< April 12	April 14 >

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 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Descendants of Richard Warren ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, people by which Mayflower passenger they are descended from... non-defining -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This appears to be a variation on the "family" categories that are being deleted anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, it's something much better noted in-line in an article and leaving it at that. It's not notably defining enough to use for categorization. — coelacan — 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Annandale 11:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Imagine the effect of applying this method of categorisation to royalty! Abberley2 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best this might or might not be ok as a list article. But it certainly is a bad idea to create categories for individual family trees. Dugwiki 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fairly pointless to categorize a person by a single distant ancestor Mad Jack 05:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't any ole' "distant ancestor" (or any ole "family tree") -- but a Mayflower descendant. It's an important part of our culture, which is why such things as "Society of Mayflower Descendants" [1], etc., exists, with chapters is all 50 states. This reality proves its relevance, and its omission would be a hole in Wikipedia. And it's certainly more relevant that categories such as "Attorneys from New Jersey", "People executed in Italy", or, the very useless "Living People". -- Sholom 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether or not he is an important historical figure. It's that there are potentially thousands of important historical figures who can appear as ancestors on people's family trees. Much like trying to use category tags to list important awards on someone's article, this becomes unmanagable and leads to category clutter in the associated articles. A list is far preferable for this sort of information. Dugwiki 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment, thanks. But I think you misunderstand the thrust of my logic here. It's not that Richard Warren is a historical figure, it's that Mayflower descendancy is a big deal in genealogical circles, and in part of society in general. Again, I point to the fact that there are chapters of "Society of Mayflower Descendants" in all 50 states (and DC!) -- but you don't see anything at all like that with the other of the "potentially thousands of important historical figures" that you mention. Do you see the difference? Thanks -- Sholom 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find this absolutely facinating and would keep User:mthomas1776

Delete It may be fascinating trivia, but it's still trivia. A list at the main article would be preferable. Mangoe 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why not the same argument for such categories as "Attorneys from New Jersey", "People executed in Italy", or "Living People"? -- Sholom 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the first two. The second one, especially, is a horrible topic. However, why is "Living people" useless? It is a valuable resource as to who is still alive and who is not. For example, Howard Dean and Ted Danson are included because they are still alive, but Bill W is not, because he is dead. That category actually made my dad KNOW that Chris Farley's been dead for years (he thought he was still alive) by showing he's not in the category.

Why couldn't he have just gone to the article on Chris Farley and see the death date? -- Sholom 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Living people actually helps the bots tag all the articles for WP:BLP. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not easily verifiable.--Sefringle 03:55, 19 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. --Xdamr^talk 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Italy to Category:People executed in Italy

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is nonsensical as the category includes people excuted hundreds of years before Italy existed as a unified entity. Brandon97 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • See previous CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:X_executions --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I suggest nominating all categories under Category:Executions by country for renaming. Currently, most of them use "by" instead of "in". They all should be renamed the same way for consistency. Dr. Submillimeter 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support move In is less POV, and allows for more content--Sefringle 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please explain what is POV about noting that a government performs executions? — coelacan — 08:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would this be better handled by moving those that predate Italy to a different, new, sub category? Vegaswikian 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly, as it was a tapestry of fast changing states. There would be about one article in each category. Jamie Mercer 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure how much of this is really a problem, but what about people executed *by* one country, but *in* another country? I note Eddie Slovik is in the category of Category:People executed in the US. But last I checked Wikipedia, Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines is in France. This is just one example, but I can imagine there are others. I do not feel a blanket renaming is appropriate, without due care being exercised to ensure that such mistakes don't happen. FrozenPurpleCube 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. xanderer 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I'd agree with Dr Sub, but Mr Manticore raises a good point. Johnbod 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. All of these were recently renamed from "Fooian executions", which was a blunder that addressed some issues while ignoring others, and overall made things worse, and introduced a tinge of POV. Haddiscoe 11:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "by" and "in" Italy are completely different; Spartacus was executed in Italy, but by Rome, those executed by the various peoples, states, religions, and occupying forces all end up "in" Italy, which creates a lot less commonality than "by" Italy, which is to say the Italian state (Kingdom and Republic), without mingling in those executed by all manner of ancient powers, medieval powers, the Church, the Nazis during their occupation, etc., etc. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Doczilla 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:X_executions. We decided then to categorise by the nation which ordered the execution rather than the nation in which the execution was performed; if articles wrongly categorised here and need a home, we should create a new category along the lines of Category;People executed by the precursor states of Italy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I basically agree with BrownHairedGirl. It's a strange lens of history that would view "people executed by the Aztecs" as "people executed in Mexico". We should be more precise and make note of the actual governmental entities that ordered/performed the executions, rather than being less precise and simply noting geographic area by modern measurements. And indeed we already do this: cf. Category:People executed by the Soviet Union, which would have to be dismantled under the paradigm supported by "people executed in Italy". The information that is relevant is which government performed the execution, not where that geographic location currently lies. — coelacan — 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The previous decision looks like a mistake that didn't take historical changes into account. "Executed by" places so much emphasis on the role of the state that is sounds like a denunciation by anti-capital punishment activists, and it is therefore not neutral. Mowsbury 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and apply the same change to the categories for other countries. Casperonline 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rename. The change was well reasoned at the time. Yes, there are problems that can be addressed by recategorizing some of the articles. We should try and work out the issues before changing back to a system that also has problems. Vegaswikian 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, "in Italy" and "by Italy" are completely different. AW 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "In Italy" and "by Italy" are completely different, and the former is more accurate in this case. Jamie Mercer 14:40, 19 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 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proper nouns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is categorization by name, which generally brings together unrelated articles. This category currently contains Category:Organizations and nothing else. Hopefully it is not used to categorize every proper noun in Wikipedia, or else it would be immense. Since this category really is not useful, I recommend deleting it. (Also note that the category was created by User:Nintendude, who has been blocked indefinitely and who uses sock puppets.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems like it could be useful--Sefringle 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Doczilla 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - How would this be useful. Everything from Joseph Stalin to the Brooklyn Bridge to the Sombrero Galaxy could be listed here. How is it useful to list all of these things in one category? Dr. Submillimeter 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Nonsense; this (in its entirety) was the creators penultimate edit. It's taken since October to spot it though. Johnbod 03:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To ambiguous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netkinetic (talk • contribs).
• Perfectly useless category, so broad as to be meaningless for categorization. Should be deleted. — coelacan — 08:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete maybe the most useless category I've seen yet. Doczilla 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as encompassing every person, place, or object with a Wikipedia article. Mangoe 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, this cat plays no role in facilitating the access of information. Also, it was created by a definitely-blocked user. AW 14:43, 19 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: Keep. Votes are backed by the reason Complex system is an accepted interdisciplinary field, which demonstrates its usefulness in linking related articles. AW 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Complex systems ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Keep as per arguments below, this category is meant to contain articles about the study of complex systems (as a scientific discipline) and their general features or classes. At least that was my intention when I created it. Since then (1.5 years), there has been no threat of overpopulation as suggested below. The category does not reflect this intention yet, but that is no reason for deletion. Karol 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First, this is being used to categorize unrelated things that could be described as "systems", such as "economic systems" and "role-playing game systems". This type of categorization by name is inappropriate, as the various things have very little in common with each other aside from their names. Second, the term "complex" suffers from POV problems. It is up to the judgment of individual editors to determine whether a system is "complex". This category therefore should be deleted. (Also note the discussion on Category:Systems at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 11#Category:Systems.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — complex systems is an accepted interdiscplinary field. For example, there is a journal called Complex Systems, conferences that use the term in their title, etc. It cuts across a wide range of more narrow fields in an orthogonal manner, as can be seen from the titles of papers in the journal, for example. Wikipedia should not be biased against any particular scientific field, whether interdisciplinary or otherwise. As such, I think this category is worth keeping on Wikipedia. — Jonathan Bowen 13:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a fascinating field of study, but categorizing things this way makes about as much sense as Category:Physical would to the study of physics. I'm a complex system (and physical). Xtifr _tälk 12:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — but "physical" is not an accepted and established scientific field of study, whereas complex systems is. — Jonathan Bowen 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — this category has a Complex system article explaining the characteristics and it is an important part of complexity science, an interdisciplinary field. It is important that Wikipedia includes the cross-links of interdisciplinary fields and this is something that the structure of Wikipedia is particularly good at enabling. Otherwise we are liable to present a very blinkered view of science in which the interrelationships are hidden. This form of self-censorship is to be strongly discouraged in my view. — Jonathan Bowen 05:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really have problems thinking of something in everyday life that cannot be considered a "complex system". So far, I have determined that air, water, and salt may qualify. (Stones and bricks may be too complex in terms of their chemical structure.) While the article on complex systems and a category for system theory are appropriate for discussing these abstract concepts, I see no reason to categorize everything that could be called a "complex system" (which would include most articles in Wikipedia). Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Complex systems is an accepted interdisciplinary scientific term and field — see further information above. I think all accepted scientific fields deserve a Wikipedia category. Is there a particular reason why this one does not? — Jonathan Bowen 13:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This category is not being used for articles on complexity science; this category is being used for anything that any person may call a "complex system". Moreover, because "complex systems" is interdisciplinary, it could encompass most of Wikipedia. Is that really useful? Dr. Submillimeter 13:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment — if a doctor sees a patient with a problem, they normally try to make them well again or at least do not kill them. I think the same should apply on Wikipedia, especially for accepted fields. — Jonathan Bowen 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a well defined field of research. As of now all the articles and sub-cats seem on topic for the category. I removed role playing games. Economic systems certainly do belong here as they are one of the most studied examples. --Salix alba (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted, obviously a failed attempt. If this is to be kept, at least remove the Computer System subtree, which is the most pointless. --Pjacobi 15:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a real branch of academic study, though to my mind one that attracts an undue amount of mysticism. For instance, we have been debating in my university adding a minor in this subject, based on one that already exists at UCLA. —David Eppstein 15:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are aspects common to complex systems in very different fields; hence an interdisciplanary approach does make sense. That has been accepted (apparently by e.g. the magazine, the above-mentioned university, not to mention a number of Wikipedians). Thus for anyone interested into researching what is known about a variety of complex systems, the category is most welcome. I do not assume millions of readers to care much about this category, but I do not accept their understandable lack of interest causing to disallow others to make use of it: simply having a category cannot possibly hurt anyone. — SomeHuman 16 Apr2007 16:06 (UTC)
• Keep. Recognised academic subject area, focussing on questions that most mathematical modelling tries to ignore or design out. Jheald 17:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Complex systems are known mostly to mathematicians/modellers, who, afaik, can determine what is a complex system and what is not. This is not a matter of POV, unlike what nom seems to think. Economics and climate are widely known examples, and the dynamic similarities that can exist between these naturally different systems are of scientific interest, notably for predicatory (im)possibilities. Finally, it may happen that editors make mistakes by including this or this article into the category, but this does not seem to be good enough a reason to delete it. --Childhood's End 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important growth area in science and mathematics at the moment. "Complex" has the technical sense of "many degrees of freedom" and its usage in this sense is standard in many fields. Yes complex systems are everywhere, but the unifying theme of "complex systems" is to study the complexity itself, rather than take the more common scientific approach of making simplifying assumptions to reduce the degrees of freedom. Instead of deleting it, we should just be careful to limit its articles and subcategories to the scientific. Note however, that a category should not be held accountable for the subcategories of its subcategories: the category hierarchy is not a tree ("Socialism" is an "Economic system", but not usually in the sense that "Economic systems" can be "Complex systems"). Geometry guy 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (sorry for not adding to the discussion) Hu 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-defined branch of mathematical inquiry. DavidCBryant 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Complex systems is a academic interdiscplinary field recognised by journals, universities, and many wikipedians. GarOgar 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because:

1. There is no question Complex systems is an academic interdiscplinary field
2. The category:complex systems is the place to store all the articles related to the study-obejct of this academic field.
3. Wikipedia is open for every academic field.
4. Every academic field has the right to a category to store all the articles related to the study-obejct of this academic field.

Which of these arguments is not clear to the opponents - Mdd 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The category has been cleaned up since I nominated it for deletion (with things like Category:Role-playing game systems being removed from the category), and the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics have posted more persuasive arguments for keeping the category than Jonathan Bowen did. At this point, I would probably suggest a rename to indicate that the category should focus on the study of complex systems rather than including anything that could be called a "complex system" by the average person on Wikipedia. When this discussion closes, I will nominate the category for renaming (possibly to Category:Compex systems studies). Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment This clean up is a good thing, and your nomination has had effect. But renaming is rather arrogant.
    1. Part of the systems science community has decided some decade ago to recreate a field of study, an called it complex systems.
    2. Just like the information theory society recreated the field of information systems architecture into architecture, which has nothing to do with buildings.
  • The foundation of Wikipedia and wikipedians is to respect this - Mdd 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yet and wait when complexity of a system will be sufficiently well defined (for example, as a subjective or objective concept), or to introduce the Category: complex entities, it will also include: complex networks, complex processes, complex objects, complex properties and so on, in all sciences and technologies. On the other hand, Wikipedia has so many "strange" categories, ...We may delete it later. The research in the field of complex systemis is in strong development. --Adam M. Gadomski 00:59, 18 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 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish chess clubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty category, unlikely to ever have significant content FrozenPurpleCube 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above.Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 10:04, 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: rename. I could see a point for deletion as well, but that should be discussed in a new nom. >Radiant< 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II Communist crimes in Poland to Category:World War II Soviet crimes in Poland

