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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Film criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Critical response to films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category only has one remaining article after many articles in this category were redirected or deleted. No other current articles fit into this category. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, duplicates Category:Film criticism, where that single article can be safely moved into. Brandmeister^talk 22:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Film criticism. No reason to leave that single article out of the main category. A deletion does not help with that. Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• PS Listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Multiple_merge_targets. This requires manual work; volunteers welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:African-American women's basketball players to Category:American women's basketball players and Category:African-American basketball players
• Nominator's rationale This category is a discoraged last-rung category. There are really no other sub-cats of Category:American women's basketball players than this by ethnicity one and the Pureto Rican one, which is a by quasi-nationality. Quasi-nationality is an asslowed division at this level, ethnicity is not. As it stands, these people are split from the larger Category:American women's basketball players category in a way that many would find objectionable (if you don't believe me, you have to study Amanda Filipacchi's attacks on Wikipedia for categorizing women writers).John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete classic example of last rung violation. We don't need to subdivide women further by ethnicity, up merge to both parents is best.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do African-American women play basketball differently than non-African-American ones as required by WP:CATGRS? Show me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Media affected by the Columbine High School Massacre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining charisteric. The connection to the massacre in most cases is small and trivial. Most of these articles devote about one sentence to "there was violence, but then this happened so they removed it." See, it is too small a connection. Beerest 2 talk 20:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vague and generally odd category. Brandmeister^talk 22:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. Self-censorship by mass media in the aftermath of the shooting would be an interesting and encyclopedic topic (or a useful part of a broader article on cultural impact of the shooting), and a list of examples would be a useful part of such an article. But in nearly all cases, it was a minor blip in the history of the shows concerned, and not WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a defining characteristic and also vague. A separate list article is unnecessary but a sourced section of the main article on the shootings is appropriate. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too vague to be a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the evening news was affected - otherwise they'd have had to show us something else that day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional intersex people to Category:Fictional intersex characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the convention of Category:Fictional characters and its many sub-categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom We don't usually call fictional characters "people". Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I support the proposal and rationale. Nsw2042 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:White Star Woluwé F.C. players to Category:R. White Star Bruxelles players

Nominator's rationale: Team name has changed in 2013, from White Star Woluwe FC to R. White Star Bruxelles. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tattooed people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A somewhat problematic WP:NOTDEFINING and fan-like category requiring regular checks since some people may completely remove their tattoos. Overall, looks like an unnecessary spinoff of Category:Tattooing. Brandmeister^talk 16:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a non-defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt for good measure. Please kill this before it spreads.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Utterly non-defining, and will never be defining. Nymf (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2014 (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. This is a tricky pair of debates. Reading this one, I see that we would be making a scientific error in re-categorising some things as hylidae when they are not. There are also two suggestions that perhaps a dual tree is needed here. Therefore, I think this debate cannot be concluded as having consensus for the proposed rename. However, some degree of consistency is needed. Following largely on the scientific principle, I will move the related stub cat to the same name. However, in both cases I will also allow that this might need re-visiting if some dual-tree structure is created, and/or the articles are split and pruned better. -Splash - tk 00:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tree frogs to Category:Hylidae

