Category:Films featuring abaci... Mallanox 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notable appearances can be discussed in "...in popular culture" sections in relevant articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify, we have Bridges in film, Skyscrapers in film, etc. why not Blimps in film, Nurses in film and even Nurses in pornographic film. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the lists you mention: Bridges is a very shaky list as it includes mainly 3 Bridges, and there are thousands more that have been featured in films. The title should at least become more specific, or it will be next for deletion. Skyscrapers were kept with many keep votes under cleanup condition. Since then that's all that has happened: [4]. Hoverfish Talk 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Not listify as we'll have next the list's AfD. We've been through film lists featuring just about anything. Please, no more. Delete as per JPS. Hoverfish Talk 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to listify unless there is an article about the subject and then just include the list in the article. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:03, 17 April 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.

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: superseded, see April 12th. >Radiant< 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women screenwriters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, splitting screenwriters by gender is creating a barrier where there is none, screenwriters are not by definition male therefore women should be included in the main category. There is an article Women's writing in English and indeed it is a legitimate area of study. There is no analysis of female screenwriters on wikipedia and indeed a quick look at Amazon reveals only a couple of books on the subject compared to thousands on women in literature in general. Mallanox 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Besides, women screenwriters are women writers, which is a category that already exists. It would be a rare (possibly nonexistent) screenwriter who never engages in any other kind of writing. Doczilla 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Here's why:

i) Screenwriting is no different from any other category of women's writing i.e. it is worthy of study in its own right.

ii) We just had a looooong discussion on the validity of women writers as a category on Wikipedia, and while the discussion did not achieve consensus, it was extensive and the category exists.

iii) Now that the category has been reestablished a number of interested editors are busy working on it. "Women screenwriters" may be underpopulated but it is part of a larger project that is getting considerable attention.

iv) It is considered an area of study in the outside world, if the following recent publications are any indication:

• Marsha McCreadie, Women Screenwriters Today Their Lives and Words (2005)
• Marsha McCreadie, The Women Who Write the Movies: From Frances Marion to Nora Ephron (1994)
• Lizzie Francke, Script Girls: Women Screenwriters In Hollywood. London: British Film Institute, 1994.

There are also film series, organizations, and conferences devoted to women screenwriters.

vi) If people think that there is an "even playing field" in the film industry, read

• Sinclair, A., E. Pollard, and H. Wolfe, "Scoping Study into the Lack of Women Screenwriters in the UK: A Report Presented to the UK Film Council."
• De Leon, Adriana F. "Women screenwriters endure a long and less-than-equal history."

