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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK death penalty victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category's name is POV. Furthermore, UK doesn't have the death penalty. And if that wasn't enough, none of the articles in question mention anything about this. One is someone who committed suicide, but one author has suggested foul play. Another is someone who died due to police brutality. Others, such as Domestic violence and coroner have nothing to do with the title of the cat. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the UK does not have the death penalty? Difference between the sentence of death not being available to the courts, which is the legal position, and death not being available at all, which is just plain wrong. It is available to the Police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konalgia911 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Several of these people had no connection with the death penalty. Category:British executions covers what is needed, but it would not be appropriate to merge this category into that one. Postlebury 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK death penalty victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• People in the UK are keen on the death penalty, but arguing with Wikipedia is banging ones head against a brick wall. You're only obeying orders. Konalgia911 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)}}}[reply]
• The voices are telling me to Delete this ill-assorted bunch. Johnbod 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else do these voices tell you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konalgia911 (talk • contribs)

• Delete the current category system covers this. Carlossuarez46 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - the category is impermissibly POV and the comments here from the category creator Konalgia911 demonstrate beyond doubt that the category is designed to push his or her POV. Otto4711 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inaccurate and POV. Perebourne 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I have deleted some entries from the respective articles because they are obviously wrong and harm Wikipedia and the reputaion of living and dead people, e.g. Monika Dannemann in the same category with a serial killer. There can't be any discussion about deleting that. I saw the discussion tag after that and suggest strongly the category should be deleted speedily. I also noticed that some of the corresponding articles are poorly written. - Konalgia911, you've been warned before of vandalism.--Peter Eisenburger 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Inclusion of articles in this category is extremely POV and confusing. --Belovedfreak 15:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any legitimate inclusions are covered by Category:British executions. --Belovedfreak 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• clear delete the criteria for inclusion in this category are subjective. --NSH001 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, biased category. Wryspy 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software by language to Category:Software by programming language

Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous (with, e.g., the natural language of the interface). Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I absolutely agree 16@r 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Inclusion will be entirely POV and OR unless some sourcing can be given at Zen film. Sourcing per-film would be better, but seems very unlikely given the members as of now (e.g. Groundhog Day). Full of films which do not discuss Zen, and have no mention of Zen in their articles.

Master, how do I know which films should be in this category?

First you must fall like the leaf into the depths of your own categories.

Staecker 21:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Inclusion is indeed POV, as is the article Zen film as it is now. Without sources, just looks like Original Research. --Belovedfreak 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or rename to Category:Zen Buddhism films. The problem is that the way the category stands now Zen appears to have been delibirately divorced from its Buddhist roots, thus giving room for wider interpretations. There actually are many films out there dealing with Zen Buddhism, and just because some people may have miscategorized items does not justify deletion. Just correct those miscategorizations, and explain why in your edits. Just like with any category, mistakes happen when categorizing. Or I can do it, it wouldn't take very long. (Mind meal 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. Of course there could be a Category:Films about Zen Buddhism. This original-research collection of miscellaneous films (backed by an OR article at Zen film, advancing an unsourced and frankly kind of silly interpretation about what "Zen film" might mean) has nothing to do with that. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename as Category:Buddhist films, and keep Enlightenment Guaranteed and Zen Noir in the category. There are not enough articles on Zen Buddhist films yet to justify the existence of this category, and I agree as it is currently be used it is both POV and absurd. However, such categorization could prove useful. See Category:Catholic films or Category:Christian films for examples of precedent on naming religious films. (Mind meal 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per nom, I just started a Buddhist films category.(Mind meal 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete the films in this category seem like someone's personal interpretation of films that they feel have secret zen themes. The majority of these films do not deal with zen, nor do they have overt zen themes. Seems like OR. I'm fine with creating a legitable Buddhist film category (for things like Little Buddha and Seven Years in Tibet), but we need to keep the standards up.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: The category consists of towns that this small canal goes through, but it is not a defining characteristic of these towns. The purpose of this category is better suited by a link to the Leidsevaart article. Eugène van der Pijll 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 13:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time magazine Persons of the Year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - in today's "Tilting at Windmills" CFD, I offer you Time Magazine's Person of the Year. This is overcategorization. Almost by definition this is going to be but one of any number of forms of recognition that the people so recognized are going to receive in the course of their lifetimes and, despite the cultural baggage that gets attached to being picked as POTY at its heart it's a publicity stunt and circulation booster for a magazine. Are the people on the list really in the long term going to be remembered as having been named POTY by Time's editorial board or are they going to be remembered as Presidents or Kings or philanthropists? A complete list exists at Person of the Year and that is sufficient to cover the topic. Otto4711 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is more or less Time recognizing who they thought was a big newsmaker. These people win many honors and awards anyway, and they will be best remembered for their other accomplishments that led to them being listed as person (or thing) of the year. (I seem to remember winning this myself last year for writing comments like this on Wikipedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Last year's ridiculous "You" entry aside, the Time Person of the Year is a major recognition. I put it somewhere between winning an Oscar and winning a Nobel Prize, and anywhere on that spectrum is good enough for a Keep vote from me.--Mike Selinker 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Front rank, defining award, and not just in the U.S. either. Perebourne 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just today I used this category because I was wondering how far back I could remember. And the other reasons are quite good too! Amphy 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And how would the list in the article, which is in chronological order, not be not only as good but in fact superior for your exercise? Otto4711 12:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Listify/Delete - This is overcategorization by award. One of many awards that the recipient may have bestowed on him in a lifetime. Otto4711 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify I disagree with placing this within the ambit of the 'categorisation by award' rule - this is a military decoration, surely a different and more significant creature than Miss Virginia Teen USA, the example cited in the guideline. Having said that, this is a long-service award (20 years commissioned service in the Territorial army if I recall correctly) so probably ought not to form the basis of a 'Recipients' category.