Nominator's rationale: Per head article Hylidae, which notes that not all hylidae are tree frogs.
Note that this meets speedy renaming criterion WP:C2D, but I think that it should have a full discussion because of the related CfD 2014 January 15 discussion about Category:Hylidae stubs (nominated by Od Mishehu). The two categories should be consistent: either they should both use "hylidae", or they should both use "tree frogs". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tree frog#Family says tree frogs span several families, not only Hylidae. In case of move the content just should be checked to exclude non-Hylidae members (and interwikis updated, perhaps). But I'm inclined to keep it as a container category. Brandmeister^talk 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tree frog is the common name. I do see that there is a discrepancy in coverage, and at first blush it might seem that both should not exist as categories, but maybe they should, one for taxonomy and one for "tree" status, since some "tree" frogs are not hylidae and some halidae are terrestrial or semi-aquatic. --Bejnar (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Query In the case of avian categories, there are trees for bird species by both scientific name and by common name. Is there a reason this isn't workable here, i.e. having Category:Hylidae and Category:Tree frogs? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. I understand from below that the category has been shrunk by re-categorisation during the debate. There is only one article remaining, and it appears (to my inexpert eye) that it is adequately categorised even without this category for which there seems to be no support to retain. Therefore, I'm going to delete the category but note that the remaining article is Philoxenos Yuhanon Dolabani, so if anyone wants to check the cats of that, I'd be grateful. -Splash - tk 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Assyrian Turkish writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Assyria does not exist in present day. Just because there's an overlap between ancient boundaries and current Turkey does not make a proper categorical overlap. Category should never be created, and must have been created due to a misinterpretation of policy ES&L 11:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Empty manually, then delete -- This category involves a contradiction. Though not used that way in WP, Turkish is a proper adjective for Muslim inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire (at least those of Turkic ethnicity) and of the Sultanate of Rum. However, this category is about Christians, probably mostly of the Assyrian Orthodox (but possibly some earlier Syriac Christians). The nom is wrong in thinking this is about Ancient Assyria, an empire of over 2500 years ago. Most of the contents seem to be Christian writers; possibly all Syriac, though not necessarily all of Assyrian Orthodox Church. They need to be moved to appropriate alternative categories, after which the category should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying it would go against our policy on what Turkish means. Philoxenos Yuhanon Dolabani is without question Turkish. He was living in Turkey in the 1950s, was born within the boundaries of modern Turkey, had been living in Turkey since it was formed, and died in Turkey. If he is not Turkish, than neither was Ataturk. Turkish in Wikipedia is a nationality identifier, and Dolabani was by nationality Turkish. On the other hand Assyrian is an ethnic identifier, and he was by ethnicity Assyrian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it can be left as a subcat of Category:Turkish people of Assyrian descent.--Kathovo talk 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for this was making a page for ethnically Assyrian (Syraic) writers in history that lived in and/or were born in the area corresponding to modern-day Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This category needs to be limited to those who were nationals of the current nation state of Turkey. That is what we use the term "Turkish" to mean in Wikipedia. This is a by ethnicity sub-grouing of a by nationality group. It thus has to be limited to people who were actually subjects of that nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why bother? Category:Turkish writers already exists for this purpose. Otherwise, it sounds like you're actually arguing for a re-name t something like "Turkish writers who are ethnic Assyrians". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming to Category:Turkish writers of Assyrian descent should eliminate the ambiguity and match the parent cat, which is apparently not controversial (yet). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What next, will you want to rename Category:Jewish American writers to Category:American writers of Jewish descent. Philoxenos Yuhanon Dolabani was not "of Assyrian descent" anymore than Joseph Liberman is "of Jewish descent". Dolbani was by both religion and ethnicity fully Assyrian, and by nationality Turkish. He was Assyrian Turkish just like Liberman is Jewish American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's daft, but this was the wiki consensus/compromise sometime in 2009, when the parent cat was moved by Cydebot [1], most likely as a result of another CfD. It has been stable since then. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This compromise is widely used in Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin by the way. And the other parent cat of Category:Turkish people of Assyrian descent is Category:People of Assyrian descent. I see a shitload of renames necessary if all these are somehow wrong. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Being Assyrian has nothing to do with the ancient nation, any more than there are no Chaldeans because the Babylonian Empire collapsed thousands of years ago. There are very much Assyrians today, and despite the efforts of the Ottoman Government during World War I to kill them all off, they still exist. This whole nomination is flawed, reflects a failed understanding of modern ethnicities, and should be killed now. If I made a public pronouncement like this against the existence of Assyrians at my local market, I would at least by given angry stares by 10 Assyrians. There are very much Assyrians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those 10 Assyrians would probably be equally insulted to be described as Turks, even if they carried passports issued by the Republic of Turkey. The nomination does not deny that Assyrians exist today. Clearly they do. What is is about is recognising that the category blurrs, to an unreasonable degree, the lines between nationality and statedom. In the case of the French, Germans, etc, this is not a problem; in the case of the Assyrians and Armenians, it very much is a problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Empty manually, then delete Disperse modern writers to Turkish writers; disperse writers of cuniform blockbusters to Assyrian writers (if it exists). There is virtually no overlap between the two. The nations never co-existed, let alone the states. This category is a bizarre blurring of the two. Syriac patriarchs would be aghast to find themselves in such a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the same should happen to all cats in Category:People of Assyrian descent? Or in Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin? By your logic the answer seems to be yes because (for instance) Canada and Assyria never existed at the same time. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnPackLambert, thank you so much. For everyone here, I am sorry that I caused this disruption. I honestly just waned to create a category for ethnic "Assyrians" who were born in and/or lived in the area that is the modern-day nation of Turkey. JPL exactly explains what I've been trying to get across. I think there had been a confusion of ethnic definitions by some here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel, thank you; I think your suggestion is a good idea and would create less confusion. Would there have been any proper way for me to have described what country these Assyrian writers were from, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If theses writers write in Assyrian, categorize them by the language they write in, if they have Turkish passports, categorize them by nationality; the intersection is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, we are down to only one writer in the category. I am not sure if he wrote in Assyrian. However, that does not matter. We would not claim a Jewish writer who wrote only in German was made not Jewish by that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment I suggested emptying manually, meaning recategorising articles. Assyrian here is a Christian denomination. If an author is Assyrian Orthodox author and of Turkish nationality, he should be a Turkish writer and An Assyrian Orthodox Christian. It might be useful to have an interational category for Assyrian Orthodox writers (or authors. However, in WP we use Turkish only post-1920. Some of the contents were Ottoman subjects, in what are now other countries: they were not "Turks". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (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. Most of the debate here is useful. In particular, since a strong policy is cited in the nomination, I conclude that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to this category because (1) it is more than two years since the subject's death and (2) none of (a) the category name; nor (b) the category page; imply a crime. Even the main eponymous article is not accusing in any way that might be libellous (to the deceased's family and/or friends), but the article is out of scope here anyway. I tend to find the arguments to do with 'too small' to be have been refuted on the facts, and the complaints of inappropriate content are not very believable as they are stated, since it is not explained why shows he presented as a key feature are somehow not relevant (and I do agree that removing articles during the CfD was not the best move). So, in summary, on both numbers and strength of argument, there is no consensus to delete this category. -Splash - tk 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jimmy Savile ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be violating WP:BLPCRIME as it's being added to people in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Quite frankly, seems like an odd category to have anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now then, now then... Clearly the man himself along with Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, BBC sexual abuse cases, Operation Yewtree, Jim'll Fix It and possibly Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Top of the Pops belong here. Anything else should be checked if it's added. Blame the people adding the category, not the category itself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts. There are at least 5 articles which definitely do belong here, which is sufficient to keep it. However, the category does need to be monitored for additions of other people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I pruned the category of clearly improperly categorized articles like the shows Saville presented and others that I believe are overcategorization (like Gary Glitter, apparently placed here because he was arrested in the same sting that Saville was arrested in earlier) I don't believe that the remaining material is so extensive as to warrant an eponymous category. Saville's article serves as a more-than-adequate navigational aid. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You should not empty a category to prove a point with distruptive editing. Most of those articles should be in this category, so I'm going to restore them until this discussion is completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2014‎