I would also suggest having a look at Women's cinema and Feminist film theory. And the whole extensive discussion on the "Women writers" category. — scribblingwoman 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a recently created subcategory of the women writers category, and deletion would effectively "strand" writers within the category; in addition, there are interesting intersections among women screenwriters. The question is also not whether an article exists, but whether one could be written, and it is obvious from the above that one could be.A Musing 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per extensive notes by Scribblingwoman. --lquilter 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there a way to create the category Women Screenwriters by including articles that are both Category Female and Category Screenwriters? It's definitely important to be able to find Women screenwriters throughout Wikipedia, but I wonder about what is the best methodology. What about American Women Screenwriters, and Scandinavian Women Screenwriters categories, and even a Women Writer-Director category (Sarah Polley), etc?-BillDeanCarter 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, but it has been proposed and some work has been underway to make it a reality. Server load seems to be the main drawback. Until dynamically created category intersections are a reality, we have to avoid creating multiple intersections. Here's why: look at the subcategories of Category:Films. There are many different ways to organize this information. Our categorization system is based on the idea that we will have multiple taxonomies. It is not unusual to find a film placed in 8 or more of those film subcategories. If we were to allow multiple intersections, those 8 categories could grow dramatically in number and the categories would get chopped into tiny pieces. It might be great if you want to find "LGBT French comedies" but terrible if you just want to look at LGBT films, French films, or comedies. Categories can't be all things for all people. The alternative, is to create lists for the intersections. -- Samuel Wantman 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These lists of women by profession usually just are not very meaningful; aside from the fact that the women of a specific profession faced the same general sexual discrimination that virtually all other women have faced, the women probably have little else in common with each other. Articles are the place to explain the discrimination battles that women have faced in various professions, not categories. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV-pushing category clutter. Women-by-occupation categories are sexist and POV-pushing and should be deleted as needlessly controversial and divisive. Haddiscoe 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. On a side note, there are many feminist (post-feminist maybe, never cared too much about labels) "factions" who consider that such divisions are detrimental to the "objective" in the long run; that objective being an equal society. It might help in the short run, but we are no longer living in the 30s either. If a series like Sex and the City is easily produced and watched by tens of millions around the world, I think that we have passed that "stage" in the human social evolution and as such we can pass up on such categorization. These days women accede to so many positions that it really is not neccessary, really. Nevertheless, in professions where women are still having difficulties (ex Category:Women Prime Ministers), I might support for the purposes of aiding the uninformed readers have access to what is already a small list. Baristarim 11:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very obviously - indeed openly - not neutral, and becoming ever less relevant. Also, it sets up a by-gender division in Wikipedia that may be preserved by inertia however irrelevant it becomes. ReeseM 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subcategory of Category:Women writers by format There is an overarching question of whether or not the parent categories Category:Women writers by format and Category:Women writers are good ideas. However, as it currently stands, both those categories do exist, albeit with possibly weakened consensus, and so long as they do this category appears to be a legitimate way to help subdivide Category:Women writers by format. So unless and until those parent categories are deleted, this category should stay in place. Dugwiki 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. It's a legitimate area of study, as someone has noted above. If we can have a category called 'female film directors', we can have one for screenwriters. Maybe there is a case for eradicating such categories, but deleting this one individual category is not the place to do that. You need to go right to the top and try to persuade your fellow Wikipedians that writers should not be separated by gender. So far, there is no consensus.Cop 633 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could also delete the category for female film directors. If there is no consensus over these categories, isn't it arbitary that it is the people who want them who get what they want? Why should that be? It's just an unintended side effect of Wikipedia's any one can "set a precedent" policy, there is no agreement that it is right. Haddiscoe 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to debate that question you have to go even further up the top... I think the point is that there's no agreement that it's wrong either, and why delete something that isn't demonstrably wrong? Cop 633 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Notable category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, category guidelines state that wherever possible, categories should not be genderised. Unless, it continues, there is a genre issue. I've never gone into a bookshop and found a "Women's Literature" section. Helen Fielding and Ian Fleming will be on the same shelf. Without knowing a bit about the author, Evelyn Waugh's position in that shop would come as a surprise. Mallanox 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Barnes & Nobles in my building has a women's studies section; any number of writings by women can be found there, as well as in another section. But, the test is whether an article can be written and, as shown above, quite conclusively, whole books can be written; this is one where the policy should be applied to keep. A Musing 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's studies perhaps but do they segregate male and female authors? Mallanox 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quick selection to prove that separating out women writers is quite common. [5] [6] [7] [8] Clearly, some people think this can be a valid and interesting thing to do. This category is simply doing the same thing. Cop 633 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very nice display of women writers for Women's history month. Of course, as noted above, what Barnes & Nobles does is the wrong argument - more on point would be whether other classification schemes separately categorize women writers (both MLA and the LC cataloging scheme, as discussed in the prior deletion review for Women Writers). Even while arguing the wrong argument, the point is off - of course booksellers look to fill a market for specifically women writers, and do things like set up displays to sell those books. Now, if someone can just find a section for screenwriters at Barnes & Noble... A Musing 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mallanox, I suggest you look at the earlier discussion; it addresses these points. In brief, "women's writing" is widely considered a legitimate area of literary studies by most universities and publishers. It's not merely a question of cataloguing discrimination; many literary critics consider there to be thematic or stylistic issues of interest, for example, that can turn up in a gendered analysis that might not show up otherwise. Writing is personal; how can the most important elements of a writer's life -- and gender is a fundamental category in most if not all cultures, surely we can all agree? -- not have a crucial role in their work? At any rate, whether or not one agrees, "women's literature" exists as an area of study just as surely as "Restoration drama," "the Victorian novel," "literature of the American South," or any other subcategory. — scribblingwoman 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Backwards-looking and divisive. Patronising to women, aggressive towards men. AshbyJnr 11:16, 11 April 2007

• Comment: The issue is not whether or not you or any other editor is interested in or approves of considering women's writing or gender more generally as a category; the issue is whether or not it can arguably be considered a category, and whether such consideration is widespread and significant. Since that is clearly the case in this instance, then it is POV to exclude it. And as a woman, though surely I appreciate your kind thoughtfulness, I must say that I don't find giving due attention to the work of other women at all patronizing. Quite the contrary. So please don't worry! — scribblingwoman 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: "Backwards-looking" as in ... paying attention to history? — scribblingwoman 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Scribblingwoman.--Keefer | Talk 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopened, since even though the nominator withdrew, per WP:CSK a nomination isn't closed if there are other people suggesting deletion. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, splitting cats by gender is not generally helpful, and WP:NCCAT tells us otherwise. >Radiant< 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link, Radiant. I have followed the suggestion on that page to briefly explain the rationale for the category on the main category page.— scribblingwoman 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this category was relisted on the 12th - how many listings for one category should be kept open at once? The current tally on the 12th is about 2:1 in favor of keeping this category. Given the nominator's change of mind on this listing, half listed here are in favor of keeping and half opposed; I think people are getting weary of the constant listing and relisting of gendered categories, as well as increasingly convinced by the discussion. With respect to the idea of splitting categories by gender, I would note that there is significant scholarship, cited above, for the idea that women's screenwriting is indeed studied as a separate topic, and is a defining feature.A Musing 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all that many, but I don't think it's proper to say "closed because nominator withdrew" on a CFD with half a dozen delete-comments. Depending on the present backlog this will almost certainly be closed within a day. Note, by the way, that the gendered category issue comes up every couple months. >Radiant< 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]