Xdamr^talk 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Otto will be after the Victoria Cross next. Many individuals presumably use the initials "T.D." in formal contexts, which rather indicates it is defining. One of a small group of military decorations where this is the case, all of whose categories should be left. Johnbod 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly oppose deletion of any gallantry-related categories, but this is a long-service award, not one awarded for any particular act of merit. --Xdamr^talk 00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor military medal. Not remotely comparable to the Victoria Cross. Winning the Victoria cross confers notability, but winners of this award will only have an article if they are notable for something else. Perebourne 14:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Perebourne Dominictimms 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Science ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The definition of Big Science is simply too subjective to use for categorization purposes. According to the article, it is for any science project with a "big" budget, a "big" research staff, and "big" facilities. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too much controvertible interpretation goes into the decision of what does or doesn't belong here. Perfect example of a topic that makes a (potentially) good article but doesn't work at all as a category. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto Rbellin. Good as an article, bad as a category. Delete. Bearcat 03:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Pure original research by synthesis. Category appears to exist only in support of an idiosyncratic synthetic interpretation of the philosophy of language and assorted other subjects. I.A. Richards, World Wide Web, John McCarthy (computer scientist), and post-structuralism are not connected in any obvious way.

• Delete (as nominator). -- Rbellin|Talk 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category creator's rationale for the existence of the category (here) comes very close to admitting outright that it is OR, but also makes it clear (perhaps "apparent" is a better term) that the broad swathes of inclusion for the term include just about any idea that is related to any other idea. For example: this author's thought "It is said that all men are created equal, endowed with the same human nature. But they are nurtured by different contexts, environments, surroundings (Ludwig Wittgenstein), backgrounds (John Searle), cultures, or whatever, making their life all different." seems to be the rationale for including nature versus nurture in the category. The whole thing seems like a Derrida riff confabulating everything into an intentionally meaningless mess. Pete.Hurd 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although contextualism is a topic in philosophy, this list does not reflect that topic accurately, but is an eclectic personal list. Banno 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are varieties of contextualism, but too few for it to be worth having a category:contextualism page. I can see no point to it, and the number of category links accumulating at the end of some entries is offputting. Anarchia 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while there are a small collection of legitimate philosophical views under the name "contextualism", this category represents none of them. Instead it represents a original idea(s) by its creator. I don't believe that we have a sufficient number of articles on the actual versions of contextualism to warrant a category. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category is way too vague--Sefringle^Talk 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already been deleted, I'm guessing it's been merged --Kbdank71 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avant-garde jazz albums by artist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Albums by artist, convention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, and many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This I am not nearly opposed to as the below discussion, as it's usefulness and plausible functionality is not as apparent. I did create this category also, and don't see it as essential; unlike Category:jazz albums by artist, which I feel again should become the way we categorize all albums by artist. The current Category:Albums by artist is too big according to anyone's standards. It must have 10,000 pages or more. Albums by artist by genre presents a new opportunity for albums in general, and if set up right users will easily find them. For instance, say we recreated Category:Hip hop albums by artist, we would then make that category appear on the category for hip hop musicians; hip hop, et cetera; along with say Category:Hip hop albums by genre and Category:Hip hop albums. I say we scrap categories like this, and embrace instead their own mother category; in this case, that is jazz albums by artist. Jazz is the mother of avant-garde jazz. Category:Albums by artist is the mother of Category:Jazz albums by artist - so what is the problem there? People listen to music typically in genres they enjoy. If I went to Amazon or somewhere similar, I would be shocked if they categorized albums the way we do here. That is, in one GIGANTIC category that has no use. (Mind meal 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge. Albums by artist is not too big for my standards.--Mike Selinker 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lapsed Roman Catholics to Category:Former Roman Catholics