• JP wasn't being pointy or disruptive - just removing articles from the category that should never have been there. DexDor (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Lugnuts, thanks for the multiple false accusations, despite my explaining exactly what I did and why I did it right in my comment. Can't wait to see if you have the "lugnuts" to retract and apologize. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Pepsi. I'd only apologize/retract if I was wrong. Which I'm not. Now please, no more disruptive editing from you to get your point across. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The only disruptive editing here is your lying about my edits and then refusing to own your own lies. And if my edits were all so "disruptive" you would have undone them all. You didn't, adding back only the ones you believe bolster your argument for the category. Blatant attempt to prove your own point, deflected by accusing me of your offense. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're right, Jerry. Sorry you got your ass handed to you and you had to cry about it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm sorry that I expected you to treat your fellow editors with civility and not suspicion. I'm also sorry that your life is such that you're so deeply invested in a Wikipedia category that you deem this conduct necessary and appropriate. Feel free to fire another shot, since I won't bother to come back to read it. I've made my position clear without resorting to falsehoods and character assassination and have no need to state it again. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's super, Jerry! Carry on with your bad-faith edits. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And consider the both of you warned for personal attacks against each other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi: you deleted clearly improperly categorized articles like the shows Saville presented? JS shows not in category:JS? Put them back, this is (even outside of this CfD) disruptive and revertable. And then conclude here: don't believe the remaining material is so extensive to warrant an eponymous cat: makes your edits and conclusion self-serving. IOW, if you didn't delete in the first place, you could not conclude that. Your point here is idle. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks DePiep. Not that Jerry will hear you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or Purge). I only count 3 or 4 articles here that should be in a Jimmy Saville category (e.g. not the hospital, not TotP). DexDor (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAICS, the following articles belong in the category:

1. Jimmy Savile
2. Jim'll Fix It
3. Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
4. Operation Yewtree - investigation into sexual abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile
5. Clunk Click Every Trip - series of public information films starring Jimmy Savile.

Some others are margin calls:

1. Young at Heart (1960 TV series) presented by TV Jimmy Savile and Valerie Masters. Arguably defined by Savile's role.
2. BBC sexual abuse cases started by the Savile affair, but became much wider.