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to bring it in line with its parent category "Soviet World War II crimes". Appleseed (Talk) 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But I'd also suggest creating a category Communist crimes in Poland to gather crimes of Polish (and Soviet) communists.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Soviet World War II crimes in Poland to better match the parent category. Hmains 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have a Category:World War II United States crimes in Japan? — coelacan — 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Hmains, Category:Soviet World War II crimes in Poland makes for better wording. Appleseed (Talk) 02:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 'Crime' is an inappropriate wording in a categorization, unless referring to something that fall within actual criminal law, and this case a clear POV. --Soman 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per Hmains.--Mantanmoreland 16:28, 19 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 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Michael, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mike Garcia, and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal. Johnny the Boring Vandal is a sociopath who gets off on his user talk vandalism. A major part of that vandalism is seeing his chosen name in lights - it usually insults an editor in a "subtle" way. Whilst he's beating himself off over this, we are, for reasons that defy logical explanation, not denying him this virtual wank mag, we're making a big, showy, cross-linked and well-referenced set of categories for him to wrestle the ol' cyclops to. And, yes, there's an argument that people might need to refer to the categories... but nobody ever does. The block log is proof enough of that. Time to deprive his best buddy of hand shandy material.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Keep- I fail to see why exactly should this be deleted. First of all DENY is NOT policy. It was rejected by the community because of it's major flaws and glitches. That settled that issue permenantly. Second of all, if this was to be deleted because of a failed essay then why won't all the other sock categories be deleted. It would be unfair to delete this one and not all the others too. Third of all this category list sockpuppets of a vandal who is a serious long term abuse threat and is still active, even attacking his usual targets earlier today. Thus we still need this category to continue to track this vandal's attacks and patterns. It is a critically essential part of combating this threat. --George Johanns 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:DENY is and always was an essay. People tried to promote it to policy, but it remained an essay. At no time was it policy, at no time was it formally rejected. No policy was being quoted here; just a shorthand instead of repeating the entire essay here. Second, yes, let's delete all the other categories. Why do they exist, other than as wankbait for sockpuppeteers? Third, you're speaking to a regular target. And one therefore who checks the block logs. How often is this vandal referenced in them (which would be a guide that someone is researching or tracking)? Almost never. JtBV is usually blocked for vandal-only, not for being JtBV. I've seen him blocked for 3, 24 and 48 hours. Lots of research done there. This is not critically essential; it is ignored by most people, satisfies only Wikipedia's need for putting-things-on-top-of-other-things and nothing else; and he's cumming all over the category.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. Should have spotted it was the man himself.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Weak Keep Long term vandal and troll who is still active today, indeed he's been around longer than most of our current administrators! However, as these are all demonstratively the same person shouldn't they be merged? Maybe back to the parent account Michael. — MichaelLinnear 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to delete, he most likely just does out of pathological hatred and the desire for the (dis)honor of having these categories. Johnny showing up here pretty much proves that. Not a clear and present danger, therefore no need. — MichaelLinnear 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but funny. xanderer 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, prefer speedy deletion per IAR and RBI. There's no reason to keep the pages. Naconkantari 00:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or perhaps listify? Having a listing of sockpuppets is beneficial towards gauging the tendencies of certain editors. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cull I'd be tempted to keep a few of the recent entries and the obvious pattern names, but would require ongoing maintenance. --pgk 09:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a good enough reason for it. Only put accounts into this category that have actually made any edits, don't list if they haven't done any. --SunStar Net ^talk 15:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question There are 195 subcategories by main ID of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, which I had always assumed were "official" anti-sockpuppet efforts. Why are these ones being singled out for deletion? Johnbod 16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do they help with an anti-sockpuppet effort? Having a large list doesn't actually help with anything. For some people consider maintaining a list useful for evidence of the problem should we get later problems with a user, or so we can identify some pattern in the names. For some sockpuppet cases that reasoning makes little or no sense. In this case the user is banned from the site, we aren't going to be using this as evidence sometime soon. The sheer number makes this mostly irrelevant for spotting patterns (and only have value for a few weeks for checkuser purposes), the user activity isn't subtle and the socks are all pretty obvious. The noms other concern is that because of that last statement it seems apparent the user is merely seeking attention (can't get positive attention, so relies of negative attention), so maintaining such a list whilst giving little real value is potentially just feeding that attention seeking. --pgk 17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll add to that (and I'm sure a number of other admins can too), I've blocked a fair number of those on the list I can honestly say I've never browsed the categories, i.e. they've provided zero value in determining socks. --pgk 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't answer my question as to why pick these. Should they all be deleted? Johnbod 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same person. User:Michael became User:Mike Garcia who used the username User:Johnny The Vandal to engage in vandalism, trolling etc. So the above should answer your question, it's about if the negative attention being given without adding any real value. --pgk 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my question was, why are these categories/this guy being selected out of the 195 subcategories by main ID of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets? Johnbod 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ri)I'd be most happy to delete all of them. In this case, read the nomination. This guy is spunking all over these categories. One of the reasons he is doing this vandalism is to enjoy the categories. His response to this nomination: a keep vote via the subtlest sock he's ever used. We can work on the others later, or not. But these ones have to go before Johnny the Boring Vandal goes blind. Won't somebody think of the poor man's sight?   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment I had read it thanks. The nomination is not in fact very clear on why they should be deleted. I suggest using more formal and precise language. Johnbod 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "A major part of that vandalism is seeing his chosen name in lights" "...there's an argument that people might need to refer to the categories... but nobody ever does". Could I try semaphore or an aldis lamp. Would that help?   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, clear English will do. This isn't WP:AN. Oddly, he & you seem to share a prose style. Johnbod 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just keep it in-case Johnny the Vandal comes back with some more sockpuppets or whatever. Alex 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How will having these categories help if he does? --pgk 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete, this guy always insisted on marking his own sockpuppets, and seems to be continuing to do so. He gets off on his name and templates everywhere. Let's deny him that enjoyment, since it seems to be the only reason he's doing it. As pgk says, the categories are pretty worthless in this case. See, for instance, yet another sock's contributions. Mak (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even I am getting tired of seeing him. BTW, on a side note, I have spotted yet another sock - Johannes Festusis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - but somehow this sock has not yet been blocked forever (which leaves open the possibility of it being abused again), so can someone please reblock it permanently? TML 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, that finger that he posts on Arwel's page must be the one he uses to shove up his own arse. (and above sock reblocked) The JPS^{talk to me} 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, Oh please Redvers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), give me a goddamn break. I already told you DENY is NOT policy and never will be. You seem unable to comprehend this with your continuation of your rediculous antics on behalf of a failed essay. When your so-called DENY came up for community consensus as part of a proposal to make it official Wikipedia policy, The Community soundly rejected it because of it's flaws and gliches. That settled that issue permenantly. I must ask you Redvers, Why did you single out this Particular category out of over 200 to choose from. To delete this one because of a failed essay and remain fair you would have to delete all over 200 others as well. This category lists sockpuppets of a major known vandal who's still active and even attacked his usual targets earlier today. Makemi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Why did you block Benny Anderson (talk · contribs)? He was a legitamate editor who was wrongly targeted for suppresion because of his dissenting views on this CFD. And last but not least you, Redvers. You indefinately blocked the valued contributor George Johanns (talk · contribs) claiming he is a sockpuppet of Johnny the Vandal. Well he's not, but rather an innocent victim of one of the worst instances of administrative harassment in Wikipedia History. He certainly is a more legitamate contributor than you, Redvers. So why don't you go prowl the newuser log to search for your next innocent victim to prey upon. Just my 2 cents. Sincerely, --Thomas Begley 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, those who want a keep (none of whom have read my nomination, it's clear) - the above is Johnny the Boring Vandal himself, as Arwel so rightly points out. He is desperate, beside himself, for this category to be kept. If you don't want to read my nomination, read what he has to say with his latest (and he's well over several thousand) sockpuppet. Time for us to turn our backs on him before he bores us all to death. Say to him, "be gone with you, Queen Boring of the Boring People!" - if nothing else, it'll be one more otherwise wasted sperm saved for Jesus. Won't somebody please think of the poor, innocent sperm he's wasting here?   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm amazed at the idiot's persistence, as he's thrown away another 7 accounts attacking my talk page today. "Thomas Begley's" "vote" is good for a laugh - George Johanns a "valued user" who was active for all of 64 minutes before he was blocked; the account's only value is in highlighting Johnny's probable new accounts where he welcomed them! -- Arwel (talk) 21:12, 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 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: upmerge. >Radiant< 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Official and demi-official histories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete; undefined, moribund, and superfluous. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Official and demi-official military histories to better reflect current content and limit scope. --Nick Dowling 08:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very hard to define, especially in non-democratic countries. Mowsbury 10:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove Josephus. Even in totalitarian countries there is a formal distinction between official and unofficial histories; they just say the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need to include the word vague term "demi-official" in the name of the category suggests that the boundary is far fuzzier that categories can cope with appropriately, given their simplistic "in" or "out" nature. Haddiscoe 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then take out "demi-official"; everything in the cat will still be covered (except perhaps The Two-Ocean War, and all cats have marginal cases) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 14:42, 19 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 Rename. --Xdamr^talk 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Purportedly linguistic apes to Category:Apes from language studies

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I created this category, but it has since been brought to my attention that the word "Purportedly" lends a certain lack of neutrality to the category name, as it implies that the researchers involved with such apes have made specious claims. After discussing the renaming on the category talk page, another editor has suggested this more neutrally-worded name. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Sounds like a reasonable rename to me. The new name also has the advantage of allowing for articles about hypothetical apes which might have been important in linguistic studies but who were not necessarily reported to have an effective vocabularly. And it avoids potential disputes over whether or not specific apes are "linguistic". Dugwiki 21:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I don't have a problem with "purportedly" in this case, but Dugwiki is correct that expanding the possible scope of the category is probably quite helpful. — coelacan — 17:49, 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 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - This is an inappropriate intersection between religion and profession, a form of overcategorization. Religion generally has little to do with medical practices (at least in the modern world). I therefore suggest deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. As the nominator says, there is not necessarily any intersection between religion and contemporary medical practice. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there should not be any Physicians by religion categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above guideline referenced.Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 21:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Piling on here... I don't have anything else to say that hasn't been said, but I've seen some wild arguments crawl out of the woodwork in nominations like these, so I'd like to say beforehand that I strongly support the consensus to delete. — coelacan — 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cat is virtually empty anyways.Bakaman 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only one person in category--Sefringle 03:43, 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 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers booked for cheating ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category that is POV/vague, not encyclopedic and meant to disparage the footballers in the category. Ytny (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ytny (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom, as well as the fact that it would include almost any player. ArtVandelay13 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Punkmorten 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless list, serves no purpose and would only end up being vandalized on a regular basis.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brandon97 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Cheating" is not one of the recognised misdemeanours for which footballers may be booked. Abberley2 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 21:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial and reeks of POV. Oldelpaso 19:13, 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 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. --Xdamr^talk 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the CVG migration, and the fact that the games' themes are animals, not that the articles are about the animals.--Mike Selinker 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, nom has parsed this right. — coelacan — 04:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:19, 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. --Xdamr^talk 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upcoming comedy movies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Upcoming films, or Rename to Category:Upcoming comedy films. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom to prevent subjective categorisation of films e.g. Beverly Hills Cop 5 (heaven forbid) comedy or action? The Rambling Man 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:20, 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. --Xdamr^talk 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kosovo Template to Category:Kosovo-related templates