Nominator's rationale: The difference between the two is semantic. One is for catholics who are no longer catholic in the eyes of the catholic church, the other is for catholics who have lapsed but are still seen as catholic in the eyes of the catholic church. Hera1187 14:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom - in general usage there is not even the difference between the two that the nom supposes. Johnbod 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the difference may be semantic but it's still relevant. There's an important distinction that should be made between Liam Fox, who simply doesn't go to church any more, and Tom Cruise who has converted to Scientology. Category:Lapsed Roman Catholics is a subcategory of Category:Former Roman Catholics anyway. --Philip Stevens 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both along with the rest of Category:People by former religion. Otto4711 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, as mentioned, it is an important distinction whether I am a "lapsed Catholic" or a "former Catholic" Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Otto. For Roman Catholics, these categories presents a further twist: The Roman Catholic Church has a prescribed way to formally leave the Church, just not going, tithing, or believing doesn't make you ex-Roman Catholic according to the Church. So, there is a difficulty in trying to ascertain whether the people in such a category have undergone the formalities of departure. As for lapsed Catholics, what constitutes lapsed status? Our article Lapsed Catholic is of poor quality, but suffice to say the term (I use "recovering Catholic" myself) is susceptible to many quite different interpretations, so one can no longer really know who should or shouldn't be in such a category except at the extremes. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Not a defining characteristic. If kept oppose merge since the two categories have very different membership criteria. If these categories get deleted, then Category:People by former religion should be nominated for deletion with this discussion serving as precedent. Vegaswikian 02:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Some of these "former member of a denomination" categories were nominated for deletion previously, and I advocated deleting these categories partly for the reasons revealed by this nomination. Determining whether someone is a "lapsed" Christian, a "former" Christian, non-practicing, or several other things is very difficult and could suffer from POV problems. It would be better just to delete the category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Dr. S. Wryspy 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek Freemasons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, see March 4th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The problems with the freemasons categories was that the people were not particularly notable for being freemasons but instead for other accomplishments. The freemason category (as well as other society affiliation categories) were also contributing to category clutter problems. An additional problem was that the category's contents were not verifiable. For those reasons, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Dr. Sub & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was emptied and deleted by creator. --Mike Selinker 15:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jazz albums by artist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Hip_hop_albums_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_6#Category:Country_songs_by_artist
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_8#Category:Hip_hop_songs_by_artist