With 5 definites and 2 possibles, I can see no reason not to keep the category. The scandal continues, and we may well have more articles; but even if it remains at 5 or 7, that's enough to make a useful category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, AFAIK, normally categorize articles about TV programmes under their presenters as (1) most presenters don't have an eponymous category and (2) most TV programmes (over a long period) have multiple presenters. Jimmy Saville should be categorized as a presenter and Jim'll Fix It (etc) should be categorized as a programme; there should be (and are) fairly obvious links directly connecting those two articles, but not a category. DexDor (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most presenters don't have an epon cat, but this one does, and while others programmes may have had multiple presenters, Jim'll Fix It only ever had one. Savile was the whole point of the show.
Are you going to try persuading me that Jimmy Savile is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Jim'll Fix It? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that consensus is strong not to categorize TV shows by the people who appeared in them, even if they were the show's sole presenter. It's the same reason why Clink Clunk Every Trip and Young At Heart shouldn't be here either. The shows Saville presented are all prominently linked in his article. And honestly, I find the idea that the person's own article supports having a category a little bizarre. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BHG. JS may be a defining characteristic of JFI, but not every defining characteristic should be categorized. If we categorize JFI under JS should we also (for example) categorize Newsnight under Jeremy Paxman (if he has an epon cat) ? - that type of categorization could cause a lot of conflict. That type of categorization (programme under presenter iff presenter has eponcat) also means inconsistent categorization - some programs would be categorized under TV presenters and some not would be (depending on whether the presenter has "earned" an epon cat - e.g. by being naughty). DexDor (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: no topic "earns" any category. Categories facilitate navigation between a set of articles with a shared defining characteristic. Other TV programmes may not be defined by the presence of a particular presenter (Paxman is one of many presenters of Newsnight), but Jim'll Fix It is clearly defined by having created as a vehicle for its sole presenter, Savile. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: The things JS has done (some good, some bad) mean there are articles (in which he features prominently) that some people think should be in a JS eponcat; that's what I meant by "earned". An eponcat like this isn't needed to navigate between JS and JFI - that's what ordinary bluelinks in text are for. Where would you draw the line between JFI (in eponcat) and Newsnight (not in eponcat) - how about Richard & Judy or Columbo ? Also, we currently often categorize celebrities under their programmes (e.g. in Category:Strictly Come Dancing) so categorizing programmes under celebrities could lead to circular categorization (unless we put rules in place to prevent it). Currently, this category means that (for example) Clunk Click Every Trip is categorized under Category:Modern pederasty and Stoke Mandeville Hospital is under Category:Wrestlers; isn't that wrong per WP:SUBCAT ? Programmes-under-presenters categorization would be, IMO, more trouble than it's worth. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DexDor, your original argument here was only 3 to 4 articles; BHG listed 5 to 7 (while still excluding your two named dismissals). Dooesn't that change your position in this? Then, I add that "other presenters do not" to me is a weak argument, if not OF otherstuffexists irrelevance. And most importantly, Savile is not only a presenter any more. He, eh, gained notoriety in two different aspects, which make the "only a presenter" moot. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Delete. Unless there's a general rule to create categories for presenters then the main article on the subject should act as the main source for links to associated articles. That article is where associated content will be properly contextualised, as opposed to a category list of contents. Nsw2042 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. re nom: no BLPCRIME in play because there is no "guilty" suggestion. He is dead, so there no criminal case ias started against him. And of course, the category existence itself does not make any claim at all wrt any criminal or abuse history. Further, I disagree in "odd category to have anyway", (which nom only mentions as athought, without arguments btw). He was a TV-presentor in multiple shows, including his own. Even without the abuse cases, a TV-personality can have their own category; the accusations make the category topic more faceted (and with more pages). It is a category about him. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Latin words found in species names ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be categorizing pages by their title (i.e. their title is a Latin word) rather than categorizing by topic. In fact, most/all of the pages in this category are disambiguation pages, some of which (e.g. Hara and Barbados (disambiguation)) refer to many things other than species. Placing dab pages in categories like this can blur the line between dab pages and articles. If a wikiproject (e.g. in biology, taxonomy or Latin) wants to tag those pages that it has an interest in then it should use a talk page category like Category:Disambig-Class Biology articles (see a recent CFD). For info: There is a list at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The list will do the job much better as it can provide a translation. The category ought not the be allowed to be a dictionary. In any event, the "Latin" is often the result of pseudo-latinising English (or another language), e.g. Darwini and Darwinii (which should refer to Darwinus and Darwinius, respectively). Peterkingiron (talk)
• Delete per Peterkingiron. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, and the category system should not be be used to emulate one. We already have a list at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in addition to the compelling arguments so far, I don't see how this category helps users find pages they are interested in. Searching for a desired word would be far more effective than browsing a category of them. --Mark viking (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this type of category belongs in a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete write an article if it's notable; otherwise it's coincidence of naming - like species named for people or cities named for people or other stuff we've deleted before. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (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.