Rationale hopefully apparent. David Kernow (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - standardise. The Rambling Man 14:23, 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 Delete, this really ought to have been speedied. --Xdamr^talk 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Islam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted after a recent CfD and then re-added. Seems like the same arguments still apply for its deletion. --Flex (talk

• Delete --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it probably qualified for a speedy? --Rayis 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as recreation of deleted material, and also as hopeless vague per previous CFDs. Anyone other than fanatic who discusses anything is a "critic", which is why this and other "critics of" categories have been deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete obvious POV --MChew 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postlebury 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete always POV. The Rambling Man 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep not POV. Its purpose is to group notable people who are critical to Islam. It is no more POV that Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which unjustly categorizes people and orginizations. --Sefringle 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vague and inflammatory. Brandon97 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment What is inflammatory about it?--Sefringle 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Flex.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Annandale 11:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless limited to historical personalities for which it would be one of defining characteristics. Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Recreating a deleted category one month after it was deleted, without even an attempt at justification, is unacceptable. Beit Or 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt this recreation. Doczilla 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: How is "Critics of Islam" POV? When we have [:Category:Muslim_preachers], why cant we have "Critics of Islam"? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muslim preacher" is an occupation, and no-one questions the legitimacy of occupational categories. "Critic of Islam" is categorisation by opinion, which is deprecated for being too simplistic as there are umpteen shades of opinion on any controversial issue and people regularly amend their views. Haddiscoe 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per recreation of the same cat deleted a month ago. CSD G4 applies. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt: Requires original research to decide who exactly is a "critic" of Islam.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sefringle -- Karl Meier 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep certainly a relevant field Mad Jack 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An inappropriately simplistic approach to complex issues. Haddiscoe 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this is recreated deleted material. There was already a CfD that resulted in delete for this category 2 months ago.-Andrew c 01:03, 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 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 WP:USEFUL. AW 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like we don't subcategorize Category:Writers (or other people-categories) into "living writers" and "deceased writers", we shouldn't subcategorize organizations into defunct organizations. I suggest merging these to the parent cats (i.e. "defunct airports" -> "airports" and so forth). >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not? Postlebury 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see where Radiant is coming from but I also feel that while we don't categorise writers into living and dead, we do have a Deaths categories which implies this information. I don't see what's wrong with a defunct organis/zations which fulfils the same function. The Rambling Man 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep main category I think Radiant's analogy is slightly flawed. A better analogy is that (almost) all people fall under either Category:Living people or Category:Dead people. So Category:Defunct organizations serves the same purpose for articles about organizations as Category:Dead people serves for biographies about people. In fact, the difference that stands out looking at it that way is that we don't currently have "Category:Active organizations" as the organizational counterpart to Category:Living people. Dugwiki 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That all being said, I should clarify that I'm recommending keeping the main category, but I'm not commenting on specific subcategories. I might or might not support merging some or all of the individual subcats into the main defunct organization cat, depending on the situation. Dugwiki 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There exist many useful defunct categories. E.g., Category:Defunct hotels. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several good reasons above. It is useful to distinguish active from defunct organizations. -Will Beback · † · 05:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not a defining characteristic, has potential to duplicate large part of category tree, pollute many articles and it is not always clear-cut: Cheb Airport has been defunct for fifty years and yet there are still attempts to revive it. Pavel Vozenilek 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something that is not operating is defunct. Cheb Airport is defunct, as indeed Pavel wrote. Abberley2 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — this is a useful category, I disgree with the argument above and I can see no good reason to delete this category or subcategories. — Jonathan Bowen 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jheald 17:41, 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: keep. Category apparently shows its notable characteristic. AW 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, trivia. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is a defining characteristic; most authors are not also illustrators. By illustrating their own work, such authors expand upon and define their own prose, as opposed to a third party illustraor who provides a visual interpretation. --MChew 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, highly defining for many reasons, ranging from collectibility of works to way in which text and illustration interact. This one is very meaningful. A Musing 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is the category intended to show only authors who always illustrated their own works, or who sometimes illustrated their own works? If an author only did one illustration in one work in their career, does that qualify? Also if as mentioned above the purpose is to indentify literary works for which the author was also an illustrator, would it make sense to replace this category with "Category:Books illustrated by their author"? Dugwiki 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "always illustrated their own works" would be a rather ridiculous test, would it not? Most of them illustrated most of their works. No it would not make sense, as some illustrated large numbers of books, which won't all have articles; this would just create a mess. Johnbod 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non-trivial defining characteristic. Rename to Category:Writers who illustrated their own worksBrandon97
• Strong Keep. Highly defining characteristic! xanderer 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I created this category in response to this discussion: [2]. The consensus seemed to be that such a category would indeed be valuable. Lesnail 17:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Only just created in response to CfD last week was it. Please stop these Bad loser renominations that fail to refer to very recent debates: This -Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Postcodes is another egregious current nomination. Johnbod 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the collaboration of writers and illustrators is the subject of scholarly discussion, and these people are often discussed as special cases. Mangoe 17:03, 18 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: no consensus. However, keep voters had given reasonable arguments that O. Henry Awards is an important (prestigious) annual award in its field (short stories). Thus the category should exist. AW 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization of award winners. Suggest listify. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom --MChew 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep consistent with general awards category classifications, and a meaningful and growing category. A Musing 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A Musing, I see no real problem with this. The Rambling Man 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify - The people in this category (such as Saul Bellow) have generally won many awards anyway. Categorization by award is not feasible for most awards, as the resulting category lists in some articles will be too long to read. Dr. Submillimeter 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, see WP:OCAT#Award winners for explanation of why most awards use list articles for their winners instead of categories. (A Musing is incorrect about most awards having categories.) Dugwiki 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is not what I said, I said this use was consistent with the other awards categories, of which many do exist. I am not sure why it would be relevant to this discussion whether most awards had categories, lists or neither; but it is relevant that there is a coherant attempt to categorize a number of awards and that this fits neatly within that work. Someone has done some work categorizing by award here; I see no purpose to getting rid of that work. A Musing 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there has been an ongoing deletion of award related categories, as described above and in the WP:OCAT guideline I linked. That is why what you said is incorrect - the current rule of thumb is that most awards should not have their own categories. Dugwiki 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the top award in its field. Jamie Mercer 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Important award, useful cat. xanderer 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Leading and defining award. Haddiscoe 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't believe this is overcategorisation due to importance of the award. Tim! 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Award_winners. Doczilla 21:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to the list in the award article, per nom. Mangoe 17:04, 18 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 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That they're classical writers is a defining characteristic, that they've been translated into some other language is not. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep or listify; the reception of the classics by the Arabic world is an area of significant study and highly meaningful for literary and historical study. The fact that this category is incredibly poorly populated, however, is a reason to do something with it - perhaps notifying the relevant wikiprojects before taking an action like this would be a good way not just to be civil but also to get some people working on it. A Musing 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Some Wikipedia articles on various forms of literature could potentially have hundreds of articles to indicate how many languages they have been translated into. (Imagine the potential list of categories for the Bible.) This type of categorization simply is not feasible. I suggest writing an article on the topic if this is highly important (which it probably is). Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or listify per A Musing. A Category like this in no way opens the door for "German writers translated into English" or vice versa. Not while the Doctor is around. Johnbod 03:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Haddiscoe 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non--defining and inventing "Medieval Arabic" thing. Nitpicking more, writers are not translated, their works could. An article on transfer of classical knowledge via Arabic would be most useful (something is in Translations into Latin (c. 1050-c.1250) ) however lists have zero value for most of the time. Pavel Vozenilek 19:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classifying writers by every translation of their work is impractical. Doczilla 06:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and because categorizing them by some of the languages into which they have been translated, but not all of them, would not be neutral. Casperonline 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest renaming to Category: Classical authors transmitted to Medieval Europe through the Islamic world but it's too long & probably too late. Johnbod 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not implement Johnbod's non-neutral (Arabist) proposal. Oliver Han 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fairly strong keep In this case, it is a defining characteristic, dealing with the transmission of the text. Aristotle and Euclid came to medieval Europe in Arab translation; there are some texts which survive only in Arabic, not in Greek. Per the support rule for cats, this category should only appear on those articles in which Arabic transmission is mentioned in the article. With competent editing, this will be only those in which it is notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 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 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 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization of people by political opinion, as well as irrelevant intersection. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Marxism is not just a political opinion, it is an analytical tool, and marxism is a defining attribute of the work of people such as C. L. R. James and Eric Hobsbawm. Many political categorisations are too vague to be useful, but this one is quite clearly delineated, and very useful. It may, however, need some watching to check that its usage is restricted to those writers who openly identified as marxist. --12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. A Musing 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Very useful and relevant category .Also there already exist categories like Category:Marxist historians and Category:Marxist economists .Shyamsunder12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. xanderer 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as obviously these people write about Marxism, it can hardly be called an irrelevant intersection. Tim! 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's effectively a genre. Not unlike Category:Biographers or Category:Erotica writers. — coelacan — 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very notable--Sefringle 04:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune of people whose writing doesn't have anything to do with Marxism. Mangoe 19:07, 18 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who are both physicians and writers, an irrelevant intersection per WP:OCAT. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless the cat were redefined to cover writers who write about medicine/medical topics --MChew 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have that one, too - Category:Health and wellness writers. >Radiant< 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary intersection of two occupations, analogous to "Athlete actors" deleted in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 24#Category:Athlete actors. As above, there is also already a category for authors of medical books. Dugwiki 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and continue to use for people more notable for their writing than for their medical practice. Brandon97 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why do it that way and not have it be people who are "more notable for their medical practice than their writing"? And how exactly do you judge whether someone is more notable for one or the other when the person is notable for both, as in a famous doctor who also has best selling books? It again seems like all the more reason not to use this intersection of occupations as a category scheme. Dugwiki 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a subjective inclusion criterion. The cat name doesn't imply this, and who is to decide that people are "more notable for their writing"? >Radiant< 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Brandon97. Shyamsunder 13:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is just one of many writers by topic/genre categories. People who have written lots of books should be in a category of writers relevant to their field. The definitional issue is of little importance as this is not a controversial subject prone to POV abuse, so there is no reason not to trust editors to use this category in a neutral and proportionate fashion. Haddiscoe 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the category isn't a "writer by genre" category. It's a "writers who are also doctors" category. "Medical genre writers" would be ok, but "Writers who are doctors" is not. That's the difference. Dugwiki 17:43, 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 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. --Xdamr^talk 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per standard, should be "writers" rather than "authors". Rename. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. --MChew 13:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename A Musing 14:09, 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 Delete. --Xdamr^talk 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of categorization doesn't really work out. It contains groups of two writers, but since the categorization is alphabetical there is no way of finding out which writer belongs with which. Suggest listify. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is not a defining characteristic. Many books, especially non-fiction books, have more than one author. Dr. Submillimeter 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 21:46, 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 Upmerge. --Xdamr^talk 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary middle layer, serves only as placeholder for a small number of other cats, and no articles. Suggest upmerge. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as per nom --MChew 13:30, 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 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Writers by subject area, suggest merge. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Outlook?! The Rambling Man 14:30, 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 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who write outdoors? People who write about the outdoors? In the former case, trivia. In the latter case, redundant with Category:Nature writers. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC) By which I mean merge. >Radiant< 09:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into respective categories - I guess people like Bill Bryson class as "outdoors" because they're actually travel writers etc... The Rambling Man 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Nature writers - The nominated category appears to be redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nature writing and outdoor literature are separate articles. As far as I can tell from these, nature writing is more oriented towards observations or philosophy while outdoor literature is more oriented towards exploration or "adventure", though I would not claim to be an expert here. –Unint 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Interestingly, the article on outdoor literature claims that it includes nature writing. However, note that a Google search on "'nature writing' -Wikipedia" produces 20 times more pages than a search on "'outdoor writing' -Wikipedia". The term "nature writing" appears to be far more commonly used. Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two separate things. Brandon97 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several of these people are not "nature writers" in any meaningful sense. This category probably has more overlap with Category:Travel writers, but it is not a duplicate of that either. Haddiscoe 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could either of you please explain the difference because I'm not seeing it. >Radiant< 09:58, 19 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 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, rename since martial arts is not a proper noun. I'm not particularly happy with these "subject area writers" categories in general; several of them sound rather silly ("UFO writers", anyone?) and I wonder whether it's considered a defining characteristic? >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even as a martial artist, I have trouble with this type of category. Subject areas are not proper for categories. Broader subjects like History, Mystery, Fiction, Sports, maybe. However, each sport should not have a category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:27, 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 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious overlap with Category:Murdered Roman emperors, so merge. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom --MChew 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom The Rambling Man 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Given the number of Roman Emperor categories I have seen in WP:CFD recently, it seems like they are overcategorized. Categories simply cannot be used to list every biographical detail on every person. Hence, I advocate merging this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify 132.205.44.134 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. xanderer 00:52, 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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't really "types", unless you consider their origin and the way they died a "type". Upmerge. >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Rename into Category:Roman emperors by death / Category:Roman emperors by fate (though that then excludes Category:Gallic emperors). Neddyseagoon - talk 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - This is just a strange category from an organizational standpoint. Dr. Submillimeter 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this and all subcats into Category:Roman emperors. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. xanderer 00:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per discussions. Vegaswikian 04:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Roman Emperors; what purpose does this serve but to eat the subcats? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 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 keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic (and getting killed in battle was quite common in militaristic Ancient Rome). >Radiant< 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually quite a distinguishing characteristic as it was quite rare for emperors (as opposed to just generals, or members of the imperial family) to get killed in battle until relatively late in the empire). Neddyseagoon - talk 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given the number of Roman Emperor categories I have seen in WP:CFD recently, it seems like they are overcategorized. Categories simply cannot be used to list every biographical detail on every person. Hence, I advocate deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've now seen both a lack of entries and an overabundance of entries given as reasons for deletion. Since when is the number of entries in a cat an indication of its value? Absolutely a defining characteristic. xanderer 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the number of Roman Emperor categories I have seen in WP:CFD recently, it seems like there will be none left very soon. This was actually rare, easy to define etc. Johnbod 03:18, 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 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 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 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phi Gamma Delta brothers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining per all the precedents. No-one has an article because they belong to this fraternity. Haddiscoe 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Abberley2 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oliver Han 10:41, 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 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, As all the Anti category this Category is very POV and divisive. One person's Russophobe is another person's Liberal Thinker or the Liberation HeroAlex Bakharev 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WTF is a "Russophobe"? Otto4711 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense unencyclopedic cat from mainspace. --Irpen 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though it's a perfectly good word and certainly not nonsense, the lead article is actually at Anti-Russian sentiment (Russophobia is a redirect), and since we got rid of Category:Antisemites, I don't think we want to create Category:Antirussians.  :) Xtifr _tälk 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Obvious POV --MChew 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inflammatory POV; very subjective.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would make sense for historical Russophobes like David Urquhart but the current implementation of categories gives no hope for anything maintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very nuanced area. Almost all thinking people have very mixed feelings about Russia, including just about every great Russian intellectual, but this category can't reflect any of those complexities. Oliver Han 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. KNewman 18:33, 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 No consensus to Delete. However, there seem to be concerns about its lack of specificity in criteria. I suggest that its name, and inclusion criteria be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, and/or someplace simlar, in order to determine consensus. - jc37 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mormonism-related controversies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The creator of this category has apparently tagged every article dealing with Mormonism in any way at all as part of this category, violating WP:POINT. There is nothing listed that even fits the category (the obvious 2002 Olympic scandal article is about Salt Lake City organizers, and does not mention Mormonism at all). MSJapan 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : What you claim is not so. My tagging of the 2002 Olympic Bid was in error, as I admitted on my talk page. The allegation that I have "tagged every article dealing with Mormonism in any way" is laughable. I have by no means tagged all of the Mormonism-related articles—just the articles about people or things which have created significant controversy. If you doubt that they have created controversy, please read the article in question and see Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I am also not trying to "prove any points". I'm doing this so that there is a concise and easily accessible list about controversial subjects related to Mormonism. Don't be so quick to invoke the spectre of anti-Mormonism when someone just tries to organize a vast amount of material into manageable categories.