Merge into Category:Albums by artist, see previous discussions. The issue is that both Albums by artist and Songs by artist are supposed to function as directories, and subcats like these defeat the point of their existence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Actually, the current purpose and layout of the mother category is not working; it is way, way WAY too big. Time to split it up. Tell me this doesn't work. Prove it! Lmao. This doesn't "threaten" that category, for all of these artists already are in the albums by artist category, too. This is a dumb idea. If anything, I say all albums be split up this way. Otherwise, it is a gigantic mess. You can take your precedence and do whatever you like with it, this is common sense. Why are you wasting your time trying to undo obviously useful categorization? PS: Nobody can ever find albums on here because they are such a mess. Subcategories are LONG overdue in this regard. (Mind meal 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't even mention Genre albums by artist, because frankly Wikipedia is still a work in progress. Surely Categories are not yet perfect? How does this category hurt anything? It comes down to this:Is such categorization USEFUL....to heck with what has always been so. At Wikipedia, we strive to IMPROVE! I am asking myself openly how this harms anything, and simply cannot find fault in it. Category:Albums by genre is pretty pathetic, also, as it does not often break down genres into subgenres. If one looks at Category:Jazz albums, they will see easily the usefulness of Category:Jazz albums by artist. Granted, there are instances where someone performs in a number of genres. In that case, one should place them in their most dominant genre or even all genres; we could just put a disclaimer at the top that says some artists may perform in other genres, but as Wikipedia categories currently work this is the best option for finding artist albums by genre. Genres also need to be broken down badly. Before I created Category:Jazz albums by artist, the Category:Jazz albums was an absolute nightmare for navigation. It still is a nightmare really, as each of those albums belong in subgenres; many of them multiple subgenres. Potential POV categorization, which was mentioned in the previous discussion on hip hop albums you post, is simply something every category deals with. that is a false argument. Personally, I used All Music Guide for all categorization, so they are accurate to the T; as much as possible, that is. Nobody would ever just "browse" Category:Albums by artist, because it is absurdly large. People who want to find jazz albums are left with only ONE option as categories now stand. They just have to randomly click on an album, not knowing anything other than the title. This is a terrible way to set up navigation. With all other categories there seems to be a consensus that when a category gets TOO large, you break them down. This is doing exactly that. And for the occasional miscategorization that might occur, generally these types of subcategories will prove worthwhile for readers. It has the potential to outdue other sites, allowing users to "just browse" jazz albums by artists in a quick, efficient manner. Category:Albums by artist, incidentally, is a major headache for dialup users, also. We can easily place artists in BOTH Category:Albums by artist and Category:Jazz albums by artist. 98% of musicians perform predominantly in a specific genre that has subgenres; why would we scrap these plans for the 2%? (Mind meal 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak merge: I think a lot of this may be redundant. For example, there are two categories Category:Ornette Coleman free jazz albums and Category:Ornette Coleman Avant-garde jazz albums. Notice that the contents of both, as of this writing, are almost the same, and the sole exception (This Is Our Music) could also go under both. I think these two categories will always be the same, or nearly the same. In other words, it's overkill (and for what it's worth, I think AMG's use of such categories can get out-of-hand). I personally fail to see what's wrong with a simple Category:Ornette Coleman albums. I also happen to think Category:Jazz albums by artist is OK, but I think that it (and any genre-based subcategories therein) will inevitably lead to editing disputes, e.g. do we include albums by Kenny G, Frank Sinatra and Glenn Miller? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Gyrofrog I was testing out ways for users of Wikipedia to find albums by artists, thus the categories you mentioned Gyrofrog. It was too tedious, so I decided to do Category:Jazz albums by artist instead. As for Kenny G and Frank Sinatra, it all comes down to simple research. Kenny G is in fact a "smooth jazz" musician, and this is a legitimate subgenre of jazz music. Frank Sinatra was a swing crooner, and swing is a subgenre of jazz. Glenn Miller played swing music, so again he is a jazz musician. Here is the problem with Category:Ornette Coleman albums resting solely in Category:Albums by artist as I see it:

1. No exposure.
2. As Category:Jazz albums currently works, minus a by artist attribute, users have NO WAY AT ALL to find a way to discover new artists. They just randomly click an album title, not knowing who made it. IMO, this creates chaotic and "backwards" browsing.
3. The Category:Jazz albums by artist only adds and compliments other categories relating to jazz, as it offers users yet one more option on how to browse. Again, the only way for users to currently access jazz albums is by random selection; most users won't even bother.
4. It simply makes for good organization. Before I created Category:Jazz albums by artist, people had incorrectly placed ie. Category:Ornette Coleman albums in the generic Category:Jazz albums category. It is a widespread practice, and the result is categories that look terrible and are troublesome to navigate.Category:Jazz albums is a category explicitly for jazz albums, and if we are to include ARTISTS, it leads one only to reason we need a Category:Jazz albums by artist. With Category:Jazz albums by artist, we get to organize that clutter and STILL offer users a way to find jazz albums by artist.
5. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, has ever "browsed" Category:Albums by artist. And if this merger occurs, browsing will not be possible in this manner. (Mind meal 17:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• • Comment - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a way to discover new music. Try Myspace or last.fm. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!)
• A laughable position. We provide people with information. People discover new information all the time here, which IS the purpose. No brainer.(Mind meal 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Albums by artist and Category:Jazz albums, per nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever. Category:Jazz albums is a category explicitly for jazz albums, and if we are to include jazz albums by artist there, it leads one only to reason we need a Category:Jazz albums by artist to place them in; otherwise there is chaos. It only makes sense to have such a categorization. 120 artists in that category in just one day...somehow, this is not useful? Find me someone who does not belong there, and I'll prove you wrong. (Mind meal 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge per nom and previous discussion. I can see where you're coming from Mind meal, but if you want to make significant changes to the current categorization scheme for albums, then you're best discussing it at WP:ALBUM first. PC78 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No nevermind. You all do what you will. A link to this topic currently is at the WP:ALBUM talk page. This is the place to discuss it now. So whatever your true feelings are, please let them be known. I for one, having spent much time categorizing things in other areas don't see why this would not become the norm. Look at how AnemoneProjectors suggested we merge them BACK into Category:Jazz albums! If we do that, then we need a by artist so that it serves it's purpose. All it is doing is organizing it.(Mind meal 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• I have introduced this debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Proposal_for_a_change_to_album_categorization, per the suggestion above. Lets see where it goes. (Mind meal 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• New Comment Also, we currently are allowed to categorize Category:Jazz albums by record label and Category:Jazz albums by nationality....so why not by artist? If someone strays from a given genre, then we could create Category:Ornette Coleman hip hop albums (for example) as a subcat of Category:Ornette Coleman albums, thus circumventing confusion. If we do away with artist, we should do away with nationality and record label and dump them all at Category:Jazz albums, to be consistant. See Category:Rock albums and you tell me if that couldn't be made simpler, ie. like Category:Jazz albums currently is? As it is, users have to click on the next page to see all albums by artist, the first page ending at G. With a specific category for them, more categories can be displayed per page. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.(Mind meal 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The thing here is that the WP:ALBUM categorization guideline has always been very authoritative here at CfD—e.g. they have saved many albums by artist categories from deletion, as discussions always default back to the guideline. Here, it seems, the guidelines also work the other way. (Mind you, WP:ALBUM is probably the less rigid forum of the two.) –Unint 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and previous discussions. --musicpvm 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion is mind boggling! I call it swiftboating. This merger would lose a great many albums that at least were already in Category:Jazz albums; if you must do this, please merge them into Category:Albums by artist and Category:Jazz albums for * sake. Otherwise, it is "gone with the wind" to all of these folks. I haven't seen a single argument against that is clear as of yet; just merge per this, merge per that. Like robots. WHY? Is it useful categorization or NOT? That is the question. You all act as if everything already established pertaining to categories is decided; as though the "book has been written". Like it is The Bible or something. I'm just beside myself over this. Here I was trying to contribute to the community as always, and a bunch of people are either too dense to see the usefulness or support a merge on absolutely flimsy ground. Why merge?! Specifically why? Why is Category:Jazz albums by artist not useful? Explain positions gd. Which is currently more accessible, ie. Category:Jazz albums as it stands or Category:Rock albums?(Mind meal 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge into both Category:Jazz albums and Category:Albums by artist. Neither of those categories is too big for my tastes. And Mind meal, we all heard you the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth time. Please try to restrain yourself.--Mike Selinker 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If Category:Albums by artist isn't too big, I'd be interested in seeing what is. Sorry I feel strongly about this Mike, if you spent as much time as I did trying to figure a way to categorize albums in such a way and then implemented it, you'd likely be a bit upset as well seeing your information destroyed. (Mind meal 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Nomination to close I did it already. I wanted to MAKE SURE these albums were not just lost in the sea of "albums by artist". I must say, the category looks great again. I especially like how the artist albums aren't in an artist specific category! That was a good decision, it is better disorganized now and more confusing to navigate! Yay! Good job everyone! It was a blast. (Mind meal 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical voivodeships of Lithuania to Category:Former voivodeships of Lithuania

Suggest merging Category:Voivodeships of Lithuania to Category:Former voivodeships of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Both of these categories describe voivodeships in Lithuania that no longer exist. It is not even clear that the locations in the "historical" category are any older than the "non-historical" category. Moreover, "historical" may have multiple meanings. In addition to indicating that the location no longer exists, "historical" could indicate that the place is old or that the place has been given a special government status, which is why it should not be used for a category name. I suggest merging both into a category that uses "former", as that word explicitly and clearly indicates that the voivodeships no longer exist. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge although if they are all former and there are no current voivodeships, dropping the word "former" would be acceptable. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would argue that the word "former" is needed to explicitly indicate to the reader that these divisions no longer exist. Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using "former" may imply that there are current ones to contrast with. Not sure what is the norm of our titles Category:Provinces of Ireland, Category:Regions of Germany, Category:Soviet Republics and others as examples of former divisions that are now replaced by a different scheme. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - On the other hand, it is not clear from a title not using "former" that these subdivisions no longer exist. This can be particularly confusing in some cases, such as Category:Divisions of Pakistan. Dr. Submillimeter 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename from Category:SS to Category:Schutzstaffel

• Rename - from Category:SS to Category:Schutzstaffel the full name should be used for categories not acronyms. PianoKeys 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "SS" is a familiar term in English, but "Schutzstaffel" is not. Wimstead 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wimstead & WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise, Nazi SS, SS Police or Schutzstaffel would all be "acceptable", but I agree "SS" is too generic. Could be the United States Secret Service or the British Special Service...I'm sure there are many other SSs. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the US, but I can say with confidence that the British Secret Service never call themselves the SS - I wonder why not? Johnbod 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that ambiguity is entirely a figment of your imagination. Perebourne 14:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose for better or worse, more people know the acronym than the word (and fewer still can spell that word correctly). Keep it simple. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Everyone knows what the SS was. Perebourne 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, given that the article is at Schutzstaffel and there are many varied uses of "SS". PC78 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per everyone here. Can Category:Schutzstaffel be redirected to Category:SS? I feel if the SS cat got removed, it would just be created again and again. Lugnuts 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can use template:categoryredirect 132.205.44.5 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Schutzstaffel, support move to Category:Nazi SS 132.205.44.5 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The common name should be used. Postlebury 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but clarify - While I agree that the two-letter term "SS" is somewhat problematic, changing to the unfamiliar "Schutzstaffel" is not the answer for English-language Wikipedia. If parentheses are allowed in category names, perhaps Category:SS (Nazi) is the answer; otherwise, the previously suggested Category:Nazi SS would do the job. Cgingold 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was not a darn thing per nom --Kbdank71 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Suggest merging Category:Government precincts to Category:Historical subdivisions of Lithuania

Rename as Category:Subdivisions of Lithuania during World War I

Nominator's rationale: Merge - As it is currently named, it is unclear that this category is referring to former subdivisions of Lithuania. Moreover, these regions were not necessarily referred to as "precincts". I therefore recommend upmerging into the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Looking more carefully at the category's contents, it appears to be for a series of subdivisions of Lithuania that existed during World War I. I therefore recommend renaming this category to more clearly indicate this rather than merging this category into its parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to administrator - I am working on a broader nomination that could affect Category:Historical subdivisions of Lithuania. If the name of the parent category changes, please upmerge the "government precincts" category into the newly named parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums with hidden tracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:DVDs with hidden tracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining and trivial. PC78 06:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and delete Keep the albums one, but delete the DVD one, as pretty much all DVD's have hidden tracks/songs these days. Lugnuts 07:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely it's no less common to find hidden tracks on CDs? PC78 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Lugnuts 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No you agree, or No you don't? :) It's pretty standard practise to have hidden tracks on CDs, and has been for about fifteen years or so. By comparison, it's a fairly new trend in DVDs. PC78 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These hidden tracks appear to be so common that they are no longer defining characteristics of individual CDs or DVD. They appear to be as commonplace as video games with cheat codes, hidden levels, secret combination moves, or other secret/unlockable features. Dr. Submillimeter 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both IMO silly categorization. (Mind meal 16:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete both - been meaning to nominate these myself for a while now. Otto4711 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, trivial characteristics. --musicpvm 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:StarCraft and Category:Video game locations --Kbdank71 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations in the StarCraft universe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It's been a good 2.5 years, and there's still only one item in this category. Not much point in having a category, then. eaolson 05:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:StarCraft and Category:Video game locations - The category is not needed for the one article, but the article should be listed in the parent categories. Dr. Submillimeter 08:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is premature. StarCraft II is just around the corner. If there were no such thing as SCII, then I would support, but SCII is here, so this might grow. 132.205.44.5 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: there's no point in having a category with one thing in it. If more information and more articles come out soon, the category could reasonably be recreated. Nyttend 12:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy rename to correct spelling. Mike Peel 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jazz accordianists to Category:Jazz accordionists