This category has the potential to be very useful for me and others. For these reasons, I strongly oppose deleting this category. -SESmith 05:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial by whose opinion? There's nothing controversial in the Freemasonry and LDS article, and excommunication of individuals (like Sonia Johnson does not mean they are automatically controversial, especially when there was no fallout from said excommunication. Lost Boys of Polygamy clearly states in the article that they aren't LDS-affiliated. The ceremonial articles, like Exaltation (Mormonism) seem to have nothing controversial in them. Same with Continuous revelation, Golden Plates, and Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr., just on cursory examination. Can you see why perhaps I see a POINT violation? There was NO thought put into this cat at all if you claism these were all "accidents." One article of a similar title does not a category make. MSJapan 05:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, check Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I didn't compose this list. Other Wikipedians view them as controversial topics. As for Lost Boys of Polygamy, I didn't tag that one, but keep in mind that the category refers to "Mormonism-related" topics. It does not have to touch directly upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The fact that most people think the members of the FLDS Church are "Mormons" is enough to make it "Mormonism-related".

If you don't think Sonia Johnson was controversial in Mormonism, then you obviously weren't around during the ERA-era (ha ha). Exaltation—the belief that man can attain "godhood" is perennially controversial, especially among other Christians. Ditto with Continuous revelation. Some of the Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr. didn't "come true", thus making them inherently controversial. The Golden Plates—you are not seriously suggesting that the question of their existence was not and continues to be controversial, are you? -SESmith 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! That's what I thought - this is only controversial for people who don't believe in it, which is an inappropriate reason to create a category, especially one that requires a value judgment on the part of the reader. MSJapan 06:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. I "believe in" these things, and I still find them controversial. I'm an active Latter-day Saint, but I can still debate whether or not Joseph Smith actually had golden plates. "Controversial" means subject to controversy, or "debateable". I think you're over-reading the significance of the category. Putting something into this category does not make any value judgment. It merely acknowledges that there objectively has been controversy regarding the subject. -SESmith 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I consider the alleged divinity of Jesus Christ to be controversial, but that's a POV, and I don't go around peeing on tagging all the articles related to Christianity because of that. Controversies are best dealt with in articles or lists, where the various sides of the controversy can be presented in a neutral manner. As has already been done in this case. Categories about controversies are generally unnecessary and needlessly provocative. Xtifr _tälk 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your suggestion that I tagged all of the articles in Mormonism that could be debated. What I merely did is tag the ones that have created controversy. And I further resent your implication that I was "peeing on" the articles or the belief system represented therein. As I mention above, I am an active Latter-day Saint and find your suggestion offensive. -SESmith 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well...I will not apologize for leaping to the defense of your church against what I perceived to be an attack on it. But I will certainly apologize for misinterpreting your actions as an attack on the LDS. Abjectly, even. Nevertheless, my main point stands. Categories about controversies are generally a bad idea, and subject to WP:NPOV problems, and these controversies are already well covered by existing articles and lists, so the category is redundant. Xtifr _tälk 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for your words. -SESmith 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that this category is but one subcategory of [Category:Religious controversies]. If this category is deleted, I imagine this whole category must go. I don't see the problem with the category. Maybe the real issue is what articles have been added to the category. But that is not a reason to delete the category. -SESmith 07:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from above). Ok, that's an argument I'll accept. Although the "other stuff must go" isn't strictly true (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), it's usually more true for categories than anything else, and although I remain dubious about controversy categories in general, I do feel that this set of categories should be kept or removed as a group. And since the group wasn't nominated, I'll vote opine to keep this for now. Contents of the category can be sorted out among the concerned editors. Xtifr _tälk 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed all the borderline and outright incorrect additions (over half the articles!). However, it now occurs to me that the category is exceedingly vague, and perhaps that is the real underlying problem that was masked by the types of articles in the category. MSJapan 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - According to WP:CAT's "this page in a nutshell," Wikipedia categories "are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." An example of an article for which religious controversy is a "defining characteristic" is Vestments controversy—the article is about the history of a controversy, "controversy" is part of the title of the article, and classifying it as a Christianity-related controversy can be considered objective and not a statement of opinion. On the other hand, the vast majority of the articles listed in Mormonism-related controversies are articles about persons, events, publications, religious movements, or doctrines that, in the opinion of one or more editors, are considered controversial. Being controversial is not a "defining characteristic"—almost any person, event, publication, religious movement, or doctrine has the potential to be controversial to someone at some time. Consequently, we are left with a category that is not clearly defined and that merely reflects the opinions of the editors who have decided to place an article in the category. There may be a handful of articles here for which "controversy" may be a defining characteristic—for example, perhaps the articles Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints), Women and Mormonism, or Adam-God theory meet that standard. But by including articles about people, events, and religious movements (e.g., Mormon fundamentalism), certain editors are expressing their opinions about what is controversial, and this is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. BRMo 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While this category has probably been misapplied to some articles, and it clearly presents POV problems, it is also undeniable that there are some specific controversies relating to Mormonism, the LDS church, its history, personalities and doctrine. The Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article is a perfect example, in which we have conflicting ideas about the natural history of North America. On one side, we have the consensus opinion of a branch of science, and on the other, we have the accounts spelled out in a sacred text of Mormonism (and only Mormonism). That's a Mormonism-related controversy. There are certainly others. - Authalic 01:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with the category if it was clearly defined as articles about controversies. However, the great majority of articles in this category are articles are not about controversies, they're about subjects that someone considers controversial. I have two problems with this: (1) How can "controversial" subjects be usefully defined? Aren't almost all events and people associated with religion to some extent controversial? (2)How do we avoid editors using the category as a pejorative label for articles they personally consider objectionable or "controversial"? Then it becomes a method for POV pushing. User Sesmith has been very agressively adding articles about people/events that he/she considers controversial to this category. IMO, using this category to label articles as controversial seems like an abuse of the categorization process. BRMo 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. An editorial dispute is no reason to delete an article or category on a reasonable topic. If you don't think certain articles belong in the category, take them out. If you think an editor is consistently or persistently miscategorizing articles, try talking to him. While you're at it, check out some of the sibling categories under Category:Religious controversies. See what sorts of articles are normally included in a religious controversy category. Discuss your findings with other editors. Communicate. See if you can find some common ground. And if all else fails, look into dispute resolution. Xtifr _tälk 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list this category for discussion and I haven't been involved in any editorial dispute (other than disagreeing with some of the comments posted in this discussion). My vote to delete was based on the fact that of the 33 articles shown in the category, only one (Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is unambiguosly an article about a controversy or controversies, rather than an article about a subject that someone considers controversial. (And that one article is currently marked for merging.) Furthermore, User Sesmith is arguing above for the retention of the category on the basis that the articles on people or events included in the category are controversial. Wikipedia guidelines say that articles should be categorized on "defining characteristics"; people or events may be controversial, but that is never their defining characteristic. However, if we can agree that this category should be used for articles about controversies rather than an articles about subjects that are controversial, then I acknowledge that there may be a handful of articles that meet that criteria and I will switch my vote to "keep." BRMo 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Controversial subjects are those subjects that have controversy. Controversies are real, not imagined. It is only a negative to a true believer who doesn't acknowledge the controversy. Also, "aggressively" working on something is only bad to someone opposed. Anon166 15:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a wholesale effort to delete anything controversial about Mormonism on Wikipedia, although listing something as "controvery" is neutral itself. Calling a controversy not neutral before the fact is a projected biased. Go here[3] for another example of spurious deletion on the same theme. Anon166 15:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There happens to be an anti-Mormonism category page that blatantly serves Mormon POV, and is defined by Mormon POV, because the subjects usually don't refer to themselves as such. Anon166 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The category is vague, and has been attached to clearly non-controversial articles. If there were some way to define what the category was supposed to represent in a NPOV fashion, I would consider changing my vote, but from what I've seen, the category is being added to a wide range of LDS articles. In many cases, the articles are clearly not controversial, except possibly to those who don't think they are true. For example First Vision‎, Anti-Mormonism, and Joseph Smith, Jr. were tagged one after another without any edit summary justifying why the articles were controversial. While I agree that Anti-Mormonism is controversial by its nature, the other articles are not (IMHO), unless you define controversial as "somebody doesn't believe this article is true." If that were the case, then every article about any belief system would have to be categorized as controversial. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The first vision is the most controversial thing about Mormonism, since there are 7 different versions which conflict with one another, especially the one in Smith's own hand asserting that he only saw the "Lord" and nobody else. If you didn't know this, then a Mormon such as yourself wrote the article and supplied misinformation. Anon166 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the evidence. That is the purpose of NPOV - to present all sides of the argument. Paul's account of his experience on the road to Damascus is told three different times with variations; there are numerous accounts in the four gospels where the details differ. Even knowing that, there are many who still believe that the events are essentially true and that they actually happened. Does that make the New Testament controversial? There are plenty of people who don't believe it. What is the difference between that and these issues? As I said above, if somebody can come up with a NPOV description of the category, including criteria on what articles should or should not be included, I would consider changing my vote. Currently, it appears that some people are putting any article in that category simply because they don't believe it is true. That sounds like a POV definition to me. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made no assessment of the evidence, the fact is that it's a controversy. All Mormon scholars acknowledge the differences and the discrepancies. Most of the rank and file have never heard it before (and then arrogantly hang out on wikipedia to delete what Mormon scholars discuss everyday). You are officially stonewalling. Anon166 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This category is being applied to, and removed from, a long list of articles without anything more than a cut-and-paste edit summary. Participants on both sides of this debate are not exhibiting good faith (pun may or may not be intended). There are legitimate Mormonism-related controversies which apply specifically to Mormonism and only Mormonism. If this category is going to remain in existence, then each article should be included or excluded on an individual basis. This wholesale deletion/revision looks like a smear campaign on one side and a whitewash on the other. I'm particularly disappointed to see Administrators taking part. - Authalic 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the abstract, I would be in favor this category. Many articles could benefit from this grouping (rebaptism, Mountain Meadows Massacre, some polygamy-related topics). However, it seems to be applied to any article that reflects any controversy at all, even if the controversy is not about Mormonism, but instead a dispute of historiography (see Miracle of the Gulls), or a subsequent debate among legal scholars not even reflected in the current article (The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States), or even a passing mention to a legal decision which involves Mormonism only insofar that the LDS Church built a house of worship in violation of zoning (Boston Massachusetts Temple). The category seems to be poorly defined, and I doubt it can be applied in a non-POV way. Therefore I'm voting delete. Cool Hand Luke 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that the removal of the Adam-God theory, and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon from the list prove that there is suppression of the theme. I can't think of anyone familiar with the subjects who would deny that these topics aren't controversial. It is obvious we are dealing with denial here. Also, removing an entire category that is agreed to in principle for a hypothetical abuse or a questionable entry is intellectually dishonest because it discriminates. Nothing is harmed by labeling something controversial if it says so in the article. The dispute would be within the article itself. Anon166 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Unbelievably, the topic of Plural Marriage was delisted from the controversies category. Then, amazingly, someone came along for good measure and purged this footnoted passage from the article: "Controvery exists over whether plural marriage is still a doctrine of the Church[4]. Their reasoning? Quote: (No controversy over this. It is doctrine, but not current practice.) However, Gordon B. Hinckley has publicly declared that "It's not doctrinal." Ergo, controversy. Anon166 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not well defined category. If defined well to include actual controveries and not every person, doctrine, etc someone feels is "controversial" I might be able to support it. Too much of a magnet for POV pushing. --Trödel 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is your problem with the definition of the word controversy? Clearly, some articles have been added to this category in an effort to push a POV, but articles have also been removed from this category which are legitimate controversies. The existence of Reformed Egyptian is certainly controversial. Genetics and the Book of Mormon as well as Archaeology and the Book of Mormon are well-referenced examples of science conflicting with religious doctrine. That's a controversy as old as Copernicus. Removing those articles from this category looks like a POV purge. If there is some dispute over the definition of Controversy, an RfC on what exactly constitutes a controversy is probably in order. Meanwhile, deleting articles from this category while this CfD is still underway suggests an attempt to suppress awareness of this procedure. - Authalic 11:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So out of about 100 articles I reviewed, where I removed the category on about 80, you oppose the removal on 3 - sounds like, if concensus is to keep the category, we are headed to a concensus on the next issue: what is a legitimate controversy. I suggest that the editors of each article determine if the description fits on the talk page. However - I still favor deletion and note that the old well established "controversy" you cite, Copernicus, does not belong to a category suggesting controversy. --Trödel 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per reasons by User:Trödel above. Although a category similar to this might be appropriate, I think we've gone about it the wrong way. Mormonism in general is in and of itself controversial, but tagging every Mormon related article doesn't really add any value to Wikipedia. It'd be nigh on impossible to decide agreeably on both sides what is a "controversy" as opposed to merely "controversial" (often merely due to its association to Mormonism). It seems that this category is going to be inherently problematic, as categorizing a person, religious event, belief or book as a "controversy" never seems quite right, no matter how controversial they might have been, etc. The only articles that this category would always work with would be named "Controversy regarding..." which really shouldn't ever happen. gdavies 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note (yet again) that far from "every Mormon related article" was tagged. -SESmith 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, gdavies didn't accuse you of tagging every Mormon article, but rather that such action would not add any value. I think we all agree that there are many controversies pertaining to the Mormon Church. The problem is that the category doesn't define any criteria and from what many of us saw, there seemed to be no reason for some of the additions. In one case Mormons and Christianity, the article was tagged with no explanation, then I reverted it with an explanation that the article deliberately avoided presenting any controversy; later the article was tagged again, also without any description but this time marked as a minor edit. As I have said earlier, if there were a NPOV definition and clear criteria for what articles should be included, the category might be useful. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/She said "we've gone about it the wrong way", and then the next sentence says tagging every article does not add any value. The implication is clear if his/her sentences are not read in isolation. I apologise if that is not what he/she meant. -SESmith 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the way that the category was named and (implicitly) defined. The concept is worth considering, but at least under this name it's inappropriate and unfeasible. Obviously not all of the Mormonism-related articles were tagged (that'd be a feat) but the additions seemed haphazard and rarely merited (such as those mentioned previously). That seemed to be the method, just going a long tagging any and all Mormonism-related articles. gdavies 06:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep someone disagreeing with another's placement of articles in a category is not reason enough to delete. This category can be kept under tabs easily enough. If it is that much of an issue, discuss on the talk page the criteria for inclusion, and enforce it. The category is useful and valid. No need to delete because there is a dispute over what to include.-Andrew c 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Category:Islam-related controversies--Sefringle 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons by User:Trödel above — CJewell (talk to me) 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's hard to imagine that any article with some relationship to Mormonism wouldn't eventually be tagged. Mangoe
• Keep per Sefringle --Mantanmoreland 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many of the comments above. When a category is being abused I don't think it should simply be eliminated. Aren't there better ways to solve the problem of what articles go where. It seems to me like a useful category. Beigestudent 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This cat seems to have a rightful place in the category tree. If it is being used improperly, then take measures other than deletion, such as discussing on the talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I agree that the category could be useful, the problem I have at the moment is that there is no criteria for the category. Articles are included because an editor believes that the article is controversial, and then removed because another editor thinks it isn't. Without a well-defined set of criteria, this process will continue indefinitely, and any discussions on the talk page will most likely boil down to "is not!" ... "is too!" and be cause for a lot of WP:RFM. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no defined criteria for inclusion in this category, and no way of defining criteria without introducing POV. Jaksmata 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles are included precisely for their undefined/undecidable nature. The debate is then neutrally listed it as a "controversy." The problem here is that Mormons are commanded to avoid controversy, so they see it as negative. However, it is a valid way to group something, which is no different than grouping unsolved phenomena in any field of research. Anon166 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the general approach of the above comment. The status of "controversial" does not imply that something is "bad" or "wrong" or "untrue". It merely indicates that, as the comment above states, the topic is undecideable and opinions exist on both "sides" of the issue. I think affecting some views, more than the Mormon advice to "avoid controversy", may be the impression by some that their belief-system is being attacked or labeled "weird" or something like that. It's not. -SESmith 01:01, 20 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 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 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inc 500 companies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This is an Overcategorization, because it is a published list. Similar to the earlier deletions of Category:Fortune 500 and Category:S&P 500, it should be deleted. UnitedStatesian 04:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list. Doczilla 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Baristarim 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This should be in an article, not a category. These companies may appear on many published lists anyway, so appearing in any specific list may not necessarily be meaningful. Also, I presume that the list changes from year to year, in which case this category would be in constant flux. In contrast, articles could be written for each specific year a list is published. Dr. Submillimeter 10:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at least S&P was an index, but like the Fortune 500, this is just a published list. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:17, 19 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 speedy delete John Reaves (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Performance consultants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Empty category that is unlikely to be populated given the other categories that exist. UnitedStatesian 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty category. Doczilla 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just put a {{speedy}} notice and mark it as being an empty category; that is a speedy deletion criteria. Baristarim 05:41, 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 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 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 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snakes on a Plane ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is unneeded as a navigational hub. The material in the category is well interlinked. Otto4711 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Baristarim 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, unnecessary eponymous category for the movie. Dugwiki 16:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle 04:01, 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 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alexander Lukashenko ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous category with no material to warrant it. Two interlinked articles. Otto4711 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people.Doczilla 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. xanderer 01:04, 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 Rename. --Xdamr^talk 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baylor Bears basketball coaches to Category:Baylor Bears men's basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, category is specific to men's coaches, and is under a men's-only parent. fuzzy510 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. xanderer 01:05, 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 Rename. --Xdamr^talk 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball coaches to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, category is specific to men's coaches, and falls under men's-only parent. fuzzy510 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. xanderer 01:06, 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: delete. >Radiant< 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lester B. Pearson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category is capturing almost exclusively relatives of Pearson or things named after Pearson. These articles are all interlinked through Pearson's article and each other so there is no need for the eponymous category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete eponymous cat per policy. Doczilla 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. xanderer 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough material to warrant the category, oh and overcat is only a guideline not a policy. Tim! 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim! and similar treatment for US presidents. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only about half of US presidents have categories (and one for Martin Van Buren was recently deleted). The treatment of presidents has no bearing on whether this category should exist. The determination should be based on whether there is sufficient material that is not easily interlinked with the main article such that an eponymous category is required for use as a navigational hub. As noted, there is almost no material in this category that isn't either on a family member (and thus easily interlinked) or on something named for the category-holder (also easily interlinked). Otto4711 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only half? You're breaking my heart. Not even close to half of the prime ministers get that. As for the rest, you've said it before and repeating it doesn't make me believe it more. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why you're copping an attitude exactly, but you seem to be missing my point so maybe if you knocked off the attitude you might get it. You're arguing to keep this category in part on the basis of how US presidents are treated. Nowhere near all US presidents have eponymous categories. That part of your argument is therefore flawed. Otto4711 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Uh huh. So this one category=All Canadian Prime Ministers get categories? Who's arguing for that? He wasn't a run-of-the-mill prime minister. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I do not understand how your last statement derives from mine. You appear to be the only person suggesting that the existence of other categories for other national leaders of any country has any bearing on whether this category should exist. No one else is suggesting that because some leaders have categories that this leader also should, and no one else is suggesting that the continued existence of this category might lead to other categories for other prime ministers. Categories are not honors or marks of how prestigious or worthy or important the category subject is. They have nothing to do with how great or "run-of-the-mill" the person was. Otto4711 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there seem to be enough articles here to keep this one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to say it, but Delete. He is undoubtedly important, but when it comes down to it, this could be served by two lists in his article (the buildings and the relatives) and a proper reference to the Great Flag Debate. Mangoe 12:46, 19 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 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Smash Bros. cast members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete per note on the category page. I created the list a little bit ago. RobJ1981 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with balls of fire. Doczilla 02:27, 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. --Xdamr^talk 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Alabama basketball to Category:Alabama Crimson Tide men's basketball