Nominator's rationale: Merge to the correct spelling, along with its sub-cat Category:Jazz accordianists by genre. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian-American journalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by ethnicity. There can be no article written about a specific persons ethnicity and their skill as a journalist. Upmerge into Category:American journalists and its relevant divisions. Bulldog123 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Irish-American journalists
• Category:African-American journalists
• Category:Asian American journalists
• Category:Jewish American journalists
• Category:Arab-American journalists
• Upmerge all per nom. Otto4711 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all per nom. Ethnicity is not relevant here. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all per nom. Wimstead 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all, to Category:American journalists and Category:American Jews. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not upmerge - To do so robs our users of highly important and encyclopedic information. This proposed sweeping change needs to be advertised more widely, because I think many WP editors would be shocked if they saw what you are proposing, wrecking years of work to properly categorize individuals in this manner. Badagnani 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all except Category:Jewish American journalists. Without that, how will readers know which Jooooz control the media? Just kidding. Upmerge all. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:CATGRS, such categories should not exist unless you can prove that there's something specifically encyclopedic about being a journalist of a particular cultural background. Are there university courses taught in Irish-American journalism, and how it differs from Asian-American journalism? Have any notable academics released major works on the social and cultural significance of Italian-American journalism and what makes it different from the Jewish-American kind? Since the answer to these questions is quite obviously no, upmerge all with the caveats that they should (a) also be upmerged into the appropriate ethnic parent categories where such exist, not just into Category:American journalists, and (b) anybody in the African-American category who is primarily a print journalist should be upmerged into Category:African American writers (a grouping which is appropriately encyclopedic, since African American literature is recognized as a distinct subject of academic study.) Bearcat 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not upmerge these categories. I believe that User:Bulldog123 has framed the issue too narrowly when he says "no article [can be] written about a specific persons ethnicity and their skill as a journalist." I can conceive of all sorts of articles that might be written exploring the relationships between various cultures/ethnicities and journalism.

Moreover, these kinds of groupings are reflected in the real world. Consider the two following lists of organizations:

Those that already have WP articles:

• Asian American Journalists Association
• National Association of Black Journalists
• National Association of Hispanic Journalists
• National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association

Those without WP articles, but with websites:

• Native American Journalists Association
• National Arab American Journalists Association
• American Jewish Press Association
• Italian American Writers Association
• UNITY: Journalists of Color (an umbrella organization for journalists from a wide range of ethnicities)

Furthermore, I would also note that a number of WP ethnic categories have a dozen or more subcategories by occupation -- not just for journalism. Clearly, a lot of users see real value in that sort of categorization.

And lastly, a brief comment on what seems to be an undercurrent of concern (openly alluded to by User:Malik Shabazz) that (at least one of) these categories presents information that is better off concealed from view. As someone who comes from a family of Jewish American journalists, while I understand the concern, I simply disagree with the proposed "remedy". I think most Jewish people take a certain amount of pride in the number of Jewish journalists who have contributed to the profession over the years. (And I'm sure that Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. feel the same sort of pride.) Rather than helping or trying to conceal information that bears on that subject, I would prefer to see WP deal with those concerns in more constructive ways (for instance, an article on antisemitic conspiracy theories about supposed "Jewish control" of the media).

Cgingold 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You do know I was joking, don't you? I wasn't suggesting that the category should be killed because we need to hide the identity of Jewish journalists. I just don't think that the intersection of Jewish American journalists is "academically or culturally significant", that it's "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", or that anybody could "write a substantial and encyclopedic head article" about it. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. An article about the Antisemitic canard that Jews control the media wouldn't have anything to do with a category or list of Jewish American journalists. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, of course I knew you were joking. All the same, there is an underlying concern that needed to be addressed. Btw, thanks for the link -- I hadn't seen that particular article before. (Although I must say, "canard" strikes me as rather too light of a term to use in connection with all of those heavy-duty issues.) Looks like there's still a need, though, for the article I suggested re "control of the media".

On the larger question of ethnic subcategories: I read the page you linked, and I guess you (and Bulldog123) are "Strict Constructionists" :), whereas I would support a more flexible application of those guidelines. I'm pretty sure all of those organizations I referenced would, too.

Removing all of these ethnic subcats would leave a gaping hole, and IMO would run contrary to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, which is to enlarge our knowledge-base, not to shrink it. Cgingold 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all per Malik Shabazz--Sefringle^Talk 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as separate categories - Nomination wording is a strawman and a specious argument, seconded by some here seemingly without consideration of what those words in the nom were suggesting. The point of the categories is not so that articles can be written saying that their ethnicity reflects on their skills as journalists. I don't believe it says that in the Category description, nor have I seen any supporter make the offensive claim that ethnicity relates to skill. It is instead an identifier. As Badagnani and CGingold say, these distinctions add to our knowledge. They do no harm. They represent a great deal of work and provide a framework within which to view the individuals. They show connections between individuals, surely the point of having Categories at all. The organizations CGingold cites are directly relevant - there is a real-world understanding that these distinctions have meaning and that people categorize, classify, themselves along ethnic lines. Why then would we need or want to to remove them from the encyclopedia? Will the next target be Italian-American politicians? Tvoz |talk 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American radio-TV personalities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:African-American television anchors

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#Non-notable_Intersections_by_ethnicity. Upmerge into Category:American television personalities/Category:American television reporters and correspondents and Category:American radio personalities Bulldog123 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, being careful that the contents of the radio-TV category are merged to the appropriate target. Otto4711 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. I agree with Otto4711; some radio-TV personalities should be moved to radio, some to TV, and some to both. Also, it may require some care to determine whether a person is a "TV personality" or a "TV reporter". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, also taking care to upmerge back into Category:African Americans for anybody who isn't in that one already. Bearcat 03:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was close per work done by Bearcat --Kbdank71 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Newspapers published in Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Newspapers published in Canada, or at least Rename to Category:Ethnic newspapers published in Canada. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Wimstead 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merg per nom.--Sefringle^Talk 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Only one article, which is described as a monthly magazine, so Delete Johnbod 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; just because it only contains one article at the moment doesn't mean that more can't be filed there. I can think of several additions right off the top of my head, in fact. Bearcat 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Got it to 18 entries without even breaking a sweat; accordingly, I've taken the liberty of categoryredirecting to the correctly spelled rename proposal and would ask that this discussion be closed, or at least restarted from scratch if people still feel strongly that it's not useful. Bearcat 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Bearcat, since it is now populated. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Mac OS X-only free software to Category:Mac OS X software

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same problems as Category:Linux only free software, but more heavily populated. Still not a useful classification. Feezo (Talk) 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this is a somewhat different case, as Linux is highly standards-based, and offers so much compatibility with other UNIX-like systems that it's very difficult to make Linux-only software. OS X, on the other hand, despite a UNIX-based core, has a proprietary user-interface layer on top, which, unlike Linux's X11-based interface, is more-or-less exclusive to Apple. However, it is based on the OpenStep standard, which does have at least one other active implementation in GNUStep, so I'm not sure whether this category is really justified. But I don't think it's as clear a case as the Linux one. Xtifr _tälk 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate this distinction, but even without GNUStep the question stands: what purpose is served in categorizing software by OS exclusion? Feezo (Talk) 09:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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