• Merge, first category is redundant to the second category, which follows naming standards. fuzzy510 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per fuzzy510. xanderer 01:07, 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 Rename. --Xdamr^talk 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alabama A&M men's basketball coaches to Category:Alabama A&M Bulldogs men's basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to conform to naming convention of "(School) (Nickname) men's basketball coaches." fuzzy510 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. xanderer 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. My mistake. I created the category. Fbdave 03:37, 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 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Akron Zips basketball coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Redundant to Category:Akron Zips men's basketball coaches, which is the naming convention for such categories. fuzzy510 00:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. xanderer 01:09, 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 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 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs covered by The Troggs to Category: The Troggs songs

Category:Songs covered by Jimi Hendrix to Category:Jimi Hendrix songs

Category:Songs covered by Aerosmith to Category: Aerosmith songs

Category:Songs covered by Britney Spears to Category: Britney Spears songs

Category:Songs covered by Chicago to Category: Chicago songs

Category:Songs covered by Creedence Clearwater Revival to Category: Creedence Clearwater Revival songs

Category:Songs covered by Cyndi Lauper to Category: Cyndi Lauper songs

Category:Songs covered by David Bowie to Category: David Bowie songs

Category:Songs covered by Gabrielle to Category: Gabrielle songs

Category:Songs covered by Grateful Dead to Category: Grateful Dead songs

Category:Songs covered by Joan Baez to Category: Joan Baez songs

Category:Songs covered by Led Zeppelin to Category: Led Zeppelin songs

Category:Songs covered by Manfred Mann to Category: Manfred Mann songs

Category:Songs covered by Motörhead to Category: Motörhead songs

Category:Songs covered by Robert Plant to Category: Robert Plant songs

Category:Songs covered by Rush to Category: Rush songs

Category:Songs covered by Seal to Category: Seal songs

Category:Songs covered by The Allman Brothers Band to Category: Allman Brothers Band songs

Category:Songs covered by The Stooges to Category: The Stooges songs

Category:Songs covered by The Lettermen to Category: The Lettermen songs

Category:Songs covered by The Kinks to Category: The Kinks songs

Category:Songs covered by The Kingsmen to Category: The Kingsmen songs

Category:Songs covered by The Doors to Category: The Doors songs

Category:Songs covered by The Beach Boys to Category: The Beach Boys songs

Category:Songs covered by The Who to Category: The Who songs

Category:Songs covered by Wilson Pickett to Category: Wilson Pickett songs

• Merge - I don't see the organizational purpose of segregating cover songs. Songs covered by Person X are Person X songs. Otto4711 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Songs covered by Person X should not be put into categories of Person X songs. Look at how many people have covered Imagine (song). It already has categories like this at the bottom (should be removed but I'm leaving them there to demonstrate), but if it had all the categories it could have, that section would be tremendous. — coelacan — 02:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm hijacking and expanding this nomination because I said I'd nominate these all for merging, and never did. So here they all are. Merge all.--Mike Selinker 04:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per coel. Haddiscoe 09:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Virtually any song could be covered by anyone. Hence, this type of categorization is not meaningful. Not even a category of songs that have been covered by anyone would be meaningful. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I suggest a merge rather than deletion is that these categories were created by removing the songs from their parent categories. So for example, in a deletion, the Troggs would lose Wild Thing (Chip Taylor song), which is the song they are best known for. Jimi Hendrix would lose All Along the Watchtower, the Kingsmen would lose Louie Louie, Creedence would lose I Heard It Through the Grapevine, etc. Some pruning might be in order, but I'd rather do that after we make sure the categories are fused.--Mike Selinker 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - Mike Selinker's rationale makes sense. Merging (as shown above) is more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom, although I was considering creating a similar category for Will Young, but I won't now! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom — also, re comment about having many songs in a category: I think notability guidelines for an artist and/or performance of a song are the way to manage the number of categories where a song appears rather than not categorizing cover versions. If Imagine has been covered in a notable way many times, then its category list should be long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Cardinal (talk • contribs).

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.